← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Recently the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) asked the ruling Barbados Labour Party (BLP) government to explain its oil exploration policy. The government updated that it was committed to a clean energy policy. Could the Barbados government learn from the unfolding Uruguay’s experience?

Uruguay’s energy story is celebrated as a model of transition, nearly all of its electricity is generated from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower. Over the past decade it has reduced dependence on fossil fuels, and like Prime Minister Mia Mottley, earned international recognition for its energy policy.

Despite its clean energy success Uruguay has made the recent decision to permit offshore oil exploration. Government has argued that exploration does not necessarily mean exploitation. Expectedly the decision has sparked criticism that Uruguay risks undermining its reputation as a climate leader. There is a paradox for Uruguay: it is a nation that has achieved significant penetration in renewable electricity but has left the door open to pursue fossil fuel development, .

Barbados, by contrast presents a different challenge. Prime Minister Mia Mottley has sold Barbados internationally as a vulnerable state to climate change, and has benefited from climate loans. However, we are heavily reliant on imported fossil fuels and has struggled domestically to advance renewable energy in a material way. The recent failure to privatise the sugar industry with CoopEnergy Barbados to drive clean energy development was a major failure,

Uruguay’s dilemma is balancing green success versus oil temptation; Barbados’ is a climate agenda versus fossil dependence. Go figure.

Thanks to Bentley for submitting the video with the comment –We could do this with photovoltaics.  There’s no reason why we couldn’t generate close to 100 percent of our energy from solar while still having a sustainable food industry. 


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

11 responses to “Rising fuel bill conflicts …”


  1. We have to stop being peons for empire.

    This talk about the end of fossil fuels, alternative fuels, climate change and so on cannot coexist even as COP is being held or maybe soon in Brazil, we seem to remember.

    Not when petroleum’s remains the central concern of the Europeans, the Americans, the Western powers.

    As they are plotting wars to steal the petroleum and other resources of others. Wherever one looks the greed for fossil fuels remains the central determinant of the geopolitical, geo-economics, the geo-strategic.

    Indeed, at every point the Western countries, whose development was built on fossil fuels deploy this alternative agenda merely to distract.1


  2. Trump has thrown away windmills and solar panels.

    ……and USAID.

    Miss Mockley continues to embrace the technology.

    …… and not much $$$$$.

    Why.

  3. Dub Confrontation Avatar

    War and Rumours of War
    Fuel Prices will go up with the Price of Guns
    Wars aren’t part of the Green / Climate Agenda
    Among the most cited environmental effects of war include deforestation, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss. In addition, military emissions contribute to nearly 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions––double the amount coming from aviation and shipping.

    I guess Warmongers don’t give a damn

    Laugh or Cry?

    Heraclitus would shed tears whenever he went out in public—Democritus laughed. One saw the whole as a parade of miseries, the other of follies. And so, we should take a lighter view of things and bear them with an easy spirit, for it is more human to laugh at life than to lament it.
    —Seneca, On Tranquility Of Mind, 15.2

    Is this observation the origin of that famous expression about frustrating news: “I don’t know whether to laugh or cray?” The Stoics saw little purpose in getting angry or sad about things that are indifferent to our feelings. Especially when those feelings end up making us feel worse.

    It’s also another bit of evidence that the Stoics were hardly some depressing, bitter group of old men. Even when things were really bad, when the world made them want to weep in despair or rage, they chose to laugh about it.

    Like Democritus, we can make that same choice. There is more humor than hate to be found in just about every situation. And at least humor is productive—making things less heavy, not more so.


  4. John
    November 12, 2025 at 5:43 am
    Rate This

    Trump has thrown away windmills and solar panels.

    ……and USAID.

    Miss Mockley continues to embrace the technology.

    …… and not much $$$$$.

    Why

    +++++++++++++++++++++

    Miss Mockley cannot transfer ownership in land the Govt. does not own.

    The land was leased to Govt. by private companies.

    The transfer of ownership of the land was last done by indenture involving tenants in common who owned the land and a private company which undertook to pay satisfy discharge and fulfill all the debts liabilities contracts and engagements of the tenants in relation to the land.

    The company also provided indemnifications in case anyone was dumb enough to sue.

    It happened between 1940 and 1970 when the tenants in common owned the land and wanted to avail themselves of bank loans to purchase tractors and equipment to maximise sugar output and to maximise the sugar output.

    This reversed the economics of the 1930’s and provided jobs.

    At this point in time Miss Mockley has to get in contact with all the heirs and assigns of the tenants in common and hope they are all desirous of selling.

    I stopped after checking 10,000 acres the ownership of which was transferred to the various companies under agreement which they leased to GOB.

    Right now, the sugar output is about 3-4 % of what it was.

  5. NorthernObserver Avatar

    John
    Who claimed the intent was to transfer land ownership? Versus, transferring existing deals into a Newco.
    The challenge was the financial feasibility of the deal hinged on selling electricity. Nothing about sugar, though a claim was made, that prior to the ’18 election, a bad deal which was made to sell sugar, and was later cancelled. Apparently the proponents of that deal couldn’t be located in the Red Bag?
    The objective was to get rid of a SOE, at least on paper. All they did was transfer assets from a single SOE to two Newco’s. The people of Barbados still own both Newco’s and whatever remains in BMAC.


  6. You are back…
    I was wondering if you went against your theory and drank the water.
    Always good to see a fellow here.


  7. @ David

    I’ve sent some information to via email.


  8. NO

    But the land does not belong to the people of Barbados.

    It belongs to the original tenants in common and now their heirs and assigns.

    The day is fast approaching when an account will be required.


  9. ” Barbadians have shown overwhelming interest in the new Farming and Fishing Gateway Training Initiative with 238 expressions of interest for just 20 spaces in the first training cohort.”

    https://nationnews.com/2025/11/14/positive-response-to-farming-fishing-initiative/


  10. TheIG you would be surprised.

    ….. and Kingsland is not encumbered.

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading