Australia

SBS impartiality & Amanda McKenzie’s colossal clumsiness

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Good to see the SBS has made sure it has an impartial position on topics such as climate change remains steadfastly in line with its charter. It not only avoided enlargening the font in bold of certain choice words spoken by Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie but it also refrained from putting a picture of the broadcaster’s ultimate boss holding a lump of coal. The irony is that the Climate Council guru’s facts were, unfortunately, wrong.

PM Scott Morrison’s facts were by and large correct. Never mind that they disagreed with McKenzie’s narrative. Good to see that SBS followed up with a rigorous line of questioning to get her to point out exactly where the PM was out of line. Sadly, that was a bridge too far for the alarmist journalists.

Presumably “colossal bullshit” should have been evidence enough. The Climate Council did release a statement but instead of countering fact, it just produced its own interpretation of what it wanted to hear, rather than point out where Morrison had blatantly told porky pies.

For instance the Climate Council stated:

Morrison statement: “Australia is responsible for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions. Australia is doing our bit on climate change and we reject any suggestion to the contrary.”

Fact-check: Australia is the 17th largest polluter in the world, bigger than 175 countries.  We are the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. 

CM: It is irrelevant. Australia’s GHG as measured by the IPCC, IEA and Eurostat are 1.3% of human-made CO2. It is the truth from sources that align with the Climate Council. It only shows that the previous 16 countries absolutely dwarf us by comparison. China is 29.3% on its own.

Furthermore to make statements that our coal exports should be counted in our emissions number is the same argument as saying that every imported passenger car, transport truck and commercial jet should have emissions docked against America, Japan, Korea and the EU.  That would be consistent

Morrison statement: “And our Great Barrier Reef remains one of the world’s most pristine areas of natural beauty. Feel free to visit it. Our reef is vibrant and resilient and protected under the world’s most comprehensive reef management plan.”

Fact-check: In 2016 and 2017, the Great Barrier Reef was severely damaged through back-to-back bleaching events which killed half of all corals on the planet’s largest living structure. Australia’s current goal, if followed by other countries, would sign the death warrant of the Great Barrier Reef. 

CM: Maybe she should speak to Professor Peter Ridd and question why the James Cook University faculty lost (although still not completely settled due to an appeal) all aspects of the unfair dismissal case against it for Ridd’s refusal to buckle to the cabal’s orthodoxy. The reef is not dying. It is thriving. So much so that Greenpeace needed to use a picture of bleached coral in The Philippines to distort the truth because the GBR presented no such photographic opportunities.

Morrison statement: “Our latest estimates show both emissions per person and the emissions intensity of the economy are at their lowest levels in 29 years.”

Fact-check:  Australia has the highest emissions per capita in the developed world. It is true that Australia’s emissions per capita have fallen more than most countries [is that colossal bullshit?], but this is from an extraordinarily high baseline [so what?] and has largely been driven by rapid population growth. Even with this drop, we still have the highest per capita emissions in the developed world. Our emissions per capita are higher than Saudi Arabia, a country not known for its action on climate change. Ultimately, our international targets are not based on per capita emissions. 

CM: Australia’s CO2 emissions per unit of GDP since 1990 have fallen 33.9%. Wrong Amanda, Canada has higher emissions per capita at 16.85 vs our 16.45. Unless under Justin Trudeau Canada has lost developed nation status which is highly possible! Saudi Arabia is 19.39. So, in fact, your comments are incorrect.

We could go on. So if Amanda McKenzie wants to throw the PM under the bus with profanity it helps if she actually provided accurate figures.

Perhaps the most colossal bullshit to come from McKenzie was this,

Over the winter we saw bushfires burning across Australia while the Amazon rainforest and the Arctic were on fire. A major new report shows that suburbs in Sydney, Perth and Melbourne could experience serious sea level disasters every year on our current trajectory.

It would appear that the Australian seaside property prices aren’t at (excuse the pun) fire-sale prices and that the bushfires in the Amazon, Australia and the Arctic are not related to climate change. The truth is that the acreage lost to bushfires have fallen 24% over the last 18 years. Unless NASA is lying.  Maybe the Climate Council has been channelling the Sierra Club CEO Aaron Mair?

 

Bluescope to expand US plant thanks to cheap energy

Bluescope Steel Logo

Thanks to Australia’s ridiculous energy prices, Aussie company Bluescope confirmed the expansion of capacity in Ohio. In Feb 2019, the company CEO said, “much cheaper energy in the United States is a major driver of the company’s preparedness to invest in a $1 billion expansion in Ohio.”

