Click on the headline (link) for the full text.

Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage

European communist parties on energy
Luis de Sousa, The Oil Drum: Europe
EuroElections 2009 : GUE/NGL

This series concludes by visiting a political bloc that represents another major philosophical current in Europe. The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left (GUE-NGL) is the Scientific Socialist reference at the European Parliament. Although composed at its core by state-level Communist parties, it also brings together some less Scientific parties that haven't yielded to Liberalism. More than sharing a philosophy, GUE-NGL members share a common reluctance towards the Europen Construction process, at least in its current form.

It all started 150 years ago when a German textile tycoon sent his young son to work at one of his factories in Manchester. During the two years spent there the young man became convinced that the Industrial Revolution was resulting in poorer, not better, living conditions for the majority of the population – the working class – which led him to write a book on the subject – his name: Friedrich Engels. After two years in England, Engels decided to go back to Germany. On the way, he stopped in Paris to meet another young thinker: Karl Marx; his journey ended there. Moving to Brussels the next year, they would spend three years writing “The Manifesto of the Communist Party”. The rest is history.

At least, that is one of the ways of starting the story. What Marx and Engels presented was the idea that social inequity had as its roots on the control that certain individuals had on the Commons, and on the means of production in general. To deal with that imbalance, the only proper remedy would be to simply eliminate any sort of private control of the Commons and deliver control of the enterprise to the working class.

A thorough accounting of what Communism achieved in Europe is beyond these simple lines, a profoundly rich story that would be quite extensive. Fast forward to the early 1980s with the second oil shock and Europe divided in East – surrendered to Communism – and West – surrendering to Liberalism. The collapse of oil prices in 1985 coupled to the peak of oil production in the USSR triggered the collapse of the Communist bloc, which eventually led to Europe becoming more uniform in political terms, with Communist parties relegated to the background in a Market Economy backed by rotating Democracies.

With the Globalisation process following the implosion of the USSR, a slow process (that was already in march in many states) shifting the working class from blue collar to white collar jobs ensued. The Communist parties largely failed to appeal to this emerging working class and progressively lost their grip on the electorate, something quite visible in their Parliament results, going from over 10% of the seats in 1979 to just over 5% in 2004.

Communist parties in Europe today are not exactly the same as those of the XIX century. Fully integrated in the Democratic process, they do not advocate for Planned Economies, choosing instead to advocate for state control of key services in a market economy framework. Their biggest flag in recent years has been the fight for workers' rights, confronting the precariousness of labour contracts imposed by the Free Market. Modern Communist parties are sometimes compared to the Social Democrats of the early XX century, when Socialists of that time re-factored Socialism to integrate a multi-party democracy. As a reference for foreigners, many of the concerns of European Communists are common to the Socialist Party of America, although the latter goes further left in many issues.

GUE-NGL is less of a party and more of an ideological platform; its parliament members retain almost full independence, especially on state matters. There isn't, for instance, a common Vision for Europe put forward. Of all the groups reviewed in this series, GUE-NGL is the least cohesive and farthest from the traditional concept of a party.

... This peering into GUE-NGL's Energy Policy ends up being a major disappointment. There's no clear policy to show. It isn't even clear if this is a priority area of intervention or not; too little information, without making any commitments. Being traditionally an opposition party and with a declining electoral base, GUE-NGL is one of those groups that can afford, and actually profit from, bringing to the debate those issues that aren't comfortable for bigger parties. That's more or less the Greens' strategy, but unfortunately, such isn't case with the Communists. If Peak Oil isn't a disruptive event capable of triggering social change, then what will be?

Final notes

... these final paragraphs reflect on this series as a whole.

The first point to make is that Energy is not a determining area to choose between any of these parties; none of them provides a serious, congruent programme to deal with fossil fuel scarcity. Apart from the Greens-EFA, all the parties leave Energy in the background, with little or no priority. The Greens are willing to commit themselves to more objective strategies, especially in the Transport sector, scoring points in the Efficiency front, but don't really grasp the urgency of the moment and compromise their stance with an unrealistic outlook on Nuclear.

To all these parties Growth is an accepted fact, an immutable constant, a goal pursuable and to pursue above everything else.
(8 June 2009)
Luis's observations correspond with my experience monitoring left-wing sites and authors.

Alhtough communist and left socialist parties are weak at the moment, they are significant because they are not constrained by the mainstream pro-Market consensus. There are a few individual leftists who are aware of peak oil and resource depletion, such as several of the staff of Monthly Review, but organized groups don't have noteworthy positions on energy. -BA

German regions selected for electric mobility pilots
German Federal Transportation Ministry
German federal transportation minister Wolfgang Tiefensee today announced the eight regions selected to become model regions for electrical mobility. Out of the 130 applicants, Berlin/Potsdam, Bremen/Oldenburg, Hamburg, Munich, Rhein-Main, Rhein-Ruhr, Saxony and Stuttgart were selected.

Tiefensee stated: „We have selected eighth strong regions with specific strengths, good ideas and strong partners. The different regional focus areas will allow us to test different concepts, technologies and structures in urban and rural areas for their usability. Electric mobility will become visible in day-to-day life.“

The program is funded with 115 million Euros from the second stimulus package from the German Federal Ministry for Transport. The funds will be available until 2011 to test electric vehicles. A key goal is to link automobiles to mass transit, delivery vans and trucks and [electric or Pedelec] bikes with alternative propulsion systems. A further goal is to develop an easy to use and safe charging infrastructure.

