#greenmadness

Greens want to dole out $600bn p.a. when tax revenue is $511bn and falling

No photo description available.

Just when you thought the lunacy in government spending couldn’t get crazier, The Greens are back to a Universal Wellbeing Payment (UWP).

No questions asked – we all get $550/week. Naturally, The Greens have left out the fine print where the rich will be taxed into oblivion to pay for it.

With around 21 million people over 16 and over, that adds up to over $600 billion per annum. Interesting sum when the federal government at present raises only $511 billion in revenue. The Greens were never that good at mathematics. Our favourite example of lacking all financial acumen can be found here.

Time to buy JB HiFi, Harvey Norman, Nintendo or Sony. The number of video games these kids will buy with $550/week will be obscene. This would also give them the option of funding their own internet line to bypass their parents changing the WiFi password as a disciplinary measure.

Net zero heroes won’t save us

What is it with net zero emissions by 2050? It is so simple for politicians to blurt out these words as near as makes no difference none of them will be in office to take responsibility for any outcome.

As for Australia, PM Scott Morrison has a point that it should be technology led. However let’s think logically about the “cost” which he says Aussies have right to know about.

First of all, no one has worked out how to decarbonize steel. Carbon fibre is derived from petrochemicals. So that is two vital structural materials taken out. Aluminum is hideously power intensive to produce despite recyclability. Scrub the 170,000 jobs in mining. Manufacturing? Another 840,000 roles no longer needed.

No steel or fossil-fuel derived plastics will make it complex for tradesmen to be able to construct let alone repair homes or buildings. Glass also requires a lot of energy. As does gyprock. Bin 1.1mn jobs in construction.

What of a net zero carbon emissions world in other areas?

Let’s start with tourism:

$60bn industry. 8.5million visitors came to Australia in 2018. 1.4m from China. 789k from the US, 733k from the UK and 470k from Japan.

These numbers don’t include Aussies that want to take holidays abroad. 9.5m trips were made by Australians to overseas destinations.

Still to get to net zero, we need to ban air travel. With that, might as well stop Badgery’s Creek airport construction immediately. No point building such extra capacity if we won’t have much time to use it. Wasteful spending.

Tourism? Throw another 1m jobs into jeopardy.

Hotels? Bring your own towels and sleeping bag.

Coffee? Bring your own mug only.

Retail? No carry bags and no goods that are derived from fossil fuels can be sold. Gone. Of the 1.3m jobs in retail, most no longer needed.

Restaurants? There will be no gas to cook your meal. Bring your own utensils.

We need to ban long distance trucks and the haulage business. Forget those living in remote areas who rely on road trains. Forget your out of season fruit and veg at Woolies. Another 600,000 jobs.

Cars? Get rid of them too. The batteries in EVs create 150,000km of CO2-e in the production process before leaving the factory. For safety, cars will be required to use materials to meet crash standards. Even if autonomous driving succeeds, it won’t be 100% foolproof. Better off banning cars outright to meet 2050.

Synthetic rubber in the tyres and door seals made from fossil fuels. Out. Brake and electric motor materials – all made from fossil fuels. Scratch. Air bag with pyrotechnics? Fossil fuel derived. Dashboard, seats, seat belts or iPad centre console? Petrochemicals.

The power grid to charge them? All fossil fuel derived – from wind farms to solar panels and the equipment to make the charging stations. If there are miscalculations on power needs after Dec 31st, 2049 then too bad. Rationing will be required.

No TVs or smart phones or computers. All fossil fuel derived.

No hospital equipment or life saving medicines. All made from petrochemical and fossil fuel derivatives.

In short, in order to decarbonise to net zero by 2050 we’d need to spew carbon emissions like there was no tomorrow to meet the crushing penalties that would result.

Why are governments even entertaining such ridiculous stupidity?

We only want to see Mad Max in the cinema, not in real life.

Here is a picture of HK International Airport check in last night for a bit of context on how a virus can slam an economy before we bother with net emissions

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”

What if toxic masculinity is the reason for climate change?

How does this article get past Forbes’ editorial? The opening line in Carolyn Centeno Milton’s piece described that most people would think women would be more likely to use eco friendly canvas shopping bags than men.

