#climatechange

This can only end in tears

ECB.png

As Sweden’s economy slows to the worst economic growth rate in 5 years under a negative interest rate policy, one would think the Swedish Central Bank (Riksbank) would be seeking to prudently manage its asset book on the basis of appropriate risk/reward as opposed to lecturing Australia and Canada on their respective carbon footprints. What we are witnessing is yet another discrete move by authorities to manipulate markets based on fantasy rather than fact.  The hypocrisy is extreme as we shall discover.

While the Riksbank should have complete freedom in how it wishes to deploy capital, we should view this is a pathetic sop to the cabal at the European Central Bank (ECB). Since when did central bankers become experts on climate change? The RBA is no better. Deputy Governor, Guy Debelle, gave a speech in March 2019 on the risks posed by climate change which based prophecies on the data accident-prone IPCC and Bureau of Meteorology. Why not seek balance? Easier to fold to group think so as not to be outed as a pariah. Utterly gutless. Our own APRA is also pushing this ridiculous agenda on climate change reporting. It is willful negligence.

While it is true that on a per capita basis, Australia and Canada’s emissions are higher than the global average, why doesn’t the Riksbank give us credit for lowering that amount 11.4% since 2000? Even Canada has reduced its carbon emissions by 7.3% over the last 18 years. Admittedly Sweden’s emissions per capita have fallen 21.9% according to the IEA. Greta will be happy.

Why hasn’t the Riksbank taken China or India to task for their 169.9% or 94.7% growth in CO2 emissions respectively? There are plenty of oil-producing nations – Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Oman that have worse per capita outcomes than Australia or Canada. Do these countries get special dispensation from the wrath of the Riksbank? Clearly.

The US has pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord. If the US has marginally lower emissions per capita (15.74t/CO2-e) than Australia (16.45t/CO2-e), isn’t a double standard to write,

The conditions for active climate consideration are slightly better in our work with the foreign exchange reserves. To ensure that the foreign exchange reserves fulfil
their purpose, they need to consist of assets that can be rapidly converted to money even when the markets are not functioning properly. Our assessment is that the foreign exchange reserves best correspond to this need if they consist of
75 per cent US government bonds, 20 per cent German and 5 per cent British, Danish and Norwegian government bonds.

Essentially Riksbank commitment to climate change is conditional. The US which is responsible for 13.8% of global emissions can be 75% of holdings. Australia at 1.3% can’t. No doubt sacrificing Queensland Treasury Corp, WA Treasury Corp and Albertan bonds from a Riksbank balance sheet perspective will have little impact on the total. In short, it looks to be pure tokenism. The Riksbank has invested around 8% of its foreign exchange reserves in Australian and Canadian central and federal government bonds. So perhaps at the moment, it is nothing but substitution from state to federal. Why not punish NSW TCorp for being part of a state that has 85%+ coal-fired power generation?

At the very least the Riksbank admits its own hypocrisy.

The Riksbank needs to develop its work on how to take climate change into consideration in asset management. For instance, we need a broader and deeper analysis of the issuers’ climate footprint. At the same time, one must remember that the foreign exchange reserves are unavoidably dominated by US and German government bonds. The Riksbank’s contribution to a better development of the climate will, therefore, remain small. This is entirely natural. The important decisions on how climate change should be counteracted in Sweden are political and should be taken by the government and the Riksdag (parliament).

Still, what hope have we got when Benoît Cœuré, member of the Executive Board of the ECB, lecturing those on “Scaling up Green Finance: The Role of Central Banks.” He noted,

2018 has seen one of the hottest summers in Europe since weather records began. Increasing weather extremes, rising sea levels and the Arctic melting are now clearly visible consequences of human-induced warming. Climate change is not a theory. It is a fact.

Reading more of this report only confirms the commitment of the ECB to follow the UN’s lead and deliberately look to misallocate capital based on unfounded claims of falling crop yields and rising prices (the opposite is occurring) and rising hurricane and drought activity (claims that even the IPCC has admitted there is little or no evidence by climate change). Sweden is merely being a well-behaved schoolboy.

Cœuré made the explicit claim, “The ECB, together with other national central banks of the Eurosystem, is actively supporting the European Commission’s sustainable finance agenda.

CM thinks the biggest problem with this “agenda” is that it risks even further misallocation of capital within global markets already drowning in poorly directed investment. It isn’t hard to see what is going on here. It is nothing short of deliberate market manipulation by trying to increase the cost of funding to conventional energy using farcical concocted “climate risks” to regulate them out of existence.

Cœuré made this clear in his speech,

once markets and credit risk agencies price climate risks properly, the amount of collateralised borrowing counterparties can obtain from the ECB will be adjusted accordingly.

What do you know? On cue, Seeking Alpha notes,

Cutting €2bn of yearly investments, the European Union will stop funding oil, natural gas and coal projects at the end of 2021 as it aims to become the first climate-neutral continent.

All CM will say is best of luck with this decision. Just watch how this kneeling at the altar of the pagan god of climate change will completely ruin the EU economy. The long term ramifications are already being felt. The EU can’t escape the fact that 118mn of its citizens (up from 78m in 2007) are below the poverty line. That is 22% of the population. So why then does Cœuré mention, in spite of such alarming poverty, that taking actions (that will likely increase unemployment) will be helped by “migration [which] has contributed to dampening wage growth…in recent years, thereby further complicating our efforts to bring inflation back to levels closer to 2%.

Closer to home, the National Australia Bank (NAB) has joined in the groupthink by looking to phase out lending to thermal coal companies by 2035. The $760 million exposure will be cut in half by 2028. If climate change is such a huge issue why not look to end it ASAP? This is terrible governance.

Why not assess thermal coal companies on the merits of the industry’s future rather than have the acting-CEO Philip Chronican make a limp-wristed excuse that it is merely getting in line with the government commitment to Paris? If lending to thermal coal is good for shareholders in 2036, who cares what our emissions targets are (which continue to fall per capita)? Maybe this is industry and regulator working hand-in-hand?

The market has always been the best weighing mechanism for risk. Unfortunately, for the last two decades, global central bank policy has gone out of its way to prevent the market from clearing. Now it seems that the authorities are taking actions that look like collusion to bully the ratings agencies into marking down legitimate businesses that are being punished for heresy.

This will ironically only make them even better investments down the track when reality dawns, just as CM pointed out with anti-ESG stocks. Just expect the entry points to these stocks to be exceedingly cheap. Buy what the market hates. It looks as though the bureaucrats are set to make fossil fuel companies penny stocks.

Can we defund SBS too?

This isn’t journalism. This is alarmist quackery for the sake of it. Venice has been subject to flooding for centuries. While the floods in Venice now are the highest for over 50 years, it still means that floods were higher in 1966. Let that sink in. Presumably it wasn’t climate change driven back then.

One can only imagine what a Venice Council could possibly do to combat climate change? Perhaps ruin the skyline with wind turbines and solar panels atop the roofs of the Rialto Bridge or San Marco Square?? To alarmists, no amount of tokenism is too little. Claim a climate emergency and show how worthy you really are.

No matter what the Venice Council does to “combat” climate change it will have no effect. Maybe the gondola union can indulge in some crony capitalism and demand that the €7.50 Vaporetto passenger ferries are banned so they can charge €150 to go from Santa Croce to Piazza San Marco instead. At least gondolas are zero emission vessels.

The SBS needs to grow up and deliver proper well reasoned content for the $400m in taxpayer funds it receives.

Former Fire Chief inflames the climate debate

Greg Mullins, the former chief of NSW Fire and Rescue said today, “Just a 1 degree C temperature rise has meant the extremes are far more extreme, and it is placing lives at risk, including firefighters…Climate change has supercharged the bushfire problem.”

CM could not hope to hold a flame (no pun intended) to his knowledge of fire behavior but why does the WA Government’s own fire service website, Bushfire Front (BFF) contradict him,

Compared to slope, wind strength, fuel quantity and dryness, temperature is an insignificant driver of fire behaviour. Experienced firefighters do not fear a 40-degree day per se. This is because even on a hot day, a fire in one or two-year old fuel can be controlled; on the same day a fire in 20-year old fuels with high winds would usually be unstoppable.”

One of them must be right. Could it be that Mullin’s personal beliefs about climate change are a factor? After all he serves as an author for the Climate Council.

Mullins also said that ” We saw it coming. We tried to warn the government.”

Indeed BFF notes clearly,

““Large wildfires are inevitable”

This statement is, to put it politely, bosh. Large wildfires can only occur when there is a combination, at the same time, of three things:

• an ignition source,

• severe fire weather and,

• a large contiguous accumulation of fuel.

Remove any of these three and you cannot have a large wildfire (= megafire).

We obviously can’t control the weather, nor can we hope to eliminate all possible avenues of ignition. The only factor we can control is the large contiguous accumulations of fuel. Therefore, broadscale fuel reduction burning is the only defence we have against large wildfires. This will not prevent fires occurring, but it will ensure fires are less intense, are easier and safer to control and will do less damage.

Does it work? Yes it does, as has been shown many times, over many years, by the experience of Western Australian forest managers. The “proof of the pudding” is the incidence of large wildfires in Western Australian forests over the last 50 years. There were a number of very large fires in Western Australian forests from 1900 to 1960, but after the 1961 Dwellingup fire disaster, the wide-scale fuel reduction program carried out by the then Forests Department, ensured that the fuel accumulation was well controlled. The graph below demonstrates this very clearly. It was only after the burning program gradually fell away following a diversion of resources away from forest areas, that the area of wildfires began to climb again after about 1990.

How is it that so many of these fires have been started by arsonists? A 16-yo has been alleged to have started fires in central Queensland. Johannes Leak’s cartoon was absolutely on the money.

Even assuming Australia pandered to Mullins and went zero carbon emissions tomorrow, could he guarantee that the bushfires would slow or end? Even though Australia is such a tiny contributor to global CO2 emissions? Could he show the science behind his beliefs on fires and the link to climate change even though 85% are deliberately, suspiciously or accidentally lit?

Of course the climate alarmists immediately endorse his words because he is a firefighter. Although are his words on climate change anymore relevant than those of the AMA?

Maybe we should reflect on the politics within the upper echelons of the fire services? Not so much the rank and file front line fire fighters but the bureaucrats who make daft decisions such as buying a Boeing 737 fire-bomber which can only be used at 4 airports rendering it highly inflexible (as much as it’s a great political sales point) or a military helicopter which spends 5hrs in maintenance for every hour it is in the field working. Or replacing 1yo trucks with brand new ones because records are poorly kept?

Nope, just blame climate change for it. Get out of jail free card for everything.

A link between bushfires and climate change?

CM, like everyone else, hopes the loss of life and damage is kept to a minimum by these bushfires. Sad that politicians leverage tragedy to push narratives that aren’t remotely close to the truth.

It doesn’t take too much time or effort to work out what causes fires. Greens Senator DiNatale only needed to refer to the Australian Institute for Criminology (AIC) which noted over a 5 year study period that half of all bushfires were deemed suspicious or deliberately lit. Another 35% were accidentally lit. So 85% were down to human factors, not climate. The statistics were based on data comprising on average 54,000 bush fires per annum.

The US Department of the Interior (DOI) noted that 90% of wildland fires are caused by humans, 49% of that being deliberate.  So there is consistency in bushfire data across nations.

The Rural Fire Service publishes its data on burn-offs. This is a fundamental part of containment. They update the status of bushfires here.

RFS.png

Unfortunately to The Greens, everything is linked to a climate emergency.

If DiNatale was truly compassionate about those suffering losses from these fires, perhaps he might just stick to reality and spend 10 minutes surfing the WA Government’s Bushfire Front (BFF) site which clearly states,

“Large wildfires are inevitable”

This statement is, to put it politely, bosh. Large wildfires can only occur when there is a combination, at the same time, of three things:

  1. an ignition source,

  2. severe fire weather and,

  3. a large contiguous accumulation of fuel. Remove any of these three and you cannot have a large wildfire (= megafire).

We obviously can’t control the weather, nor can we hope to eliminate all possible avenues of ignition. The only factor we can control is the large contiguous accumulations of fuel. Therefore, broadscale fuel reduction burning is the only defence we have against large wildfires. This will not prevent fires occurring, but it will ensure fires are less intense, are easier and safer to control and will do less damage.

Does it work? Yes it does, as has been shown many times, over many years, by the experience of Western Australian forest managers. The “proof of the pudding” is the incidence of large wildfires in Western Australian forests over the last 50 years. There were a number of very large fires in Western Australian forests from 1900 to 1960, but after the 1961 Dwellingup fire disaster, the wide-scale fuel reduction program carried out by the then Forests Department, ensured that the fuel accumulation was well controlled. The graph below demonstrates this very clearly. It was only after the burning program gradually fell away following a diversion of resources away from forest areas, that the area of wildfires began to climb again after about 1990.

As we know the Greens are not great fans of back burning.

“Prescribed burning causes untold ecological damage”

This is a common argument among academics and green activists, but in fact is just a speculation that fits their ideological stance. It is futile to call, as they do, for complete knowledge of every little impact of fire on every component of the biota.

There is also a section on how the aborigines managed fires. Presumably, skills learnt before settlers came…

Across the whole of Australia, the early settlers and explorers commented in letters and reports that the land looked like a park, with extensive open forests and woodlands, with grassy patches often seemingly arranged in a planned fashion. They also described how they observed aborigines frequently burning patches of bush and were impressed by their skill in handling fire to confine a burn to a set area.

Plenty of video evidence for DiNatale to access here.

Or there is a section written just for him on bushfires and climate change. Some pull quotes,

“Compared to slope, wind strength, fuel quantity and dryness, temperature is an insignificant driver of fire behaviour. Experienced firefighters do not fear a 40-degree day per se. This is because even on a hot day, a fire in one or two-year old fuel can be controlled; on the same day a fire in 20-year old fuels with high winds would usually be unstoppable.

“Carbon dioxide emitted in smoke from a mild-intensity burn is rapidly recaptured through photosynthesis by regenerating understorey plants and by increased tree growth so that the situation is carbon-neutral within 2-4 years of a burn. After this there is positive accumulation of CO2 in plants.”

The BFF supports a fire management system built upon mitigation and resilience. Relying on increased suppression forces and technology is not the answer. Fires in heavy, dry fuels in eucalypt forest on a windy day cannot be controlled, regardless of the fire-fighting resources and technology available.”

With respect to ignition sources, the AIC notes, “most arsonists are white male, mid-20s, patchy employment record, often above average intelligence, but poor academic achievement and poor social development skills…56% of convicted structural arsonists and 37% of bushfire arsonists in NSW had a prior conviction for a previous offence.

Perhaps we should look to the real causes instead of making assumptions based on narratives rather than facts.

The ultimate irony of renewable energy – go off the grid

Basically prepare for their failure and become self sufficient off the grid.

A colossally poor comparison, as usual

As ever the Climate Council of Australia rarely gets numbers right. Now they are benchmarking electric cars against Norway as a “leader”. While all these wonderful benefits might accrue to Norwegians, Norway is a poor example to benchmark against. Not to mention Wilson Parking won’t be too keen to join the party without subsidies.

Norway is 5% of our land mass, 1/5th our population and new car sales around 12% of Australia. According to BITRE, Australia has 877,561km of road network which is 9x larger than Norway.

Norway has around 8,000 chargers countrywide. Installation of fast chargers runs around A$60,000 per charging unit on top of the $100,000 preparation of each station for the high load 480V transformer setup to cope with the increased loads.

Norway state enterprise, Enova, said it would install fast chargers every 50km of 7,500km worth of main road/highway.

Australia has 234,820km of highways/main roads. Fast chargers at every 50km like the Norwegians would require a minimum of 4,700 charging stations across Australia. Norway commits to a minimum of 2 fast chargers and 2 standard chargers per station.

The problem is our plan for 570,000 cars per annum is 10x the number of EVs sold in Norway, requiring 10x the infrastructure.

While it is safe to assume that Norway’s stock of electric cars grows, our cumulative sales on Shorten’s dud election plan would have required far greater numbers. So let’s do the maths (note this doesn’t take into account the infrastructure issues of rural areas where diesel generators power some of the charging stations…shhhh):

14,700 stations x $100,000 per station to = $1,470,000,000

4,700 stations x 20 fast chargers @ A$60,000 = $5,640,000,000 (rural)

4,700 stations x 20 slow chargers @ A$9,000 = $846,000,000 (rural)

10,000 stations x 5 fast chargers @ A$60,000 = $3,000,000,000 (urban)

570,000 home charging stations @ $5,500 per set = $3,135,000,000 (this is just for 2030)

Grand Total: A$14,091,000,000

Good to see the Climate Council on message with thoroughly poorly thought out comparisons. That’s the problem with virtue signaling. It rarely looks at total costs. Never mind. Tokenism to them is worth it. Not to mention a Swedish study funded by the left leaning government in Stockholm which showed the production of the batteries to power EVs did the equivalent of 150,000km in CO2 before it has left the showroom. That’s not woke.

Don’t go changing to try and displease me XR loved you just the way you were

Image result for bbc bias

Extinction Rebellion (XR) posted this statement overnight as they protested outside BBC Broadcasting House:

After an on-site People’s Assembly, we have requested a BBC official to come down and speak to the people about declaring a Climate and Ecological emergency at the BBC.

The Police are helping organise for the official to come down, in order to move rebels from the building.

We are waiting…

We, the people, have decided to do the media’s job and Tell the Truth from the BBC Broadcasting House about where we’re headed if we don’t change course NOW: Social Collapse and the deaths of billions worldwide.

BBC: we hold you accountable for your criminal and corrupt complacency for totally marginalising the seriousness of the #PlanetaryEmergency. [note the language has shifted from #ClimateEmergency]

We hold you accountable for kidnapping our democracy as you do not inform the public. You prefer to keep us in the dark whilst the elite prepare for what is to come. #SystemChange

BBC: tell it how it is so that we can mitigate, avoid the worst and save billions of human lives and other living things.

BBC Your Silence Is Deadly – Why Aren’t My Children’s Futures Front Page News?

BBC: tell it how Greta and our youth are asking you to tell it.”

Wow! For once CM agrees with XR over the BBC. If only the BBC told the truth. The outstanding issue for CM is the difficulty that the climate alarmist BBC could ideologically shift further left.

Crowdfunding group ‘Stop BBC Bias’ raised c.£57,000 needed to seek a judicial review into the way the BBC meets its statutory obligation, i.e. to be impartial.

How ironic that the BBC admitted in September 2018 that, “we get climate change coverage wrong too often.”

Climate scientist Prof Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading, said: “This set of BBC guidelines is long overdue. There have been too many occasions when the BBC’s audience has been misled over the realities of climate change…The ‘editorial policy’ could be more explicit about what would constitute false balance in its coverage. In the past, too many inaccurate statements made about climate science have not been effectively challenged by the interviewer.

Seems like XR want the BBC to go back to misleading the audience more than it already does.

Once again XR is a gift that keeps giving. Every time the group opens its mouth, the lack of understanding of reality is self-evident.