Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on June 26, 2016

Bookmark and Share

The Energy Sector is One of the Largest Consumers of Water

The implications of the global water footprint of energy generation are phenomenal, writes Gary Bilotta of the University of Brighton. He warns that if policy makers fail to take into account the links between energy and water, we may come to a point in many parts of the world where it is water availability that is the main determinant of the energy sources available for use. Courtesy The Conversation.

With a quarter of the world’s human population already living in regions that suffer from severe water scarcity for at least six months of the year, it is perhaps not surprising that the World Economic Forum recently rated water crises as the largest global risk in terms of potential impacts over the next decade.

Electricity generation is a significant consumer of water: it consumes more than five times as much water globally as domestic uses (drinking, preparing food, bathing, washing clothes and dishes, flushing toilets and the rest) and more than five times as much water globally as industrial production.

Gary Bilotta figure 1

Figure 1: Water abstraction for human activities globally, based on data from Mekonnen et al., (2015) and Hoekstra and Mekonnen (2012). Gary Bilotta, Author provided

 

While electricity generation consumes far less water than food production globally, it is expected that there will be enormous changes in the water demands of electricity over the course of the 21st century. The International Energy Agency projected a rise of 85% in global water use for energy production between 2012 and 2032 alone.

If policy makers fail to take into account the links between energy and water, we may come to a point in many parts of the world where it is water availability that is the main determinant of the energy sources available for use

These changes will be driven by a combination of factors. First, human population growth, which is estimated to rise from 7.4 billion people today to between 9.6 to 12.3 billion by 2100. Second, by improvements in access to energy for the 1.4 billion people who currently have no access to electricity and the billion people who currently only have access to unreliable electricity networks. And third, progressive electrification of transport and heating as part of efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Exactly how these changes in the water footprint of electricity are going to play out will depend on the national and international energy policies enacted over the next few decades. Historically, energy policies have been influenced by a multitude of factors (national availability of energy resources, financial costs, reliability of supply, security of supply and the like).

Following on from the Paris COP21 agreement, the carbon footprint of energy should have an increased influence on decision making in the sector. As can be seen from Figure 2, there are considerable differences in the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from different electricity generation technologies (g CO2eq/kWh), with average values ranging from just 4g CO2eq/kWh for hydropower to 1,001g CO2eq/kWh for coal, though there are significant regional and technological variations in values reported for the same energy source.

Gary Bilotta figure 2

Figure 2: Lifecycle assessments of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation technologies (g CO2eq/kWh), displaying minimum, median and maximum reported values for each technology, based on IPCC literature reviews. Gary Bilotta, Author provided

 

Thirsty work

While it is important to consider these factors in policy making within the energy sector, it would be a wasted opportunity if policy makers were to overlook the other environmental footprints of electricity generation – and in particular the water footprint – when making decisions on which technologies to support and prioritise. The fairest way to compare electricity sources in terms of their water demand, is to consider their lifecycle water footprint – the consumptive demand of water for construction and operation of the plant, fuel supply, waste disposal and site decommissioning, per unit of net energy produced.

As can be seen from Figure 3, there are staggering differences in the water footprint of different electricity generation technologies. Minimum life cycle consumptive water footprints vary from 0.01 litres per kWh for wind energy, to 1.08 litres per kWh for storage-type hydroelectric power, though there are significant regional and technological variations in values reported for the same energy source. (Note that water footprint data represent the ‘blue’ water footprint, i.e. the consumption of water resources – from rivers, lakes and groundwater – whereby consumption refers to the volume of water that evaporates or is incorporated into a product. The blue water footprint is thus often smaller than the total water withdrawal, because generally part of the total water withdrawal returns to the ground or surface water.)

gary bilotta figure 3

Figure 3: Life-cycle assessments of consumptive water use (litres per kWh) of different electricity generation technologies, displaying minimum and maximum reported values for each technology based on data from Mekonnen et al (2015). Gary Bilotta, Author provided

 

When these differences between sources are scaled up by the number of units of electricity required to meet the needs of the global population, the implications of the global water footprint of energy generation are phenomenal. Failure to plan and consider the water demands of energy will likely result in insecure and unreliable energy supplies and negative effects on the other important users of freshwater.

We have recently observed the impacts of droughts on US energy supplies from thermoelectric plants and hydropower plants. If policy makers fail to take into account the links between energy and water, we may come to a point in many parts of the world where it is water availability that is the main determinant of the energy sources available for use.

This will inevitably force countries to make emergency decisions on the distribution of scarce water between generating electricity or producing food, maintaining health and sanitation, maintaining industrial production, and/or conserving nature.

Energy Post



92 Comments on "The Energy Sector is One of the Largest Consumers of Water"

  1. Apneaman on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 1:01 pm 

    More like the largest polluter of water….and air and land.

    BREAKING: Amazon oil spill puts Peruvian communities at risk

    “The spill is the third major one since January along the 40-year-old pipeline, where more than 20 have occurred in the past five years, according to government figures.”

    https://news.mongabay.com/2016/06/breaking-oil-spill-in-peruvian-amazon-puts-local-communities-at-risk/

    Truth is that the CANCER industry never stops – never sleeps. It’s the gift that has kept on giving since day one and will keep giving long after this retarded species is gone (soon). Congratulations cancer workers of the world – behold your legacy to the earth that spawned you.

    In the birthplace of U.S. oil, methane gas is leaking from wells everywhere

    “In Pennsylvania, birthplace of the U.S. oil industry, century-old abandoned oil wells have long been part of the landscape. Nobody gave much thought to it when many were left unplugged or filled haphazardly with dirt, lumber and cannon balls that slipped or rotted away.

    But the holes — hundreds of thousands of them pockmarking the state — are the focus of growing alarm, especially those in close proximity to new wells fracked in the Marcellus shale formation, the nation’s largest natural-gas field. They leak methane, which contaminates water, adds to global warming and occasionally explodes; four people have been killed in the past dozen years.”

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/in-the-birthplace-of-u-s-oil-methane-gas-is-leaking-from-wells-everywhere

  2. Boat on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 1:07 pm 

    One way to save water is to slow exports in food. Put countries with rapid population growth on a diet. Of course no immigration would help. The idea of spreading your seed to the four corners of the globe is simply an outdated idea. Politics and religion are decades behind population overshoot.

  3. Apneaman on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 1:14 pm 

    Shoulder they add in all that extra water for these new abnormal fire seasons? I mean they have been getting longer since the 1990’s and we know why – yes we do. Over two months longer now and much larger areas burned. Plenty -O- Water.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/western-wildfires/more-homes-destroyed-growing-california-wildfire-n599041

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/western-wildfires/more-homes-destroyed-growing-california-wildfire-n599041

    The 2015 Wildfire Season Set an Ominous Record

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2015-wildfire-season-sets-ominous-record-19879

  4. Apneaman on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 1:19 pm 

    Looks like the globalists are slowly learning about the effects of their actions on their actions – Baha

    Climate change could threaten new Panama Canal expansion

    “In Panama, preparations are underway for Sunday’s grand opening of the expanded canal. It’s a nearly $ 6 billion project, more than a decade in the making. But some are warning that climate change may threaten the canal’s future success.About 200 million liters of fresh water are needed to push one ship through the country’s famous canal. The heavier the ship, the more water it needs beneath it.

    A drought last year forced authorities to restrict the amount of cargo vessels could carry. A few years ago, it was too much water. Excessive flooding brought canal transit to a halt.

    More than half of Panamanians get their water from the Panama Canal Authority. By law, they are the priority.

    Which means, when levels drop in Gatun Lake in the middle of the canal, canal ship traffic suffers first and foremost.

    Right now, just one river supplies the Panama Canal. There have been talks at the national level of building more dams, diverting more rivers to more lakes, to feed the canal, to ensure water levels stay high.”

    http://www.cctv-america.com/2016/06/24/climate-change-could-threaten-new-panama-canal-expansion

  5. Plantagenet on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 1:34 pm 

    Its very wrong-headed to claim that hydro-power is the biggest USER of water power in L/kwh. There is no CONSUMPTION of water in the the production of hydropower—the water simply goes through a turbine but is still potable and usable. This is totally different then fracking where the water is injected, polluted and gone.

