Skip to main content

Nazis, Soviets and Chatham House

Generally, you know you’ve lost an argument, especially one with a political dimension,  when you bring in Nazism to bolster your point. What Nazism means is up to the ears of the listener as long as it boils down to “really bad.”

It’s an effective argument killer, but unfortunately, if you bring up Hitler, you lose, because your arguments have gone bankrupt and you’re spewing nonsense.

The use of Nazism in debates is largely an American thing. We didn’t suffer under Nazi rule, so it can be trotted out to mean any abstract thing we want, as long as it’s, well, really bad and we don’t mind losing debates.

But Europeans did experience it directly, so they have had an experience of it and don’t treat it lightly. The difference between two opposing views doesn’t portend murderous racist dictatorship.

Now, “Soviet,” on the other hand:

A prominent clean energy campaigner has been banned from the European Energy Forum after tweeting remarks made by the EU's energy commissioner describing the UK's plan to hand out long-term contracts to nuclear companies as "Soviet".

Why not “French,” I wonder? Not the same evil frisson, one gathers.  “Soviet” is something not even the former Soviets want to be called.

Now, you may be wondering why this fellow got banned for tweeting – accurately – a term someone else used.

'Chatham House rules' are assumed at such meetings, although they are neither advertised nor announced.

The Chatham House rule, which is often used in press briefings, protects the anonymity of speakers, while allowing the information they impart to be reported.

And Chatham House, an international think tank, is around to define the Chatham House rule quite precisely.

When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.

So I guess environmentalist Mark Johnston could say someone called the contracts Soviet, just not who said it – which he did. It was EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger. Oettinger’s comments distressed others just as Nazi comments do and he later tweeted that he was joking.

It was a jokey reference, made in the context of the UK wanting to introduce capacity mechanisms.

I’ve spent some time in Germany and find this believable – what the Germans consider a joke is completely up to them, because you’ll never get it. Germans have impenetrable senses of humor.

Okay, so the deal is, Oettinger may not like what the British are doing, but he realized that “Soviet,” like “Nazi,” loses the argument, so he walked it back. Mark Johnston has to pay 7000 Euro for a membership to the European Energy Forum or he isn’t getting back into their meetings. And the British are doing what the British are doing.

And what is that? Well, it really is kind of arcane.

The French company EDF is currently bidding to run two nuclear plants in Hinkley, Somerset, under a 'Contract for Difference' (CfD) which guarantees a long-term fixed price for low-carbon electricity generators.

At just under £100 per megawatt hour, the minimum price reportedly being discussed with the French energy giant would be nearly double the current market rate, and 19% higher than onshore wind turbines.

But the deal has been held up by an ongoing review of European Commission state aid rules, which limit the amount of public subsidies offered by governments to energy utilities.

See? This’ll get sorted out one way or another and if it hampers British nuclear energy, we’ll talk about that then. (Short sneak preview: the British are after energy diversity/security and are willing to pay for it.) Until then, it’s a British-EU haggle and who wants to get too deeply into that?

For now the lessons are: using “Soviet” to trump an argument is the European equivalent of using “Nazi” here. You use it, you lose. And don’t mess with the Chatham House rule. It will only cause tears and cost money.

Comments

SteveK9 said…
The British would be better off going completely Soviet (or French) and just have the government build and operate their power stations. They can probably get mostly local content, paid for in pounds, of which the UK government has not shortage. With the present government any excuse for some government spending is a good one, they can use the employment.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…