Germany

Trump “has a point” on WHO – German Health Minister

It seems even Germany can see that WHO is in desperate need of reform. Jens Spahn, Germany’s health minister, told the FT that WHO was susceptible to “influence by individual members” and that Trump “had a point.

He added, “WHO needs to reform its governance and accountability…We need to figure out exactly where the money goes.

As we wrote several months ago, WHO spent $192 million on travel alone! For those who like financial forensics, please see the latest set of audited accounts (Dec 2018).

We would merely hold Dr Tedros to words from his maiden WHO speech,

A key priority for me is to enhance our approach to resource mobilization among donors, old and new. And that has to start by building confidence among partners, that WHO will deliver results and impact. I want WHO to be synonymous with results.

Trump is only acting in accordance with his wishes.

17yo truant should go back to school to learn economics

CLies IT

It has been refreshing hardly seeing our 17-yo truant in chief, Greta Thunberg being exploited by her climate change doomsayers during this coronacrisis. Unfortunately, she caved to the attention deficit by feeling compelled to say she had contracted COVID19 despite not being tested for it. Not atypical of social media-obsessed kids these days.

Alas, the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day came for her to come out of hibernation and tell us,

Whether we like it or not, the world has changed. It looks completely different now from how it did a few months ago. It may never look the same again. We have to choose a new way forward

Indeed it has changed and will change. However, we believe that the coming economic depression won’t lend itself kindly to the untested prospect of a “green jobs” boom. This idea that we can sit back and flood the world with renewables to save us all. It is unworkable in practice. Why?

Let’s take the CSIRO, Australia’s chief government science body.

Why hasn’t Greta made a b-line to reference our CSIRO’s energy transition costings for Australia which exceed $1 trillion with a “T” out to 2050 (p.135)? Note this report isn’t a net-zero study – just lower emissions. So by that logic, net-zero will cost even more. c.100% of GDP. Just as tax revenues are about to go through the floor.

You will feel even warm and fuzzier after reading the next sentence.

CSIRO assures us that “these costs do not include the full integration costs of renewables, but that these costs are expected to be significantly less than $175 billion.” Who cares about billions in a world of trillions? Significantly less?

Why aren’t politicians and Greta looking at the world’s biggest renewable crash test dummy?

As we wrote, “Germany’s Federal Court of Auditors was even more forthright about the failures of renewables…The shift to renewables, the federal auditors say, has cost at least 160 billion euros in the last five years. Meanwhile, the expenditures “are in extreme disproportion to the results…”

Note 330,000 German households are in a state of energy poverty and have had their electricity provider cut them off. That is what happens when projected electricity prices at the time of the hysteria end up double that of the initial costings. Oops.

Yet, how eager are supposed activists willing to sign up to the green movement in practice?

We have a home-grown movement to reference commitment to climate change. 98.9% of households in the electorate of Warringah, that supposedly voted Zali Steggall OAM MP in on a climate change ticket, still haven’t signed up to her ‘Roadmap to Zero’ plans. Given their high powered V8 SUVs are getting one month to the gallon these devout climate change alarmists don’t seem that interested.

What about those on the front lines of the climate crisis? Surely they know best?

When we studied the language within the last 10 years of annual reports of the state fire services around Australia, why was ‘climate change‘, the words that 29 former fire chiefs told us is such a big factor, barely mentioned, if at all? Take Fire & Rescue NSW’s only mention of ‘climate change‘ on p.81 of its 2018/19 Annual Report,

Where practicable, FRNSW crews were encouraged to turn off all non-essential lights on 30 March 2019 from 8:30pm until 9:30pm, joining millions of people worldwide in showing their commitment to tackling climate change and inspiring all generations to support environmental initiatives and sustainable climate policy.

That will do it!

Then what of green jobs?

We keep on hearing about a huge surge in “green jobs”. The ABS reported that after 5 years of straight declines, rooftop solar has been the driver of the rise in the past two years.