    Cheers!

  6. bug on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 2:11 pm 

    Boat, how does one do this?
    “Put countries with rapid population growth on a diet? Do we not sell them food?
    What about our patriotic farmers who sell to the world? What about them and for that matter , John Deere?
    Capitalism takes and need many mouths to feed (sell stuff to).
    How about this fat ass country? Talk about diets, JFC, this place talking about diets of others is hilarious.
    Population grows and we do overshoot because more population equals more GDP which is all that is talked about.
    The only thing that will cull the herd is mom mature and we can do zero about it.
    I have reproduced no humans for this reason.

  7. Boat on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 2:30 pm 

    bug,

    Do you want to attempt solutions to slow a crises or bury your head and head off the cliff. Politics and religion are the limiting factor. The idea that societies require growth is also wrong. Technology can improve quality of life at a cheaper price using less energy.

  8. ghung on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 3:01 pm 

    @Plant; Hydro-electric reservoirs lose a lot of water to evaporation whether or not they are producing power. Lake Mead:

    “The annual volume of water evaporated from Lake Mead exceeded 1.1 million acre-ft in 1998 and 1999 (table 7), which probably is higher than a long-term average annual evaporation due to higher-than-normal lake elevations and corresponding larger-than-normal surface area for the period. For example, the average surface area of Lake Mead was 125,000 acres from 1942 to 1995 and the computed average annual evaporation rate was 7.5 ft from 1997 to 1998, which would equal a long-term average annual volume of 937,500 acre-ft of evaporated water.”
    http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5252/section3.html

    In Egypt? “About one-quarter of all the Nile waters entering Lake Nasser are lost to evaporation and seepage.
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Lake_Nasser.aspx

    Add to that the water used in construction, which is probably negligible, considering…

  9. Bob Owens on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 4:04 pm 

    Another reason to move to wind/solar and shut down coal plants as soon as possible. We are also not counting the billions of fish killed in the water intakes and turbines, CO2 added to the air, birds dying in the smokestacks and spiraling down into the boilers, raising of outlet water temperatures hot enough to fry more fish, etc. We need to stop this madness.

  10. bug on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 4:27 pm 

    Boat, politics and religion are created by man, therefore as long as man is around we will have both. Henceforth,
    there will be no solutions boat.
    We will do cliff, IMO.
    Many here say technology created this mess.

  11. ghung on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 4:30 pm 

    Wind and solar will give marginal gains, if any. Dramatically reduced consumption is our future, especially in the high-consumption developed world. It won’t be by choice, IMO.

  12. Speculawyer on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 4:56 pm 

    Yep, this is another reason why solar PV and wind are so nice . . . they don’t require vast amounts of water the way coal and nuclear do.

    That is a really important thing in California and the desert southwest.

  13. GregT on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 5:11 pm 

    “The idea that societies require growth is also wrong.”

    Societies don’t require growth Boat, but our monetary and economic systems both do.

  14. Boat on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 5:41 pm 

    greggiet,

    I believe that is that is a msm groupthink opinion.

  15. Boat on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 5:48 pm 

    bug,

    “Boat, politics and religion are created by man, therefore as long as man is around we will have both. Henceforth,
    there will be no solutions boat”.

    At some point climate change will cause so much cost the worry of survival will cause many humans to rethink traditional thinking.

  16. twocats on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 5:49 pm 

    I’m strangely with boat on this one. And so is everyone who thinks that peak oil has severely limited net available energy to society, because that is what has all-but-halted growth, and that’s why growth is now artificially generated through debt. And look, the monetary system has adapted/transformed/survived whatever adjective floats your boat.

  17. bug on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 6:01 pm 

    I agree with you boat on your climate change will cause humans to rethink things through. I also think humans will decide when climate change survival arrives, they will start to smash each other over the head.

  18. GregT on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 6:27 pm 

    “I believe that is that is a msm groupthink opinion.”

    What you “believe” is not reality Boat, as per usual.

  19. GregT on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 6:33 pm 

    “the monetary system has adapted/transformed/survived whatever adjective floats your boat.”

    The world’s economies and monetary systems are on life support already, and growth has only slowed. So far…….

