How Long Before Britain Occupies All of Ireland Again due to Climate Chaos and Peak Oil?
national |
anti-capitalism |
opinion/analysis 
Tuesday April 18, 2006 15:41
by Terence - None
Is Britain finished with Ireland? No.
In this article the case is made that once the disastrous consequences of Climate Change and Peak Oil begin to bite that Great Britain will almost certainly re-invade the whole of Ireland again to gain access to our land and agricultural resources to help either supply the mainland and also to transfer some of it's population here. The timeline for this could be within the next decade or so. And why Ireland? Quite simply because we are so near. Why not? And how ironic it would be if this happened to occur in 2016?
In a recent speech by the UK Defense Secretary John Reid in Chatham House, London, -reported here http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=13605 he outlined how climate change and dwindling natural resources (code for Peak Oil) were combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy because Climate change will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer and this will make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely.
In the last year or two especially since the publication of the Pentagon report (“An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security”) the possibility of chaotic and disastrous effects of Climate Change has been occupying the minds of the military and various governments and quite clearly John Reid's speech was the first major public outing of the UK's thoughts on it. And what's being discovered is that this is not a subject for the namby pamby hippies and greens but that it has political and social consequences too. Perhaps it's a pity they didn't realize that about 30 years ago when they were told these things were on the medium term horizon during the Club of Rome days in 1972.
The net result is that they see the developing world sinking quite rapidly into all sorts of major conflicts and strife where the effects of Global Warming are even greater than at temperate latitudes because in most of those countries they already have huge populations and severe water shortages and problems with rapidly eroding soils.
Reid acknowledged though that the more developed countries would not likely be spared from these same damaging and destabilizing effects. He may have been indirectly saying that if problem become so bad elsewhere it could effect the supply of food and other stuffs. In this era of cheap oil, Great Britain whose population is 60 million is quite obviously way over populated, has an ecological footprint much bigger than the UK itself. Cheap oil and the still functioning climate and ecosystem elsewhere allows the UK to draw it's resources from all around the world to maintain itself. If and when even some of these supply lines get cut off and considering it looks like 2005 was the year of Peak Oil, then the UK will have to look closer to home. And that is why I suggest that it will soon make sense to re-occupy Ireland again and to make use of it's resources to help solve or ease it's own problems at home. It's quite likely the British establishment and military are aware that this option or scenario could well arise considering Reid specifically stated that no society however affluent would escape involvement in these conflicts.
The UK is now so heavily urbanised that it is difficult to see how if it had to, it could feed it's own population without some gigantic effort to remould the entire system there. It should be noted that North Sea oil already peaked back in 1999 and production has dropped some 25% since then. It's gas fields are in decline and it is now turning to Russia for supplies. But the key point is that industrial agriculture is heavily dependent on plentiful supplies of cheap fossil fuel. Without these the migration from the land will have to be reversed, because although organic farming could probably ultimately do the job, it will require far more people living on the land and the configuration of urban Britain makes that a difficult switch. It would be far easier to increase the supply of food from Ireland. And as global crisis gets worse as Climate Change becomes Climate Chaos, the relatively plentiful supply of farmland, outside of the sprawl of Dublin at least, will be a useful dumping ground and granary for it's surplus population.
In the early stages greatly increased trading might suffice but as difficulties mounted and tensions were rising everywhere and supposing for a moment the government here was reluctant to sell enough output or it felt the terms were increasingly unfavourable then the point must surely come when it would be time to dispatch the troops.
Yet another fact to note is that within 15 years the Corrib Gas field which was effectively stolen from the Irish people through a series of undemocratic manoeuvres by successive corrupt Irish politicians, will be depleted assuming it were to start production soon. Then we will be entirely dependent on gas pipelines connecting us to the UK and from there onwards to the last dregs of gas in the North Sea or onward to Europe and Russia. In the manner of the recent game of hardball by Putin with natural gas to Ukraine, the UK will have a nice leverage to strong arm what it wants from Ireland. From it's point of view it would be best to get as much from here for the least amount of effort and resources, although in time the gas lever may not be sufficient. This argument alone is reason enough why the Corrib field should be taken back off Shell et al and given to the people of Ireland to use wisely and sparingly so that it can last us far more than 15 years which is presumably based on the assumption of sucking it dry as quick as possible.
