#coalfiredpower

Dutch Supreme Court sets very dangerous precedent

No folks, this is not a joke. This is what happens when a judiciary drops impartiality and starts acting as an activist lawmaker instead of a law enforcer. The Dutch parliament is supposed to set legislation. Since when did the judiciary inherit such capabilities by a mandate from the people?

The Dutch Supreme Court has ruled the Dutch government must cut emissions by 25% by 2020 on 1990 levels on the grounds that not doing so is a violation of human rights.

To put that into context, on a per capita basis, Dutch GHG emissions have fallen 11.9% since 1990 to 9.5t per person. However, actual Dutch CO2 output in 1990 was 161,447kt CO2-e vs 162,290kt CO2e in 2017 based on. So a 25% cut vs. 1990 levels would mean the target would be 121,085kt CO2-e.

Let us not forget that the Dutch are responsible for 0.4% of global human-caused emissions. So to cut that by 25% on the latest numbers with growing emissions from China and India will mean the Dutch will be responsible for 0.3% of global emissions. Does the Dutch Supreme Court truly believe the lives of Dutch citizens will be remotely improved by knocking 0.1% off the global total?

Clearly, the Supreme Court didn’t need evidence. Which body did the Supreme Court base its verdict? On UN climate conventions. There is a problem in and of itself.

Never mind that the UN said this about the Netherlands in the past,

The WG2 IPCC climate bible noted, “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”.

This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding.”

Never mind that the UN didn’t issue a retraction. Who needs to know correct facts?

It gets worse,

An IPCC report which investigated models showed 98% have overestimated warming.

The Twelfth Session of Working Group I (WGI-12) was held from 23 to 26 September 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden. At the Session, the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (WGI AR5) was approved and the underlying scientific and technical assessment accepted.

Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I and Working Group I depends solely on the climate data of which 98% have proven wrong.

Chapter Nine “Evaluation of Climate Models” in WGI-12 notes:

Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. {9.4.1, Box 9.2, Figure 9.8}

“…In tropical regions, the models are too dry in the lower troposphere and too moist in the upper troposphere,” (p763)

Most climate model simulations show a larger warming in the tropical troposphere than is found in observational data sets(e.g., McKitrick et al., 2010; Santer et al., 2013).

Does the Dutch Supreme Court believe it knows better than the scientists the UN rely upon who openly admit the data is wrong? So climate change could affect food supply?

We all know the Dutch love chocolate.

Half of the world’s chocolate is currently sourced from just two African countries: Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. According to the IPCC, rising temperatures and a relative reduction in rainfall could make it less suitable for cocoa production in the future.

The research highlighted in the IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability report indicate that, under a “business as usual” scenario, those countries will experience a 3.8°F (2.1°C) increase in temperature by 2050 which could seriously impact cocoa production.

Claims that changes to the climate are also pushing cocoa-growing regions to higher altitudes in some parts of the world, which can make some crops unsustainable…production has more than doubled in the past 3 decades.

Dutch PM Mark Rutte was absolutely right to say this was a matter for politicians, not courts. What has been proven by this landmark decision is that the court is acting as a lawmaker which is NOT its role.

While some could argue that the Green Left took 9.1% of the vote in the 2017 Dutch election – its best-ever result – the latest polls for 2021 see the party ceding seats. It is hardly a mandate of the people to drastically cut emissions in such a ridiculous space of time.

Has the Dutch Supreme Court understood that c.20% of the economy is driven by industry – electronics, metal production, engineering – and agriculture? Should PM Rutte demand that it all be shut down? Will air traffic controllers at Schipol Airport be arrested and jailed if they let commercial aeroplanes circle for too long in low visibility conditions?

Dutch electricity generation is 75% powered by fossil fuels (natural gas and coal). Does the Supreme Court believe that cutting emissions 25% by 2020 is even remotely achievable without trashing the economy? Will cars be banned from the roads on weekends? Flights suspended on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays? How about Dutch citizens who don’t have a windmill bolted to their home get electricity rationed?

In conclusion, how on earth can the Dutch hit a 25% reduction target inside 12 months? Who will be charged and jailed for failing to meet these obligations in a country where no party has a mandate?

FNF Media sincerely hopes the Dutch government acquiesces the Supreme Court and watches the economy implode as it pushes energy austerity to hit targets that will reduce global emissions by 0.1%, or a 0.00000124% impact to all the CO2 in the atmosphere. All that pain for absolutely no gain.

We need a test case guinea pig to show the world just how ridiculously stupid climate alarmism is. At least the Dutch can self-medicate inside marijuana cafes in Amsterdam.

In all seriousness, the landmark decision of a Supreme Court dictating terms to the very body that sets laws is one that sets a dangerous precedent. Activism is now part and parcel of the Dutch judiciary.