  20. makati1 on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 7:38 pm 

    The Techies pushing wind and solar are so f–king brainwashed they cannot even see their stupidity. They have been absorbing the “alternates” propaganda agenda for so long they believe it is truth.

    Reality is that they are BOTH ‘alternates’, but not substitutes. Huge difference. They can make it possible to have a temporary (10-20 years) home electric system, but not power BAU in any reasonable amount. Not even enough to make new systems when the old ones wear out.

    Both require HUGE hydrocarbon inputs to exist. The deniers will deny that but that only shows their ignorance/denial of reality. So be it. Ignorance/denial is destroying the very “SYSTEM” they need to survive. Sounds like suicide to me.

  21. JuanP on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 7:55 pm 

    Boat “I believe that is that is a msm groupthink opinion.” No, it is not, Boat, it is a matter of fact. If you don’t understand this then you don’t understand how our economic system works. This is pretty basic economic knowledge.

  22. GregT on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 8:21 pm 

    Boat doesn’t appear capable of understanding very much of anything Juan.

    Why he continues to post such complete and utter nonsense on an almost daily basis is mind boggling.

  23. sunweb on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 9:20 pm 

    Some see to think solar and wind energy capturing devices appear out of thin air. All the things in our world have an industrial history. Behind the computer, the T-shirt, the vacuum cleaner is an industrial infrastructure fired by energy (fossil fuels mainly). Each component of our car or refrigerator has an industrial history. Mainly unseen and out of mind, this global industrial infrastructure touches every aspect of our lives. It pervades our daily living from the articles it produces, to its effect on the economy and employment, as well as its effects on the environment.
    The whole picture needs to be included not just the installed devices. I am not a supporter of fossil fuels or nuclear. I am concerned about continuing business as usual and its devastation of the earth and humanities future.
    Solar and wind energy collecting devices and their auxiliary equipment have an industrial history. They are an extension of the fossil fuel supply system and the global industrial infrastructure. It is important to understand the industrial infrastructure and the environmental results for the components of the solar energy collecting devices so we don’t designate them with false labels such as green, renewable or sustainable.
    This is a challenge to ‘business as usual’. If we teach people that these solar devices are the future of energy without teaching the whole system, we mislead, misinform and create false hopes and beliefs. They are not made with magic wands.
    These videos are primarily concerning solar energy collecting devices. These videos and charts are provided by the various industries themselves. I have posted both charts and videos for the solar cells, modules, aluminum from ore, aluminum from recycling, aluminum extrusion, inverters, batteries and copper.
    Please note each piece of machinery you see in each of the videos has its own industrial interconnection and history.
    http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2015/04/solar-devices-industrial-infrastructure.html
    This is about wind:
    http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2014/11/prove-this-wrong.html

  24. Boat on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 9:36 pm 

    GregT on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 8:21 pm
    “Boat doesn’t appear capable of understanding very much of anything Juan”.

    A lot of not understanding goes on aroun

  25. GregT on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 9:37 pm 

    “If we teach people that these solar devices are the future of energy without teaching the whole system, we mislead, misinform and create false hopes and beliefs.”

    Sadly sunweb, people in general are in a state of denial. It’s difficult to teach people something when they do not want to learn.

  26. Boat on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 10:04 pm 

    A lot of not understanding goes around here. Like why do you hate Jews and Americans. Humans are not much different the world over.

  27. GregT on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 10:27 pm 

    “Like why do you hate Jews and Americans.”

    More nonsense Boat. Do you ever stop?

  28. makati1 on Sun, 26th Jun 2016 11:23 pm 

    Boat is so full of shit that it probably flows even when he sleeps. The poster boy for ignorance and denial. Best ignored or poked with a stick, which ever floats your boat. Pun intended.

  29. onlooker on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 12:04 am 

    I prefer to ignore unless he says something truly outrageous hehe

  30. Bystander on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 12:42 am 

    Neither makati nor sunweb have the faintest idea what eroei is and its implications for self-sustainability is.

    A child is dependent on its parents for the duration of childhood but after a certain period it no longer is. For renewables to completely take over eventually it is enough that a turbine or panel generates more energy than it costs to produce it.

