#BloombergNEF

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.

Scorched house climate policy?

As 30cm of snow fell on Falls Creek yesterday (i.e. summer), Mother Nature proved yet again she is full of surprises. To think that giving loads of money to the UN can somehow change her stubborn ways is rather obtuse.

Less of a surprise was a protestor, Melinda Plesman, who brought parts of her burnt down house to attack the PM Scott Morrison for allowing the climate crisis to happen. Forget that the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) reports consistently that c.85% of fires are either deliberately, accidentally or suspiciously lit. Forget that multiple children have been found responsible for lighting these recent mega-fires. Just blame climate change, even though the Western Australian fire service notes on its own website that there is no evidence of such. CM wrote about that here.

Maybe Plesman could reflect on the internal politics within the upper echelons of the fire services? Not so much the rank and file (supposedly wife-beating) front line firefighters but the bureaucrats who make daft decisions such as buying a Boeing 737 fire-bomber which can only be used at 4 airports rendering it highly inflexible (as much as it’s a great political sales point) or a military helicopter which spends 5hrs in the maintenance shed for every hour it is in the field working. Or replacing 1-yo trucks with brand new ones because records are poorly kept? Or inadequate removal of fuel from the bush floor?

While it is completely understandable Plesman and 100s of others like her, are devastated that their houses have burnt to the ground, had Scott Morrison erected 1000s of wind turbines and solar parks since he took over the top job, it would not have made the slightest dent in the 1.3% of global emissions that makes up Australia’s share of the global total, nor have prevented these fires.

PM Morrison should arrange his RAAF jet to take Plesman to Beijing to tell President Xi that he is to blame for causing c.30% of global human-made GHG emissions and rising. She can then openly criticise Chinese policy that won’t approve new renewables projects unless they are cheaper than burning coal. What a surprise such investments are c.40% down on the previous year in China. What a shock that China has 100s of new coal-fired power plants on the drawing board?

It is easy to forget that Australia ranks #3 in the world for renewables spending per capita. We spent $9.5bn on clean energy last year, almost twice as much as France with its Paris Climate Accord loving Macron at the helm.

Unfortunately, it is too easy to capitulate to the cabal of climate change activism. Submit to the script of 11,000 signatories, despite the fact it included the likes of Mickey Mouse, Albus Dumbledore and Araminta Aardvark. Ignore that a recent major scientific paper, which claimed to have found rapid warming in the oceans as a result of manmade global warming, was withdrawn after an amateur climate scientist found major errors in its statistical methodology. Or the accident-prone Bureau of Meteorology and its 85% senior management structure which is in dire need of a thorough investigation.

Alarmists love to hate the coal industry. Plesman expressed her disdain too. It is a line often pushed by the climate change movement that Australia is responsible for the emissions caused by those who burn our black rocks overseas. By that measure, perhaps we should blame the Japanese, Koreans and Europeans for all of the emissions caused by the production and use of the 1,150,000+ cars we buy but are required to import each year? Or the Americans and Europeans for the commercial aircraft that belch all that nasty CO2? Or manufacturers of mobile devices and computer periphery? Maybe all the solar panels and wind towers, often built with raw materials from the fossil fuel industry?

CM honestly feels sorry for Plesman and others that have suffered such losses from these devastating bushfires but it doesn’t absolve them of getting to grips with the facts. She can be absolutely sure that even if Australia went 100% renewable and stopped exporting coal, that severe bushfires will continue to plague our future. As the WA Gov’t’s Bushfire Front states, “The only factor we can control is the large contiguous accumulations of fuel. Therefore, broadscale fuel reduction burning is the only defence we have against large wildfires. This will not prevent fires occurring, but it will ensure fires are less intense, are easier and safer to control and will do less damage...Experienced firefighters do not fear a 40-degree day per se. This is because even on a hot day, a fire in one or two-year old fuel can be controlled; on the same day a fire in 20-year old fuels with high winds would usually be unstoppable.

Bloomberg confirms the bleeding obvious

Image result for bloomberg nef

Nothing like a 77-yo former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg coming off the top buckle and body-slamming the current list of Democrat primary candidates Hulk Hogan style. So hopeless is the current field running that Bloomberg’s long-time advisor, Howard Wolfson said,

Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well-positioned” to defeat Donald Trump.

The question remains whether Bloomberg actually runs. If he doesn’t, he has literally thrown the present lot straight under a bus. Precious thanks to their campaigns. No doubt he will see how the reaction is before committing to the run. He will be 78 if he runs.

Yet, what record did Bloomberg leave behind in NY? Recall current Mayor Bill DeBlasio heaped scorn on Bloomberg for turning the city into one for the haves and the have nots. The argument that when he left office in 2013, 31% of the residents spent more than 50% on rent. That was a higher figure than when he took office.

One thing to bank on if Bloomberg wins the primary and challenges in November 2020, make sure you back up the truck on renewables investment when the polls all point to him doing a Hillary repeat (i.e. coronation) and sell just before the election result because it will be a fully priced sector before that date.

Mike Bloomberg is a climate alarmist of the first order so he’d likely re-sign the Paris Accord. Note that his own company has a dedicated Bloomberg NEF site for all things in clean energy.

ASX listed stocks linked to the renewable space include,

Infigen Energy (IFN) – Wind

Great Cell Solar (DYE) – Solar

Quantum Energy (QTM) – Solar

Solco (SOO) – Solar

M Power Group (MPR) – Solar

Carnegie Clean Energy (CWE) – Wave

ReNu Energy (RNE) – Biogas, Solar

Petratherm (PTR) – Geothermal

Black Rock Mining (BKT) – Graphite used in energy storage

Pacific Energy (PEA) – Biogas

Alterra Ltd (1AG) – Sustainable agriculture