#CO2

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!

Paying someone to quit smoking on your behalf

img_2516
Jo Nova has put together an excellent piece on the Labor government’s plan to buy carbon credits overseas to atone for our CO2 sins. Buying air we can’t breathe is essentially like paying someone else to quit smoking on our behalf. How do we benefit?!?

Labor leader Bill Shorten may argue that the cost of doing nothing on climate change is a “charlatan’s argument” but CM costed it yesterday. Our CO2 emissions are equivalent to 0.000016% of the global total. No matter what we do our impact is nothing. What does tokenism get us? Zero. Zip. Nada.

Jo Nova wrote,

The 35 billion dollars we will spend on these useless, fraud-prone certificates is $35 billion we are taking out of the Australian labor market, or not spending on medicine, books or holidays in Bali. Angus Taylor, Minister for Energy, has noticed that this means $10b less tax will be paid too, which means less money for hospitals and schools.

There’s nothing wrong with payments to foreigners for real goods and services. But carbon credits buy us 0.0001C of theoretical cooling we don’t need and won’t be able to measure 100 years from now. It’s the dumbest deal Australia has ever made. Fraudsters and bankers will love it.”

Carbon credit markets have had a sketchy past. Hackers broke into poorly protected government and corporate carbon registries and swindled €3.7mn. So the credits we might buy to virtue signal may end up being fraudulent.

Carbon trading is a complete scam. As Jo Nova added,

“Independent modelling suggests the 45% emissions target of the Labor party will cost at least $264bn and as high as $542bn by 2030. The Liberal Party will “only” waste  $50 – $80b.”

All for absolutely nothing. When the economy tanks our politicians can brag about achieving lower emissions targets quicker because our climate policies will have accelerated the death of industry.

Extinction Rebellion only accelerates lunacy

WIN!!! BREAKING: Environment and climate emergency unanimously declared in UK Parliament.

This is the first step in the government telling the truth about the climate and ecological emergency. Pressure on our politicians will now increase as nothing but decisive action will suffice.

This issue isn’t going away and neither will we. The International Rebellion will continue until all our demands are met.

This is the post put forward by the Extinction Rebellion (XR) today. There is some irony as to how a parliament that can’t vote the will of the people over three years, can unanimously find an immediate position on a “climate emergency” after being visited by a 16yo. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called the motion.

What exactly is a climate emergency? Wales, Scotland and cities like Bristol have declared it but not defined it. If we need any further evidence of how dysfunctional UK politics is, this confirms it. Not one dissenting voice? Virtue signaling to fix a problem that constantly gets debunked and worse no well thought out positions. Or will the government just ask Greta Thunberg for her manifesto?

If XR plan to have every demand met, will UK Parliament acquiesce them? Here are their demands

1. The Government must tell the truth about how deadly our situation is, it must reverse all policies not in alignment with that position and must work alongside the media to communicate the urgency for change including what individuals and communities need to do.

Tell the truth? Wow. If only we could legislate that. Shall we have a Ministry of Truth and Room 101 for heretics?

2. The Government must enact legally-binding policy measures to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2025 and take further action to remove the excess from the atmosphere. It must cooperate internationally so that the global economy runs on no more than half a planets worth of resources.

Is zero carbon emissions by 2025 even feasible? Will we just ban petrol and diesel outright? Ban air travel?

Are governments comfortable turning the second most expensive household asset to effectively zero? Because phasing our fossil fuels and being zero carbon by 2025 means junking the economy.

Let’s look at the latest UK energy mix published by OFGEM.

Coal: 4.8%

Gas: 32.8%

Nuclear: 13.2%

Hydro: 1.95%

Wind/Solar: 15.16%

Biomass: 7.68%

How do the intelligent brains of XR plan to power homes in Britain when fossil fuels make up 38% and nuke (which doesn’t produce CO2) another 13% of the mix? Good luck getting agreement of all this mammoth investment to replace it all with renewables. Where will all these new plants go? New power plants are years, often decades in the planning, safety and construction.