Tiefensee stated: "Germany is planning to use its innovation potential to become a market leader for modern propulsion systems. This will create vital employment and mobility for the future. The overwhelming interest from cities, industry and the research community in our new program shows willingness to work together for this common goal. We will start now start to define the programs with the model regions. The first meetings will be held this week.”
(2 June 2009)
Original in German: Tiefensee: Offensive für Elektromobilität in ganz Deutschland (Modellregionen für Pilotprojekte ausgewählt).

EB contributor Tom C writes:
Did not see this in any English language sources and therefore translated it. Please note translation is not official.

Economy Shows Cracks in European Union
Steven Erlanger, TimesDaily.com

The European Union is an extraordinary experiment in shared sovereignty, creating a zone of peace that now stretches from Britain to the Balkans. The union of 27 countries is the world’s most formidable economic bloc, incorporating 491 million people in an integrated market that produces nearly a third more than the United States.

But the global economic crisis has made it clear that Europe remains less than the sum of its parts.

The crisis has presented the European Union with its greatest challenge, but even many committed Europeanists believe that the alliance is failing the test. European leaders, their focus on domestic politics, disagree sharply about what to do to combat the slump. They have feuded over how much to stimulate the economy. They argue about whether the European Central Bank should worry more about the deep recession or future inflation. And they have rushed to protect jobs in their home markets at the expense of those in other member countries.

The latest European parliamentary elections on Sunday drove home the point. Only 43 percent of Europeans voted — a record low turnout, despite the financial crisis and compulsory voting in some countries. Far-right parties, opposed to the European Union and to immigrants from poor member countries, recorded gains, as did the Greens. Those who did vote weighed in largely on national issues.

With American leadership undercut by divisive foreign wars and the United States’ economic model of market freedom and light regulation under great challenge, Europe matters. The “European model” of significant government involvement in the economy; close supervision of finance, industry and labor; and generous state-run pensions and health care, is being praised in some circles as a freshly viable alternative to Anglo-American-style capitalism.
...The central tension in the union has always been between national priorities and collective interests. Ceding national rights and powers — over currency, trade, customs duties — has never been simple, even in good times. In bad times, like the current downturn, national politics trump the common interest. Leaders move to protect their own industries, workers and voters at the expense of those elsewhere. Workers still seethe at the sacrifices they feel they make on behalf of integration.

...Germany and France together are the traditional motor of the European Union, but relations between them are cold, with the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, putting national interests first, whether the issue is social benefits or saving jobs in the faltering car industry.

Divisions are also evident between northern Europe and southern Europe, with more fiscally responsible countries like Germany only reluctantly promising to help floundering economies like those of Spain and Greece. Solidarity, meant to be the great principle of the European Union, is fraying as well on East-West lines, with the countries that use the euro reluctant to jeopardize the currency’s stability by rescuing members outside the so-called eurozone, like Bulgaria and Romania.

Few want to consider what happens to Ukraine, a nonmember, where many European banks, especially German and Austrian ones, are heavily invested.

And the promise of a Europe “without borders” has been undermined by a reaction in hard times against immigrants from around the region who are seen as competing for jobs.

Before the European parliamentary elections, Mr. Sarkozy and Ms. Merkel issued a joint letter. “We want a strong Europe that protects us, we reject a bureaucratic Europe that mechanically applies nitpicking rules,” they wrote.

...As for the future, opinions are divided, but few predict that the European experiment is over. The Lisbon Treaty is expected to pass eventually, strengthening the union’s powers. And today’s leaders, however divided, may learn to grapple with economic challenges collectively, even as they learned to avoid the military conflicts of an earlier age.
“It will be tough, we’ll have setbacks, history will beat us up, we’ll have painful years, but I think crisis creates leaders, the right leaders,” said Mr. Fischer, the German Green Party politician. “I’m not pessimistic.”
(9 June 2009)

Alistair Darling says Labour to blame for BNP poll success
Larry Elliott, economics editor, the Guardian
Alistair Darling said yesterday that Labour was to blame for the success of the ­British National party at last week's European and county council elections through its ­failure to articulate a sense of vision.

In a damning assessment of his party's predicament, the chancellor said: "People felt disillusioned with us and didn't vote for us. That's our fault. We should be able to inspire confidence."

Darling used his first interview since last week's reshuffle to say he expected to work "as closely as ever" with Gordon Brown despite the failed attempt by the prime minister to install Ed Balls, the schools secretary, as chancellor in last Friday's reshuffle. "I'm very confident," Darling said. "I want to see this through and I am determined to see it through."

...The chancellor, who believes every member of the government shares responsibility for last week's setbacks, said Labour needed more than a short-term strategy to deal with the recession. "It is possible that voters will be electing a government that will be in power to 2015. A hell of a lot is going to happen in that period," he said. In a sideswipe at the Tories, he added: "It would be a great tragedy if the next government was not examined on what it stood for."

Darling said: "We should be explaining how having a Labour government ­matters to people: in terms of employment, healthcare, the quality of their children's ­education and their general wellbeing."

Darling said the BNP had exploited anxiety about the lack of housing in traditional Labour areas and said the government would be fast-tracking plans to use jobless construction workers to build more homes. "We are looking at housing. It is one of those issues we really need to deal with," he said. While the focus had been on falling house prices, the "real housing problem is that not enough houses are being built. It is a big, big priority for us," the chancellor said. He added: "They [the BNP] have particularly nasty and unpleasant beliefs and they need to be confronted head-on. The BNP got fewer votes than last time, but a bigger share of the vote because our vote collapsed. We have a huge responsibility to repair that damage."
(8 June 2009)

The political fallout of the local and European elections here in the UK is still to unfold. For now it looks as if Gordon Brown is staying. However, the fact that a member of the British National Party has been elected to the European Parliament is, in my view, an alarming sign of the times that needs to be examined at a much deeper level than what mainstream party is responsible for the current political situation. KS