#politicalcorrectness

Extinction Rebellion – instinctive revulsion

The lunacy is incredible. Carbon neutrality in the UK by 2025. Good luck with that. The Extinction Rebellion (ER) is the next radical left protest movement that seeks widespread civil disobedience, because in the words of one of the founders, “getting arrested can be quite fun.” Some have goals to see inside of a prison cell. CM suggests doing such protests in China where most of the “environmental” problem they fear lies. No doubt President Xi will warmly oblige requests for long stays in one of his many jails.

ER’s manifesto is a collection of web links to climate alarmist sites and comments. Pretty much every maximum alarmist reference has been uploaded. No balance in there.

Sadly they haven’t done much proof checking of the website contents. That’s what happens when one is foaming at the mouth kneeling at the altar of climate alarmism.

Note the following 3 examples

1) under pollution ER notes,

All forms of pollution were responsible in 2015 for an estimated 9 million premature deaths“.

Yet only one paragraph later it follows up with:

the very air we breathe is growing dangerously polluted: nine out of ten people now breathe polluted air, which kills 7 million people every year.

So deaths have gone down? Which is it?

2) The Great Barrier Reef

Corals reefs are suffering mass die-offs from heat stress.  These events are becoming much more common with back to back die-offs on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia in 2016 and 2017.

Wrong again. The reef has been seen to be flourishing. Scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Sep 2017 surveyed 14 coral reefs between Cairns and Townsville to see how they fared after being bleached and were surprised to find the coral had already started to reproduce.

3) Rising sea levels

2°C warming  would threaten to inundate areas now occupied by 130 million people while increase to 4°C could lock in enough eventual sea level rise to submerge land currently home to 470 to 760 million people globally

Analysis using tide gauges and satellites showed 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, revealed that no atoll lost land area and that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. What sea level rise? The most experienced is around. 1mm pa.

Maybe we should feel safer in the knowledge that ER co-founder, Gail Bradbrook, flew to Costa Rica to have a high dose of a psychedelic substance (iboga) which induced visions according to the FT. Should we put her eR movement down to the hallucinations and anxiety caused by the drug?

Two certainties.

We can be sure ER will not be a peaceful conscientious objector (charges for property damage already reported) and CM was right to cancel his FT subscription given they thought giving these loonies any airtime was warranted.

She should be demoted with immediate effect

And so should her superiors. Our armed forces are being turned into a joke. Commanding Officer of HMAS Albatross, Captain Fiona Sneath, has deemed the 500m walk to the Anzac memorial on Anzac Day too dangerous citing occupational health and safety. These are our brave and proud military personnel who are trained to shoot back in anger if required. CM is sure they’ll cope.

In recent years our armed forces have pushed hard on gender balance (despite strong evidence from the ADF’s own internal audit to say it is dismally failing even more so when targets were lowered), discouraged the words ‘him’ and ‘her’, we’ve banned death symbols, painted finger nails pink for diversity and the Air Force is being asked to think of the roles of women when bombing enemy targets.

The Navy has just raised the white flag of stupidity again. Are our able seamen so poorly trained they can’t walk down a well lit trail?

What do these military chiefs think China must make of all this? To invade Australia, all they’ll need is a couple of terra-cotta warriors and we’ll surrender. Our military chiefs need a major clean out. They are disgracing the proud soldiers that served and continue to serve.

German car makers in trouble with the EC environmental regulator

While governments around the world champion the idea that auto makers are “all aboard” when it comes to climate change mitigating tech, it appears the VW Group (incl Porsche & Audi), BMW and Daimler have been raked over the coals by European Commission (EC) officials for deliberately withholding it.

Why doesn’t the EC understand that advanced pollution cutting technology costs more the tougher the emissions regulations get? That cost gets passed onto consumers.

If auto makers met all the appropriate legislative hurdles at the time, why should they be punished? The law didn’t mandate it. Furthermore consumers put safety and utility at a premium to exhaust fumes.

The EC might complain these auto makers colluded but even if they hadn’t met in secret the outcome would have been exactly the same. Focus on shareholders wouldn’t change. Why can’t we accept it is a 100% reflection of the car makers’ true feelings about the environment. They don’t care! VW even cheated the tests.