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.

EU climate emergency vote is way worse than you think

What took the group thinking EU so long? What better way to justify more taxation and wealth redistribution than to declare a “climate emergency”? What you are about to read is a perfect explanation of how little credibility exists in the European Parliament (EuroParl).

In black and white, EuroParl noted,

EU countries should at least double their contributions to the international Green Climate Fund, Parliament says. EU member states are the largest providers of public climate finance and the EU’s budget should fully comply with its international commitments. They also note that pledges by developed countries do not meet the collective goal of 100 billion USD per year as of 2020…Finally, they urgently call on all EU countries to phase out all direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies by 2020.

Now, this is where it gets curious. Take a look at this file (from page 8) and ask yourself, how many amendments to resolutions within the “climate emergency” conversation were rejected supporting the overall declaration passing 429 in favour, 215 against, 19 abstaining?

Here is one amendment that was rejected 95, 563, 9 by MEPs (you can’t make this stuff up),

Recalls that climate change is one of the many challenges facing humanity and that
all states and stakeholders worldwide must do their utmost to measure it
scientifically so that policy, and especially spending, is based on observable facts and not on apocalyptic fearmongering or unreliable models; emphasises that there is
no scientific consensus on what percentage of climate change is anthropogenic and
what percentage is natural

Seems fair enough! Basing decisions affecting 550 million constituents on real hard data is the right thing to do, no? Clearly not. Shut up and follow the religious cult and demand followers cough up twice as much into the collections pot. The lobbyists must be well pleased.

Or,

“Text as a whole without the words: ‘urgently’, ‘and implement’ and ‘to net-zero
emissions by 2050″ defeated 101, 555, 15.

Isn’t it striking that the majority of MEPs won’t even consciously vote in favour of making sure funds are spent appropriately? Nope, bow down and shut up. Otherwise face being cut off as we get to observe from the EuroParl documents below.

This is what an MEP from Northern Ireland, Claire Fox, had to say,

Madam President, I voted against the climate and environmental emergency motion because I’m really concerned at the hyped-up anti-science scaremongering that’s terrifying young people, telling them that billions will die, that there’ll be a collapse of civilisation, a lot of the rhetoric coming out of Extinction Rebellion and echoed in the debate over the last few days. I think that the fact that we voted against an amendment today that said that we should be committed to bringing the environmental subject back to rational discussion, and we rejected it, admits that actually, we’re having an irrational discussion. This becomes advocacy and propaganda, rather than science. There’s no scientific evidence from the IPCC or anyone else about the extinction of humanity, and we should be very careful about claiming that anthropological climate changes cause floods and droughts, which we have been doing quite casually during the last few days. In fact, the IPCC says that such issues are probably caused by socio-economic conditions, and we forget socio-economic conditions too much and demand, in fact, as this Parliament has done, decarbonisation, which will lead to eco-austerity, massive price hikes in energy, and ordinary working people paying the cost for scaremongering and...

(The President cut off the speaker)

or another Northern Irish MEP Robert Rowland,

Madam President, I’d just like to reiterate what my colleague said. I also rejected the COP24 resolution. I may not be an Economics Professor, but I do profess to understand economics. They also call it the dismal science, but when it comes to the climate emergency, I would describe the apocalyptic forecasts as nothing but science fiction. The adoption of these policies today, and the aim of carbon neutrality by 2050 is nothing short of reckless and the most extreme example of economic illiteracy I’ve ever seen. The fact that amendments were rejected demanding a full impact assessment shows rank indifference to the cost and practicality of aggressive climate policies.

One thing I can say for certain is that the impact of net-zero makes the consequence of any form of Brexit look puny by comparison. Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy and Economics at Oxford University, was right when he said: ‘We should be honest that it is a huge industrial undertaking, and it will have significant cost. These are enormous industrial activities, there is nothing in history that looks like this outside of wartime.

In my own country, our own Chancellor has put that cost at over one trillion pounds, or almost 2% of GDP per annum. It is an insane policy.

If the EU truly wishes to make itself even less competitive, in the face of some of the world’s highest electricity prices, they are only self-flagellating in an already flailing economy which continues to slow to 5-year lows. If the EU truly looked at its record since 2007, it would see its policies have delivered 40 million more people into poverty, a number which totals 118 million people, or 23% of the EU population!

If there was ever a bigger load of intellectual dishonesty posted by the EU it would be this. It states that,

Climate emergency declarations in 1,195 jurisdictions and local governments cover 545 million citizens with 53 million of those living in the United Kingdom. This means in Britain now roughly 80 per cent of the population lives in areas that have declared a climate emergency.

The irony if such a statement is that there is no way in the world that 545 million citizens are in agreement within those 1,195 jurisdictions. 53mn Brits? Seriously? In Australia’s case, many declaring climate emergencies have been local green-left councils who have made idle gestures without backing it up with realities. Constituents have not been asked. Windfarm plans for Warringah are not on the agenda.

The greatest irony with the EU is that they classify biomass (which is more polluting than coal) as a renewable and gives it a zero-carbon emission weighting provided a tree is planted per tree burnt. Sadly trees take 40 years to fully grow to be able to offset that produced. However, we will discover that the fine print taketh away the wonderful headlines.

Will the Poles ditch their coal industry to comply or face savage reprisals from Brussels? Will the EU guarantee Poland gets huge subsidies to pay for its termination? Which country would be so blind as to put their livelihoods into the hands of the EU!? The Greeks might have a view as do the Brits.

This action will spectacularly blow up.

By all means ride the short term wave of renewables stocks but be sure to line up all of those nasty fossil fuel companies into the portfolio that get pummeled by financial markets because the type of economic disaster that will beset the EU will only create the conditions where the peons will revolt and force a return to the way things were. Efficient, cheap and reliable forms of energy that will make a proper dent in the poverty line rather than promises and handouts.

The EU needs to learn the lesson that “Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it.” It won’t be long before the youth of today get to embrace their love for socialism. Experience is a hard teacher. They’ll get the test first and the lesson afterwards.

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.

Jacinda, time to deal with fects

Jacinda

NZ PM Jacinda Ardern! You may be the high priestess of wokeness but sadly you need to have a better grasp of numbers. CM already detailed that Australia is more generous by a considerable currency-adjusted per capita margin than your Wellness Budget. Look at the ratio of Kiwis living in Aus vs Aussies living in NZ. 570,000 plays 37,000.

Sledging Aussie PM Scott Morrison may win brownie points with the left (and the global mainstream media cheerleading squad will find you faultless) but here are some facts you might consider before you speak:

  1. China is 45% of global coal powergen. China has over 1,000 coal plants in operation. A further 126 are under construction and another 72 are in the planning stage. Australia has only 2 in the pipeline.
  2. China has grown CO2 emissions from 10.6% of the global total atmosphere in 1990 to 29.3% today. Australia has slipped from 1.21% to 1.08% respectively. You are but a spec.
  3. Since 1990, Australia’s CO2 emissions per capita have risen by 1.8%. NZ has grown by 10.8%. Yes, we emit more CO2 per capita in gross terms because we have a monster mining industry that you don’t. Australia’s impact on global CO2 is 0.0000134% of the total atmosphere. Yours is 0.00000124%. Nothing. So no matter what we do, our impact via virtue signalling will account for zero. Feel free to flash those pearly whites to the adoration of the sheep that think you should lead a global government. No thanks.

The NZ PM’s Wellness Budget has received lots of accolades. A true leader! Champagne socialist Sir Richard Branson also praised her saying other countries should take note. Despite owning an airline…

The idea that a budget should be solely based on economics is not progressive and more should be directed at “well-being”. That is not to say this budget is not “well-intentioned”. However, the statistics compared to across the ditch do not fare well in relative terms.

Comparing her newest policies versus Australia reveals the kangaroos get better access to social services than the kiwis. How surprising that none of the mainstream media bothered to look at the budget numbers on a like for like basis? Just praise her because she represents their ideal version of a socialist leader.  CM has looked through both budgets and adjusted for currency to make for easier like-for-like comparisons.

When it comes to health spending per capita (currency-adjusted), Australia is expected to climb from A$3,324 in 2019 to A$3,568 in 2022. NZ is expected to go up slightly from A$3,516 to A$3,561 respectively.

On social security and welfare, Australia is expected to pay out A$7,322 per capita in 2019, growing to A$7,977. NZ, on the other hand, is forecast to go from A$5,573 per head to A$6,489.

On mental health, Australia forked out around A$9.1bn exclusively on these services reaching 4.2m citizens last year. NZ is planning on spending A$45.1m in 2019 with a total of A$428m by 2023/24 to hit 325,000 people on frontline services for mental health. While the move is a positive one, NZ will allocate A$1.78bn to mental health as a whole over 5 years. On an annualised basis, Australia will still allocate 5x the NZ amount to mental health per capita. So much for wellbeing.

On education, NZ plans to increase per capita spending 7.9% between 2019 and 2022 whereas Australia will lift it 12.5% over the same period. NZ spends around 2x Australia per capita on education although PISA scores between 2006 and 2015 are virtually identical (and both heading south)

On public housing, Ardern can claim a victory. Australia is expected to cut spending per capita from A$240 in 2019 to A$194 in 2022 when NZ will go from A$137 to A$282. Although let’s hope Ardern has more success than her KiwiBuild policy. The Australian’s Judith Sloanrightly pointed out,

“Ardern also has stumbled with other policies, most notably KiwiBuild. The pledge was to build 100,000 additional affordable homes by 2028.

