Expert forecaster sees Putin’s moves with energy as a power play in anticipation of global cooling 20-30 years out.
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
1/6/2009 8:23:25 PM
It’s not often that meteorology intersects with geopolitics – but Europe could be in store for another Cold War, literally.
Accuweather.com’s chief long-range and hurricane forecaster Joe Bastardi observed that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s recent cut of gas flows to Europe via Ukraine may have been done so in anticipation of a global cooling cycle on the Jan. 6 “Glenn Beck Show” radio program. Bastardi has a solid reputation among Wall Street traders for understanding weather’s impact on energy commodities.
“The thing I want to bring up here – very interesting – most of the solar cycle studies that we know about and that guys like me read have come out of the Russian scientists,” Bastardi said. “But when Glasnost developed, the Russian scientists, a lot of their ideas on the coming cool period that a lot of us believe is going to occur – ice, rather than fire is the big problem down the road here 2030, 2040, and the reversing cyclical cycles of the ocean – it came out of the East.”
According to Bastardi – Putin is relying on the data from the Russian scientists and wants to bring some European nations to their knees by exploiting their reliance on natural gas when the weather is at its coldest.
“Now my theory – something that I put out and it’s something that’s not something that people want to hear is that Putin knows what is going to happen – or he believes the same way I do about the overall climate pattern. So, if you control the pipeline into Europe, you literally can control Europe without firing a shot – if you control the energy.”
Bastardi cited former President Ronald Reagan’s 1982 Cold War-era staunch resistance to a then-$10 billion pipeline that was proposed to deliver natural gas 3,500 miles from Siberia to the heart of Western Europe, as a July 12, 1982 Time magazine article pointed out. Reagan’s stance was criticized by Western Europe Cold War allies and was said to be “riding roughshod over Western Europe’s economies,” by Time.
Bastardi also noted Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August 2008 was evidence of Putin’s willingness to use energy as a strategic tactic, since the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, located in Georgia, transports about a million barrels of oil a day from the Caspian Sea through Georgia to ports in Turkey – and then throughout Europe.
“That is why Reagan was so dead set against the Europeans looking east for their energy,” Bastardi said. “And now we’re seeing it. I believe the invasion of Georgia was nothing more than saying, ‘Hey I can take that pipeline whenever I want’ and he shut the gas off to the Ukraine when it got brutally cold.”
In a follow-up interview with the Business & Media Institute, Bastardi explained that a lot of Putin’s personality traits are at play here – that he is using intelligence, going back to his days as at the KGB.
“The weather’s most certainly involved in this,” Bastardi said. “If look at what those Russian scientists, where a lot of these studies on it getting cold come from – you can see that, what makes you think that Putin doesn’t have some knowledge of that? Here’s the head of the KGB – and forever what you want to say, I’m sure he’s privy to the same kind of information the head of the CIA is privy to here about studies and what people are thinking on a scientific nature.”
And according to Bastardi, Putin’s use of the flow of energy into Europe is just one of the weapons in his arsenal of tactics that he, as the head of Russia, has perfected using – comparing him to a wrestler with a perfected move.
“He’s definitely a type-A alpha male and we can both agree on that,” Bastardi said. “I mean look at him and he is more likely to use weapons – and I use weapons in terms of for instance a wrestler – a single-leg take down is a weapon. If you perfect it, you can use it the entire match. He’s more likely in the art of war to use what he knows how to use, even if it’s only two or three things than try to go use something he doesn’t know how to use or try to create something – that’s a waste of time to use it.”
It’s not a personality fault Bastardi contended on Beck’s program – but just what he considers proper for his country.
“And so, there are a couple of things that line up here that indicate the guy is trying act on behalf of his country and what he believes his country should be,” Bastardi said. “And I believe that he wants to use nature, rather than change nature and that may be what’s going on over here.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7811945.stm
I think crosspatch is right. Russia has been inflating it’s reported temps to help the Western world continue to delude itself into believing in global warming. Then we will be unprepared with our own sources of fossil fuel energy and Russia will rape Europe with gas prices. It’s really obvious when you see the temps reported out of Siberia.
Peter Taylor (05:20:35) :
“I would like to make a request that Watts-up sticks to climate science and forgoes these forays into energy and geopolitics! It’s not that some of the comments aren’t informative, it is that the majority really show up the prejudices and rather deep ignorance of the European situation held in the USA, and it would be a nightmare to try and engage in corrective action. There’s no blame or judgement intended – I love America – it is a reflection of the national interest and width of the Atlantic. But is is exasperating”.
Peter,
Just by writing your excellent comment you have made a strong point why WUWT SHOULD post articles regarding subjects like energy and geopolitics.
Just realize that WUWT loyal crowd of posters is an international clique.
It’s proof that WUWT in fact can handle ANY subject.
In the end we all learn and view he subjects from a broader perspective.
Don’t you agree?
Bill Marsh (05:52:30) :
“Russia goaded the Georgians into that attempt. They were waiting for it. Georgia was attempting to regain control of its own territory from separatists supported by the Russians.”
