UK Conservatives pick ex-BP oil disaster and fracking exec to lead new nuclear program

[kristopher]

Ex-BP oil disaster and fracking executive to lead big government projects
Government appoints John Manzoni as head of Major Projects Authority, which oversees HS2 and nuclear programme
Rowena Mason, political correspondent
theguardian.com, Monday 3 February 2014 09.39 EST


John Manzoni (left) arrives at Downing Street for crisis talks with Tony Blair during the fuel crisis of 2000. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian


A former oil executive criticised for his role in the BP refinery explosion, and whose last company was fined over 50 health and safety violations connected with fracking, has been appointed to lead the government's Major Projects Authority.

John Manzoni, who has worked in the oil industry for 30 years, will be responsible for overseeing big-budget projects including the HS2 high-speed rail line and the new nuclear programme.

His new role will come under the remit of the Cabinet Office, where his ex-boss Lord Browne, a former chief executive of BP, is the lead nonexecutive director. Browne wrote a report last year on government execution and control of major projects.

While at BP, Manzoni was second-in-command to Lord Browne at the time of the Texas City refinery accident, one of the worst industrial accidents in US history.

After the disaster, in which 15 people were killed and 170 injured, a confidential BP report found Manzoni had paid insufficient attention to safety and failed to spot clear warning signs...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/03/bp-oil-disaster-fracking-executive-hs2-john-manzoni

[FBaggins]

1. Dishonest title

It's not "conservatives"... it's the coalition government. And he's heading up the Major Projects Authority (which also includes offshore wind, high speed rail, and any number of large projects) not "leading the nuclear program".

It would be just as honest to claim that "Liberal Democrats pick ex-BP oil disaster and fracking exec to lead new renewables program"

Which is to say... not at all.

[kristopher]

3. Dishonest defense

Whether you want to admit it or not, the Conservatives are calling the shots - which is why there is a nuclear program for this walking clusterf*&k to lead.

"John Manzoni, who has worked in the oil industry for 30 years, will be responsible for overseeing big-budget projects including the HS2 high-speed rail line and the new nuclear programme."

[FBaggins]

4. Still wrong.

Your narrow-minded view on the subject keeps you from recognizing reality... but all three parties in the UK now support nuclear power. The current reactor deal is with the French government (socialist party).

You want to try to tie anything with the word "nuclear" in it to "conservative" and/or "oil"... but you're fooling nobody but yourself.

[kristopher]

5. Roger Ailes is the prototype nuclear advocate

I know that you love to employ the logical construct of "even though by far the largest bloc of support for nuclear power is conservative, just because I support nuclear power doesn't mean I'm a conservative".

** Roger Ailes Fox News Chief - Pronuclear & Antirenewable http://www.democraticunderground.com/112762504

However pointing to that is little more than a distraction from the real point in the data about the type of support that actually gets nuclear plants built. The fact is the by-far largest bloc of support for nuclear power also supports fossil fuels and also denies climate change.

The other common belief of this 'by far largest bloc' of support for nuclear power
that is conservative,
that supports fossil fuels, and
that denies climate change, is that,
they spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the effort to deploy renewable energy** with all kinds of specious facts, defective reasoning, and faux claims of environmental concern.

In my opinion, that leaves a pretty heavy burden of proof for the negative claims made by the supposed liberal supporters of nuclear power (like yourself) who spend a great deal of their time trying to undermine renewable power.

You can't both be right, Baggins. Either all those conservative asshats like Ailes are right in that nuclear is a great choice for protecting the interests of the status quo, or a a very minor fraction of nuclear supporters that claim - against all evidence - that it's needed for climate change is right. But you can't BOTH be right.

I'm with the very large camp of long proven environmentalists that reject the nuclear industry and its greenwashing claims.

[FBaggins]

6. More dishonesty... and spam now as well?

I rejected your strawman the last time around.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=63348


Once again.. you can't spin away from it. The current nuclear deal in the UK involves socialist France and a UK where all three major parties favor building new nuclear plants. You can't spin that as a conservative plan.

Not honestly at least... but why let that stop you?

[kristopher]

7. Which is it?

You can't both be right, Baggins. Either all those conservative asshats like Ailes are right in that nuclear is a great choice for protecting the interests of the status quo, or a a very minor fraction of nuclear supporters that claim - against all evidence - that it's needed for climate change is right. But you can't BOTH be right.

The socialists in France want to get rid of nuclear. What your example illustrates is fact that the nuclear industry is similar to the military industrial complex in that once it gets established, it takes over control of the government in much the same way and for the same reasons that military establishments do.