Meanwhile, our lawmakers continue to behave as if they’re in control of power generation, pandering to pathetic ideologies instead of realities.

In 2017, Tomago Aluminium reported, “We have to grow to be competitive and to be ahead of the curve, but when the spot price went to $14,000 [per megawatt hour] we had to take that load off. It’s just not sustainable. You can’t smelt at that price. We have had to curtail or modulate the load [on occasions] or we get hammered by the price…We cannot continue to keep paying those prices. We have to find a solution. The prices are crippling”

Well done Australia. Home to the cheapest and best quality energy-producing assets around but saddled with the world’s highest prices. Beholden to being guilt-tripped into reducing CO2 levels that even if we cut to zero would have absolutely no impact on limiting global temperatures.

We only need look to Germany to see how well their renewables plan is working for them. What have the Germans done recently? Favour more electricity production from lignite (brown coal) and biomass which are the two highest emitting power generation bases. Furthermore,

“After the German government decided to reduce subsidies to the solar industry in 2012, the industry nose-dived. By this year, virtually every major German solar producer had gone under as new capacity declined by 90 per cent and new investment by 92 per cent. Some 80,000 workers — 70 per cent of the solar workforce — lost their jobs. Solar power’s market share is shrinking and solar panels, having outlived their usefulness, are being retired without being replaced.

Wind power faces a similar fate. Germany has some 29,000 wind turbines, almost all of which have been benefitting from a 20-year subsidy program that began in 2000. Starting in 2020, when subsidies run out for some 5,700 wind turbines, thousands of them each year will lose government support, making the continued operation of most of them uneconomic based on current market prices. To make matters worse, with many of the turbines failing and becoming uneconomic to maintain, they represent an environmental liability and pose the possibility of abandonment. No funds have been set aside to dispose of the blades, which are unrecyclable, or to remove the turbines’ 3,000-tonne reinforced concrete bases, which reach depths of 20 metres, making them a hazard to the aquifers they pierce.”

Canberra, please note that if you pursue common sense, voters will celebrate a reduction in power prices that current experience proves are NOT going to come through ludicrous renewable energy targets.

Climate change – as should be taught to school kids

Image result for climate strike school

Thank you SMcK.

“Attention, students. Because so many of you missed Friday’s classes, what with your little climate party and all, today I’m assigning extra work.

Let’s begin with mathematics. 558,400,000 is a really big number. Can anyone here tell me what it might represent? No?

Well, that’s the amount in tonnes of carbon dioxide that Australia emitted last year.

I’ll just pause here for a minute until Samantha stops crying. By the way, Samantha, your sign at the climate rally needed a possessive apostrophe and “planet” was spelt incorrectly, so I’m putting you back in remedial English again.

Where were we? Oh, yes. 558,400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Let’s see how we can reduce that number. Ban coal mining? That’ll knock off a big chunk.

Ban petrol-powered vehicles? Good call. That’s another slab of emissions gone.

Does the class believe we should ban all mining? You do. Interesting. For your homework tonight, I want you all to design batteries that contain no nickel or cadmium.
Good luck getting to school in electric cars without those.

And there’ll be no more steel wind turbines once the iron ore mines are closed. It’s just the price we’ll have to pay, I suppose.

Even with all those bans, however, Australia will still be churning out carbon dioxide by the magical solar-powered truckload. Cuts need to go much further.

More people means more human activity which means more carbon dioxide, so let’s permanently ban immigration. Is the class agreed?

Hmmm. You’re not quite so enthusiastic about that one. Come on, students. Sacrifices must be made.

Speaking of which, how many of you have grandparents? Not any more you don’t.
And Samantha is crying again. Can someone please take her to the school safe space and let her “process some emotions”, or whatever the hell it is you kids do in there? Thank you.

Sing along with Kim Carnes: “All the world knows of her charms/She’s got/Stop Adani arms”

Who agrees we need to simplify our lives in order to reduce emissions? Returning to earlier times, when emissions were much lower, might help save our earth.

So goodbye to air travel, the internet and your cell phones. People got by without them in the past and they’ll survive without them in our sustainable future.

Still, those emissions will be way too high. Just for fun, let’s ban Australia and see what happens.

All factories, houses, streets, farms – gone. All people gone. Every atom of human presence on this land mass, completely erased.

At that point we’ll have finally cut our emissions to nothing. We’ve subtracted an annual 558,400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Congratulations, children. By eliminating Australia, you’ve just reduced the world’s yearly generation of carbon dioxide from 37,100,000,000 tonnes to just … 36,541,600,000 tonnes.

