Renewable Energy

Debunking more shameless taxpayer-funded climate alarmist crap from SBS

Yet more ridiculous climate alarmist rubbish was published from the taxpayer-funded SBS claiming we rank dead bottom (true) in one of the lower weighted (it didn’t mention that) categories of the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI). The CCPI measures the emissions, renewable energy share and climate policies of 57 countries and the European Union. It released the document at the COP25 summit to bathe in the spotlight with alarmists pals. Where was the journalistic rigour?

Who were the Aussie based “experts” (activists) the CCPI relied on to provide really in-depth qualitative opinions on our climate policy evaluation?

Doctors for the Environment Australia
Australian Conservation Foundation 
Oxfam
The Australian Institute

All climate activists. Precious little objectivity there. It is isn’t hard to work out why Australia scored a 0.0 on climate policy. Seriously? Any think tank with the remotest thirst for integrity in reporting and data collection should have questioned a zero score.

According to Bloomberg NEF, Australia has the 3rd highest clean energy spend per capita! We spent twice as much as France yet these climate alarmists marked us down because our democracy supported Adani. No doubt the experts just hurled toys out of the pram.

Why can’t the SBS do the slightest bit of fact-checking? What prevents it from reading the document and finding out that the credentials of the experts handing out the lowest score (relative to what?) with a lower weighting in the overall score is pretty low. Note the other three categories are based on actual data, not the whims of activists with an axe to grind against the current Morrison government.

And the summary for Australia was as follows,

National experts observe a lack of progress in these areas with the government failing to clarify how it will meet the country’s insufficient 2030 emission reduction target and inaction in developing a long-term mitigation strategy. While the government is not proposing any further targets for renewable energy beyond 2020, it continues to promote the expansion of fossil fuels and in April 2019 approved the opening of the highly controversial Adani coalmine. Experts note that the new government is an increasingly regressive force in negotiations and has been criticised for its lack of ambition by several Pacific Island nations in the context of this year’s Pacific Island Forum. The dismissal of recent IPCC reports, the government not attending the UN Climate Action Summit in September, and the withdrawal from funding the Green Climate Fund (GCF) underpin the overall very low performance in the Climate Policy category.”

This CCPI document is frankly laughable. Such is its desire to heap scorn and shame on nations, the Top 3 overall rankings were withheld from all nations. CPPI noted,

Still no country performs well enough in all index categories to achieve an overall very high rating in the index. Therefore, once again the first three ranks remain empty.

And would you look at the softball it tossed China,

National experts emphasize that China exerted huge efforts to cut fossil fuels and emissions in a coordinated way, however due to the turbulence of economy and trade still performed under expectation from the international community. Further, the national experts acknowledge that China put a lot of effort to overachieve its 2020 goals in the run-up to national GHG emissions 2030 targets. However, more efforts are needed to be in line with a well below 2°C compatible pathway. As the country is on track to fulfil its targets and promises made in Paris, experts hope that China will increase its targets next year. While the country could further increase its share of renewable energy in the energy mix over recent years, the rating in the Renewable Energy category remains medium. Despite a positive trend, current shares of renewable energy are rated low and national experts critically note the country’s high dependency on coal. By implementing a pilot emission trading scheme, China is showing positive efforts in national climate policy, which leads to a high rating in the Climate Policy category.

So could the CCPI tell us why renewables investment in China has slumped 40% as the government has said it won’t approve any such projects unless it can compete with coal?

USA’s overall emissions & emission per capita have declined since Trump took office but the CCPI could restrain its TDS.

National experts emphasise that the national climate policy has worsened under President Donald Trump’s administration and they highlight the importance of state-level measures. While renewable energy and energy use reduction targets are in place in some states, these vary greatly in terms of strength and implementation. At the international level, the performance completes the picture on a national level, with the US acting as a destructive player in international negotiations on all levels. The very low performance is further underpinned by the Trump administration officially having started the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, due to be finalised on 4 November 2020.

Yep, capitalism has allowed the US to experience declining emissions. No need for a socialist construct to hand over billions of dollars to rent-seekers. CCPI asked more activists including the Union of Concerned Scientists for the US bashing.

