United Nations

Greta Thunberg’s Brilliant Minds speech

What troubles CM is that the soon to be Dr Thunberg (she will be given an honorary doctorate from the University of Mons in Belgium) will be abused even more by those pushing the climate change narrative. She is the perfect human shield to the divisive machine that lurks begins her. It is hard to criticize a movement when the face is a child.

She faces either nothing happening with the climate and being exposed as brainwashed. Or the policies she espouses will lead to such a miserable existence that life will be even more terrible than it is now.

This is not to criticize Thunberg per se. She is undoubtedly a very brave girl to face world leaders and celebrities with such scripted messages.

Here is the transcript of Greta Thunberg’s Brilliant Minds speech. The socialist imprints are all over the language. Especially when the 16-yo tells the audience they are simply “uninformed.” Watch out for the coming “carbon budget” which will mean you have to turn vegan, stop flying and take on your moral duty to stop spending other’s carbon credits!!

——

Around the year 2030, we will be in a position where we probably set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.


That is unless, in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of industrialized society have taken place. Including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50%.

And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale.

Furthermore, these scientific calculations do not include most unforeseen tipping points and feedback loops.

Nor do these calculations include already locked in warming hidden by toxic air pollution. Nor the aspect of equity, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris Agreement work on a global scale.

And these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.
These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC.

So if we are to stay below the 1,5 degrees of warming limit, which is still possible within the laws of physics, we need to change almost everything. We need to start living within the planetary boundaries. This will be a drastic change for many, but not for most.

Because most of the world’s population is already living within the planetary boundaries. It is a minority who are not. 

The richest 10% of the world’s population emits about half of our emissions of greenhouse gases. The richest 1% emits more than the poorest 50%.

And this is not about glorifying poverty, this is about the laws of physics and the remaining amount of greenhouse gases that we can still emit into the atmosphere to be in line with the Paris agreement.

It is not people in countries like Mozambique, Bangladesh or Colombia who are most responsible for this crisis. It is mostly down to people like you here in the audience.

Entrepreneurs, celebrities, politicians, business leaders. People who have a lot of power.
People who consume enormous amounts of stuff. Who often fly around the world, sometimes in private jets.

Your individual carbon footprints are in some cases the equivalent of whole villages.

But the worst part I think is that you are normalizing this extreme lifestyle. Because people look up to you. You are the role models, you are setting the standards. People aspire to be like you.

About 100 companies emit approximately 71% of our total emissions of CO2. And yes I know, we need a system change rather than individual change. But you can not have one without the other.

If you look through history all the big changes in society have been started by people at the grassroots level. No system change can come without pressure from large groups of individuals.

And no, I don’t blame you. I know you are not acting like this because you are stupid. You are not ruining the biosphere and future living conditions for all species because you are evil. At least I hope not. I know that almost everyone of you are simply uninformed. Just like the rest of the world’s population.

I know that you here in the audience didn’t travel here to see a sixteen-year-old girl who says strange and uncomfortable things.

But you know what? We need to dare to be uncomfortable. We need to be brave enough to say and do things that may not increase our profit or our popularity. Because otherwise, we won’t stand a chance.

We need to start thinking outside the box. To acknowledge that we don’t have all the solutions to the climate and ecological crises yet unless those solutions mean that we simply stop doing certain things.

We need to accept that the market and new technologies will not solve everything for us. We need to admit our common failure. And then we need to act, while there’s still time

At meetings like these, you love to listen to entrepreneurs, new ideas and new inventions. But when it comes to the climate crisis the time for those magic new inventions has just about come and gone.

And even though we most certainly need to embrace every bit of new clean technology – we can no longer look away from the obvious fact that we also need to change our behaviour. Some more than others.

The theme of this year’s Brilliant Minds conference is “Fluxability Quotient”. It’s what the organizers call “a symphony of big-picture thinking”.
Well, here is some big-picture thinking for you.

If you regularly fly around the world, eat meat and dairy and are living a high carbon lifestyle then that means you have used up countless of people’s remaining carbon budgets. Carbon budgets that they will need in their everyday life, for generations to come.