Several years back, the UK Environment Agency did a study on the effectiveness of alternative packaging solutions to HDPE (conventional plastic bags) in terms of lowering environmental impact. It said,

The paper, LDPE, non-woven PP and cotton bags should be reused at least 3, 4, 11 and 131 times respectively to ensure that they have lower [impact] than conventional HDPE carrier bags that are not reused.”

So if conventional biodegradable plastic shopping bags are reused to throw out garbage that means 6, 8, 22 and 262 days are required for the alternatives to have a lower environmental footprint. So if one has 10 canvas shopping bags which aren’t used for rubbish disposal they need to be used everyday for 6 years each!

Everyone that CM knows has a stockpile of these enviro alternatives because one forgets, does impulse shopping or requires more bags than initially thought. So is it toxic masculinity or the realities and practicalities of our day to day lives?

Furthermore if consumers can’t use plastic shopping bags to throw away rubbish they’ll need to substitute it with plastic bin liners from aisle 7. Net impact on the environment – zero. In reality it’s probably more as the plastic bags sold at supermarkets are thicker and less biodegradable than what they replace but if it has “eco friendly” written on the side, you’re “woke”!! Job done! Yay!

Dr. Aaron Brough of Utah State University conducted the study to see if there is correlation between toxic masculinity and climate change. His assumptions run the line that men see environmentalism as more feminine and get triggered to make ecological choices if threatened.

The study went as far as to see whether men would select a more feminine looking Walmart gift card with floral print (which was labeled a gender threat card) or a plain one without as a sign of masculine preferences.

The study went so far as China to further its findings. BMW China put forward two ads on the same car; one pushing ecology, the other safety. Had Brough visited China and lost 8 lives in the back of a single Beijing taxi ride he would understand the imperative of those favoring safety. Nothing to do with toxic masculinity. A sign of fragility. A toxic male, by his logic, should favour less safety.

To flip the argument on its head, countless numbers of Tesla drivers have posted YouTube videos showing complete faith in the auto pilot system which has killed numerous owners. Should we take it some Tesla buyers show toxic stupidity to film themselves playing card games, pretending to sleep and massaging the passenger in their quest to be ecological?

If the BMW China study proved anything, the German maker will clearly sell more cars if they focus on safety over the environment. It has nothing to do with toxic masculinity. This trend would be supported by an equal number of women, especially mothers with kids.

Centeno Milton closes on Brough’s comments,

“We need to overcome our unhealthy judgements of gender incongruence. And men need to be confident in their self-identity and decide to live a sustainable lifestyle without caring what other people think.

Funny that, I thought I was just shopping. Little did I know that the inner white supremacist and toxic male in me was driving me to destroy our ecosystems. Note to self – pick floral Walmart gift cards and pester the dealer at BMW to run through the emissions stats on video so CM can upload proof CM fits Brough’s stereotypes to overcome gender incongruence. Unfortunately CM is willing to bet the dealer won’t know the emission number but will know how many airbags the car has.

The only people adding to warming the planet are those producing needless hot air like Brough. So unsettled must climate science be to have such studies funded in the first place. It rates up there with CM’s local paper discussing the stress on pets caused by climate change.

Coles comes to its senses that the consumer is always right

3755BD83-2DFF-4198-AE38-6845C82AC437.jpeg

What rubbish! Literally! The plastic bag ban in supermarkets in Australia was only ever a sop to green madness based on spurious science. Coles and Woolworths didn’t consult customers as much as they claim they did. If they did, why has Coles started to provide them for free again? Could it be a consumer backlash? Let’s see how much more business Coles does as a result!

The idea of a spontaneous shop on the way home from work. Perhaps the sick wife has asked her husband to buy milk, bread, a sack of oranges and ice cream. People want convenience. That doesn’t absolve them of being responsible stewards in their disposal. CM reuses the bags for disposing rubbish. Why should CM be punished for the laziness of others?

In a nutshell it is further evidence of the true colors of the majority of consumers with respect to environmentalism. Just like people that buy SUVs and fly overseas on holidays. Most want others to do the “save the planet” thing on their behalf. Just ask Leo DiCaprio or Cate Blanchett. They’ll preach about our need to do our bit but are the first to board a private jet to go to the next film festival.

This Coles news made it to the Japanese press. Supermarket chain ‘OK Store’ charges ¥6 for a plastic bag or you can make a box from all of the packing the food arrives in which costs nothing. After packing your box you can recycle the cardboard in the paper bin. Simple.

Yet what is this constant penchant to boycott everything. A sort of collectivist pitchfork movement.  Why not just let consumers express their free choice? If Coles see consumers reject the restoration of plastic bags they’ll take them away just as quickly. Tired husbands forced to do an emergency shop for a sick wife don’t require social justice warriors to give evil glances on the bus.

For CM, the next shop WILL be at Coles.

 

Zero CO2 emissions at Tokyo Olympics for 4 days during ceremonies

A9AE017D-32C0-424E-AE2F-5E21472735F0.jpeg

Fresh after her drubbing in the elections over the weekend Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike is proposing zero CO2 emissions during the 4 days of 2020 Tokyo Olympic/Paralympic ceremonies. Presumably the trains to transport passengers to the stadium will be shut down as they’re powered by gas fired electricity while hepa filter gas masks will be distributed to every foreign visitor and Tokyo resident to ensure the goal can be met. People won’t be able to drive nor eat in restaurants that cook with gas or electricity and diners mustn’t eat because they’d be breathing CO2 between bites.

Hang on how is she going to justify the Olympic flame? Or the fireworks at the opening and closing ceremonies for the Olympics and Paralympics? More CO2!

More green madness.

For a supposed populist right winger she’s leaning to be a lefty in pretty short order. That is a great shame and for all the antiestablishment rhetoric she’s more mainstream than the establishment.

Blowing the whistle on NASA over climate data

IMG_0884

Jo Nova has an excellent piece exposing the scams inside NASA with regards to their climate models and allegations of misappropriated taxpayer funds. She notes whistleblower Dr Duane Thresher who worked seven years at NASA GISS “describes a culture of self serving rent-seekers, mismanagement and incompetence. These are the top experts in the climate science field that we are supposed to accept without questioning. Those who say they are working to “save the planet” care more about their junckets than they do about the data or their “best” model…NASA GISS’s most advanced climate model is run from the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Thresher recounts a story from someone on the inside:“NASA GISS’s climate model — named Model E, an intentional play on the word “muddle” — is called the “jungle” because it is so badly coded.” I know this to be true from my own extensive experience programming it (I tried to fix as much as I could…)…”

Of course I can hear the alarmists cry  that Thresher is a ‘discredited’ scientist as they do for anyone who disagrees,. Much in the spirit of the Harvard piece I put out last week, venerable organizations like NASA (which has put humans into space) carry almost untouchable status. This is the problem. Do we just suck up aything we are told by these organizations or do we need to add an extra layer of skepticism because of the ‘reputation’?

It is truly hard to imagine that the brain’s trust that makes up an organization that can launch rockets and space shuttles can be guilty of such sloppiness. Such whistleblowing will  lead to a congressional testimony which will bring many things to light. It wasn’t long ago that NOAA was subpoenaed after a whistleblower said the group had rushed a report ahead of the Paris climate summit with obviously fiddled data that fit a narrative. NOAA refused to hand over the emails for months on the grounds of privacy  when the head of House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith explained the reality that they worked for the government and had no choice.

Smith noted, “According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy…I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

Once again whenever people try to use the ‘credibility’ argument to sway debate, there is a treasure trove of evidence to show in this case that it is politics not science. With billions if not trillions at stake, such fraud has not resulted in any of these climate scientists being fined, deregistered or jailed for the very things that have happened to people in the financial sector. What is the difference I wonder? Maybe because the government has been in on the act…

Even Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has been recently exposed for divisive behaviour in temperature measurement. Putting hard floors on cold temperatures with no such restrictions on warm weather. We’re supposed to trust these bodies? More on that tomorrow.

Well as the old adage goes, “there are lies, more lies and then there are statistics”