But you already knew that.

So again, which group of nuclear proponents are right? Either all those conservative asshats like Ailes are right in that nuclear is a great choice for protecting the interests of the status quo, or a a very minor fraction of nuclear supporters that claim - against all evidence - that it's needed for climate change is right. But you can't BOTH be right.

[FBaggins]

8. What it is?

Easy... it's a falacious decision. Those are not the only options.

The socialists in France want to get rid of nuclear.

Nope. They have no intention of "getting rid of nuclear". They merely want to reduce the over-reliance on nuclear. That's an entirely different thing.

So again, which group of nuclear proponents are right?

There are not just two groups of nuclear proponents with otherwise divergent philosphies. Just as the fact that 99% of the public is not in favor of an "all-renewables in 20 years" program doesn't keep you from accepting their support for any move that gets even a small incremental move in your direction.

If you can only debate with a strawman... you must be incredibly worried about the soundness of your positions.

[Nihil]

9. Whilst not wishing to intrude on the customary FBaggins/Kristopher pointless bickering match ...

... the fact is that the UK is being run by the Conservatives and the phrase "Coalition government"
is merely a figleaf to allow some of the blame to be deflected from the actual decision makers.

The Liberal Democrats are merely a beard - diplomatic niceties that fool no-one who understands
the reality of the situation whilst providing a distraction for those who choose to remain ignorant.

I now return you to your regular schedule of smileys, strawmen and mindless smears on your
main sub-thread!

[FBaggins]

10. Sorry... that isn't "the reality of the situation"

On many things, your assumptions are correct. But when dealing with nuclear power, the conservatives do not run the government. Within their system of government, the coalition is no mere fiction. The lib-dems have the ability to dissolve the government if the terms of the coalition agreement are violated.

That's why, when the election results were clear, Kristopher believed that it was the end of new nuclear power in the UK. There was no way for conservatives to move forward with new nuclear plants without the lib-dems.

But you don't need to become an expert on UK politics in order to measure this particular issue. Kris can continue to play the three monkeys all he likes, but nuclear power in the UK is not a conservative issue. All three major parties support it.

[Nihil]

11. I know my own system of government quite well thank you ...

I am not claiming to support Kris's position that "nuclear power is solely a conservative issue".

I am not claiming that there are not supporters for UK nuclear power across all three major parties.

I am stating that the Liberal Democrats have no effective power and that, although the theory
is valid that they *could* *try* to dissolve the coalition, the fact remains that the terms of the
coalition have already been violated several times with nothing more than a token bleat from
the ostensible "partners" (and even that was more from the party sheep than their traitor-in-chief
Nick "Figleaf" Clegg).

This is not the place to expand on the failings of Clegg & co but suffice it to say that their
behaviour since being placed in the House of Commons has ensured that the Liberal Democrats
will have to change their names (probably two or three times) before being considered as
electable again any time in the next decade or two.

[FBaggins]

12. That sounds like a different concern.

I'm sympathetic to those here who see "not a dime's worth of difference" between republicans and democrats... but that's different topic than who controls congress and how that relationship works. Like debating that republicans in the senate *could* *try* to filibuster a bill but not believing that they will.

When you say "terms of the coalition have already been violated several times"... that sounds more like an internal party dispute (some lib dems upset with others). Who gets to decide whether the terms have been violated if it isn't the majority of lib-dem MPs? If there was a solid consensus that the terms had been violated... it would be no "could try". If they wanted to disolve the coalition, they could... couldn't they?

We can debate "inside baseball" as to why they probably wouldn't do it (no point in giving up partial power when you know that the new coalition would still be pro nuclear (probably more so)... but again, that's technicalities.

In this case... isn't one of the two people who hired him a lib-dem?

[kristopher]

13. You're mis-stating my position

Although nuclear proponents like to create that straw man, I've never said, that "nuclear power is solely a conservative issue". I'd just like to know why he thinks the conservatives are wrong in their expectations for nuclear since they are in direct opposition to those which Baggins espouses.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112763426#post5

What I have said in the past, and what the research shows, is that most support for nuclear power is among that group of people who are 1) inclined to trust traditional institutions, and 2) are most highly motivated by concerns of energy security. Representatives of that group can be found in nearly all political parties, but 'conservative' parties do tend to be populated far more heavily with that mindset.

That means there are also people who support nuclear for other reasons. That support could be opportunistic as it relates to employment ('labor' in general loves large projects) or it could be climate related as exemplified by Hansen. I suspect, however, that these sub-groups of supporters tend to share the values labeled 1) above.