Shall we regulate during this scrap and build program that odd numbers on your street can use power on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and alternate Sundays? And the even numbers the other days? Have they realized that Merkel’s green madness has made German power prices some of the highest in the world leaving 330,000 people with their electricity cut off for inability to pay? Maybe celebrate it being down on the previous year’s 331,000. Does XR see such things as an acceptable price to pay?

3. By necessity these demands mean an initiative similar to those enacted at times of war. We do not however, hand further power to our Government, we demand a Citizens Assembly to oversee the changes, as we rise from the wreckage, creating a democracy fit for purpose.

The Citizens Assembly will likely be chosen by apparatchiks. Not to worry, the education system is already in place.

The University is Bristol’s Dr Dann Mitchell, Lecturer in Climate Change said,

Climate science is now mature enough that we do not just count climate change in terms of degrees of additional warming, we count it in terms of human lives lost, biodiversity reduced, and land claimed by the oceans...The youth, championed by Greta Thunberg, and taken up by school children around the world, recognise this is an emergency, so it is of the upmost important that our leading institutes on climate change such as the University of Bristol recognise it too.

Lives lost? Land claimed by oceans? Huh? Well it’s ok because we only need to listen to a spoon-fed 16yo. No wonder she is depressed when she’s had her head filled with 5 years of indoctrination about how her life is doomed.

We should be worried how our elected leaders are so willing to roll over without standing for anything. It reminds CM of that scene in Monty Python’s ‘Holy Grail’ where townsfolk are trying to burn a witch. When Sir Bedivere debunks their witch hunt they come to their senses. But they burn her anyway.

Swedish study on EV CO2 footprint will surprise

The IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute was commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency to investigate lithium-ion batteries climate impact from a life cycle perspective. Let’s not forget the left leaning pro-climate change Swedish government promoted the study.

The 2017 report showed that battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For every kilowatt hour of storage capacity in the battery generated extra emissions of 150 to 200 kilos of carbon dioxide already in the factory. Regular EV batteries with 25–30 kWh of capacity will result in 5 metric tonnes CO2, which is equivalent to 50,000 km driving in a regular, fuel-efficient diesel vehicle.

If we use those IVL metrics on the Tesla Type S 100D battery pack of 100kWh, the car has done 167,000km worth of CO2 before its left the factory. So that would mean 20 metric tons of CO2 per car without taking into account any charging from the grid which is largely fossil fuel derived in most countries.

A 2019 model year BMW 530d diesel emits 138g of C02/km. So it can travel 145,000km just to match a car with a 100kWh battery pack before it leaves the dealership floor.

Does Australia really want 50% sales in EVs if the metrics are this bad?

The irony is that despite the evidence provided by the study, PM Stefan Löfven wrote on a Swedish Government website, “No new petrol and diesel powered cars will be sold after 2030. So we reduce the large climate emissions from the transport sector.

So in order to stay aligned with the Paris Accord, promoted by a U.N. body that has been caught out in numerous climate data manipulation scandals and climb downs from countless hysterical claims, Sweden’s left-leaning government skips over reality.

Where have we heard this before? Martin Kinnunen, climate policy spokesperson for the Swedish Democrats said,

It is a very radical proposal and I think you should be careful about predicting technology development in this way. It is simply unrealistic to have a ban in place already in eleven yearsIt can be difficult for many people who live in some parts of the country to have a car, and it can be very costly for those who must have a car

Only goes to prove that virtue signaling ignores facts. Never mind that the industry can’t adapt that fast. Never mind the environmental footprint on a life cycle basis. Just change the starting point then promote themselves as one of the good guys saving the planet when all that is happened is to set in motion actions that will damage her more than they would have otherwise by allowing the industry to set the technological benchmarks instead.

Hot Air

Canadian Conservative politician, Robert Sopuck, tried to get the Minister for Environment, Catherine McKenna, to answer a simple question on how much the $50/ton carbon tax would lower CO2 emissions by. In true leftist ideological fashion, she rattled on about the pressing need to save the planet. He asked again – just wanting a number – which again fell on deaf ears. Surely had Trudeau’s cabinet properly assessed the financial and social impact it’d gladly be able to champion the ‘impact’ it was making on saving us. That ‘number’ would at least sound more convincing that there was method to the madness, rather than empty taxation with no benefit on limiting global warming. Talk about hot air.