#thegreens

Will Bill Shorten declare a climate emergency?

Why is Greenpeace demanding PM Scott Morrison declare a ‘climate emergency’? Why not badger Bill Shorten? Labor has an uncosted climate change policy but gone one step short of declaring a full blown “climate emergency” despite the cost of doing nothing being so huge. Probably because climate change isn’t as big an election issue as made out and declaring catastrophe might wreck his chances to move into The Lodge.

Ironically Greenpeace just wrote about the success of Extinction Rebellion with respect to climate emergency. In the process revealing how useless it is at public advocacy to praise a rival playing in the same donation pool. Will these two leftist groups eat each other in months to come when they realize they’re fighting over the same funds?

Are the Greens expecting the Libs to hold onto power? Even if Morrison declared an emergency, not one Greens voter would put Liberal as their second preference.

What we do know is the Greens love law breakers. It is a $3,000 + GST per person fine to climb onto unauthorized parts of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. 15 of them. $45,000 for Premier Gladys Beijiklian. It doesn’t matter if they were experienced abseilers. They should be prosecuted.

Instead of condemning illegal activity the Greens, true to form, were applauding! NSW Greens politician, Cate Faehrmann, was quick to say,

BREAKING: Protesters have scaled the Sydney Harbour Bridge calling on Australia to declare a climate emergency! I applaud their actions 100%. Governments aren’t listening so more and more people are taking desperate action to be heard.”

Imagine if pro-Adani groups handed out leaflets on the benefits to jobs and the economy. The Greens would censure the activity as unconstitutional and demand they be arrested and jailed for heresy.

The tolerant left protest One Nation

The Socialists were out protesting One Nation’s Mark Latham who took his seat as a member of the NSW Legislative Council today. A bit disappointing that there were so few lefties there to spew profanity.

As ever the quality of the squealing was topped with the repeat of “Mark Latham, f*ck you! We don’t want your sexist views.”

One can read with delight all of their wonderful manifestos on the Redflag link.

Here is what they had to say about the upcoming election.

Coalition

The Morrison government is a mean and environmentally destructive disgrace with a face only a company director could love. Its pitch for re-election involves tax cuts that will benefit the highest income earners 20 times more than those on the minimum wage.”

Labor

Labor offers hopelessly unsatisfactory opposition to this rubbish. ALP leader Bill Shorten is seeking to connect with the prevailing mood by promising some reforms to address inequalityWith Shorten’s charisma having been privatised back in the ’90s, Labor can manage only a pathetically weak lead over a government that should be facing electoral annihilation.”

Greens

In this context, the Greens might be expected to be making gains. But with their focus increasingly on the rebellious mood infesting the tennis clubs and golf courses of wealthy blue ribbon Liberal seats like Kooyong and Higgins, the party is failing to provide credible left wing opposition to the major parties.”

In summary

Red Flag urges people to vote for the Victorian Socialists or other socialist candidates where they are standing, with preferences being directed to Labor or the Greens. The far right should of course be put last.”

Sampling bias?

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) might be accused of a bit of sampling bias. Who’d have thought that the Greens would win a 99% score on climate change policy? Clearly the ACF don’t take economic costings into account. Perhaps that’s why the Coalition gets 4%. Maybe the 56% scored by Labor assumes they are only moderately competent on costing.

Bill Shorten’s electric dreams are our nightmare

Image result for fuel bowser out of use

When will politicians wake up? How can they honestly believe their targets are remotely achievable if the industry is not even in the ballpark to being able to supply those promises? Take the ALP’s plan to make electric vehicles (EVs) 50% of new car sales by 2030.

In 2018, 1,153,111 new automobiles were sold across Australia. This plan is so easily destroyed by simple mathematics, something CM did in 2017 when Macron waxed lyrical about 100% EV sales by 2040. The only 100% certainty is that Bill Shorten won’t hit the 50% target by 2030. Do we need the government to tell us what cars we wish to buy?

The first problem he will encounter is overall consumer demand for EVs. Few suit the diverse needs and utilities (e.g. boat enthusiasts who require towing capacity unmet by all current EVs or parents who need 7-seaters to ferry kids to footy) of individual buyers. If the types of EVs available don’t match the requirements of the users then few will see the point to buy one no matter what the subsidy. In 2008, SUVs were 19% of Aussie new car sales. It is 43% today. So much for the climate change fearing public voting with their wallets! That is the first problem.

Why is the government meddling in an industry they know next to nothing about? Having a zero emissions (ZE) target is one thing they might aim for, however why not tell auto makers they need to attain that goal but will be granted complete technological freedom to achieve it? If the auto makers see necessity as the mother of invention, who are regulators to dictate the technology? If an internal combustion engine can achieve ZE does that not meet the goal?

It stands to reason we should question those with the least idea on the technology to dictate the future. The ZE appeal of EVs is an ineffective virtue signaling device to voters.

If we look at Euro emissions regulations introduced since 1993, substantial progress has been made in the last 20 years. Euro 6 started in 2015. For diesel particulate matter, emissions are 97% down on Euro 1 (1993) and NOx down by 95% over the same period.

The irony here, is that governments have these thought bubbles and then consult the industry afterwards to see if those promises can be fulfilled. CM spoke to multiple global auto suppliers in the EV space at the Tokyo Motor Show in 2018 and this is what was said,

“So haphazard is the drive for EV legislation that there are over 200 cities in Europe with different regulations. In the rush for cities to outdo one another this problem will only get worse. Getting two city councils to compromise is one thing but 200 or more across country lines? Without consistent regulations, it is hard for makers to build EVs that can accommodate all the variance in laws without sharply boosting production costs…

…On top of that charging infrastructure is an issue. Japan is a good example. Its EV growth will be limited by elevator parking and in some suburban areas, where car lots are little more than rental patches of dirt where owners are unlikely to install charging points…

…Charging and battery technology will keep improving but infrastructure harmonisation and ultimately who pays for the cost is far from decided. With governments making emotional rather than rational decisions, the only conclusion to be drawn is unchecked virtuous bingo which will end up having to be heavily compromised from the initial promises as always.

So the suppliers aren’t on board for a start. They know their car manufacturer clients rather well and if they aren’t buying it, auto makers can’t sell it. Slowing sales worldwide adds to reluctance to add to expensive fixed cost capacity at the top of a cycle.

We have proof of this. Note what we wrote in 2017:

It isn’t a big surprise to see national governments virtue signal over climate abatement. The UK swiftly followed French plans to ban the sale of petrol/diesel cars from 2040. However, let’s get real. Government proactivity on climate change may appear serious but the activities of the auto industry are generally a far better indicator of their lobby power. As a car analyst at the turn of the century, how the excitement of electric vehicle (EV) alternatives to internal combustion engines was all the rage. Completely pie in the sky assumptions about adoption rates…

…In 1999 industry experts said that by 2010  EVs would be 10% of all units sold. Scroll forward to 2019 and they are near as makes no difference 2.5% of total vehicle sales…talk about a big miss. 10 years beyond the prediction, they’re only 25% of the way there. Pathetic. 

CM also discussed in this report, 30 reasons Tesla would be a bug on a windshield;

“To prove the theory of the recent thought bubbles made by policy makers, they are already getting urgent emails from energy suppliers on how the projections of EV sales will require huge investment in the grid. [Mr Shorten, will we have all these cars recharging overnight using renewables? Solar perhaps?] The UK electricity network is currently connected to systems in France, the Netherlands and Ireland through cables called interconnectors. The UK uses these to import or export electricity when it is most economical. Will this source be curtailed as nations are forced into self-imposed energy security by chasing unsustainable products?

The UK’s National Grid said that the extra capacity required just to charge EVs would require another new Hinkley C nuclear plant to cover it. Will people choose between watching  premiership football on Sky Sports or charging their car?

Car makers can’t produce at the desired speed and energy suppliers don’t have the excess capacity required to charge. Slightly large problems. We don’t need to look at failed EV policy to show government incompetence. Germany totally fluffed its bio-fuel promise back in 2008 that even a Greens’ politician ended up trashing it.

“The German authorities went big for bio-fuels in 2008 forcing gas stands to install E-10 pumps to cut CO2. However as many as 3 million cars at the time weren’t equipped to run on it and as a result consumers abandoned it leaving many gas stands with shortages of the petrol and gluts of E-10 which left the petrol companies liable to huge fines (around $630mn) for not hitting government targets.”

Claude Termes, a member of European Parliament from the Green Party in Luxembourg said in 2008 that legally mandated biofuels were a dead end…the sooner it disappears, the better…my preference is zero…policymakers cannot close their eyes in front of the facts. The European Parliament is increasingly skeptical of biofuels.” Even ADAC told German drivers to avoid using E10 when traveling in other parts of continental Europe.

Starting with the basics for Australia.

If we take 50% of total car sales in 2018 as the target by 2030, Shorten needs to sell 576,556 EVs per annum to meet his bold target.

Let’s deal with the elephant in the room – note that petrol excise is currently around 4.7% of total federal tax take (c. $19bn) and likely to grow to c.$23bn by 2021. Even if we were to assume that we achieved Shorten’s targets based on a flat overall car market by 2030, Shorten’s tax receipts from the fuel excise would collapse and only be amplified by subsidies paid on 576,556 EVs. Throw the global average of $6,000-10,000  in incentives per EV and we’ve quickly racked $3-5bn per annum in subsidies.

Then will he offer cash for clunkers (C4C) for the poor owners of fossil fuel cars? Many car owners would require a hefty slug of C4C to offset the massive depreciation that would ensue on a trade in of a fossil fueled powered car. People are going to want decent trade ins, not 5c in the dollar of what they would have got had the government not attacked car owners. The changeover price matters. Shorten  may well get his 50% by halving the industry.

Should we also consider whether fuel taxes should be replaced by electricity taxes? If that ends up all we drive who is to stop it? Surely the maintenance of roads and related infrastructure which we’re told our fuel taxes pay for the upkeep will still need to be funded by heavier EVs.

Take the Tesla Model X 100D. It weighs 2,509kg, 49% heavier than an equivalent BMW 5-series. The heavier the car, the more damaging to the road. Such is the progress of the Nissan Leaf that the kerb weight has risen in the new model to 1,538kg on the original, or 400kg heavier than a petrol Toyota Corolla. EVs are fat.

Global EV sales units were 2.1mn last year. Total car sales were 79m odd. Let’s assume auto makers could conceivably increase capacity by 2m every 2 years (plants take 2 years to build and those poor Congolese child slave laborers will be run off their feet digging for cobalt to go in the batteries) then conceivably 30mn cumulative EV units could be built by 2030. Unfortunately VW gave the real answer on how they view EVs.

“Volkswagen makes an interesting case study. After being caught red handed cheating diesel emissions regulations (a perfect example of how little VW must believe in man-made global warming) they were in full compliance at the 2017 Frankfurt Motor Show telling the world of their $80bn investment in EVs out to 2030, 300 new EV models comprising 3 million units in 25 years of which 1.5mn would be sold in China. 3 million cars would be c.30% of VW’s total output today.”

However auto makers are faced with a conundrum. Chinese car sales are slowing. US car sales are slowing. European car sales are drifting and Aussie car sales are weak. Capex into EVs will be a very gentle process. They don’t want to plug in massive investments into new capacity if end demand is likely to remain soft. That is basic business sense. Note parts manufacturers need to be convinced that building new plants alongside makers is sustainable. Many are gun shy given the OEMs sent many parts suppliers into receivership the last cycle.

Ahh but EVs are less harmful to the environment. Are they?

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.

Another study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) showed that depending on the power generation mix, an all EV Nissan Leaf in the US or China was no better than a 2012 Prius. Countries with higher relative nuclear power generation unsurprisingly had lower CO2 emissions outcomes for EVs. By deduction countries with higher shares of coal or gas fired power negated much of the ‘saving’ of an EV relative to gasoline power.

So pretty much on all measures, Bill Shorten’s misadventure on EVs will be a complete dud. If only he’d consulted with the industry before celebrating how “woke” he is. He’s simply not.

Why the Greens will never be taken seriously

NSW Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann proves why her party can never be taken seriously to post this sort of potty humour surrounding the school climate strike.

Clearly she would be prime for the education portfolio with wit like that were the Greens ever to take office. Presumably profanity passes as creative writing in Cate’s world. Hopefully the kids used recycled cardboard and non-acrylic marker pens.

.

Dill Testing

Pill testing. Yes, it is difficult to stop the youth of today popping drugs at rave concerts. If certain drugs like MDMA are illegal, why is it OK to turn a blind eye at the concert gate? If there is medical evidence to say taking MDMA is harmless then change the law. Sadly the tragic deaths of a handful of kids has shown this not to be the case. Overdoses and bad batches dispensed by nefarious actors.

Is the desire to resort to hallucinating narcotics so great that the government should back legislation to allow young kids to have their risky tablets tested?  Imagine if those asking for their pills to be tested were required to put their name down against the test? None would test! There would be outrage over a violation of privacy. Yet we the tax payer invariably foot the bill of the reckless behaviour should things go wrong. Perhaps attendees should be required to file their Medicare number alongside the pill test and pay higher premiums for willingly taking higher risks? Again, none would line up.

The arguments for pill testing surround removing the potentially deadly drugs off the market by creating a virtuous circle of warnings within the drug taking community. The idea is that they could make informed choices were pill testing made available and inform each other what to avoid. Research from Austria showed that 50% of those that got pill testing changed their consumption behaviours.  Sadly the other 50% did not. Other examples of positive outcomes from pill testing revolve around wider knowledge about what drug compounds are popular which helps medical and emergency services better prepare. There is a company in America which sells NARCAN which revives those that overdose from the dead. You can read more about that here.

The arguments for pill testing seem so strong that it is any wonder the government doesn’t go the whole hog and set up its own narcotic stall at these concerts to sell controlled substances directly to the public. Two MDMA tablets and a foil of heroin please. Are those bongs on special?

The stupidity with pill testing is in the word – “ILLEGAL”. If CM gets caught speeding, why shouldn’t I be as justified in saying I was acceleration testing my potentially lethal BMW to make sure the speedometer was accurate? No NSW Highway Patrol officer will grant clemency. I will be fined for breaking the law. Quite right too.

Then we get Greens MP Cate Faehrmann admitting she’s taken MDMA since her 20s. In her doing so we can now have an honest and open debate. Fantastic to have an elected official out herself as an illegal drug user. Is this the type of lived experience we should be basing policy off? How ironic she lambasts the zero tolerance policies of the NSW Government? It may well be costing lives but the measures to combat are proving ineffective.  That is the issue. Time to think outside the box.

Why not just have police controlled mandatory swab tests at exit, fully funded by the event organizer, who can impute that in the cost of the ticket? Those that show a positive sign to ‘illegal drugs’ are arrested and criminally charged. Simple. Make it clear well in advance that those caught for breaking the law go on a national register. Why shouldn’t employers be able to better screen their employees’ behaviours or and health insurers be able to more accurately assess their customers? If you are clean there is zero to worry about.

If we want to create a culture of stopping drugs, we won’t do it by applying soft measures. Rave concerts are a captive audience where drugs are smuggled in often unsavory ways to escape detection. Make it clear that the swabs are mandatory and one of two things will happen; the attendance will only be enjoyed by those prepared to be clean or the rave concerts will end.

Some will argue there will be a risk that rave concerts will go underground but in the day and age of cyber technology, it won’t be hard to track such events going forward. Make the penalties for organizers failing to register and apply for such concerts punishable by jail terms and multi million dollar fines.

If we truly don’t like the law, then let’s change it. Let’s not have two tier judicial systems that openly favour dangerous behaviour because it infringes on someone’s subjective right to listen to a rave concert completely off their rocker. Maybe that is the test – make these kids recall 50% of the music that were played. One can be rest assured most of them didn’t hear a thing.

Apathy the true enemy of climate alarmists

F5104007-0387-49EC-9783-D487D7D04F75.jpeg

Cold is the enemy of the climate alarmists in more ways than one. The unseasonably cold weather is not only messing with their cause, it would seem that apathy  is the more worrying symptom. As you can see in the Melbourne “March for Science”  protest, the participants are clearly cold enough to wear fur lined hooded jackets. Sydney didn’t look much different in terms of indifference.

03CBB6F5-621A-442F-AB86-2D08D1766CE6.jpeg

Indeed the “biggest threat to the planet” is their own lack of conviction. Telling. Even with the full support of the climate alarmist state media giving free plugs for the event proved to have little impact. Wouldn’t the very statistics they always espouse demand protestors in the 10s of 1000s? Given the Aussie Green Party is announcing they will run an election platform of a $20,000 universal basic income without having to work and legalized cannabis it would seem a far better pay-off staying home getting stoned.