Planet of the Humans is Michael Moore’s latest documentary which slays renewable energy – wind, solar & biomass – as well as electric vehicles which rely so heavily on fossil fuels in their production.
Think of it as Crony Capitalism 101.
Planet of the Humans is Michael Moore’s latest documentary which slays renewable energy – wind, solar & biomass – as well as electric vehicles which rely so heavily on fossil fuels in their production.
Think of it as Crony Capitalism 101.
There is a lot of irony when studying electric vehicles (EVs) and government policy. The lack of consultation with the very industry it seeks to regulate is mind-boggling. This picture of an EV charging station powered by a diesel generator along the Nullarbor highlights how poor the thought processes are. The problem governments face is that they are starting with a narrative and trying to reverse engineer the data to fit it. Sadly, the market will ultimately decide – that means consumers.
3 years ago we met with an EV parts supplier, Schaeffler AG, which openly admitted the task to meet the government EV demands was being impeded by their own desire to out virtue signal each other.
Schaeffler said, 200 cities across Europe had EV policies as distinct as the other. Therefore carmakers were struggling to meet all of the non-standardised criteria which was driving up production costs and making EVs even further out of reach. Instead of all working for the “same” outcome, the parts suppliers were saying until governments came to a sensible balance, the delays would continue.
The irony is that the broad range of EVs available in the market is too narrow. Of course we can argue in 15 years that will have vastly changed. The question is whether production can keep up.
First of all, governments around the world tend to generate around 5% of total tax revenues from fuel excise. You’d be a fool to think that EVs won’t end up being stung with a similar registration tax to offset it. It is already happening. Cash strapped Illinois has proposed the introduction of a $1,000 annual registration fee (up from $17.50) to account for the fact EVs don’t pay such fuel taxes.
Secondly, the UK government may well have to introduce cash-for-clunkers style subsidies to entice people to ditch their petrol power for an EV. Because, unless someone owns a classic car, the second most expensive household asset will be near worthless meaning many may not bother to switch by 2035. That will put huge pressure on the auto industry and dealers to convert sales.
Third, the infrastructure to be able to charge millions of EVs overnight will need significant upgrades, especially to the power grid. If the UK wants to go down the renewables path good luck in meeting the surges in demand because EV charging will be highly random. People won’t be happy to be sitting at home waiting for a charge and realising that 200,000 others want to do so at the same time on a cloudy day with no wind.
Then there are the automakers. While they are all making politically correct statements about their commitments to go full EV, they do recognise that ultimately customers will decide their fate. A universal truth is that car makers do their best to promote their drivetrains as a performance differentiator to rivals. Moving to full EV removes that unique selling property. Volkswagen went out of its way to cheat the system which not only expressed their true feelings about man-made climate change but hidden within the $80bn investment is the 3 million EVs in 2042 would only be c.30% of VW’s total output today. Even Toyota said it would phase out internal combustion in the 2040s. Dec 31st, 2049 perhaps? Mercedes have vowed to keep diesel and petrol on the menu out to 2050.
Put simply, why is the government trying to dictate the technology to an industry that has made such amazing advancements in safety and technology? By all means, have a zero-emissions target by 2035 but offer the industry complete technological freedom to achieve it. The consumers will ultimately decide and if carmakers are forced to meet a target that was based on ill-advised government policy, we shouldn’t be surprised if dealers are forced to close or car makers requiring bailouts.
Also at 2m vehicles a sold annually in the UK, it won’t get to dictate where car makers allocate their global EV inventory. If easier market conditions – based on the available output and cost per vehicle to meet the standards – are found in the US, China or Germany, the costs to Brits to make the shift will make the 2035 target even more pointless. Pricing themselves out of the market.
However, it won’t much matter because many of the politicians making the move won’t be in government come 2035 to clean up the mess.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) said this week that the United States achieved the largest absolute decline in GHG emissions in 2019. Once again proving that one doesn’t need to sign up to the Paris Accord to achieve reductions and pay for other nations who can’t get their own house in order. Isn’t it funny how the free market is more efficient than feel good regulation where tokenism is enough?