Annual direct FTE employment in renewable energy activities in Australia was estimated at 17,740 jobs in 2017-18, an increase of 3,890 jobs in FTE employment (28%) from the previous year (2016-17) and represents the highest level of FTE employment in renewable energy activities since 2011-12...driven by an increase in construction activity for large scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems (1,950 additional FTE jobs) and roof-top solar PV (1,720 additional FTE jobs). Together, these two renewable energy types accounted for 94% of this increase in FTE employment in renewable energy.

The ABS notes there are 12,500,000 Aussies employed. Therefore full-time green jobs make up 0.14% of the total. Construction makes up 1.056m jobs. Manufacturing employs 770,000. Combined, these sectors make up 15% of all employed.

So our two biggest sectors employ 107x more than the peak in renewables FT employment.

In short

While Democrat Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez brainlessly tweeted you love to see it when referring to the recent trend in negative oil prices, restless natives around the globe will not tolerate governments that pursue green policies that prolong their unemployment pain. They want jobs, not spoon-fed ideological alarmism as their saviour.

This global lockdown is doing one important thing – waking us up to unpleasant truths. Comforting lies surrounding renewables investment will have no place other than the dining tables of crony capitalists who aren’t dealing with lived experience of scraping by without work. That is not to say we won’t get governments trying to prescribing a “reset” but it will be a one-way ticket to being kicked out of office when the results don’t live up to the promises.

Forget what Trump says. Just pay attention to the restless natives

Investor: Peasants Will Be Out With Pitchforks if We Don't Start ...

Unless Joe Biden runs with Michelle Obama as his VP, we still think Trump gets reelected in an electoral college and popular landslide. Yes, we can hear many laughing out loud. We are used to it as we were when we said he would win back in 2015. For all of the same reasons, only amplified. People are tired of the status quo.

Up until the time of the State of the Union speech in February this year, it felt like his second coronation was a formality. Nancy Pelosi knew it when she tore up his speech. Has coronavirus really changed all that?

The prevailing sentiment perpetuated by the mainstream media is that Trump’s catastrophic bungling of coronavirus will kill off any chance he has of winning 2020. To think that Joe Biden is the mouth-watering alternative despite having served under a president whose policies were repudiated in 2016 by the electoral college.

FNF Media thinks that Americans are pragmatic people when push comes to shove and that American exceptionalism is a good thing. They want the dream. They don’t live to be stuck in poverty assessed welfare. Sure, we non-citizens can scoff at their right to bear arms or hosting World Series which exclude other nations but ultimately we don’t get a say. That is a matter for them. If they don’t like it, it is up to them to change their government to fix things. Trump would never have been elected were it not for decades of failed administrations who didn’t deliver that gave birth to him.

Despite all of Trump’s often ridiculous bluster during the coronavirus outbreak, none of it was out of character for the last 3.5 years. The mainstream media has beamed more deranged coverage than ever. People have become numb to the constant drone that they hate him, especially when he trolls them with their own hypocrisy. Let’s be clear, were the likes of CNN truly resonating with the masses, the ratings would reflect people attuned with the rhetoric. This is simply not happening. In fact, the opposite.

Sadly during this crisis, Americans have seen the utterly shameless exploitation of their livelihoods by the ugliest partisan politics seen during any crisis of this scale. They see straight through the pork barrelling. Do liberal-leaning citizens honestly believe that gender diversity on boards and airline emissions regulations are ‘must have’ pieces of legislation in order to pass a $2.2 trillion rescue package designed to protect them? Do they believe a $250 billion supplemented boost to small businesses to support the income of workers should be held back until more identity politics driven data collection is fast-tracked? When people see Nancy Pelosi parading her $24,000 refrigerators filled with $13 a pint ice cream punnets on late-night TV they aren’t amused. 