It has since been modified to facili­tation by the government to help build new homes. Moreover, the definition of afford­ability has been altered from between $NZ350,000 ($340,000) and $NZ450,000 to $NZ650,000.

What started off as an ill-considered public housing project has turned out to be an extremely unsuccessful private real estate scam. The government estimated that there would be 1000 homes built last year under KiwiBuild; it turned out to be 47.”

Good news KiwiBuild has made it to 250.

 

Al Gore awards Adani a badge of honour

Good to see Al Gore lay into Adani. Adani should wear it as a badge of honour given Gore’s track record of catastrophic failure with respect to his predictions. To show how out of touch he is, there is an irony that Adani, being an Indian entity, probably has more on-the-ground intel on plans for coal fired power. So luck is probably the last thing it needs.

India that has grown coal fired power gen from 61GW to 221GW. 4x in 18 years. While India might be diversifying the grid mix, coal isn’t on the way out as Gore hopes. 74% of India’s power gen is currently coal- fired. Plants don’t get closed over night. Expect a 40 year life minimum for a plant. Hazelwood was almost 50 when it was prematurely closed. Coal isn’t going away anytime soon.

A quick question, does anyone know whether Gore provides a disclosure statement as to which, if any, investments he has in the renewables field? It’s one thing to put one’s money where one’s mouth is but another not to disclose it when evangelizing.

Why doesn’t Atlassian lead the charge if it is such a great idea?

Coal.png

Atlassian Co-Founder Mike Cannon-Brookes (MCB) has put forward a vision that is so compelling for Australia to junk its $70bn coal industry, it is a real wonder why he has not decided to deploy the tech giant’s own capital to seize those obvious riches? He believes coal will be worth zero in 15-25 years. If it is such a dead industry, can he explain why China’s coal-fired power (great infographics here) has grown from 200GW in 2000 to over 900GW today? Or India that has grown from 61GW to 221GW of coal-fired power gen? Why would Adani persevere in the face of 8 years of government and regulatory roadblocks in Queensland if coal wasn’t on the menu for India’s future?

The International Energy Agency (IEA) notes the following on coal,

Coal power generation increased 3% in 2018 (similar to the 2017 increase), and for the first time crossed the 10 000 TWh mark. Coal remains firmly in place as the largest source of power at 38% of overall generation. Growth was mainly in Asia, particularly in China and India.

Note in the following map, yellow and red are levels of intensity and in operation. Grey is that idled or shut down.

Coal Fired Power.png

Global wind and solar installations account for about the same as China’s current coal-fired power capacity.

MCB’s idea that we should export the sun and wind is utterly fanciful. The amount of transmission loss over distances in Australia would be massive. Our own energy market operator, AEMO, noted that energy transmission losses for those wind and solar farms located furthest from the main load hubs, in north Queensland, western NSW and some in Victoria could suffer marginal loss factors (MLF) of up to 22%.

To think our closest neighbours – New Zealand, Papua New Guinea & East Timor – are at least 200km away from our extremities. At least 500km to major city centres like Port Moresby. That is assuming our ecomentalist Department of Environment would fast track approval for Cape York and the Daintree Forest to be logged and turned into a wind and solar park to then run some cable to Port Moresby. The problem with MLF is that if Port Moresby demanded 1MW of energy, then it would need to pay for more than it needed to anticipate the MLF which would grow the further the demand was from the main load hubs that could supply it.

To add to the problem, Australia’s ridiculously high power prices would be completely unattractive to the likes of Papua New Guinea. They would be better off ignoring Australia’s transmission and self-supply. That is exactly what it is doing. PNG currently get 30% of its power from hydro, 40% from gas and 24% from oil. Note it has signed a memorandum of agreement to install, you guessed it, a 60MW coal-fired power station in Lae. Energy security is on the menu.

MCB has suggested we set up local manufacturing to harness all of our local resources. Once again, a great idea on paper, but in practice, our prowess in low-cost manufacturing has a terrible track record. The now defunct auto industry is exhibit A on that plan.

As is so often the case for celebrity billionaires, thought bubbles are often free to them but costly to others. Tesla shareholders know that feeling. Who could forget JCB’s retweet of Greta Thunberg at the time of the election, imploring Australians to “not f*ck it up“??

MCB may drive a Tesla and have plans to make Atlassian 100% powered by renewables by 2025 but for the sake of shareholders it best he sticks to his core business unless he plans to divert capital to diversify Atlassian and harness this green future. Perhaps he should put Greta Thunberg on the Atlassian board as an executive director on renewable exports?