And what are the chances of us resisting another English invasion? That of course is difficult to say and depends largely on how it comes about, the way it is done and the resources it puts into it and not least how desperate it is. This raises the question of what should we, as a country being doing about this now and should we even bother to resist. To anyone on the Left or Green it is obvious that we should be heading towards cooperation and working together with the Brits that is, repairing the environment, helping to mitigate Climate change and building a sustainable and equitable future. Only by that means can we possibly avoid conflict.
But first lets see how desperate the Brits might get. The population of the Ireland including Northern Ireland is about 5.5 million (4 m + 1.5 m) and covers an area of approximately 32,000 square miles. The population of the UK is 60 million with an area 89,400 sq mi. However at least half of Scotland at 30,000 sq mi is composed of largely unproductive uplands and peat which must surely mean the effective UK area is closer to around 75,000 sq mi or a little over double that of Ireland. During the famine in Ireland in the late 1840s the population was around 8 million and the land was pretty much intensely farmed. The famine of course though was due more to the effects of capitalism even back then, because at the time parliament was insistent that the free market should prevail and no help was given to the Irish until a few years after the start. However it is probably reasonable to assume that we were close to our sustainable population level then. So if it is say 8 to 10 million for Ireland, then it can not be far more than double that for the UK giving a figure between 16 to 20+ million. These figures it turns out are in rough agreement of those from the Optimum Population Trust who give figures of 8 and 29 million respectively for modest lifestyle standards. (See http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.af.tab2e.hmt2a.xls ). Rounding 29m to 30m, that still leaves 30m too many for the UK to feed and gives some idea of the scale of the potential problem. Quite simply we could be overwhelmed.
So what tactics for the British would arise logically from these facts or constraints? Well ideally if they just emptied Ireland and replaced us with 8 million of their own that would help and wiping out Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway would be a start. But flattening these cities through bombing would be messy and unpopular and would destroy much needed infrastructure. Alternatively a few neutron bombs would be ideal for them since they kill people and leave property undamaged, although the Brits don't actually have any. This of course is inhuman to put it mildly, but then all wars are inhuman and when did that stop any capitalist power? After all the usage of depleted uranium in Iraqi is likely to permanently damage the collective genomes of the population there and the capitalists don't care because all they want is their oil. So there is a precedent of sorts. Seriously though the most viable solution would -following the lines as indicated above about controlling our gas supplies when ours are gone, would be to weaken and starve us into submission. This could be achieved by an naval blockade that would cut off our oil and gas supplies. The best time to do it would be in winter when food-stocks might be relatively low. The effect of this would be to cripple fertiliser production (needs natural gas) and agricultural production since if there's no diesel for the tractors, we would be screwed. Cutting off food imports would then ensure that even with Trojan efforts it would take us months to grow our own food. By then we more malleable.
Ah but other countries would never allow that. Well eh, relying on the US even now would wishful thinking. In 15 years the EU may have broken up in disunity as problems hit home everywhere. By 2020 global oil production is likely to be down anywhere from 30% to 50% having long convulsed the capitalist model of endless growth, by plunging it into global depression and the annual losses to the global economy from damage due to Climate Change from storms, drought and failed crops could be very costly and over burden it. By then the Germans could be invading Poland, again for the same reason the Brits would be here. Nope, Ireland by virtue of it's unique geographical position in relation to the UK, is always going to be primarily under Britain's sphere of influence and nothing much is going to change that anytime soon.
Therefore it makes sense for all Left and Green groups on both sides of the Irish Sea and of course elsewhere to bring about this change and dispense with capitalism and it's authoritarian successors. And what then does that mean in practical terms too? Well it means we should behave responsibly and reduce our use of fossil fuels that which are the main cause of Global Warming and stop the wasteful production and consumption of so many useless short lived goods that ultimately mean increasing amounts of pollution dumped into our soils, water and air. And since a significant amount of fossil fuel is wasted via the private car where they spend much of their time driving slowly in cities and on new motorways to the commuter belts because the madness of capitalism has driven people there, then to cut our CO-2 emissions and make oil last a lot longer, we should therefore abandon all those plans to spend billions more on motorways since there is going to be a lot less driving after Peak Oil anyhow. Those resources should instead be channelled into building a sustainable infrastructure, boosting our use of renewable energies and in the transport sector greatly increasing public transport. For example just 1 billion euro which would be less than the price of another motorway, could easily build enough wind power capacity to provide 25% of our electricity. And that's doable today.