Is it any wonder so many more Americans are taking to the streets to protests the lockdowns imposed by the states’ governors? As we pointed out in the COVID19 data, those infected and those who tragically met their fate from this deadly virus are relatively minuscule. More and more Americans are seeing this. Very few of us know anyone who has caught it outside of a few celebrities and the UK PM. This is why social distancing is fraying nerves in American households. They can’t easily quantify what is going on using their own experiences.

If anything, these protests point out that Americans are still happy to play the risk/reward ratio if their economic security can be maintained. America hasn’t fluked being 25% of the global economy on 5% of the world’s population for nothing. They would chance contracting coronavirus if that meant being able to feed their families.

Which brings us to China. Trump’s political and media enemies may have cuddled up to China since he took office, but the shambolic WHO response to this crisis and the misinformation emanating from the communist propaganda apparatus will rile 22 million who are on the unemployment queue. More and more Americans can see through an Ethiopian Marxist WHO chief appointed by a Portuguese socialist both serving the communist dictatorship with a president for life.

This activity is red meat to Trump’s base and he knows it. He doesn’t need to say anything. It is becoming self-evident.

Suspending funding for WHO was the right thing to do. WHO is a failing bureaucracy in desperate need of reform. What is the point of funding a body that is supposed to have independence enshrined in its charter when in reality it runs strict political agendas geared to the whims of its ideological brothers in Beijing?

How many leaders of other countries are throwing up two fingers at China in the face of all the revelations about when they knew and how they covered it up? Macron? Merkel? Trudeau? Crickets.

Trump is almost alone in publicly smashing China’s complicity in all of this. Governments around the world may be staying mute over China’s deceit but we can be assured this is not lost on the peons. They have had enough of staying at home. They are sick of facing oppressive sanctions imposed by those they voted in.

The media can sell this as xenophobia or any other form of identity politics but the fact is Trump’s 2016 campaign warned of China. He spoke of bringing jobs back. He spoke of being screwed over on trade with China. He was right.

We all know many Americans are hurting. They want prosperity returned. While the media conflates his term as merely sorting out his billionaire 1%ers, the reality is he has helped the Bottom 50% by a much larger margin. They will know this lived experience, which in politics will ultimately be the most important factor. Trump’s bluster won’t matter. His record up until coronavirus kicked off will.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED) reported the net worth of the bottom half of the population was $1,070,183mn at the start of 2017. As of the third quarter of 2019, it was 1,668,034mn. That’s an increase of 55.86%. The Top 1%, had $29,955,829mn. In 3Q 2019, it was $34,533,370mn, or 15.3%. Under Obama, net worth for the Bottom 50% declined from $1.7 trillion in 1Q 2009 to $1.1 trillion, down 35% over his two terms. Democrats should be outraged that the ultra-wealthy did much better under Obama with a 100% gain in net worth under his term vs the paltry 15.3% so far under Trump.  Source: FRED Top 1% and Bottom 50%.

This might explain why the “forgotten” wanted large scale change and will continue to support those who can facilitate it.

All coronavirus has done is exposed the despicable bile of partisan politics. Witnessing a concerted effort to remove Trump in the midst of an untold financial tsunami will not sit well with people. This isn’t about partisanship. They will want someone that can deliver. If it comes with all of Trump’s vulgarity then so be it. After all, a man that can win an election with ‘p*ssy grabbing’ on the ticket can produce miracles.

So there is Trump’s election strategy in a nutshell – “China, China, China!”

Good luck with Joe Biden telling Americans that President Xi has America’s best interests at heart! How can he say this when his former boss was not greeted with red carpet, a mobile stairway or a welcoming committee of important dignitaries on his final state visit to China?

Forget the polls. Forget the media spin. Coronavirus has hit the raw nerve of patriotism and the one person who is accused of constantly lying will be the only one speaking the truth. Americans are at a crisis point. Best not question their loyalty to Old Glory.

We may hate the idea of a new cold war but that is up to Americans to decide. We are at their mercy. Ultimately it is best to have a strong America given China’s soft power expansion.

Colonialism and Comcars

Image result for robert menzies car

Senator Mattias Cormann has admitted he was behind the decision to change the colour of our government Comcars – which ferry politicians around – from white to dark grey in order to remove any remnants of our colonial past, which in his words were “a better reflection of a modern, forward-looking Australia.” Forget the fact that most government cars were painted black, including Sir Robert Menzies’ Bentley (above). Might have been better to channel the founder of the Liberal Party as inspiration instead some woke nonsense. Or just let the drivers, who need to clean and maintain the vehicles, choose. 

Seriously though, what % of Australians have ever thought that our white Comcars harked to a colonial past? Best put it to a plebiscite and waste more time. 

Dark Grey? Isn’t that a gloomy hue? Should Aussies prepare for dark days ahead? Truth be told the colour is probably quite representative of where our economy is heading, even without coronavirus.

Interestingly, according to car insurer youi,

Our accident frequency research reveals that dark coloured cars are more likely to be in an accident than lighter coloured cars, likely because they are less visible to other drivers on the road. Grey coloured cars topped the list, followed by black and charcoal.

Who says that politicians don’t make sacrifices for us?

If we study where the proportion of cars coloured in colonial white is highest, perhaps parliament should be spending up big on a reeducation program in Tasmania for their unconscious colonialism. youi claimed,

Tasmania has the highest percentage of white cars at 33.80% versus the national average of 30.45% (silver 19.4%, blue 11.29%)

White cars seem to be connected to toxic masculinity too. Best run a campaign on unconscious sexism if youi is to be believed.

Compared to females, white is more popular for males relative to other colours (34.34% for males, 26.46% for females)

Take it a step further and question how much more Cormann could have done to reduce the racist footprints of colonialism.

Why are we buying cars from a maker that powered the Nazi Luftwaffe, SS and Wehrmacht, based in a nation that at the time was hell-bent on world domination and genocide? If we went for Lexus or Toyota we’d be buying cars built by a country that was also determined to colonize The Pacific. Jaguars or Range Rovers would be off the list, even though the Indians now own the brands. Rolls-Royce & Bentley are German-owned. Italians were colonialists. Maserati, Fiat, Lancia and Alfa Romeo banned. The French? Colonialists. Renault and Peugeot-Citroen are out. The Spanish? Colonialists. No SEATs, although that is owned by the Germans. America? Someone is bound to raise an issue with their CIA operative endorsed post-war military hegemony. So no Caddies, Fords or GM cars, especially after the axing of the Holden brand. China? Buying Haval or Great Wall cars would at the very least cut down on the overall cost of Comcars, especially with the generous 10-yr unlimited kilometre extended warranty.  That is how we cut the budget deficit. 

Maybe we should just buy Volvos. Maybe that way we could appeal to be supporting the home team of climate activist, Greta Thunberg to shore up the youth vote while acknowledging that the Viking hordes of 1000 years ago was far back enough in history to upset anyone today. If we’re lucky, the Swedish Riksbank may consider buying our sovereign debt again

Seriously, haven’t our pollies got anything better to do than conjure up such illogical nonsense like this? Given we’re at this level of discourse, perhaps walking, cycling or public transport would be a better bet for our lawmakers. At the very least it would put them in touch with how commoners live.

CSIRO cost energy transition at $1tn (oh plus $175bn to integrate renewables)

CSIRO

As our political class push for net-zero emissions by 2050, we shouldn’t be surprised that there aren’t costings. In reality, we would prefer politicians pave the roadmap to where the mystical decarbonized industries that will replace all of the jobs we will give up in mining, agriculture and transport will come from to fund it all? One way to cut our emissions is to tank the economy. Job done. After all being on the right side of history involves sacrifice. Our grandkids will thank us for it. Greta assures us.

The bigger question is why haven’t our politicians made a b-line to reference our CSIRO’s energy transition costings which exceed $1 trillion with a “T” out to 2050 (p.135)? Note this report isn’t a net-zero study – just lower emissions. So by that logic, net-zero will cost even more. 

You will feel even warm and fuzzier after reading the next sentence.

CSIRO assures us that “these costs do not include the full integration costs of renewables, but that these costs are expected to be significantly less than $175 billion.” Who cares about billions in a world of trillions? Significantly less? Can anyone name a government project that has come in on time and on budget? Submarines? NBN? The beauty of spending other people’s money.

The power generation pathways are quite interesting. In Pathways 1 & 3, solar and wind are capped at 45%. Pathway 1 relies on biomass (actually dirtier than brown coal) with Pathway 3 allowed to include HELE coal, nuclear and geothermal. In Pathway 2 renewables are uncapped with battery storage. Pathway 4 is the same as Pathway 1 but with additional electricity consumption from hydrogen electrolysis for transport.

Electricity wholesale prices are contained on p.231. Even in the best-case scenario, we should expect a 50% increase in electricity costs. In the worst-case scenario on Pathway 3, wholesale prices will surge over 4x. Politicians should proudly tout to the public that they have energy prices under control.

Retail prices remain the cheapest on a no abatement basis (p.233)…who knew? In 2016 dollars, no abatement electricity will rise 40%, Pathways 1-3 +60% and Pathway 4 +80%.

CSIRO also assumes that by 2030, 5% of rooftop solar owners elect to leave the grid increasing to 10% by 2050.

Why aren’t our politicians looking at the world’s biggest renewable crash test dummy – Germany? As we wrote, Germany’s Federal Court of Auditors is even more forthright about the failures…The shift to renewables, the federal auditors say, has cost at least 160 billion euros in the last five years. Meanwhile, the expenditures “are in extreme disproportion to the results…

Note 330,000 German households are in a state of energy poverty and have had their electricity provider cut them off. Australia is around 45,000.

We have a home-grown movement to reference commitment to climate change. 98.9% of households in the electorate of Warringah, that supposedly voted Zali Steggall OAM in on a climate change ticket, still haven’t signed up to her ‘Roadmap to Zero’ plans. Maybe they are just too busy filling their high powered V8 SUVs on Military Rd to get around to it.

If we want to stop global warming, at the very least politicians should stop creating all this hot air. This net-zero policy is an economic suicide note.

Global Coal-fired power statistics – Diary of a Wimpy Kid

What is it with the self-flagellation over coal-fired power? The announcement that the Morrison government intends underwriting “ONE” coal-fired power plant brings with it the hysteria of publicly force-feeding kindergarten kids with highly radioactive sludge at recess time. Naturally, none of this outrage is based on facts. It is all tokenism.

Here are the stats for coal-fired power stations globally:

Coal Capacity

Australia has only 2.5% of the coal-fired capacity of China. Versus our total of 58, China has almost 3,000 in service.

Coal Operation

Coal-fired plants that have been announced, are under construction, permitted and pre-permit stage around the globe total 1,046. Where are the climate activists in China, India, Vietnam, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Japan, Russia, Mongolia, Botswana, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, South Korea, Thailand, Malawi, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Turkey, Egypt, Poland and South Africa?

New Coal

The mt CO2-e output of each country is as follows. Note China produces 36x more CO2.

Coal CO2

So China and India are responsible for 58% of coal-fired power generated emissions and will be 50% of all new capacity additions going forward.

Coal CO2 Contrib

China has 100x more coal-fired power on the drawing board than Australia yet we behave as though we are the biggest climate sinners on the planet! China and India have consistently been 70%+ of all new coal-fired plant capacity additions since 2006.

Coal Capa

So do Australian activists honestly think that canning one domestic new coal-fired power plant will have the slightest effect on global temperatures when our Asian and African neighbours are full speed ahead?

There have also been arguments made by activists that our coal exports should be counted against our totals in terms of emissions. Fine. Then by that logic, FNF Media expects the total emissions of every car sold in Australia (including fuel consumed) to be charged back to Japan, China, Korea, America and Europe. Every aircraft, every electronic device, every imported building material, crane, bulldozer, wind turbine, solar panel and truck that transports it. It would equal itself out pretty quickly.

Our global neighbours seem to be prioritizing national growth over climate alarmism. For it would appear they do not have the same level of brain-washed fanatics telling our kids that they have inherited a planet that will make them the last people on earth to survive.

The quickest route for Australia to end its prosperity is to cower to this insanity. To fall in line to the idea that renewables are cheaper (they aren’t) and more green is preposterous. Wind turbine blades are being put into landfill and solar panels are toxic to recycle and likely to end in the same place. Germany is giving us a great beta test case of how renewables are failing them. Indulge yourself here.

Coal-fired plants in Australia are forced to run sub-optimally to cater to the demands of the fluctuations in renewables which must be given priority to the grid. Ask anyone in large scale manufacturing how being forced to run at fluctuating levels destroys efficiency. It really is that simple.

Coal Price

Thermal coal prices are far from going out of control. So our power plant electricity generation isn’t becoming pricier due to input costs.

We have to stop becoming emotional about numbers and data and look at what they are telling us rather than build a narrative and reverse engineer the results. It always catches up to us in the end.

Our government needs to show some backbone and provide easy to understand data about reality. Rather than fold at the confected outrage which appears backed by crony capitalists.

Now that former PM Turnbull is weighing in on the debate (contradicting comments made while PM) saying that it is lunacy to pursue coal. Given his record of poor judgment, it stands to reason building cleaner coal-fired power plants is a sensible way to lower energy prices and remain a competitive global economy.

As FNF Media likes to say, the numbers will always be right in the end. Fiddle them at your peril.

50 years of Davoz. The Global Shapers will be the rope the Multistakeholders use to hang the rest of us with

Davos is upon us. That event where the world’s elite congregate via private jet and helicopter transport to tell the rest of us to reconsider our use of a second hand SUV to take the kids to soccer practice for the sake of the planet.

This event marks 50 years. What started as a good idea is now nothing more than a networking event for crony capitalists looking to exploit gutless governments into backing their schemes and ridiculing those that don’t sign up for multi-million dollar memberships.

We should applaud the World Economic Forum (WEF) for helping perpetuate the culture of systemically brainwashing our youth.

In the 2020 Global Risks report, we get the following table which highlights adults (‘Multistakeholders’) and the youth (‘Global Shapers’). Who knew that environmental issues took the Top 5 positions among the kids? Privacy be damned. Adults were more concerned with politics and trade wars. Hint hint President Trump.

The long term outlook produced even more drama. The adults seem to have appeased the kids on climate but their private jet powered life styles at the very least mention global governance failure and the risk of asset bubbles popping.

The youth on the other hand ramped up the global warming rhetoric to 11. The Top 6 concerns are climate and #8 turns out to be about climate refugees. That’s the result of a Marxist education, one that NZ is only too proud to boast about. Forget rational debate to engage kids on how to see two sides of an argument. They will be admonished for speaking out against the orthodoxy. Or doxxed on social media. Or both. Is it any wonder we have a mental health crisis?

Although it is worth mentioning that the deteriorating global economic fundamentals highlighted in the same report risk handing the kids their ideal utopia by way of a deep recession thanks to excessive global debt levels and low interest rates. It is unlikely these self-entitled ‘Global Shapers’ have ever contemplated, much less lived through such an outcome with all of their earth ending hysteria. Best tell them that if they pursue their dream of 100% renewables and zero carbon emissions they can bask in the shared misery of having let their teachers blindly mislead them by never challenging them on anything. Experience is a hard teacher. They’ll get the test first and the lesson afterwards. But such reality will be too late and take decades to fix.

Perhaps these ‘Global Shapers’ would do well to study the reasons why inequality and social upheaval will continue to grow if the world pursues the barking mad drive to decarbonise the world. The report even makes a point to talk of the disruption in France by the yellow vests. It noted,

In France, for example, the persistence of the “gilets jaunes” movement had caused businesses more than US$11.4 billion in losses by December 2019 and complicated the government’s plans for economic revival.

The yellow vests are protesting over regulation and climate related taxes.

Under the chapter of ’10 years left’, we got the following passage which is full of untruths as to beggar belief.

Governments, markets and, in an increasing number of societies, voters are awakening to the urgent realities of climate change—it is striking harder and more rapidly than many expected. The last five years are on track to be the warmest on record. Climate-related natural disasters such as hurricanes, droughts and wildfires are becoming more intense and more frequent, reportedly now averaging a disaster a week. Polar ice is melting more quickly than anticipated, with drastic implications for sea levels and coastal populations. Severe weather is worsening: the last year witnessed unprecedented wildfires and devasting storms across the globe, sea ice loss in the Arctic and record-breaking heatwaves in Europe.”

Yet how was it that Queenslanders voted to keep the incumbent government in power because of its support for a coal mine? Why is China committing to 300-500 new coal-fired power plants?

How is it that the UN has reported categorically that it has ‘low confidence’ on any shift in the behaviour of natural disasters? In the UNIPCC’s March 2018 report on weather extremes with respect to anthropogenic induced global warming) it says,

“…There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systemsin some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floodslow confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences..low confidence in projections of changes in extreme winds.. low confidence in projections of changes in monsoonslow confidence in wave height projections…overall low confidence because of inconsistent projections of drought changes…low confidencein projected future changes in dust storms…low confidence in projections of an anthropogenic effect on phenomena such as shallow landslides.”

Where is the evidence of 10s of millions of climate refugees fleeing rising sea levels an coastal populations?

Virginie K. E. Duvat of the Institut du Littoral et de l’Environnement, University of la Rochelle-CNRS, La Rochelle sponsored by the French National Research Agency; French Ministry of Environment, Energy and Oceans (MEEM) wrote.

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.

This confirms a 2010 study by Webb & Kench which revealed,

that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 ha. Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area. Despite small net changes in area, islands exhibited larger gross changes.

There is even reference to properties sold in Florida and the risk they become uninsurable. Then why is the Florida house price index at record highs?

What about record breaking cold waves in Europe and Canada? Unprecedented wildfires and storms? Not according to the data.

Unprecedented media sensationalism more like it.

One comment made in the report was the fact that 14x more women die than men during natural disasters. Is this proof there are only two biological genders or are the studies on non-binary deaths during disasters incomplete? This may have to be a separate break out session.

The report also issues this stark warning.

Aside from a number of vanguard first-mover champions, most companies, too, appear ill-equipped to address climate risk.

Ill-equipped or paying lip service?

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 and do the right thing why not force their choice? The obvious answer is that it’s hypocritical.

Yet even our own ASIC feels the need to force the minds of corporates to deal with climate change. Forget the data that shows reporting on the subject has collapsed since 2011 from an already low level because the free market mechanism reveals that pricing to offset such fears simply don’t exist in any meaningful way. The regulator’s wish to enforce reporting only proves it needs to construct a narrative to ward off a problem that doesn’t rate much of mention other than virtue signaling.

Perhaps this urgency to get regulators to pressure corporate leaders showed up with this snippet in the WEF report,

In the World Economic Forum’s survey of business leaders, none of the top 10 risks globally are environmental, suggesting a critical blind spot…industry partners of the World Economic Forum ranked environmental risks higher than business leaders surveyed more broadly…Overall, lack of consistent awareness-raising among business leaders may create first-mover advantages for some, but it also potentially demonstrates the much more concerning overarching risk: that many businesses may not be planning for the physical and financial risks that climate change may have on their activities and across their value chains.

So in plain English that says that the majority of corporates that don’t pay into the WEF’s Davos slush fund are evil and if we can get the governments of the world to force change, its members will be the first beneficiaries of any new climate legislation.

Yes, Global Shapers are merely the rope that the Multistakeholders will use to lynch the rest of us with.

German farmers revolt against government schwein

40,000 angry German farmers have blockaded the Unter den Linden with with 8,600 tractors displaying placards which read,

Farmers feed you’, or ‘Without us, you would be hungry, naked, sober’

This was in response to the German government’s new agricultural package. Essentially farmers are upset that officials haven’t consulted them over proposed changes to reduce the use of pesticides, insecticides and fertilizers by 20%.

Government studies have targeted farmers for nitrate (from fertilizers) finding its way into groundwater, Farmers admit some of it comes from fertilizer but a lot of it comes from the poor state of wastewater treatment plants.

Farmers rightly see a 20% reduction in fertilizer only reduces yields and impacts income placing more pressure on family run farms to survive.

Where did such legislation come from? Of course. Our old mates in Brussels. The European Court of Justice ruled the German government hadn’t taken strict enough measures on curbing nitrate in the water, opening them up to EU fines. So knee jerk reactions resulted. It gets worse.

Perhaps what the mainstream media failed to notice was an obscure passage tucked in the conclusion of a December 2019 report titled ‘Designing an effective agri-environment-climate policy as part of the post-2020 EU Common Agricultural Policy‘ which said,

Meanwhile Germany should make use of the new design opportunities in its national implementation to gradually shift the CAP away from its focus on income and align it more consistently with objectives that serve the public good, focusing particularly on the environment, climate action and animal welfare.”

Why doesn’t Angela Merkel just cut farmers a cheque and nationalise farming? Or is it better for her to get her ministers to bankrupt these climate change deniers and pick up the scraps and embark on 5 year plans where meat production can be halted? Maybe the best thing for the farmers to do is keep driving east and see how much a Romanian farmer will give for a 2nd hand Klaas tractor.

Did Greta’s flight shaming work on Germans or was it something else?

More pesky facts. Flight shaming is the latest and greatest form of climate activism. Our 16yo Time Person of The Year 2019, Greta Thunberg, has said Germans have taken to rail with a sharp drop off in air travel.

She said on her FB page,

Last month domestic air travel in Sweden was down 11%. In Germany it was down 12%. The climate- and environmental crisis can of course only be solved by a system change. But these numbers surely do help with bringing that change a little closer…

Bloomberg noted,

The number of people flying between German cities fell 12% in November from a year earlier, according to the ADV industry group, marking a fourth straight monthly drop and mirroring a pattern emerging in Sweden.

A shame Bloomberg failed to mention that Germany’s largest airline Lufthansa grounded 1,300 flights in November in order to weather internal turbulence caused by thousands its flight attendants who went on strike. That might have an impact on travel! 180,000 passengers were forced to travel by other means.

Deutsche Bank Research also noted,

Passenger numbers at German airports recently fell…the decline is largely due to economic reasons, such as the cyclical slowdown and lower supply due to airline bankruptcies.

Unfortunately, the rest of Europe keeps flying. ACI Europe which tracks aircraft movements shows that travel across Europe had increased 2.1% in the latest figures. Specifically, Milan’s Malpensa Airport experienced 31.2% growth in October, Krakow +30.2%, Seville +14.8%, Bordeaux +14.2%, Vienna +10.2% and Brussels +6.4%.

Once again, the media has so little regard for context. Sing a narrative even if it is not proven by the data. Yet another example of why there is little need to listen to teenagers who pontificate as experts, even if spoon fed by adults with an agenda.

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.