Image result for cop25 australia"

So take the CCPI report with all of the irrelevance of its compilation. Based on subjectivity. Just like the 11,000 signatories to a climate emergency, where the site that pushed the narrative overlooked the fact that Mickey Mouse, Aldus Dumbledore and Araminta Aardvark were included.

It is worth quoting Thomas Sowell again,

Those who cry out that the government should ‘do something’ never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.”

Well done on the SBS for yet more splendid journalistic integrity.

Japan-bashing at COP25

From the UN Climate Summit pages today.

Japanese Minister of Economy and Trade Hiroshi Kajiyama today (Dec 3) said his country wants to continue using coal, even though UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report recommends the opposite. Recent reports suggest Japan may not submit a new climate plan in 2020, as it should under the Paris Agreement.

JUST IN! Australia, Japan and Brazil are joint winners of COP25’s first Fossil of the Day award #FossiloftheDay (Dec 3).

Note the video for the COP25 Fossil of the Day award above.

When will these people get that shaming doesn’t do anything to sway skeptics of impending Armageddon? Skeptics will take it with the seriousness these alarmists dish their religious fervor out.

Note in SG Guterres’ opening speech for COP25 that he didn’t mention China or India once. Never mind. Just preach in the full knowledge that China has committed to grow an Australia in emissions every week by 2030 from the current 2 weeks.

EU climate emergency vote is way worse than you think

What took the group thinking EU so long? What better way to justify more taxation and wealth redistribution than to declare a “climate emergency”? What you are about to read is a perfect explanation of how little credibility exists in the European Parliament (EuroParl).

In black and white, EuroParl noted,

EU countries should at least double their contributions to the international Green Climate Fund, Parliament says. EU member states are the largest providers of public climate finance and the EU’s budget should fully comply with its international commitments. They also note that pledges by developed countries do not meet the collective goal of 100 billion USD per year as of 2020…Finally, they urgently call on all EU countries to phase out all direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies by 2020.

Now, this is where it gets curious. Take a look at this file (from page 8) and ask yourself, how many amendments to resolutions within the “climate emergency” conversation were rejected supporting the overall declaration passing 429 in favour, 215 against, 19 abstaining?

Here is one amendment that was rejected 95, 563, 9 by MEPs (you can’t make this stuff up),

Recalls that climate change is one of the many challenges facing humanity and that
all states and stakeholders worldwide must do their utmost to measure it
scientifically so that policy, and especially spending, is based on observable facts and not on apocalyptic fearmongering or unreliable models; emphasises that there is
no scientific consensus on what percentage of climate change is anthropogenic and
what percentage is natural

Seems fair enough! Basing decisions affecting 550 million constituents on real hard data is the right thing to do, no? Clearly not. Shut up and follow the religious cult and demand followers cough up twice as much into the collections pot. The lobbyists must be well pleased.

Or,

“Text as a whole without the words: ‘urgently’, ‘and implement’ and ‘to net-zero
emissions by 2050″ defeated 101, 555, 15.

Isn’t it striking that the majority of MEPs won’t even consciously vote in favour of making sure funds are spent appropriately? Nope, bow down and shut up. Otherwise face being cut off as we get to observe from the EuroParl documents below.

This is what an MEP from Northern Ireland, Claire Fox, had to say,

Madam President, I voted against the climate and environmental emergency motion because I’m really concerned at the hyped-up anti-science scaremongering that’s terrifying young people, telling them that billions will die, that there’ll be a collapse of civilisation, a lot of the rhetoric coming out of Extinction Rebellion and echoed in the debate over the last few days. I think that the fact that we voted against an amendment today that said that we should be committed to bringing the environmental subject back to rational discussion, and we rejected it, admits that actually, we’re having an irrational discussion. This becomes advocacy and propaganda, rather than science. There’s no scientific evidence from the IPCC or anyone else about the extinction of humanity, and we should be very careful about claiming that anthropological climate changes cause floods and droughts, which we have been doing quite casually during the last few days. In fact, the IPCC says that such issues are probably caused by socio-economic conditions, and we forget socio-economic conditions too much and demand, in fact, as this Parliament has done, decarbonisation, which will lead to eco-austerity, massive price hikes in energy, and ordinary working people paying the cost for scaremongering and...

(The President cut off the speaker)

or another Northern Irish MEP Robert Rowland,

Madam President, I’d just like to reiterate what my colleague said. I also rejected the COP24 resolution. I may not be an Economics Professor, but I do profess to understand economics. They also call it the dismal science, but when it comes to the climate emergency, I would describe the apocalyptic forecasts as nothing but science fiction. The adoption of these policies today, and the aim of carbon neutrality by 2050 is nothing short of reckless and the most extreme example of economic illiteracy I’ve ever seen. The fact that amendments were rejected demanding a full impact assessment shows rank indifference to the cost and practicality of aggressive climate policies.

One thing I can say for certain is that the impact of net-zero makes the consequence of any form of Brexit look puny by comparison. Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy and Economics at Oxford University, was right when he said: ‘We should be honest that it is a huge industrial undertaking, and it will have significant cost. These are enormous industrial activities, there is nothing in history that looks like this outside of wartime.

In my own country, our own Chancellor has put that cost at over one trillion pounds, or almost 2% of GDP per annum. It is an insane policy.

If the EU truly wishes to make itself even less competitive, in the face of some of the world’s highest electricity prices, they are only self-flagellating in an already flailing economy which continues to slow to 5-year lows. If the EU truly looked at its record since 2007, it would see its policies have delivered 40 million more people into poverty, a number which totals 118 million people, or 23% of the EU population!

If there was ever a bigger load of intellectual dishonesty posted by the EU it would be this. It states that,

Climate emergency declarations in 1,195 jurisdictions and local governments cover 545 million citizens with 53 million of those living in the United Kingdom. This means in Britain now roughly 80 per cent of the population lives in areas that have declared a climate emergency.

The irony if such a statement is that there is no way in the world that 545 million citizens are in agreement within those 1,195 jurisdictions. 53mn Brits? Seriously? In Australia’s case, many declaring climate emergencies have been local green-left councils who have made idle gestures without backing it up with realities. Constituents have not been asked. Windfarm plans for Warringah are not on the agenda.

The greatest irony with the EU is that they classify biomass (which is more polluting than coal) as a renewable and gives it a zero-carbon emission weighting provided a tree is planted per tree burnt. Sadly trees take 40 years to fully grow to be able to offset that produced. However, we will discover that the fine print taketh away the wonderful headlines.

Will the Poles ditch their coal industry to comply or face savage reprisals from Brussels? Will the EU guarantee Poland gets huge subsidies to pay for its termination? Which country would be so blind as to put their livelihoods into the hands of the EU!? The Greeks might have a view as do the Brits.

This action will spectacularly blow up.

By all means ride the short term wave of renewables stocks but be sure to line up all of those nasty fossil fuel companies into the portfolio that get pummeled by financial markets because the type of economic disaster that will beset the EU will only create the conditions where the peons will revolt and force a return to the way things were. Efficient, cheap and reliable forms of energy that will make a proper dent in the poverty line rather than promises and handouts.

The EU needs to learn the lesson that “Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it.” It won’t be long before the youth of today get to embrace their love for socialism. Experience is a hard teacher. They’ll get the test first and the lesson afterwards.

Fair Dinkum Virtue Signaling

Atlasssian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes has been a huge advocate of renewables. So much so he has stated he wants to be a net exporter of wind and solar. Fair Dinkum Power (FDP), the company he helped set up, had a manifesto which stated the following,

We are a movement. We are a brand for Australia’s energy future. We are a rallying cry for all who believe in the power of the wind, the sun, the waves and – most importantly – the power of the people of Australia.

For energy to be fair dinkum, it must be honestly good for our wallets, good for our economy and good for our planet.

So to CM’s surprise today, the AFR noted,

“The Atlassian co-founder applied to deregister Australian Fair Dinkum Power Pty Ltd on November 27, almost exactly a year after he set it up in response to Prime Minister Scott Morrison referring to coal as “fair dinkum power” in comparison to solar or wind.

A spokesperson for the Rich Lister said the Fair Dinkum Power cause, which advocates for Australia to be 100 per cent powered by renewables and export as much again, would live on in the form of a website, an online petition (which has more than 90,000 signatories) and a Facebook page.

The company never undertook any business activity and the spokesperson said there had never been any intention to start any, despite rumours that Mr Cannon-Brookes would launch a retail energy supplier under the Fair Dinkum banner.

One can only imagine that the realities of the free market meant that it was never going to be good for wallets or the economy. CM awaits the media to conduct a full investigation into this sad outcome with all the gusto they did at FDP’s inception.

Fair Dinkum Virtue Signaling!

It was only several months ago that Mike Cannon-Brookes (MCB) was on a campaign to get the already left-leaning board of BHP to ditch ties with groups like the Minerals Council of Australia. But why?

CM believes that nothing shows the prosecution of a cause than leading from the front. MCB should use the might of Atlassian’s $32 bn market cap and seek to buy a controlling stake in BHP whereby it can behave like an activist shareholder and achieve those goals from within. A bit rich to demand a company like BHP fold to the whims of another listed corporate which has no direct business with it. That would be terrible governance for BHP to pay MCB any mind.

How would MCB react if BHP CEO Andrew Mackenzie turned around and demanded that Atlassian cut ties with ANZ for being embroiled in the Hayne Banking Royal Commission? MCB would rightly tell him to take a hike.

One doubts that MCB has much of his superannuation buried in BHP shares but why pick on the Minerals Council of Australia? After all, if he had a good look at what Australia’s mineral industry enables, Atlassian should be a backer not a knocker. Why not influence the debate by being part of it?

Here is a list of 30 things Australian minerals companies provide, including vital materials used in wind farms and solar panels, the very forms of renewable energy MCB wants Atlassian to rely on 100% to power its future. MCB’s Tesla is reliant on Aussie minerals to make the batteries. So does his smartphone, tablets, laptops and desktops. And so do the white goods that chill his food and the copper pipes that deliver hot water in his lovely mansion in Sydney. His dentist uses those minerals to maximise his oral hygiene.  The list goes on.

No one can take away the success MCB has achieved in the corporate sphere. However, it would appear that being an expert in the software world doesn’t always translate to being a sage on the environment much less hold any authority to dictate the boardroom discussions of a company that is more crucial to its existence than the other way around.

Red rag to a bull

Image may contain: text

CM will be doing Christmas shopping like nobody’s business on Black Friday. If these sanctimonious unwashed time-wasters want people to boycott then CM feels obliged to do the opposite. Sick to death of being told what to do, how to eat and what to say. Then again they only need to look at the hypocrisy of the Extinction Rebellion (XR) leadership to work out that not all pigs are equal. The funniest part of this video is to do with transportation to the studio.

What XR should realise is simple – allow Black Friday to be exactly that and gauge the public perception of the climate emergency. If sales are up, then that is a better indicator of the lack of fear factor XR always wails about. Every time that XR boycotts something, CM will buy/consume the very products these cultural Marxists hate.

146,000 Tesla Cybertruck orders

Wow. As written yesterday, CM thought Cybertruck would sell. Not as well as this though. In the $100bn domestic pick-up market Musk went big and it seems it will payoff. Whether all 146,000 (likely to be more going forward) end up being fulfilled is another question. Tesla will need more capital to get there but with an order book, he has bought more time.

It was intriguing that the normal $1000 fully refundable deposit for his cars was only $100 for the Cybertruck, a shrewd bit of marketing which essentially turned it into a virtually free option to put one’s name down. One wonders whether he bumps it up now he has these orders under the belt to help with cash flow.

Credit where credit is due. Musk is a visionary. CM has now praised the Tesla CEO twice in 24-hrs. Must be a blue moon.

Bathurst Council declares climate emergency

Bathurst Council has managed to just squeeze through a climate emergency resolution. Of course the vote is a way to crank up the crony capitalism by favouring renewables. One imagines ending the iconic Bathurst 1000 car race would offset anything the council could achieve through abatement measures, even though they run on a 15% ethanol blend.

First point of order should be to ban the Bathurst 1000. No way that beer swilling fossil fuel loving V8 Supercar junkies can be tolerated if we are to save the planet.

The annual race causes an explosion in economic activity to the city. The race brings in around $30m extra to the local economy with 255 full time jobs equivalent. The population swells by 4x on race weekend.

So banning it will make the climate transition a doddle. CM dares you!