The IEA wrote,
“…a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather.a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather.”
Now if only people would pick on China to get it to reduce its emissions which are, by its own admission, not stopping until 2030 at the earliest.
Perhaps Australia should ponder the fact that although we have all of the raw inputs on our door step to lower emissions and cut electricity prices, we think tokenism via renewables is the way forward.
Yes, we’re often thrown stats that renewables could have powered ‘x’ number of homes for ‘y’ number of days but the reality is taking a snapshot at the rare attainment of “peak” output and celebrating it as though it is the average is misleading. That is why so many countries, including Japan, are building more coal-fired power stations.
FNF Media thinks that renewables should be true to the zero emissions cause and be built under guidelines that they mustn’t use any materials from the fossil fuel world nor use coal or gas fired electricity in their production. On top of that recycling of wind and solar must be included in the price.
FNF Media was curious as to how the tally for Warringah MP Zali Steggall OAM’s ‘Roadmap to Zero‘ (R2Z) worked. As is often the case with these grassroots woke causes, the structure of the claims can be misleading. Amateur data collection methodology can undermine the very cause. We reveal how easy it is.
R2Z currently claims 551 ‘households’ have signed up from the 66 when we first looked into it earlier in the week. Technically this would mean that 0.8% of households in the Warringah electorate have signed her compact, up from 0.1%.
To turn that on its head, Steggall, who ran on a campaign of climate change, can’t seem to get the other 99% of households in the electorate over the line to sign up to R2Z.
Looking deeper into the sign-up process we found it only involved one’s email, name and postcode. That’s all. So one could technically live in Newtown, input a Mosman postcode and sign up. There doesn’t seem to be a process to cross-reference the signatories to the electoral roll.
One would think if the honourable member wished to truly get an accurate map of where the more environmentally conscious residents lived, a fixed address may have been a more useful process to ensure that the inputs were a) legitimate and b) where resources might need to be focused. Easy to have people tick a “privacy” waiver if indeed they are passionate enough to save the planet.
It is a bit hard to claim ‘household’ when one’s full address can’t be logged. There is nothing stopping all members of the same household signing up of the same person using multiple emails. This just reduces the quality of the data collection from a statistical perspective.
As awful as 0.8% of households is, 0.35% of the 147,333 Warringah residents is even worse.
Beyond the fact that 99% of her own electorate seemingly doesn’t care for R2Z, The Guardian ignores that and concludes,
“The woman who toppled Tony Abbott in Warringah at the last election on a platform of climate change action now has the whole parliament in her sights as she seeks bipartisan support for a climate change framework bill aimed at transitioning Australia to a decarbonised economy.”
She won on a platform to remove Tony Abbott.
Ironically The Guardian includes her R2Z link as a “conscience vote” which sort of undermines the argument,
“Steggall and the crossbench have begun a conscience vote campaign online and within their communities. They hope to win over enough government MPs to see the bill, which has been modelled on existing legislation in the UK, New Zealand and Ireland, pass in Australia.”
She better pray politicians don’t judge her bill on the strength of the commitment of the residents or households of Warringah.
FNF Media endorses Steggall’s view reported by The Guardian
“With the government’s party room once again at war over climate policy, Steggall said it was time to let individual MPs speak for their communities rather than toe a party line.”
Warringah has spoken, even with the risk of dodgy data collection. Mickey Mouse awaits updates on how to save the planet.
As a former stock analyst, the euphoria around Tesla seems insane. Still Mr Market is always right. I’ve been totally wrong on the direction although I still contend it’s way overvalued, especially as the Q4 was down on Q3. Who needs facts?
Now that a new target price of $7,000 has been put on Tesla by one analyst – which would make it worth around $1.3 trillion – we see that social media clickbait is driving the analysts to outdo each other rather than base it on rational fundamentals.
To make the point, even CNBC thinks getting a NY Mets baseball pitcher to give his 10c worth on Tesla makes more sense than inviting a sell-side analyst.
The twist in Tesla’s tale is that with a $130bn market cap, it could raise capital and buy a competitor auto maker to get access to production, multiple platforms and distribution expertise, three skills it sorely lacks.
What would I know? Elon Musk is a salesman extraordinaire. That has never been in doubt. The question is whether the hype built into it can match the euphoria.
These climate activists are unhinged lunatics. This is the justification that Extinction Rebellion (XR) used for trashing the Brussels Autosalon was as follows,
“The truth is, no car is green…The private car is no longer compatible with the Climate and Ecological Crisis….Governments must stop pouring billions into roads and instead make mass public transport affordable, accessible, reliable and convenient.”
The Brussels Times reported that 187 were arrested and charged €2,000 each. Febiac, the auto show organizer, said XR’s display at the event caused a whopping €367,829 in damages.
There is a difference between protesting and breaking the law by trashing private property.
Febiac, to its credit, gave XR approval to protest under certain guidelines. The organizer’s Joost Kaesemans said, “We sat together with people from Extinction Rebellion for the salon, we told them they could hold a demo, sing songs and hand out brochures...But we also told them that if they bothered visitors and wreaked havoc, we would take measures. They did not stick to that, so there are consequences.”
So even when the organizers play ball, the fools of XR think they have carte blanche to act as they please. Hopefully XR protestors are forced to pay up, serve time and get handed a bill for wasting the time of the police.
If only XR protests were about saving the planet and not seek to control the way others live their lives.
One final question – does XR have a strategy to re-employ the 15mn that work in auto related industries? Of course not.
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 extremeswith respect to anthropogenic induced global warming) it says,
“…There is to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of …low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in to anthropogenic influences..low confidence in projections of changes in .. low confidence in projections of changes in …low 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.”low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems…in some regions have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available
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 byWebb & Kenchwhich 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?
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.
Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has written an opinion piece in The Guardian and proved beyond all doubt the reasons why he no longer holds the privileged post and how blind the Liberal Party faction that supported him managed to bury their judgment.
Turnbull’s first few paragraphs flush this out. He opined,
“Have we now reached the point where at last our response to global warming will be driven by engineering and economics rather than ideology and idiocy?”
Ideology? Surely you jest, sir? Do climate skeptics push 17yo pig-tailed truants to peddle their warming religion? Did 31,000 climate skeptics,who question the governance behind the science, fly into COP25 to tell the rest us all how to behave?
Idiocy? One just needs to examine the utter hypocrisy of the climate protestors who can often be seen gorging on fast food made by evil corporations that reinvented single use packaging. Easier still, just follow Hollywood stars who think they can offset their enormous carbon footprints via regular use of private jets, stretched limos and lavish dozen room mansions by eating vegan and sacrificing fashion choice to one tuxedo for a season of gala dinners.
Let us start with the optics before the content.
Turnbull will go down in history as one of the only conservative party politicians to avoid conservative media outlets like the plague. If he looked in the mirror, how far off the Liberal reservation must he have been to have to limit himself to the left-leaning mainstream media even when he was PM?
To choose the climate alarmist Guardian as his platform speaks volumes. Where else would he find an audience that would would be so soft and stroke his ego?
The content of his op ed wasted little time heaping lashings of self-praise on his own record at the top, which frankly is not much to write home about.
“We need to plan this carefully – we have to keep energy affordable and reliable as we make the transition. My government’s policy for a national energy guarantee (Neg) integrated emissions reduction and reliability, and would have enabled us to continue to make the switch to renewables without compromising the reliability of the electricity network…if ever there was a crisis not to waste, it is this one. Morrison has the chance now to reinstate the Neg with higher targets. Both he and Josh Frydenberg were among its strongest supporters when I was PM. They abandoned it in the lead-up to an election, to pacify the right wing of the Coalition that sabotaged it in the first place.”
Mr Turnbull, we are a bit curious. How was it Morrison managed to win the election by backing coal in the lead up? Pacifying the right wing or realizing that the real base of the party would never have backed you in 2019 still favour economic wellbeing to virtue signalling? The answer is obvious.
The thought of all these new green jobs. We think you ought to check the ABS for the latest statistics on those wonderful employment opportunities that just don’t exist in green jobs. Turnbull wrote,
“The children in Muswellbrook and Singleton will not have to breathe in coal dust and sulphur dioxide from the mines and power stations, and their parents will have jobs in industries that thrive with cheap, green power…We can demonstrate that abundant zero emission energy will create thousands of new jobs that will vastly exceed those lost as coal burning comes to an end.”
Annual direct FTE employment in renewable energy activities in Australia was estimated at 17,740 jobs in 2017-18 according to the ABS, a number below that of 2011-12.
Mining, according to the latest ABS stats, employs around 220,000. Electricity, gas and water approximately 131,000.
If we examine Turnbull’s “priority this decade should be our own green new deal in which we generate, as soon as possible, all of our electricity from zero emission sources. If we do, Australia will become a leader in the fight against global warming. And we can do it...” comment one assumes that we don’t have any coal fired generation.
Does Turnbull honestly believe the same amount of power generation could occur if “the degraded landscape of old mines could be covered with solar panels”? And at lower cost?
This is the trend of Australian energy price inflation and manufacturing jobs over the last two decades. Notice anything? A correlation of about 90%. Energy prices go up, manufacturing comes down. We have shed 250,000 manufacturing jobs in the last two decades.
Germany gives us a wonderful case studyspectacularly
He closed with,
“But the lies of the deniers have to be rejected. This is a time for truth telling, not obfuscation and gaslighting. Climate change is real…our response must be real too – a resilient, competitive, net zero emission economy – as we work to make our nation, and our planet, safe for our children and grandchildren.”
He even suggests a world where we’re all driving EVs. While we aren’t sure whether Mr Turnbull owns a Tesla himself, he should know that the energy that goes to make the batteries is equivalent to the car doing 150,000km of CO2-e emissions before it leaves the showroom floor. Don’t forget the stress on the grid to charge all these cars. Who needs the reality of EV infrastructure rollouts across the Nullarbor which are powered by diesel gen sets? Mr Turnbull, any ideas? Run a cable from Snowy 2.0?
It is sad to see a former leader still feel he has a voice on a subject matter his party rejected based on economics. We already spend a fortune on green energy. We are pulling our weight as a Top 3 per capita nation on energy spend. In real terms we spent 2x more than France in 2019. We can only hope PM Morrison doesn’t fold from the poor media advice during the bushfires and see Turnbull’s endorsement as a sign to do the exact opposite.
News reports, “Australians are becoming increasing worried about climate, with their concern on the issue doubling since 2018…Researchers for the latest Mapping Social Cohesion Report asked Australians to name their biggest concern off the top of their heads, with 19 per cent saying climate change.”
From the Mapping Social Cohesion report of 2017, “Environmental issues have declined from a peak of 18% in 2011 to 7% in 2017, close to the level of the previous
So essentially the above search took CM less than a minute. Effectively depending on the start point, we are near as makes no difference the same as we were in 2011 in our views on climate change. If the media outlet wanted CM to do their sensationalism for them they technically could have run a “near trebling from 2017” headline.
Typical media clickbait but we’ve proved they aren’t even any good at it. Hopeless alarmists.
This isn’t journalism. This is alarmist quackery for the sake of it. Venice has been subject to flooding for centuries. While the floods in Venice now are the highest for over 50 years, it still means that floods were higher in 1966. Let that sink in. Presumably it wasn’t climate change driven back then.
One can only imagine what a Venice Council could possibly do to combat climate change? Perhaps ruin the skyline with wind turbines and solar panels atop the roofs of the Rialto Bridge or San Marco Square?? To alarmists, no amount of tokenism is too little. Claim a climate emergency and show how worthy you really are.
No matter what the Venice Council does to “combat” climate change it will have no effect. Maybe the gondola union can indulge in some crony capitalism and demand that the €7.50 Vaporetto passenger ferries are banned so they can charge €150 to go from Santa Croce to Piazza San Marco instead. At least gondolas are zero emission vessels.
The SBS needs to grow up and deliver proper well reasoned content for the $400m in taxpayer funds it receives.