Industrial agriculture has already taken it's toll on our environment, so lets not make it worse. The most immediate action should be to transform all agriculture to organic farming which primarily means less artificial fertiliser and a lot more smaller holdings resulting in a significant shift of the population back to a more rural model with an emphasis of settlement around smaller towns and villages. The benefit here in terms of resisting 'pressure' from Britain is that we would be a lot more dispersed and will be able to cope much better if oil and gas were cut off and a lot more people would be growing their own food directly as well as the country nationally being less vulnerable to gaps in imports and just as importantly we might be in a better position to cope with Climate Change. It would also be more in line with sustainable living.
If these changes were implemented then they would automatically reduce the enormous stresses that are already arising from our ludicrous assault on the environment and in that way tensions would be eased back. It is basically the same recipe for every country everywhere. There is really no other option. If we do nothing, then we will ultimately pay for this through war or something close to it. In some ways the die is already cast.
But one thing's for sure Britain's interest in Ireland is likely to greatly increase and not decrease in the immediate future.
Comments (14 of 14)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14A very impressive article - could be seen as extreme today, but tomorrow? Interesting times indeed. The folly of giving away resources will haunt us forever.
I will print out the article if that's ok and pass it around a few people to get their reaction.
Not wishing to be picky or pedantic, but you really should try to gen. up about the use of the apostrophe - getting small things like that consistently wrong can put (some) potential readers off.
'Great Britain will almost certainly re-invade the whole of Ireland again ...' So, are you really saying that you think that there is a 90% chance of a British invasion of the Republic by 2016? Hadn't we be stocking up on tanks and warplanes, then, rather than schools and hospitals? This is mad, loony, fantasy shite.
The Optimum Population Trust you quote with approval are the usual neo-Malthusians who have been proven wrong time after time. It's the same techno-elitist inhumanism that led British bureaucrats to leave Irish people to starve in the 1840s. Class war fought with statistical weapons. Have you wondered what the OPT will advocate if our neighbours across the water don't take their bait and voluntarily stop breeding so as to halve the population of the UK?
Here's a clue: Paul Ehrlich, one of the sponsors of the OPT, wanted all Indian men with more than three children to be forcibly sterilised.
Addressing your points:
>Hadn't we be stocking up on tanks and warplanes, then, rather than schools and hospitals?
Nope what would be the point? The article specifically doesn't go for the aggression line and instead outlines the economic and environmental factors that may give rise to the situation and how we can reduce them.
>This is mad, loony, fantasy shite
Your entitled to your opinion.
>The Optimum Population Trust you quote with approval are the usual neo-Malthusians who have been proven wrong time after time.
What specifically are they wrong on? I was using their figures for sustainable populations in both countries and found I had arrived to similar results myself. Perhaps there are other things that the OPT discuss that you refer to, but I am not aware of them.
>It's the same techno-elitist inhumanism that led British bureaucrats to leave Irish people to starve in the 1840s
Well yes, it was the demand in the British parliament at the time that the Free Market must prevail and that was one of the reasons they didn't provide any help. As in the article I clearly disagreed with their stance.
>Class war fought with statistical weapons
Not too sure what you mean because in your first sentence you say "Hadn't we be stocking up on tanks and warplanes," -Are you promoting war? Is it not true that it is usually the working class that fight wars? The point of the article is to avoid war and change things now so that the underlying reasons for it are lessened. Thus I would say it is more about using statistics to avoid war and supporting the case for why we should get rid of capitalism here and in the UK.
>Have you wondered what the OPT will advocate if our neighbours across the water don't take their bait and voluntarily stop breeding so as to halve the population of the UK?
Here's a clue: Paul Ehrlich, one of the sponsors of the OPT, wanted all Indian men with more than three children to be forcibly sterilised.
Not exactly sure what you mean. You don't like the politics of the OPT and that's fine, but does this mean you are saying that say the UK has a bigger population than is sustainable long term. I would say they do, but that does not follow that I do or do not follow the politics of the OPT. You seem to think I do. I am pointing out that in the event of the combinaton climate change and peak oil where the UK now has to get many of it's resources from abroad it may not be able to do so. Then in that situation it must find those resources either within the UK or at least locally. And since Ireland is next door, it would make sense to get them there.
Now which bit do you not disagree with? Is it that such a situation can or will arise due to climate change and peak oil? If not, fine. Is it because even if it did arise that the UK has all it needs within the country? Or is it, you don't believe that if the situation arose that they would actually forcibly get what they need from Ireland?
I have two basic objections. First is to the childish warfare fantasy, with the tanks rolling down the M1 (paying the toll on the way doubtless). Britain already imports food from Ireland and the Continent, and pays for it. They did manage to more or less feed themselves from 1940 to 1944 without invading the Free State.
Second, and more important, is the whole notion of a sustainable population, which is an idea drawn from zoology. Human beings are not foxes or rabbits, but create resources as well as consuming them. Malthus thought that human population had reached its limit in 1798. He was wrong.
None of this is to say that population figures don't matter. But any population theory which fails to acknowledge the fact of social and economic inequality is worthless. Also, these faux-scientific arguments are just excuses to get rid of people that elites consider undesirable - inevitably the poor. The OPT and their fellow travellers want an emptier world for an elite and their servants, simple as that.
I wonder what Paul Ehrlich's ecological footprint is? And if he still thinks Indians should be sterlised against their will?
Or more precisely extend its occupation of the entire territory . The free state government hav already proven themselves more than amenable to just handing over the lot . And they couldnt send the free state army into battle as the compensation claims afterwards from the cowardly money grabbing bastards would cost more than the entire countrys wealth .
The resources currently being nicked off the porcupine basin by BRITISH oil company Providence , owned by the O'Reilly outfit make the corrib field look like a fart in the wind . 4 Billion barrels of oil given away , never mind the gas . Theres no point invading part of a country wholl give it to you for nothing anyway . The politicians know their place . Their place is to sell us out , which is why Britain created the state in the first place . Its served its masters well and looks set to continue in the same slavish vein .
By the way just prior to taking on chairmanship of Shell Lord Oxburgh was employed very high up in the British Ministry of Defence . No big surprise he was able to get the free state to lock those Mayo farmers up and predict it in advance at Shells AGM . The Brits have the entire free state establishment in their pockets and always have done . Bought and paid for long ago .
First to Barrys comment that Britain doesn't need to invade. Yeah, you are probably right the Free State has handed over quite a lot very gladly and increasing UK companies own an awful lot here, like most of our supermarkets and phone companies and who knows what else.
Re: Objections -to your first objection....
The article is considering a particular scenario and goes on to consider how in that instance what would be the most effective way for the Brits to achieve it. It acknowledges that there may be a considerable period in which trading will continue, but the trust of it goes on to suggest that this friendly relationship may fall apart if things got bad enough in terms of the consequences and effects of climate change & peak oil. Trade will only continue so long as it's reasonably benefical to both parties, but as Barry points out those in power here would quite happily screw the people here, but remember it would be those in power here trading and thus it would be benefical to them but doesn't have to be for the rest of us. Clearly that would be a more favourable arrangement for the UK. Although to return to Barry's point, in this situation if the population were being hard done by the govt, they would probably try to resist and the more they do the more the UK would have to deal with them themselves.
During the World War II, the population of the UK was 48 million a good 10 million less than today. It was considerably more rural than than now and the agricultural system would have been far less dependent on fossil fuels and artificial fertilisers then.
