Time indulges another totalitarian voice for the 2019 Person of the Year

16yo climate alarmist Greta Thunberg defines our age. As many of you know, she has been awarded Time’s 2019 Person of the Year. Sort of fitting given the magazine has a tendency to hand it to those that speak in totalitarian tones (not her own of course). Recently, she dropped the following statement,

After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.

One doesn’t have to be a teenager either to formulate such views. It wasn’t so long ago that an 11-yo implored all climate activists to go beyond the battle for global warming and fight for gun control, LGBTQ+ rights and to demand that her teachers can receive a living wage. How dare we even question where she got such thoughts! Kids just know better than we selfish adults (who used to recycle milk bottles, wash diapers and push lawnmowers) who have trashed their planet!

FNFM has always felt pity for poor Greta and written so on multiple occasions. She has been systematically abused by authoritarian adults to push their ridiculous globalist agenda. Knowing that it is uncool to attack a kid, she makes the perfect human shield. She is the participation trophy personified. Her “how dare you” assertions are never challenged by the media who toss softball questions to further deify this high priestess of the climate change movement. We must not challenge and inevitably we will probably lose our right to do so thanks to the cancel culture amongst the youth today. Such blasphemy won’t be tolerated.

No one can deny the passion with which she has embraced her cause even if not completely aware of the hypocrisy created by it. While the gesture of sailing on carbon-based yachts across the Atlantic and back to save the planet in order to slash her carbon footprint was noble, the reality is that she would have lowered the aggregate carbon footprint by jumping a scheduled flight that was taking off anyway. Why, because the boat owners had to fly sailors across the ocean to make it a reality. Yet we can calculate her potential impact:

If we assume Greta’s weight around 35-40kg, it would mean she would add 0.016% to the fuel calculations a Boeing 777 pilot would have to account for. Her impact would be so minuscule as to beggar belief.

280 million trips were made by commercial aircraft last year according to the IATA. Her transatlantic return flight would only be 2 of those meaning she would represent 0.000000714% of all annual flights taken.

Given that airlines, by the IATA’s own stats, annually produce the equivalent to 2% of all man-made emissions or 0.000016% in total, her two flights would make up around 0.0000000000114%. That is slightly unfair as the journey would be longer than most flights (predominantly short-haul). So if e bumped it 4-fold, her return trip would have penalized the planet 0.0000000000007314%.

Thunberg has amassed 3.2m Twitter followers. It is an incredible feat in and of itself. However, FNFM worries that with all of this social media exposure, when none of the prophetic doom and gloom she parrots comes to pass by the deadlines set by climate alarmists, she might realise she has been summarily duped by the very people who have actually “stolen her childhood.”

Unfortunately, she is blissfully blind to being amidst the epicentre of 27,000 hypocritical climate catastrophists at the COP25 summit, most of who flew in to tell us how we all must save the planet (on their behalf). In that sense, it is wonderful to know there is still some innocence left.

If only she knew that her climate change evangelism has thrust the ‘save the planet‘ agenda back on the map, leading to the 21% surge in delegates over the Katowice (COP24) conference. If she wants to fight against those who have “stolen her dreams” they are right in front of her.

Many of her critics suggest she should go back to school. FNFM disagrees. What is the point of sending Greta back to the very institutions that planted the seeds of this Marxist indoctrination in the first place?

To be honest, if we are to submit to the whims of teenagers who know all there is to know, we should close down our universities because there is simply no value in tertiary education, especially now that these centres for open thinking are muzzling it on campus.

Maybe one day, when Greta has a teenager of her own (assuming she doesn’t try to avoid having kids to save the planet), she will see for herself what we knew all along.

As the old saying goes. “Experience is a hard teacher. You get the test first and the lesson afterwards.

Sir Elton is on to something big here folks

Sir Elton is on to something. He vigorously defended the use of his private jet by Prince Harry and Meghan by saying he’d offset the emissions via Carbon Footprint (CF) so the flights were carbon neutral.

CM decided to input the figures of what a return trip to Ibiza followed by a return trip to Nice would cost the lovely couple to offset their evil ways using CF’s calculator. Turns out there is no “private jet” setting on the CF website leaving CM to use first class as a default.

The return trip from the UK to Ibiza would only require £2.00 each. The UK-Nice run would also run £2.00 return. So for the grand total of £8.00, their carbon emissions could technically be paid for on CF. CM notes that if the flights were combined then the cost drops to £3.71 each, a saving of 58p!

To splurge, Sir Elton could select the ‘UK tree plant’ for £12.90 (incl 20% VAT) each for a grand total of £51.60. Kenyan reforestation options are £9.50.

We don’t know how much Sir Elton paid for his offsets. One would hope his billions did a bit more than £8.00 or worse, £7.42 on a package offset.

Perhaps the $100s of billions of tax dollars spent (wasted) on renewables every year could be abolished and easily replaced by the generosity of pop stars paying to plant trees in Kenya! Who knew?

Innovation nation’s energy mix

Israel is often thought of as the “innovation nation”. Jewish people sometimes joke that if Moses has a GPS he would have never picked modern day Israel as its the only place in the Middle East without oil.

So one would think that with the collective minds of all those brilliant inventors that they’d look at revolutionizing the renewables bandwagon. Sadly not.

Here is Israel’s electricity generation mix:

Natural Gas: 66%

Coal: 27.5%

Solar: 4.9%

Diesel/Oil: 1%

Wind: 0.16%

Over 90% is fossil fuel based.

However the Ministry for Environmental Protection does exist although it’s main target is water conservation which has been an issue since the Israeli state was founded.

Perhaps it is because they don’t see a cost effective solution by moving to renewables? Or perhaps they’re pragmatic knowing their carbon footprint is 0.0000024% of the global total? So nothing they do will make an impact. So let’s stick to energy that makes us competitive.

The fallacy of the 8 minute charge

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

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

Note the IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute was commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency to investigate lithium-ion batteries climate impact from a life cycle perspective.

The report showed that battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For every kilowatt hour of storage capacity in the battery generated emissions of 150 to 200 kilos of carbon dioxide already in the factory. Regular EV batteries with 25–30 kWh of capacity will result in 5 metric tonnes CO2, which is equivalent to 50,000 km driving in a regular, fuel-efficient diesel vehicle.

If we use those Swedish metrics on the Tesla Type S 100D battery pack of 100kWh, the car has done 167,000km worth of CO2 before its left the factory. So that would mean 20 metric tons of CO2 per car without taking into account any charging from the grid which is largely fossil fuel derived in most countries.

A 2019 model year BMW 530d diesel emits 138g of C02/km. So it can travel 145,000km just to match a car with a 100kWh battery pack before it leaves the dealership floor.

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

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

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