    End of story.

    That this proces will take decades and that bau will be destroyed, doesn’t change that fact.

  31. GregT on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 1:33 am 

    “Neither makati nor sunweb have the faintest idea what eroei is and its implications for self-sustainability is.”

    Anything that requires non-renewable resources in resource extraction, refinement, manufacturing, distribution, repair, or maintenance, is in of itself not sustainable. Period.

    The denial runs so thick it’s beyond comprehension.

  32. Bystander on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 2:07 am 

    You don’t need non-renewable energy for resource extraction, refinement, manufacturing, distribution, repair or maintenance.

    You need energy, period.
    It is completely irrelevant if that energy comes from coal, oil, wind or solar.

    The lack of understanding of the most elementary laws of physics is breathtaking.

    Americans ARE oil. They can’t think beyond that, in contrast to the rest of the developed/developing world.

  33. onlooker on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 6:25 am 

    Your thesis bystander has two fatal flaws. First, is scale, to ramp up the entire infrastructure and matrix of Renewable energy is going to take fossil fuels no matter how much you wish to overlook that. Second, we are now on the descent phase of fossil fuels as a economically convenient and effective form of energy. In case you had not noticed we need fossil fuels to run pretty much our entire society. What is left then to build this massive renewable replacement? Not much.

  34. Bystander on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 6:38 am 

    BS there is more than enough fossil left to set up a basic renewable energy infrastructure, even if we would be on the descending slope of fossil production (are we, with 50$/barrel?).

  35. Davy on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 6:54 am 

    Sorry, Bystander, what the boys are talking about above is valid. There is likely no way renewables can self-replicate without a fossil fuel economy. If you spent more time around here you would see this issues has been tucked in and put to bed multiple times by multiple board participants.

    The other issue you greenies fail to understand is the systematic issue of minimums. In this case it is the minimum of scale. Time is up Bystander. The time needed to transition in time to avoid a catastrophic economic collapse momentum is gone. We are now in a collapse process at all levels and this momentum is unstoppable. We could conceivably be able to transition to renewables in the right environment but that is only theory. Facts are not playing out that way. The current amount of renewable buildout is far too low and the condition of the economy is far too bad. Bystander we are in a trap. We went through that one way door. We are now in a new dimension of decline, decay, and deflation. The Big D’s of economic death.

  36. makati1 on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 6:55 am 

    Guys, Bystander could be Boat’s cousin, the retarded one. Makes Boat look like Einstein. Obviously deep in denial or else just stupid.

  37. JuanP on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 7:21 am 

    Bystander, Let’s assume that your belief that we can transition to renewable energy like you said though I don’t agree with your belief. What would happen then. Would the global population stop growing? Would Climate Change and Global Warming stop? Would the biosphere heal? Would we have more pure water or fertile soil? No, no, no, and no! Renewable energy would not fix any of the predicaments facing humanity. A renewable energy transition would just buy us a little bit of time to keep destroying the biosphere of the only habitable planet we know.

    The fact is that whether we can transition to renewable energy sources or not is irrelevant.

    You might also keep in mind when you insult the people in this forum that most of us have been researching these subjects intensively for years or decades and that most of our forum regular members have an above average intelligence and education. Not me, though, I may be smart, but I am a completely insane high school dropout and very proud of it! LOL!

  38. JuanP on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 7:28 am 

    Davy “We could conceivably be able to transition to renewables in the right environment but that is only theory.”

    That, Bystander, is a well reasoned and well informed thought that I can completely agree with. Davy and I disagree about a couple of things, but I give credit where credit is due and what he just said is true. A transition to renewable energy sources is theoretically possible, but it just won’t happen in the scale you believe it will because we are an insane species.

  39. ghung on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 8:18 am 

    As an exercise, let’s pretend our planet wasn’t ‘endowed/cursed’ with plentiful fossil energy. What would things look like?

    The industrial age, as we know it, would not have occurred.

    “Progress”, especially technological progress, would have played out very differently.

    There would be fewer humans.

    We, collectively, would not have gone down this path to overshoot born of easily-exploited, finite, concentrated energy, and many of the consequences wouldn’t be occurring or looming.