And if that wasn’t enough, those whose carbon budgets we are stealing are the ones least responsible and the ones who are going to be affected the most by this crisis.

According to climate scientist Kevin Anderson, if the richest 10% of the world’s population would lower their emissions to that of the average citizen of the European Union, then the world’s emissions of CO2 would be cut by about one third.

I think we can safely say that everyone in this room belongs to that 10%. Including me.

Everyone and everything needs to change. But the bigger your platform, the bigger your responsibility. The bigger your carbon footprint, the bigger your moral duty.

To make the changes required we need role models and leaders. People like you. I am certain that most of you sitting here will have the wisdom, the courage and the common sense to take a few steps back. To see the full picture. To make the sacrifices that are necessary. And to become the leaders we need you to be.

The question is, will you do it in time?

Future generations are counting on you. Don’t let us down.

Gender and climate change

Are we really supposed to take the UNFCCC seriously when it hosts a 3 day seminar on gender and the impacts of climate change?

In one presentation the main areas of focus were:

Trainings and workshops on design and implementation of gender‐responsive climate change policies. Tools and guidelines on gender‐responsive energy policy

Impact/Beneficiaries: Bangladesh, Cambodia and Vietnam

Why just three three countries?

The Serbians have been invited to a,

Study visit to Finland: mainstreaming gender into climate change policies and programmes;

Study visit to Austria: Gender‐Responsive Budgeting

Presumably fossil fuels will get them there. Based on the Finns own climate delegations gender imbalance is the order of the day.

It begs the question as to what on earth could gender possibly have to do with climate change? If the planet is warming will women’s calming influence cause us to adopt these resolutions.

CM wrote about studies that suggested toxic masculinity was a factor in climate change. The idea that men felt threatened if they had to become

Dr. Aaron Brough of Utah State University conducted the study to see if there is correlation between toxic masculinity and climate change. His assumptions run the line that men see environmentalism as more feminine and get triggered to make ecological choices if threatened.

If we needed anymore evidence of what a joke the climate change debate has become, the UNFCCC only confirms the stance with seminars dedicated to creating hot air. Scarier is that these cultural Marxists actually believe what they are espousing is rational!

One presumes the peak insanity will occur when the UN runs out of climate change impacts by virtue of one’s identity workshops.

The UNFCCC doesn’t wish to solve global warming because it would end the countless junkets around the globe. The more hysteria, the longer it stays in business. It is the gravy train that never stops.

Just Wow

Good to see the Extinction Rebellion prosecutes the argument so well. CM is sold. Based on this Guardian article. How the hell did British Parliament roll over and declare a ‘climate emergency’ based off the prophecies of these people? We’ve already seen how empty the Irish one is when examined at the allocated budget level.

Bjorn Lomborg points to cold facts of global warming

Bjorn Lomborg has written a powerful piece in the Weekend Australian which looks at the “cost” of climate emergency driven policy. It makes a complete mockery of the people who tell us we must save the planet with their prescriptions. Although CM has made the assertion many times that politicians make promises which are so unaffordable for so little return that it makes no economic sense. The hypocrisy of signatories is also telling.

Some of the choice quotes,

After New Zealand made its 2050 zero emissions promise, the government commissioned a report on the costs. This found that achieving this goal in the most cost-effective manner (which strains credulity because policy seldom if ever manages to be cost efficient) would cost more than last year’s entire national budget on social security, welfare, health, education, police, courts, defence, environment and every other part of government combined. Each and every year.

To replace a 1ha gas-fired power plant, society needs 73ha of solar panels, 239ha of onshore wind turbines or an unbelievable 6000ha of biomass...We often hear that wind and solar energy are cheaper than fossil fuels, but at best that is true only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. It is deeply misleading to compare the energy cost of wind or solar to fossil fuels only when it is windy and sunny

Most people think renewables are overwhelmingly made up of solar and wind. Nothing could be further from the truth. Solar and wind contributed only 2.4 per cent of the EU total energy demand in 2017, according to the latest numbers from the International Energy Agency. Another 1.7 per cent came from hydro and 0.4 per cent from geothermal energy…In comparison, 10 per cent — more than two-thirds of all the ­renewable energy in the EU — comes from the world’s oldest ­energy source: [burning] wood.