I appreciate your contribution about the nature of the political situation in the UK, and I'd like to pose to you the same question I have tried to get Baggins to confront.

Given that the largest bloc of support is from those who see nuclear as a means of ensuring the continued viability of the present fossil based, centralized energy system, what evidence can the minority supporters of nuclear provide showing them to be wrong?

There is the case of France, but even the French strongly support phasing out their reliance on nuclear. The French example is also of limited value in that it doesn't demonstrate solutions to the scale related problems that plague nuclear power - cost, safety, weapons proliferation and waste.

[Nihil]

15. My apologies for that

> You're mis-stating my position
> Although nuclear proponents like to create that straw man, I've never said, that
> "nuclear power is solely a conservative issue".

That was my interpretation of your very frequent comments on that subject where
the distinction between "most" and "solely" has been deliberately shrunk & blurred
whenever your current point requires it to support your argument, specifically that
your acceptance of this point

> That means there are also people who support nuclear for other reasons.

... is very rarely stated, as you greatly prefer to simply label your opposition as
"right-wing" in an attempt to shut down dissent.



As a closing comment on my intrusion on the eternal FB/K circular slanging match,
your "question" is invalid as it demands the acceptance of a disputed "given".
I have no doubt that you will - as in every other iteration - refuse to accept any
variation in interpretation that differs from your own and that is fine.

Please do note however that I am not interested in trying to "convert" you to a
viewpoint that you don't even believe exists.

[kristopher]

16. What grandiose verbosity!

Regarding your mis-statement of my position you wrote, "That was my interpretation of your very frequent comments on that subject...".

That could be improved by adding something to the effect of "forced" or "strained" before the word "interpretation". I say that because I try to be extremely clear when I make this point and it takes a fair degree of willful effort to miss it.

The amount of effort required, in fact, would be so great that it's far more probable you're engaged in setting up a straw man to, once again, avoid a reality that nuclear proponents seem desperate to avoid.

We see the same fleeing from the point in your "disputed "given"" evasion. IF there is an invalid premise, then point it out and show why its invalid. Otherwise the argument and the question it raises must stand, waiting to be acknowledged.

Given that the largest bloc of support is from those who see nuclear as a means of ensuring the continued viability of the present fossil based, centralized energy system, what evidence can the minority supporters of nuclear provide showing them to be wrong?

[kristopher]

17. Imagine that.

No response.

Given that the largest bloc of support is from those who see nuclear as a means of ensuring the continued viability of the present fossil based, centralized energy system, what evidence can the minority supporters of nuclear provide showing them to be wrong?

[Nihil]

18. Imagine that.

Yet another person gives up trying to talk to a single-issue twonk who is happy to lie
about his past posting history in his fanaticism to accuse anyone who questions his
opinions of all manner of fabricated positions.

Have a nice day sunshine.

[kristopher]

19. Shock! A 'nukie' resorting to evasion by name calling and slander?

We've certainly never seen that before.

And the question to Baggins (and you) still stands with nothing but evasion in response:

I know that you love to employ the logical construct of "even though by far the largest bloc of support for nuclear power is conservative, just because I support nuclear power doesn't mean I'm a conservative".

** Roger Ailes Fox News Chief - Pronuclear & Antirenewable http://www.democraticunderground.com/112762504

However pointing to that is little more than a distraction from the real point in the data about the type of support that actually gets nuclear plants built. The fact is the by-far largest bloc of support for nuclear power also supports fossil fuels and also denies climate change.

The other common belief of this 'by far largest bloc' of support for nuclear power
that is conservative,
that supports fossil fuels, and
that denies climate change, is that,
they spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the effort to deploy renewable energy** with all kinds of specious facts, defective reasoning, and faux claims of environmental concern.

In my opinion, that leaves a pretty heavy burden of proof for the negative claims made by the supposed liberal supporters of nuclear power (like yourself) who spend a great deal of their time trying to undermine renewable power.

You can't both be right, Baggins. Either all those conservative asshats like Ailes are right in that nuclear is a great choice for protecting the interests of the status quo, or a a very minor fraction of nuclear supporters that claim - against all evidence - that it's needed for climate change is right. But you can't BOTH be right.

I'm with the very large camp of long proven environmentalists that reject the nuclear industry and its greenwashing claims.

[Downwinder]

2. What could go wrong?

[cprise]

14. Nuclear isn't turning over a new leaf

anytime soon.