    What many folks can’t understand is the long list of consequences from the 200+ year party our species has enjoyed. Whatever so-called renewables we are able to adopt at this late period won’t undo the consequences. There’s no way back that anyone in the developed world will find acceptable, nor can we bargain our way to a new age of ‘renewables’ without suffering the consequences of the past. No magic….

  40. Boat on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 8:37 am 

    greggiet,

    “Anything that requires non-renewable resources in resource extraction, refinement, manufacturing, distribution, repair, or maintenance, is in of itself not sustainable. Period”.

    Nobody in their right mind would ever argue any different. Your ideology along with maks won’t allow you to understand what I type and the differance.

  41. Croatian Holiday Maker on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 8:39 am 

    Guys, guys… it took a full century between the first oil discovery in, where was it? Pennsylvania?

    https://youtu.be/f3THVbr4hlY
    (There will be blood)

    …and the first traffic jam to occur in Holland:

    http://www.autoblog.nl/archive/2010/05/29/eerste-file-in-nederland-vandaag-precies-55-jaar-geleden

    So give the renewable energy business a bit of time, will ya?

  42. makati1 on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 8:53 am 

    Croatian, what makes you think we have time? The decent is gaining speed daily. Climate change seems to have hit the hockey stick on the charts. We are in a contraction that will never end until there are none of us left, which could be before 2100. 100 years? The current BAU has less than 1/10th of that.

    Maybe much less. Odds are much greater that we will experience a nuclear war that will end it all. Those who “survive” will have cancers and death in their near future, not renewal.

    Greed and denial seem to be Siamese twins, forever joined and a product of the brainwashing common in the Western countries. Especially the Untied States of Exceptionalism. The “Indispensable” country. lol

  43. Boat on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 8:54 am 

    bystander,

    “BS there is more than enough fossil left to set up a basic renewable energy infrastructure”

    I agree completely. In fact when electric cars hit around 20 million per year peak oil will happen. Not because of lack of oil but lack of demand. Btu growth will continue to go but it will be for electricity.

  44. ghung on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 8:55 am 

    Yeah, Boat, your ideology doesn’t seem to grok that the complex system of arrangements that allowed all of this to occur, and will be required to accomplish those things you dream of, are in the process of breaking apart.

    All the Kings’ horses, and all the Kings’ men…….

  45. makati1 on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 8:55 am 

    Boat, you and Bystander should get together for a few beers and back patting. lol.

  46. onlooker on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 9:02 am 

    As others said we too far along path of descent and decay too turn this ship around

  47. Boat on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 9:09 am 

    ghung,

    “There’s no way back that anyone in the developed world will find acceptable, nor can we bargain our way to a new age of ‘renewables’ without suffering the consequences of the past”.

    I think you’re correct. Suffering by some is happening and built into our future. Imminent collapse within 10 years let alone 3 does not seem likely.

  48. ghung on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 9:28 am 

    A global, massive game of musical chairs where we’ve been adding people faster than we’ve been adding chairs. We can’t allow the music to stop. This whole Brexit thing is a great example. A comment from the Guardian:

    ” Teebs
    2d ago
    Guardian Pick
    1080 1081

    If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

    Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

    With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

    How?

    Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

    And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten … the list grew and grew.

    The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

    The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

    Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

    Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

    If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over – Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession … broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

    The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

    When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was “never”. When Michael Gove went on and on about “informal negotiations” … why? why not the formal ones straight away? … he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

    All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

    I would say this applies to all of our arrangements. We’re to far along to begin making the huge changes required without crashing the system. I’ve been saying this for years. The great reset will be required to create a new beginning; too horrible for anyone to contemplate, much less, lead. No one dares……

  49. Boat on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 9:32 am 

    makati1 on Mon, 27th Jun 2016 8:55 am

    Boat, you and Bystander should get together for a few beers and back patting. lol.

    My back is still sore from the BC doom forecast. Not one of you doomers said he was wrong. In fact most of you were cheerleading his message. We would have already crashed 6 months ago. Hell the world didn’t even go into recession which according to even msm were long overdue. Short’s prediction is next. Hey mak, you want on the clock? When we gonna crash.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *