#adani

In order to be called a think tank, critical thinking would help

The problem with think tanks nowadays is that many are giving the rest a bad name. It would seem that not enough are actually doing the thing they are supposed to be doing – critical thinking.

It was only yesterday that the World Economic Forum’s 2020 report on gender justified a superior “health & survivability” gender gap score to Syrian women even though they live on average 15 years less than Australian women. Why? Because the WEF put more emphasis on the age gap between the sexes rather than longevity, poor Syrian males whose average life expectancies struggle to make 52-yo get back-handed applause for doing their bit for gender equality.

Closer to home, the think tank, The Australia Institute (TAI), has proposed the idea of a $1/ton carbon tax on fossil fuel companies to put into an independently administered climate disaster fund.

As ever with left-wing think tanks, taxation is the only viable cure to all ills. On page 37, TAI doesn’t miss the chance to write a few lines about our poor Pacific neighbours at risk of being inundating by rising sea levels despite a study showing 88.6% of Pacific islands and atolls being stable or growing in size. Who needs evidence when we want a narrative?

Don’t forget the one important takeaway. TAI was named as one of the four supposed “experts” prepared to put its name in a Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) report which scored Australia dead last on international and domestic climate policy. Remember this was the mob that handed Australia a 0.0 (zero point zero) score.

Only foaming at the mouth alarmists could derive such a ridiculous total and only a research body with little interest in objectivity would allow it to be included. If you are hunting for credibility, you won’t find it in the CCPI report.

Therefore if this is the standard at the TAI, why should we pay the slightest attention to them in terms of policy options to mitigate disasters?

TAI wrote in the heavily media, BoM & Deloitte sourced National Climate Disaster Fund report,

It is now clear that global warming increases both the frequency and intensity of many types of natural disasters including floods, bushfires, droughts and other extreme weather events. This is borne out by the science and experienced in unprecedented extreme events in Australia and globally.

Then why did the UNIPCC, the carbon cathedral of climate alarmism, state in its March 2018 report on weather extremes the following with respect to anthropogenic induced global warming?

“…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 confidence in projected future changes in dust storms…low confidence in projections of an anthropogenic effect on phenomena such as shallow landslides.”

Low confidence” is mentioned 230 times in the above report. “High confidence” gets talked about 169 times. “Cold” is mentioned 82x. “Hot” 44x. “Cold extreme” 11x and “Hot extreme” 8x. Is this a coincidence?

Backed by such “low confidence”, why would we lend time to TAI to give us solutions which only raise taxes on fossil fuel industries? Why hasn’t TAI consulted with the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to learn that 85% of Aussie bushfires are either deliberately, suspiciously or accidentally lit? Why not consult the WA Government’s Bushfire Front site which debunks the myth of climate change causing megafires?

Never mind such trivialities, TAI quotes the head of the Australian Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, who noted that Australia is in “the most natural disaster-prone region in the world” and thatclimate change is predicted to make disasters more extreme and more common.Since when did Australian military personnel become climate experts? Given our Navy uses pink nail varnish to promote recruitment is it any wonder he makes such activist statements?

For FNF Media, who does not profess to be a climate scientist, there is no escaping the list of activists straying out of their lane to push their non-existent credentials on the environment.

Take the Australian Medical Association (AMA). How is it that the AMA is being regarded as an expert on climate change? Does getting a degree in medicine bestow one insights on the impacts of hurricane or drought activity?

The Doctors for Environment Australia have jumped on the activist bandwagon too saying, “three medical colleges, the RACP, ACEM and ACRRM representing tens of thousands of doctors recently declared climate change a health emergency.

Yet do the AMA, RACP, ACEM or ACRRM speak for the each and everyone of their members? The stats say otherwise. In 1962, more than 95% of doctors belonged to the AMA. By 1987 it was 50%. AHPRA reports that in 2016 there were 107,179 registered medical practitioners. The 2016 AMA annual report notes a membership of 29,425. That is 27% of doctors. Shouldn’t the AMA board raise the alarm and focus on the hollowing of its base?

Or should we just follow the money? The non-warmist RACGP has more than doubled its revenues since 2012, while AMA has trickled up 10%. Not surprising AMA revenues have stalled when it has sought to get medical students, which now represent over 1/3rd of members to sign up for free in order to pad the numbers in the hope they’ll join the save the planet cabal.

Even the financial sector is blowing the alarmist trumpet. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) stated earlier this year, “there is no excuse for inaction on climate change, warning there is a high degree of certainty that financial risks will materialize as a result of a warming climate.”

Why isn’t anyone asking what APRA is doing by shaming companies that do not meet voluntary climate risk disclosure targets which are set out by the Task Force in Climate-related Financial Disclosures, a private sector body chaired by none other than global warming alarmist Michael Bloomberg? Where is the independent thought? Talk about taking one’s eyes off the ball.

Our own central bank is burning witches too. In a speech given by the Deputy Governor, the RBA is basing its assertions on the prophecies of the IPCC and BOM, two of countless organisations which have been caught red handed manipulating climate data. Why doesn’t data malfeasance constitute a red flag in the RBA’s internal analysis? Do they apply the same rigour to interest rate policy?

Or our mega banks that refuse to lend money to the Adani project, not based on any valid financial risk assessment but ideological moral preening. Shouldn’t shareholders be concerned that banks are making such irrational investment policy when they need to offset the alarming imbalance in their mortgage loan books? Never mind.

Or the revelation that a band of 29 former fire chiefs, who are proclaiming global warming expertise, are backed by the even more alarmist Climate Council, who we called out on their own “colossal bullshit.” Yes, the Climate Council’s Chief Councillor is none other than Tim Flannery, a man with an absolutely terrible record of dud predictions about our climate.

FNF Media couldn’t hold a flame to these gentlemen in understanding fire behaviour and how to extinguish them, but feels justified questioning the extent of their expertise in climate science.

Because therein lies the problem. The list of supposed experts keeps growing. Yet the ever compliant media falls into line and joins the cheerleading squad. Throw a Cate Blanchett into the mix and get celebrities to espouse their superior intellect to the rest of us.

Perhaps we might ask our click bait journalists whether they consult their bank manager for climate change wisdom anymore than they do the Bob Jane T-Mart tyre fitter for relationship advice?

There is a sad truth that more and more think tank tomes are succumbing to ideological clickbait group think rather than pushing rigid processes to come up with meaningful outcomes. TAI just adds to the growing list of those reverse engineering a narrative. Perhaps the TAI carbon tax solution should also include the manufacture of the raw materials that go to making solar cells, wind towers and battery backups (all derived in part from fossil fuels).

Oh and yes, there is no doubt Syrian men and women would trade a trimming of the health and survivability gender gap to add 15-20 years to their lives.

The lost plot

Is anyone surprised that nothing was achieved at the COP25 summit? How is it possible that 27,000 disciples knelt at the altar of the UNFCCC to listen to a pigtailed teenager and came up empty handed?

UNSG Antonio Guterres lamented, “I am disappointed with the results of COP25…The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation and finance to tackle the climate crisis.”

What annoys FNFM is the sanctimonious shame culture that consumes these meetings. Heretics are outed and slammed. Australia is never far away from a beating. Yet the show goes on. COP26 will misuse data and amplify the hysteria.

Even more disturbing is how this woke behaviour is finding its way into our financial institutions.

Instead of looking to diversify earnings and maximize shareholder returns they are taking stands on climate change. The Big 4 Aussie banks refuse to invest in anything related to the Adani coal mine. Another 35 global banks will do likewise.

One could make a clear case against investment were the Adani coal mine to carry excessive financial risks but it doesn’t. The end user in India has a giant thirst for decades. This is money for jam.

Bank boards should ask themselves, since when did any customers seek climate advice from their loan managers? It is ludicrous.

APRA should forget regulating the banks over fees or charging dead people but question the economic rationale behind decisions like Adani. It is not to say banks don’t have a right to deploy capital as they deem fit but there should be a sensible purely financial explanation behind it, not one wrapped in ideological dross.

The ultimate irony here is that banks, forever showing diversity in the workplace, don’t seem to want to apply it to the loan book which is so ridiculously skewed to mortgages. There is nothing prudent about that.

So maybe the UN COP summits are having the desired effect behind the scenes. Howl at the moon long enough and get teenagers to scream “how dare you” to shame our banks into folding to local public pressure, which in reality amounts to a handful of misguided students with placards and Twitter accounts who wish to wag class.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if a housing collapse sent some of our heavily geared Aussie banks toward insolvency which could have been averted were they to have made a rational decision to lend to Adani, the very business they told us would kill them.

On a final note, how do we have banks disinterested in taking advantages where little competition exists? Isn’t that the holy grail of financial strategy?

The beauty behind Adani (and other projects like it) is simple. No need to embark in competitive intelligence to find out what their banking rivals are doing. Just listen to their public statements on what they aren’t doing and take the spoils. Higher margin and lower risk. It is not rocket science.

Debunking more shameless taxpayer-funded climate alarmist crap from SBS

Yet more ridiculous climate alarmist rubbish was published from the taxpayer-funded SBS claiming we rank dead bottom (true) in one of the lower weighted (it didn’t mention that) categories of the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI). The CCPI measures the emissions, renewable energy share and climate policies of 57 countries and the European Union. It released the document at the COP25 summit to bathe in the spotlight with alarmists pals. Where was the journalistic rigour?

Who were the Aussie based “experts” (activists) the CCPI relied on to provide really in-depth qualitative opinions on our climate policy evaluation?

Doctors for the Environment Australia
Australian Conservation Foundation 
Oxfam
The Australian Institute

All climate activists. Precious little objectivity there. It is isn’t hard to work out why Australia scored a 0.0 on climate policy. Seriously? Any think tank with the remotest thirst for integrity in reporting and data collection should have questioned a zero score.

According to Bloomberg NEF, Australia has the 3rd highest clean energy spend per capita! We spent twice as much as France yet these climate alarmists marked us down because our democracy supported Adani. No doubt the experts just hurled toys out of the pram.

Why can’t the SBS do the slightest bit of fact-checking? What prevents it from reading the document and finding out that the credentials of the experts handing out the lowest score (relative to what?) with a lower weighting in the overall score is pretty low. Note the other three categories are based on actual data, not the whims of activists with an axe to grind against the current Morrison government.

And the summary for Australia was as follows,

National experts observe a lack of progress in these areas with the government failing to clarify how it will meet the country’s insufficient 2030 emission reduction target and inaction in developing a long-term mitigation strategy. While the government is not proposing any further targets for renewable energy beyond 2020, it continues to promote the expansion of fossil fuels and in April 2019 approved the opening of the highly controversial Adani coalmine. Experts note that the new government is an increasingly regressive force in negotiations and has been criticised for its lack of ambition by several Pacific Island nations in the context of this year’s Pacific Island Forum. The dismissal of recent IPCC reports, the government not attending the UN Climate Action Summit in September, and the withdrawal from funding the Green Climate Fund (GCF) underpin the overall very low performance in the Climate Policy category.”

This CCPI document is frankly laughable. Such is its desire to heap scorn and shame on nations, the Top 3 overall rankings were withheld from all nations. CPPI noted,

Still no country performs well enough in all index categories to achieve an overall very high rating in the index. Therefore, once again the first three ranks remain empty.

And would you look at the softball it tossed China,

National experts emphasize that China exerted huge efforts to cut fossil fuels and emissions in a coordinated way, however due to the turbulence of economy and trade still performed under expectation from the international community. Further, the national experts acknowledge that China put a lot of effort to overachieve its 2020 goals in the run-up to national GHG emissions 2030 targets. However, more efforts are needed to be in line with a well below 2°C compatible pathway. As the country is on track to fulfil its targets and promises made in Paris, experts hope that China will increase its targets next year. While the country could further increase its share of renewable energy in the energy mix over recent years, the rating in the Renewable Energy category remains medium. Despite a positive trend, current shares of renewable energy are rated low and national experts critically note the country’s high dependency on coal. By implementing a pilot emission trading scheme, China is showing positive efforts in national climate policy, which leads to a high rating in the Climate Policy category.

So could the CCPI tell us why renewables investment in China has slumped 40% as the government has said it won’t approve any such projects unless it can compete with coal?

USA’s overall emissions & emission per capita have declined since Trump took office but the CCPI could restrain its TDS.

National experts emphasise that the national climate policy has worsened under President Donald Trump’s administration and they highlight the importance of state-level measures. While renewable energy and energy use reduction targets are in place in some states, these vary greatly in terms of strength and implementation. At the international level, the performance completes the picture on a national level, with the US acting as a destructive player in international negotiations on all levels. The very low performance is further underpinned by the Trump administration officially having started the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, due to be finalised on 4 November 2020.

Yep, capitalism has allowed the US to experience declining emissions. No need for a socialist construct to hand over billions of dollars to rent-seekers. CCPI asked more activists including the Union of Concerned Scientists for the US bashing.

Image result for cop25 australia"

So take the CCPI report with all of the irrelevance of its compilation. Based on subjectivity. Just like the 11,000 signatories to a climate emergency, where the site that pushed the narrative overlooked the fact that Mickey Mouse, Aldus Dumbledore and Araminta Aardvark were included.

It is worth quoting Thomas Sowell again,

Those who cry out that the government should ‘do something’ never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.”

Well done on the SBS for yet more splendid journalistic integrity.

Boeing raises 20yr forecast

Boeing reports airlines will need around 44,000 new commercial aircraft worth $6.8 trillion by 2038, vs. 43,000 planes worth $6.49 trillion estimated in 2018. The biggest demand will remain for single-aisle jets. 32,420 narrow-body planes are likely to be built.

So much for the fear of global warming induced by air travel. In total, planes are 2% of human induced CO2. Or 0.00024% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the International Air Transport Association (IATA) wilted to the gun held to its head by the UN. The 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 reality is if Greta Thunberg receives an invite by the Queensland government to lecture on climate change she can rest easy that the footprint in the air will be so tiny because there isn’t a diesel electric train to get here.

Sydney Socialism Conference

Sydney is hosting its biggest anti-capitalist conference in August. Elitist wage earners pay $80 for the weekend. Concession or unemployed pay $45. High school students pay $20 or they can bundle the ticket and a copy of the “Introducing Marxism” book for $60! Or one can sign up for the $85 2-yr four issue Marxist Left Review theoretical journal. How lazy to only have a 1/2 yearly review?

CM questions how many socialists will pay full freight? Guessing not many.

At 10am in August 24th, ‘Marxism 101: Climate strikes, climate justice: A socialist response to global warming‘ kicks off the conference with the following summary,

Capitalism is fast destroying our planet, seen nowhere more clearly than the drive to build the Adani coal mine, against mass community opposition. This session will look at why a profit-driven market system inevitably leads us to environmental disaster, and how we can turn the situation around while looking after the most vulnerable.

Good to see the speaker will ignore the last election result, especially in the Adani coal mine’s backyard of Queensland. Despite this, recommended readings come from the Red Flag magazine, one with undoubtedly balanced credentials.

Perhaps CM will wait with baited breath for Sunday’s topic, “Why we feel shit too often: Marx on alienation

Could it be that living as a socialist causes one such misery?

The closing panel looks at “whose side are you on?” Presumably dissenting opinions will be howled at.