Still, every tiny reduction helps, right? Maybe not. Let’s have a quick geography lesson. Tyler, please point out China on this map. No; that’s Luxembourg. China is a bit bigger. Try over here. There you go.

Here’s the thing about China. How long will it take for China to produce the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that we’ve slashed by vanishing Australia? One year? Two years? Five years?

Not quite. Start the carbon dioxide clock on China right now, and that one enormous nation will have matched our annual output in 20 days, for China adds a whole Australia to the global emissions total in that time.

For that matter, China will have added another 1,190,953 tonnes by the end of this one-hour class.

Even a tiny increase in China’s output puts Australia in the shade. Various experts last year estimated that China was on course for a five per cent carbon dioxide boost.
This would mean an extra 521,637,550 tonnes – or basically what Australia generates. Our total is the same as China’s gentle upswing.

So maybe your protest was in the wrong country. Here’s another assignment: write letters to the Chinese government demanding it stops dragging people out of poverty.
Make sure you include your full name and address, because the Chinese government is kind of big on keeping records. Send a photograph of yourself standing in front of your parents’ house.

You might repeat this process in India. In fact, rather than going to Europe for your next big family holiday, prevail upon your parents to visit India instead. The tiny village of Salaidih would be the perfect place to tell slum-dwelling residents they shouldn’t have electricity.

They’ll probably thank you for it. Or they should, if they aren’t stupid climate deniers. Indian paupers must avoid making the same tragic affluence mistakes as us, so we must keep their carbon footprints as tiny as possible.

Can you imagine how terrible is would be for the earth if all of India’s one billion-plus population owned cars and air-conditioners? It really doesn’t bear thinking about.
One further assignment: tonight, locate a clean, green alternative source for $66 billion in exports. That’s how much was raised last year by the Australian coal industry.
Working it out won’t be too much of a challenge, I’m sure. After all, you know science and stuff. About half of your signs on Friday claimed you know more about all these things than does the Prime Minister.

Show him how advanced your brains are by devising a brand-new multi-billion export bonanza.

Hey, look who’s back! Feeling better, Samantha? That’s nice. Feelings are the most important thing of all.”

A tip against the Pacific gratuity

ScoMo.png

If we are to be realistic,  $500m doesn’t buy us a thing in the Pacific Islands. No political influence. No loyalty. No defence against China. Apart from the fact that Australia’s emissions add up to 0.0000134% of global CO2, our ability to prevent sea levels rising (which aren’t happening anyway – refer CM report here) is absolutely zero. If Australia offered the islands a fraction of the $9.5bn we spend on renewables annually in return for all the coal-fired power we wanted, these islands would be silly to refuse the deal. Most likely they wouldn’t.

In September 2018, Australia was beaten over the head for not helping the Pacific Islands cope with the dangers of climate change. What better way for PNG to have averted the climate emergency by using part of the $150mn in aid money from Australia to buy 40 gas-guzzling Maserati sports limousines from Italy?

Actions not words. The $500m reminds CM of those investment banks that only partially invested in their franchises. They all failed. If there is no strategy, best not spending a cent. $500m is pointless and that won’t be lost on the Pacific Island governments. If PM Morrison wants to buy influence, he needs to think beyond this measly gratuity.

What have these Island nations said to China? China makes up 45% of global coal power gen capacity. Australia 1.6%. China has another 100+ currently under construction and another 76 yet to break ground. So why haven’t they raised hell in Beijing? Because Australia fold to this ridiculous pandering.

How dare you stand by your man

If CM had a dime every time another person or corporate talked about “diversity and inclusion” he’d be a millionaire. That one has to claim the bleeding obvious is nothing more than sanctimonious virtue signaling. It is nauseating. It’s like asserting one stands against Nazis. Really? How woke!

To have people question Israel Folau’s wife supporting her husband beggars belief. What does one expect? That she might publicly shame him on her Twitter account? Is anyone surprised she retweeted his GoFundMe appeal? Perhaps former Aussie netballer Liz Ellis can advise Maria Folau in the art of throwing her beloved under the bus.

She tweeted, “How about this: There is no room for homophobia in our game. Anyone who is seen to support or endorse homophobia is not welcome. As much as I love watching @MariaFolau play netball I do not want my sport endorsing the views of her husband.”

Liz, should Netball NZ launch a witch-hunt on Maria? Shall we make an example of her? Perhaps ask Jacinda Ardern’s judiciary to sink its newly sharpened fangs into Maria for retweeting Izzy’s ‘hatred’ and incarcerate her? Perhaps ask Twitter to terminate his account?

ANZ, sponsor of the domestic netball premiership, unsurprisingly came out with a politically correct response. Does ANZ have to prove to the 0.1% of activists who claim faux outrage that it isn’t homophobic? Why not appeal to the 0.000001% of fornicators, adulterers and drunks who might have been upset by Folau? It is amazing to think these institutions hire so many staff to floss the chrome fixtures in the executive bathroom.

Corporations really need to grow a pair. “Diversity and inclusion” are overused more in corporate virtue signaling than Casanova serenading “I love only you” on Valentine’s Day.

If ANZ had a look at the bank account balances of the activists that they fear so much they would soon learn they could easily afford to lose their business.

Quit the moral preening. You aren’t fooling anyone.

Sydney to declare a Climate Emergency

If there was any city in Australia that was about to be swamped by rising sea levels, Sydney would be a front runner. Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore wants her council to announce a “climate emergency” in a vote next week and demand the Morrison government step in and help businesses exit fossil fuel industries.

Moore only needs to type in the waterfront suburbs on http://www.realestate.com.au and see all see for herself whether there is mass panic selling of multi million dollar properties for a song. She won’t find them. Much less banks willing to finance them.

The idea of Sydney joining the 600 other jurisdictions across 13 countries declaring this rubbish speaks for itself. These issues have been preached about for decades. Why not declare an emergency then? All Moore is doing is looking to hijack a trendy hashtag to appear “woke”. Don’t forget she used a slug of ratepayer funds to help promote same sex marriage. Hardly the remit of a local council but hey it’s social justice.

Perhaps she can commit to 100% renewables and claims to reduce CO2 by 2024. If she is so confident of her climate emergency perhaps she should guarantee that if sea levels don’t rise and hot temperatures don’t stray out of statistical norms for a sustained period that she promises to declare “climate normality” and lower rates to her constituents by the amount of any net excess caused by her declaration. For she knows that if absolutely nothing happens then there are no consequences.

Recall the climate action plan of Ireland and the lack of money to fund it. Or Canada and pipeline approvals the day after its declaration.

Follow the money!

Economic growth is an unnecessary evil, Jacinda Ardern is right to deprioritise it

This was the headline of an article CM spotted today. Of course CM wouldn’t dream of writing something that daft. To think social wellness can be achieved, let alone sustained without attention to economic growth. Magic pixie dust perhaps? Even though CM debunked the relative aspects of the Wellness Budget being considerably inferior to Australia, the left were quick to lavish praise on the the new matriarch of the woke. She is like the Obama of the Southern Hemisphere. Even regressives are progressive in the eyes of the left.

Note the NZ budget forecasts a 25% lift in tax revenues out to 2023. Income tax will rise 29.9% over the same period. Indirect taxes will jump 28.3%. That on a slowing economy and a rising unemployment rate will mean incremental taxes sting at the margin. Their data, not CMs.

Of course if the idea is to de-prioritize the economy, it can only mean that taxes as a % of GDP rise. Indeed they do from 30.6% this year to 31.1% by 2023. Compare that to 25.2% falling to 25.0% in Australia over the same period.

Effectively Australia gets way more bang for the buck on providing wellness initiatives with lower burdens on the taxpayer because that’s what happens when the economy IS prioritized. Spending on social wellbeing rises as the economy expands.

If unemployment rises (as forecast by the NZ budget) over coming years, one can imagine that wellbeing by its strictest definition should fall. One loses a job, household income falls and wellbeing declines with it, unless welfare is on a par.

Presumably if Ardern’s deprioritized economic growth leads to worse economic outcomes, she can be guaranteed that wellbeing won’t be sustainable without more shared misery in terms of debt (rising) and deficits.

As Friedrich von Hayek once said, “if socialists understood economics they wouldn’t be socialists.”

Such is the madness of the left that they believe yet again that feelings are more important than facts. Even though as “woke” as many paint Ardern, her neighbour across the ditch is already there and expected to continue to outperform. That’s because economic growth is the priority. Yet don’t expect Scott Morrison to receive any praise. He is the wrong gender, skin colour and religious affiliation for starters.

Ardern is unlikely to stop the 35,000 odd Kiwis that migrated to Australia last year but she maybe lucky in doubling the 40 (yes, forty) Aussies who left the land down under to live in NZ in 2018.