To your second main points on sustainable population and Malthus etc. Well we could get side tracked into that whole debate, but I think you are saying sustainable population is a non-issue because we are humans and can do stuff. You then go on to imply that the above article is a plot by elites to get rid of the poor. If you re-read it though you will see it's main conclusion is to live in a sustainable way which means reducing our energy usage, hence mitigating the effects of climate changing, getting rid of industrial agriculture which is largely inhuman in the way it treats animals, mines the soil in the medium term and produces food laced with chemicals. Doing these things would be benefical and improve the quality and health of our lives. Do you think this would be a bad thing for the poor?
Are you saying by virtue of your opposition to any mention of sustainable population or Malthus which you brought up that a) climate change does not exist or b) is not caused by humans? Are you saying peak oil is a non-issue? Are you saying there are other energy sources that can quickly replace it?
You said: "any population theory which fails to acknowledge the fact of social and economic inequality is worthless". Is this an argument against the article above or something by the OPT? And yet you mention inequality. We live in a capitalist system and will continue to do so until the vast majority reject it. Its unequal system. As it stands today with 6 billion people, at least 2 to 3 billion live in dire poverty. So what is your point in relation to the article? -which I repeat is describing what the unequal capitalist system in the UK is likely to do.
The Queen of Englands emblem which denotes the territory she claims sovereignty over contains the Irish harp and not the red hand of ulster under a crown . She has never yet renounced her claim to ownership of all Ireland . So officially as far as Britain is concerned it wouldnt really be an invasion , merely a readjustment of the existing structures . I wouldnt want to be relying on the free state forces in such an admittedly unlikely occurence . As Dublin Monaghan amply illustrates the British pull their strings anyway .
Unfortunately the likely scenario is that reductions in energy use due to greater efficiency in manufacturing process, insulation of houses, engines will lead to more efficient use of fossil fuels. Any deficit will be made up during a gradual transfer to some other energy source (most likely nuclear power) which will allow us to continue our currently stupidly wasteful lifestyles. There appears to be a complete lack of ability of most people and societies to evaluate long-term probabilistic risks and nuclear power looks like a good bet to those people. Jared Diamond's _Collapse_ makes for depressing reading when taken in conjunction with John Ralston Saul's _Voltaire's Bastards_ (the former descrbes various failures in long-term planning, the latter the inability of cosseted elites to access critical information from within their propagandistic echo chambers).
On the positive side, most ordinary people want something done now about global warming, most US citizens believe that the USA should be implementing the Kyoto Protocols, most scientists are uncorrupted and are producing excellent research and democracy sometimes wins out.
Whether it is or isn't is another debate, but you still have not addressed the climate change component of the argument and this is more to the fore in the article referenced above, titled: The coming resource wars -although I have added emphasis on Peak Oil myself.
http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=13605
Some of the quotes and points attributed to John Reid, British Defense Secretary in the energy bulletin article are:
...Although not unprecedented, Reid’s prediction of an upsurge in resource conflict is significant both because of his senior rank and the vehemence of his remarks.....
.....Reid’s speech, delivered at the prestigious Chatham House in London (Britain’s equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations), is but the most recent expression of a growing trend in strategic circles to view environmental and resource effects—rather than political orientation and ideology—as the most potent source of armed conflict in the decades to come. With the world population rising, global consumption rates soaring, energy supplies rapidly disappearing and climate change eradicating valuable farmland, the stage is being set for persistent and worldwide struggles over vital resources. Religious and political strife will not disappear in this scenario, but rather will be channeled into contests over valuable sources of water, food and energy......
....Similar scenarios will be replicated all across the planet, as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with greater abundance—producing endless struggles between resource “haves” and “have-nots.”....
...Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear: when thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its social and political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and storms can kill us, and surely will—but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and shelter. As Reid’s comments indicate, no society, however affluent, will escape involvement in these forms of conflict....
So here we have a major figure in the British establishment voicing his concerns that the mayhem unleashed by climate change and resource shortages will affect the developed world too. In other words he is implying that things could be so bad we might begin fighting among ourselves for the resources in the less developed world. However I have extended this logically to the fact that Britain would naturally turn to Ireland to get what it needs and Britain could do this far more easily (turning West) than turning East to Europe where it would face the far more formidable Europe rivals of Germany and France.