Today, fewer than 0.3 per cent of all cars are electric, and even if we could reach 200 million electric cars in 2040, the IEA estimates this would ­reduce emissions by less than 1 per cent. That is why, in the face of years of failure, politicians have continued doing one thing: making ever bigger promises.

The promises made in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and in the Kyoto Treaty in 1997 fell apart. A new study of the promises made under the Paris Agreement finds that of almost 200 signatories, only 17 countries — the likes of Samoa and Algeria — are living up to them, and these are succeeding mostly because they promised so little. But even if every country did everything promised in the Paris Agreement, the emission cuts by 2030 would add up to only 1 per cent of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2C.

Tropical Queensland hit with snow as Al Gore lectures on global heating

Former VP Al Gore is really at one with nature. So effective is he at summoning cold weather that it snowed in tropical Queensland ahead of his visit to warn us of the perils of climate change.

Instead of handing over billions to the UN to save the planet, the IPCC should be raising funds to fly Al Gore around the world to cool the planet. It is so cost effective.

Jo Nova puts an excellent case on Gore’s visit here.

IATA caves to the climate change cabal to fill the UN coffers

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has got behind the movement to do its bit for climate change. In a two page flyer, it covered the idea that we reckless passengers must consider our carbon footprint but at the same time help the U.N. raise $40bn in taxes, sorry ‘climate finance,’ between 2021 and 2035.

The Carbon Offsetting & Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is the vehicle which the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) intends to liberate us from our sins and help fund the waste so endemic in the NY based cabal. Wherever the UN is involved expect a sinister agenda behind the virtue.

All airlines have been required to monitor, report and verify their emissions on international flights since Jan 1, 2019. Operators will be required to buy “emissions units” from the UN. If one asked the UN would it prefer emissions to be cut or taxes to be raised, it would select the latter every time.

But why? Passengers don’t seem to demand airlines flight shame them before they board. On the contrary, many carbon offset schemes exist among airlines but hardly any passengers elect to pay them. Note the world’s largest offset program below.

In its 2017 Annual Report, Qantas boasted,

We have the world’s largest airline offset program and have now been carbon offsetting for over 10 years. In 2016/17, we reached three million tonnes offset.”

Carbon calculators tend to work on the assumption of 0.158kg CO2/passenger kilometre.

In the last 10 years, Qantas has flown around 1 trillion revenue passenger kilometres. While the literature in the annual report denotes one passenger offsets every 53 seconds, the mathematical reality is simple – 2% of miles are carbon offset. So that means that 98% of people couldn’t care less.

Perhaps more embarrassing is that The Guardian noted in Jan 2018 that,

Qantas [was the] worst airline operating across Pacific for CO2 emissions

Kind of a massive load of hot air when you do the maths!

Which begs the question, why does the IATA feel compelled to intervene in ramping up the costs of travel when passengers aren’t calling for it? IATA’s job is to keep airlines flying and support the growth where it forecasts a doubling of air travel by 2030. Airlines have been ordering Boeing 737 MAX & Airbus A320neo short-haul jets as well as long-range B787 & A350 in huge numbers to take advantage of fuel efficiency that helps lower operating costs.

By IATA’s own admission, global air travel in totality is only 2% of man-made CO2 emissions. That is to say that all air travel is responsible for 0.00003% of CO2 in the atmosphere. Big deal! What is the point of taxing an industry where the footprint is so minuscule?

Take Josh Bayliss, CEO of Virgin Group. He said,

“It’s definitely true that right now every one of us should think hard about whether or not we need to take a flight.”

Why doesn’t he close down the airlines in the portfolio? Instead of waiting for his customers to grow a conscience via flight shaming and do the right thing why not force their choice? The obvious answer is that it’s hypocritical in the extreme.

Airlines operate on about 70% capacity load factor break even so if Virgin flights end up being half full thanks to flight shaming he’ll only end up having his fleet of jets spewing more or less the same CO2 per flight which will ultimately put the airline out of business.

It is all too stupid. IATA joins the growing list of bodies petrified to talk in hard numbers about true impacts. When the 22,000 pilgrims that fly each year to UN COP summits around the world to kneel at the altar of the IPCC practice what they preach, CM may start to feel concerned Until then, CM will keep calling the climate hoax out. Deeds, not words, IATA!

Cate Faehrmann plays investor for a day

Investment managers have difficult jobs. They have to forecast a whole plethora of variables from global economic growth, currencies, commodity prices and micro level corporate industries. If governments can provide ironclad policy certainty, investment choices become relatively easier. Unfortunately, perfect information detracts from performance because things get priced almost instantaneously.

It might be nice that 415 funds all call for a ratification of Paris Climate Accord (which means nothing in practice as the US isn’t a signatory and its emissions have fallen while China is a signatory and emissions continue to rise) but truth be told,  it sounds what is commonly termed in financial circles as “talking one’s book.” NSW Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann pretends to understand finance in her latest piece.

While these 415 firms might represent $32 trillion in assets under management (AUM), the truth is not all of those funds are spoken for in terms of climate-related investments. Investment advisors by their very nature have very diverse client bases. They cover basic low-risk pension (i.e. stable income) funds all the way to riskier return profiles for clients that want more exposure to certain themes or countries. If clients aren’t interested in buying climate funds, the asset managers don’t gather fees. Pretty simple.

Much of the fund industry has focused on ESG (environment, social responsibility & governance) since its inception in 2005. ESG represents around $20 trillion of global AUM, or 25% of total professionally managed funds. Therefore the other 75% of monies are deployed without this in mind. In reality, this is done because investment managers must hunt for the best returns, not those which sacrifice profitability for virtue. If NAB offered you a 10% 1-yr deposit and no solar panels on the HQ roof and Westpac offered a 1% 1-yr deposit because it did, would you invest in the latter based on its ecomentalism?

Let’s take the world’s largest public pension fund (2 million members), California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) which is a cosignatory to this demand for climate action. Apart from the fact that this $380bn fund has been so poorly managed (marked to market unfunded liabilities are c.US$1 trillion), its portfolio consists of widespread ownership of met coal, petroleum and other mining assets. It owns bonds in fossil-fuel producing nations such as Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Saudi Arabia as well as highly environmentally unfriendly aluminium smelters in the world’s biggest polluter, China. So there goes the rhetoric of “demanding” Paris is ratified, that we shift to a low carbon economy and we force companies to report their carbon commitments.

It is frightening that some members of our political class believe that investment managers which collaborate in groupthink are worthy of listening to. On the contrary, the performance of many must be sub par. It is a sad reality that 80% of large-cap fund managers fail to outperform the index on a regular basis. So praying for governments to backstop investments they deployed capital into shows more desperation than innovation.

Maybe we should think of Adani as a classic example of investment at work. While Annastacia Palaszczuk’s government is backflipping on the Adani Carmichael coal mine after the electoral drubbing handed out to federal colleagues, the voluntary infrastructure tax is a cynical way to try to make the project less financially viable. After 8 years of ridiculous and onerous environmental approvals, Adani probably think it only needs to wait til October 2020 when an election will wipe out Queensland Labor from government and the infrastructure tax will be repealed soon after.

CM has long held that the non-ESG names are the place to invest. Most of the auto-pilot, brain dead, virtue signalling group think money has been poured into ESG. All non-ESG companies care about is profitability, not focusing on all the soft cuddly things they do displayed on the corporate lobby TV screens on a loop. Sadly when markets inevitably implode, investors always seek safe havens to limit the damage. As so much money is collectively invested together, so the bigger the stampede to the relatively attractive values provided by the stocks that have been cast aside by “woke” investors.