SOLO-NZ OP-ED: Energy Strategy a Morgenthau Plan for the Modern Age

Peter Cresswell's picture
Submitted by Peter Cresswell on Thu, 2007-10-11 23:38

SOLO-NZ OP-ED: Energy Strategy a Morgenthau Plan for the Modern Age
by Peter Cresswell
October 12, 2007

Towards the end of the Second World War, Stalinist moles in the US State Department put together a document to permanently dismantle German industry and turn the defeated country into a pastoral backwater. Written by Stalinist mole Harry Dexter White, that document was called the Morgenthau Plan—and it bears a striking and quite frightening resemblance to the energy strategy delivered yesterday in the Beehive.

That document is called the Government's energy strategy. With a centre-piece of banning the production of new fossil-fuel power stations—a ban that the RMA and the Environment Court has made a de facto reality anyway for the last ten years—it is not so much an energy strategy as a manifesto for anti-industrialisation.

THe Morgenthau Plan was produced and written in secret, and was intended to be imposed on a country over whom the Allies had just won a massive victory, and whom many wished to see punished—yet it was still greated with horror by almost all who saw it. It was never adopted. The Government's energy strategy, by contrast, is produced quite openly and has been greeted with praise and applause.

The different reactions to two similar documents speaks volumes about about the mush inside today's policy-makers' heads, and on those on both sides of the House.

The Government's blanket ban on the building of new fossil-fuel power stations—which means a flat-out ban on the production of reliable energy—is a declaration it intends to place this country's energy and industrial future in the hands of systems of so called energy production which have yet to be proved, and in many cases are unlikely to be proved (and of the few that have been, wind energy for instance still requires the construction of reliable (read fossil-fuel) power stations as a baseload backup to any wind energy that is produced).

This is not so much an "energy strategy" but a strategy for less energy, which means a prescription for less industry. A sort of 'Think-Not-So-Big.' A 'Think Really Small.' The biofuels boondoggle—revelations that biofuels are likely to increase rather than reduce carbon emissions while sending food prices through the roof—has already shown that the promises made about alternative fuels and alternative "renewable" energies are as empty as the heads of those making these commitments to denude us of industrial power. This strategy simply builds on those empty promises.

For the most part, the "renewables" so heavily touted just aren't available. What distinguishes the "new energy" touted by the likes of David Parker and Jeanette Fitzsimplesimons from what they call "old energy" is that while "old energy" is reliable and actually produces energy, so called "new energy" is still experimental, and mostly doesn't. It's the modern day equivalent of snake oil.

This is an energy strategy produced by people who think to bring into existence new science, new technology and a whole new industrial infrastructure based around that technology, it is sufficient only that they pass a law saying it has to happen.

It is the modern-day environmental equivalent of a cargo cult. Legislate for scientific wonders, and they'll just happen. How? Somehow.

The situation was described by the Electricity Networks Association's Alan Jenkins two years ago. "It's very hard to invest in coal [because of Kyoto], nuclear's a sort of four letter word... hydro is suddenly becoming too hard... what's left? ...we can't do everything on windpower."

No we can't, but we don't learn, do we. The anti-industrialists are still taken seriously.

Describing the "energy strategy" yesterday, Major Electricity Users Group executive director Ralph Matthes said yesterday, it's not politicians but the market that determines whether renewables were cheaper or not, or worth investing in or not. "It's pretty draconian. Not so much a strategy as a green wish list."

One wonders how they think they can get away with it—one wonders what their real secret is. One would wonder, but astute readers will be aware that that at root their secret is as empty as their promises, and amounts quite literally to that word used by Mr Matthes above. Ayn Rand describes it in her seminal book 'Atlas Shrugged,' which celebrates its fiftieth birthday this week:

"The secret of their esoteric philosophies, of all their dialectics and
super-senses, of their evasive eyes and snarling words, the secret for
which they destroy civilisation, language, industries and lives, the
secret for which they pierce their own eyes and eardrums, grind out
their senses, blank out their minds, the purpose for which they dissolve
the absolutes of reason, logic, matter, existence, reality—is to erect
upon that plastic fog a single holy absolute: their Wish."

It's a secret not confined only to today's anti-industrialists, is it?

Peter Cresswell 0211209443


( categories: )

Enviromentalist Pol Pot

michael fasher's picture

Im just waiting for some enviromentalist nutbar to take these crazy ideas and pursue them as aggresively as Pol Pot pursued his idea of an agreian society,and hoping like hell it dosent happen here in the next fifty to one hundred years.
It has to happen sooner or later with all the mental hysteria that enviromentalism is promoted globaly


Matty Orchard's picture

No, you're not alone. I'm a passionate advocate for Nuclear power. If Global warming is as bad as some scientists say it is that seems like the only real solution. The notion that a shorter shower and some rough toilet paper is going to help make real dent in emissions is absolutely ludicrous. Any GW advocate who is against Nuclear power is a complete fucking hypocrite to put it lightly.


Elijah Lineberry's picture

enough..whenever I call a spade a spade I seem to get served with a writ Eye Sticking out tongue ...but I digress.

Peter does sum it up well, and I am impressed at his knowledge of the Morgenthau Plan, gosh, I have never before come across another person with a wide knowledge of 1940s American History! Laughing out loud ...gosh...what a delight! Laughing out loud

As the (only?) advocate of Nuclear Power in the Country I suppose I am wasting my time suggesting that as an option for energy requirements?

Here is a story for you Eye Sticking out tongue single meeting with Mrs Davis occured in June 1987 when she, as the sponsor of the childish 'New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987', visited my High School to talk to students about it.

Only half a dozen students bothered to turn up to listen to her, including myself...(yes, yes, 1987, High School, I know what you are thinking, but I was a mere baby at the time, you understand) Eye...and after her speech she called for questions, at which point I launched into a strong attack on the legislation and the great disservice she was doing to the Country by proposing it.

She replied by saying she was very surprised at my reaction as I was the only person she had ever met opposed to it! Sticking out tongue

Thank you.

Peter Cresswell's picture

You're very welcome, sir.

Your own ability to call a spade a filthy fucking bastarding bit of an old digging thing is also much admired. Smiling

Peter, your ability to

Lance's picture

Peter, your ability to interpret, summarise, bullet point and explain this and things like 'cap and trade' is greatly appreciated, thank you.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.