I am no expert but this is what the people of South Ossetia had to say. Little mention of them in all the east west talk.
“According to the Tskhinvali election authorities, the referendum turned out a majority for independence from Georgia where 99% of South Ossetian voters supported independence and the turnout for the vote was 95%[14]. The referendum was monitored by a team of 34 international observers from Germany, Austria, Poland, Sweden and other countries at 78 polling stations.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia
Georgia might clame South Ossetia but britian once clamed half the world including North America. In the American revolutionary war support for independance was mcuh lower than that.
Wow. From my perch in Houston (at a major offshore oil & gas drilling contractor), this is a stunning and prescient analysis.
I respectfully submit that Bastardi demonstrates here better qualifications to head the CIA than that political hack Panetta.
Here’s my corrollary thesis: AGW is perceived in China and the Former Soviet Union as just another example of the Decadence of Capitalism. Further, the Russians, who have a delicious sense of irony and mind-numbing patience, are likely to relish the opportunity for domination of Europe that their military never could achieve.
Discuss.
Huge Hat-Tip to Anthony Watts et al for publishing this otherwise obscure piece. Y’all might want to consider buying coal stocks on any dips; I like ACI and BTU myself.
Don’t forget to vote early and vote often for WUWT for Science Blog of the year.
PS Remember, it’s The Gore Minimum. Repeat it ofetn enough and it will be so.
Freezing Finn, thanks for your posts. Very cool information. I also think that energy and geopolitical topics brings out the worst in our US colored glass view of the world beyond the pond. Maybe that is why your posts are studied by the moderators longer than others regarding this topic. Your views will be controversial and will prompt the kind of response that makes me want to step away and look busy with something else while the poster rages on about the axis of evil and James Bond-ess stories of intrigue. Not that some of it may be true or false, but posts like that are filled with opinion without data. Often times I think some posters believe that every country is an idiot except for ours and no amount of unbiased or opposing information will persuade from that view. For me, I love reading the posts from folks beyond the US. It is one of the best things about belonging to this blog.
Freezing Finn: “History is written by the winners”
Yes, and always later disputed by the losers, both sides being tainted by their own perspectives.
BYW, it’s always better to be the winner.
I love reading articles like this. Thank you Anthony! You get my vote.
Despite Joe Bastardi being an employee of accuweather, his companies global warming blog would be better served if it stopped giving into its green advertisers. Break through the hype!
Be green everyone! But don’t emit GREENhouse gas. It’s sooo stupid.
And despite all of this ‘dirty’ pollution, the snow is-as white, bright and prestine as ever up here in New Hampshire. Lets face it, how ‘dirty’ could an increase of 0.010% CO2 be?
This trace gas is having absolutely zero (0) toxic effects on human beings. In fact, life expectancy is increasing. So how could this trace gas have such dramatic, toxic like effects on an entire planet?
The science against carbon, is science achieved through carbon. Got that? It is impossible for an increase in CO2 alone to destroy our progression, when our progression has been a result of CO2.
What can I say, we are living in strange times.
I don’t believe Russia is inflating temps.
Far more likely is that the historical record is too low.
DaveE.
Putin is/was KGB, Medvedev is his pawn. AGW is POLITICAL, thus appropriate for WUWT, virtually everything in this world is. I agree with crosspatch , coaldust and bobby lane , good posts. Pamela Grey , generally you are right however coaldust is correct in saying power is # 1 ahead of money in a dictator’s priorities. JMHO. Great discussion! Lot of good civil points.
Brent in Calgary
Talking about russians:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html
Khabibulo Abdusamatov regarding GW: “It´s hollywood science”
Those questioning the propriety of raising the issues both stated and implied in the Bastardi article and subsequent comments are counseling that we trust the Russians? We’re to rationalize the Russian invasion of South Ossetia? On that basis, Iran is entitled to invade Detroit!
I suppose we are supposed to just not think about what Putin is doing. Trust him. Don’t believe our eyes.
Richard,
“According to the Tskhinvali election authorities, the referendum turned out a majority for independence from Georgia where 99% of South Ossetian voters supported independence and the turnout for the vote was 95%[14].”
That still does not change the validity of the territory being part of Georgia under the old Soviet system and part of Georgia when the old Soviet Union dissolved. I’d wager you’d get a pretty high % of native Hawaiians wanting to secede from the US, that doesn’t make Hawaii any less US territory.
The gas reserves of Russia are enormous. There is so much they have not even explored. Rather than avoiding such a resource, Europe should find a way to ensure steady supply.
The answer is to put in massive storage facilities. The Russians will need the cash, and much like the old claim that a capitalist will compete to sell the rope by which he is hung, Russia will eventually sell the gas to fill the storage. That would reduce their ability to use the gas as a political tool.
Putin supports AGW because Russia stands to make billions selling CO2 offsets to EU countries. Prior to that realization Russia did not support the idea of AGW or the Kyoto treaty. When Putin realized the amount of money involved Russia did a u-turn on Kyoto.
So we don’t build nuclear plants, don’t build hydro power, don’t even attempt to drill for much of the available oil and gas and more just to appease the greenies. Then we in the West blame the Russians for this? Like we were going to trust the Russians? We are being destroted from within not by some minor gas manipulations.
Freezing Finn
You must have never heard of the Red White war in Finland or the Winter war. Wonderful neighbours those Russians.
“I will confine myself to saying there was more to it than that.”
Of course there was. I was attempting to boil things down to a sentence or two late at night and it was the best I could think of at the moment. It could (and will) fill books. But generally when one side spends 15% of its GDP countering what the other side spent 5% of theirs on, the result is unsustainable over time.
And as for the current squabble with Ukraine, I don’t fully believe anything either side says. But I do know that placing one’s country in a position as to be dependent on another country who has not been a particularly close friend in a historical and cultural sense probably isn’t a good idea. Sure, it makes sense to buy from them when they have a needed product at a reasonable price, but I wouldn’t go getting all dependent on that supply.
If I were a European dealing with Russia, I would view them sort of like dealing with the Roman Empire. You don’t want them too dependent on you and you don’t want to become too dependent on them because if either condition is met, they will tend to want to absorb you. Particularly if you are a neighbor.
But look on the globe and imagine what happens when the frost line moves South in Russia. Then look at the big chunk of land in Kazakhstan that sort of cuts into the belly of Russia down South (and it is rich in energy resources). I fear that if things get too cold, the Russians might get a little insistent with their neighbors (and former Soviet republics) to the South.
Canada had better be watching things, too. What will they do when/if growing seasons shorten and they have a crop failure? If climate does change severely, it might be a good time for Canadians to mine the place for all it is worth while they still can, bank the money and be ready to buy North Dakota.
Nukes cost too much, leaving aside the toxic byproducts that future generations must deal with, and the
” The staggering cost of new nuclear power: A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity rates.”
— and far below most renewable-based power, wind, solar, wave, geothermal.
source:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
oops… computerus interruptus… scratch “and the” in the opening paragraph.
Makes me wonder how accurate those soaring Siberian temperatures are, and if they are being modified to promote AGW.
Gore Minimum ha ha I like it.
Bobby Lane (06:29:34) :
Peter Taylor may have got under your skin, touched a nerve maybe, but don’t tar all Brits with the same brush.
Interesting article about climate/war correlation.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/49/19214.full
Finally read through all the comments. Interesting stuff. My contribution as an oil guy follows.
Natural gas storage is tougher than oil storage. Most countries learned many years ago that it is in their best interest to store up as much oil as they could. That serves as a buffer during crises such as oil supplies cut off.
Btw, I believe Ron de Haan (02:15:53) intended to write LNG, not CNG. LNG is liquefied natural gas, and it is indeed shipped and regasified upon arrival.
We are seeing some natural gas storage in the US via injection into depleted gas wells, and some but not much as LNG. LNG storage is very expensive compared to injection into depleted gas wells.
The US is fortunate to have ample supply of depleted gas wells, other countries may not. Other geologic formations will serve, the key is holding the gas at high pressure and returning most of it back when needed.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
Peter Taylor,
I find your comments either naive or you believe the intended audience is naive.
Of course the Russian government would never directly cut a check to any “green” group. But there are ways if filtering resources to groups that advance your strategic objectives in less obvious ways. Practically every government on the planet does it, political parties do it, even corporations do it. Heck, in the US there is even a group that *specializes* in hiding contributions to various “progressive” causes. It is called The Tides Foundation. You make a contribution to Tides and earmark your contributions to go to certain organizations. Tides then mingles your funds with those of others and makes the contributions to the various organizations according to the earmarked amounts. So the target organization records a donation by Tides, not by the actual provider of the cash. Tides shows a donation by the original donor but only to itself. It is not required to record or report how the funds were requested to be distributed. So in this way an individual or corporate foundation can make donations to specific groups without a paper trail linking them to that group. That is the entire purpose for the existence of the foundation and that is but one example. Why do so many “progressive” causes require their cash sources to remain “secret”?
The same is done using “businesses” that are wholly or partially government owned. Someone gets a “contract” for “consulting”. Collects a fat check, the proceeds from the “consulting fee” is dispersed as instructed and everything appears to be donations from a private individual. It is done all the time. To pretend otherwise is either naivety or deception.
“I am a veteran of the European energy policy, risk analysis, green politics, pollution control arena – with over thirty years experience from grass roots, through local councils, regional, national and EU government, commissions, public inquiries and international conventions (on pollution control) – with a long history of publications, interventions and activism.”
The above would seem to raise suspicion of your objectivity. You would seem to have an interest in “defending” an area in which you have a lot of personal investment.
The simple truth is that things operate in quite cynical ways. A desire to create a better environment is often used as a “hook” to draw in support by people who mean well but in the overall scope of things the impact is to hamstring economic competitors. How much impact to “environmentalist” groups have on projects in Russia, China, or India?
Hopefully this will put and end to the EU pressuring Poland and other countries to cut back on home produced coal to fire their power stations and to switch instead to Russian Natural Gas.