What more evidence do we need? Automakers push narratives that they’re big on saving the planet so as to not catch the wrath of the activists. Actions tell the real story.

Perhaps we should question the regulator for not introducing tougher standards earlier rather than beat manufacturers over the head for their inability to provide adequate oversight?

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.

The fallacy of the 8 minute charge

ABB is claiming that it’s top of the line EV charger can juice 200kms in 8 minutes. Theoretically 100kms takes 4 minutes. It’s fast. However a Tesla Model S 100D has a theoretical full charge range of c. 540km. So to charge from empty using the top of the line ABB charger systems will still take 22 minutes, not 8. If an EV, fully loaded with fat people, luggage and the aircon set to maximum, is stuck in heavy city traffic (think of watching numerous video feeds on your iPhone), it’s theoretical range could drop like a stone. So if the same car only manages a real world 200km off a charge because of hideous traffic conditions the charge time is still 22 minutes for that 200km, not 8 minutes.

Full marks to ABB’s marketing department. But what it fails to take into account is the faster a battery is charged the quicker it’s quality deteriorates, meaning replacements would be required earlier and the global CO2 footprint goes up and poor Congolese children are sent to mine more cobalt.

Note 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.

The report showed that battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For every kilowatt hour of storage capacity in the battery generated 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 Swedish 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.

Do we really want 50% sales in EVs if the metrics are this bad? Don’t forget car emissions continue to drop. Diesel emission standards today are 97% lower than Euro 1 levels set in 1992.

If current fast chargers cost $60,000 a pop, one imagines the super chargers from ABB will be in the vicinity of $80,000+. Multiply by the number of stations and chargers we’re well above $15bn in Australia if we match Norway’s statistics scaled to our market.

That’s the problem with green mathematics. They only look at selective statistics, not the whole. 99.8% of Australians seem to get the maths based on the fact EVs make up only 0.2% of total new car sales.

A guide to gender-sensitive bombing

Apparently, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is being asked to consider “the role of gender” while bombing under ‘Gender in Air Operations‘ guidelines. It stems from the risk that should a sortie damage a bridge it might cause the local women to have to walk further to perform daily necessities such as gathering firewood or water supplies. Perhaps they should drop leaflets instead of bombs that tell the males on the ground to ditch their toxic masculinity and do their bit for equality!

Isn’t the point of having air superiority one that gives the home side a tactical advantage in warfare against an enemy sworn to kill? Are we funding our military to win wars or assist the enemy to gain tactical advantages against our own ground troops? What next? Shall we supply the enemy with surface-to-air missiles to even out the fight for the sake of battlefield equality?

Our military has lost the plot. Only last week, a ban was put out to stop the use of death symbols. Camouflage Helly Kitty here we come. Seriously though, if such patches make soldiers feel 10 foot tall then surely the morale-boosting benefits outweigh getting in step with the times. As General Patton once said, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”

Scheer to Trudeau – “Get on with it”

Canadian Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer has told PM Justin Trudeau to “get on with it” with regards to threatening to sue over the SNC-Lavalin PMO scandal. Scheer has accused the PM of interfering with the investigation carried out by the Independent Prosecution Service.

Scheer said

“I stand by every single criticism I have made of Justin Trudeau’s behaviour in this scandal. If Trudeau intends to sue me, if he believes he has a case against me, he should get on with it…

…Why do I welcome Justin Trudeau’s lawsuit? 1) Because he will finally be forced to testify under oath. 2) He will not be able to shut down the proceedings like he has in Parliament. Canadians will finally get the answers they deserve.

In the latest April CBC poll, the Conservatives under Scheer are at 36.2% and Trudeau’s Liberals at 31.7%. In November, it was 31.3% and 37.7% respectively. A slight reversal in fortune.

Trudeau is a darling of the left. Sadly his legacy is a disaster. From telling Canadians that returning ISIS fighters could be rehabilitated by reciting poetry and haiku, to dressing up in local garb on a visit to India (to the point where Indian officials said most don’t wear such clothing), wearing Star Wars socks, introducing compelled speech legislation and meddling with the ethics committee over his holidays with Aga Khan, Trudeau has proved completely out of his depth. His speech in front of the UNGA exposed his unpopularity as did waving to an empty airfield.

The peoplekind of Canada surely have buyers remorse. Luckily a general election is not far away.