CM is half tempted to enter the surreal world of the loony left.

Venue yet to be announced.

Bjorn Lomborg points to cold facts of global warming

Bjorn Lomborg has written a powerful piece in the Weekend Australian which looks at the “cost” of climate emergency driven policy. It makes a complete mockery of the people who tell us we must save the planet with their prescriptions. Although CM has made the assertion many times that politicians make promises which are so unaffordable for so little return that it makes no economic sense. The hypocrisy of signatories is also telling.

Some of the choice quotes,

After New Zealand made its 2050 zero emissions promise, the government commissioned a report on the costs. This found that achieving this goal in the most cost-effective manner (which strains credulity because policy seldom if ever manages to be cost efficient) would cost more than last year’s entire national budget on social security, welfare, health, education, police, courts, defence, environment and every other part of government combined. Each and every year.

To replace a 1ha gas-fired power plant, society needs 73ha of solar panels, 239ha of onshore wind turbines or an unbelievable 6000ha of biomass...We often hear that wind and solar energy are cheaper than fossil fuels, but at best that is true only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. It is deeply misleading to compare the energy cost of wind or solar to fossil fuels only when it is windy and sunny

Most people think renewables are overwhelmingly made up of solar and wind. Nothing could be further from the truth. Solar and wind contributed only 2.4 per cent of the EU total energy demand in 2017, according to the latest numbers from the International Energy Agency. Another 1.7 per cent came from hydro and 0.4 per cent from geothermal energy…In comparison, 10 per cent — more than two-thirds of all the ­renewable energy in the EU — comes from the world’s oldest ­energy source: [burning] wood.

Today, fewer than 0.3 per cent of all cars are electric, and even if we could reach 200 million electric cars in 2040, the IEA estimates this would ­reduce emissions by less than 1 per cent. That is why, in the face of years of failure, politicians have continued doing one thing: making ever bigger promises.

The promises made in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and in the Kyoto Treaty in 1997 fell apart. A new study of the promises made under the Paris Agreement finds that of almost 200 signatories, only 17 countries — the likes of Samoa and Algeria — are living up to them, and these are succeeding mostly because they promised so little. But even if every country did everything promised in the Paris Agreement, the emission cuts by 2030 would add up to only 1 per cent of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2C.

Fail

Interesting article on Bloomberg discussing the obvious outcome of Sweden’s plan to get more EVs on the grid. As most hair-brained climate alarmist governments have a desire to outdo each other on the virtue signaling scale it often leads to poorly thought out decisions which end up costing tax payers a fortune.

Bloomberg’s Jesper Starn wrote,

Demand for electricity in Stockholm and other cities is outgrowing capacity in local grids, forcing new charging networks to compete with other projects from housing to subway lines to get hooked up.”

We’ve been here so many times before. Take Germany in bio-fuels.

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.

Spain perhaps provides the strongest evidence of poorly planned subsidy execution. In 2004 the Spanish government wanted to get 1GW of solar under its feed in tariff over 4 years. Instead it got 4GW in 1 year meaning its budget exploded 16x and it had €120bn in tax liabilities over the course of the promise. In the end, the government reneged on the promises it made because it couldn’t afford it. So much for the assurance of government run programs.

Not to mention the overproduction that has often been created by subsidies. When the subsidies are withdrawn, we see fierce cost cutting which buries prices and sends many producers to the wall which was the experience of the last cycle. Take a look at India’s once largest wind power producer Suzlon. At the peak $425 a share. Now $4.35. 90% up in smoke.

To think Bill Shorten wanted 50% EVs by 2030. Clearly Australian voters disagreed.

If governments can’t sustainably raise living wages without regulation, cheaper energy prices act like a tax cut so sticking with coal, gas and nuclear make far more sense than the life experience of sharp price increases thanks to green madness.

Here is betting Sweden doubles down on green madness to remain “woke”