I don't totally dismiss the hypothesis, but I think a certain amount of skepticism in dealing with predictions of this sort by the "leaders" of societies is warranted. There's nothing quite as good as a conflict or the threat of conflicts to justify a repressive apparatus. Similar to the whitepaper released by the Pentagon (a year or two ago) about the threat of global warming I suspect that creating fear and hysteria in the population (and hence a psychological need for leadership/reassurance etc) this may have an element of scaremongering to it.
I agree that I have not addressed your central idea though. I'll think about it some more. I'm just suspicious of doomsday scenarios.
I concur with your point that the military and politicians like to use scare-mongering for the various objectives and it could be argued that they have latched onto the climate change issue in this way, except that previous to these latest pronoucements from the military and specifically the famous Pentagon report, the vast majority of climate scientists had already raised serious concerns. These included the speed at which climate change is now happening, how much worse it will become if we don't scale back on emissions and we haven't and the environmental effects and how that may impact society via food production and water availability.
The British already have a big say in our little country! This time they did it silently. We are a nation that only wakes up to the sound of physical explosions. The following is taken from an article called "Croagh Patrick and the lament for the farmer's friend!" which first appeared in the Mayo Association Yearbook 2000,
"Similar to 1690’s, our lives are being highly influenced by events in Europe. We have tied our Irish pound to the Euro. The European economies are stagnant, and the relationship has kept the Irish pound from appreciation against other currencies outside of the Euro zone. Our currency should be trading as Sterling£1.35 to the Irish pound, if you just take a straight comparison with both economic performances. Instead the Irish pound is only trading at Sterling£0.83.
This artificial fixing of Irish and European exchange rates has in effect put a ‘For Sale’ sign on every Irish asset of 40-50% discount to Sterling buyers. This together with the phenomenon of the disintegration of the dominant position of the Catholic Church in Ireland was a situation that U.K. companies could not ignore! Our major Supermarkets, Wholesalers, Betting Shops, Pharmacies, High Street Stores, etc are now British owned. There is now arguably more U.K. investment in Southern Ireland than at any time over the past two hundred years"
They must have had a right ould laugh at the shenanigans of our army marching down O'Connell Street commemoration yet another physical explosive event.
There is probably more Irish investment in Britain than any time for two centuries too. I think it would be wrong to worry about the amount of control British capitalists have here (remember that the retail sector is much more visible day-to-day than other sectors of the economy) and not to worry about the control exercised by 'our' capitalists.
A letter published today on Kunstler's website from an employee on the inside of the UK oil industry writes.....
As someone who works in the UK oil industry, I thought you might be interested in a view of how prepared the UK is for possible (!) future oil shortages. I have just finished a stint as the Lead process engineer for [company name removed to protect identity of writer] on the Forties pipeline terminal in Grangemouth, Scotland. Prior to that position I had spent some 30 years working in various parts of the oil and nuclear sectors as a chemical/process engineer........
....Within BP, the message from senior management is that their Forties terminal will still be in operation 20 years from now. What they fail to mention, even to their own employees is just how little oil and gas will be coming out of the North sea then. This is quite weird given that North Sea production dropped another 10% last year.....
....Evidently the government have made the decision to use global warming as a way of encouraging thrift in oil usage - with absolutely no effect.
Perhaps the worst aspect of the UK shitstorm in preparation, is the way the Labour party is allowing and even encouraging supermarkets to destroy farming in the UK. ...... Agricultural production has dropped disastrously in recent years, with thousands of farmers being forced into bankruptcy by the monopolies enjoyed by the likes of Tesco (big and nasty) and Sainsbury (smaller and nasty). At least the USA still has a huge amount of good land available. In the UK, we are packed in like sardines in terms of population density, which spells disaster when the oil gets short.
So in other words, this letter gives additional evidence that the UK will need all the farmland and produce that they can get and it would be foolish for them to overlook Ireland considering if the UK is suffering major shortages of oil by 2016, then we certainly will because we don't even have any oil fields, let alone declining ones!
Indymedia Ireland is a media collective. We are independent volunteer citizen journalists producing and distributing the authentic voices of the people. Indymedia Ireland is an open news project where anyone can post their own news, comment, videos or photos about Ireland or related matters.