We very much doubt Bernie Sanders would endorse what his field officer said. Perhaps his staffer is just disgruntled that Bernie cut his hours…
We very much doubt Bernie Sanders would endorse what his field officer said. Perhaps his staffer is just disgruntled that Bernie cut his hours…
We want proper evidence to convince us that the state of climate change is anywhere near as big or as dangerous as alarmists claim it to be. This video doesn’t help convince those who want more proof.
Seattle City Council is a gift that keeps giving. Not just the tree activists singing but the complete “don’t give a damn” attitude of the councilors.
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 has finally got around to updating the state of our ABC as compiled in the 2018/19 annual report.
The national broadcaster still believes we should fork over even more taxpayer dollars to keep this icon producing more of what the citizens supposedly demand, even though more of the audience believes that “efficiency/management quality” is headed south (p.158) and overall ratings continue to slide.
Despite over $1bn per annum, why do ratings in the metro and regional areas keep falling? We wrote about this last year:
“Comparing 2016/17 and 2015/16 the TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 52.5% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 57.3%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets a 50% reach. Hardly a stretch.”
In 2018/19 it fell into the mid-40s. So inside of 13 years, ABC audiences have shrunk by 10-15%. That is appalling.
We have argued for a long time that the ABC needs a complete overhaul.
In the 2018 annual report, the ABC staff survey revealed engagement was at 46%, 6% below the previous survey. This put the broadcaster in the bottom quartile of all ANZ businesses. Reform was and still is desperately needed.
ABC staff complained that management didn’t do enough to get rid of underperformers. Another clear signal that state-sponsored mediocrity was tolerated and staff didn’t like it.
In the 2018/19 annual report, Chair Ita Buttrose AC made the following comments,
“Staff morale was badly shaken, and my priority has been to reinvigorate it by restoring order and enhancing good governance with the help of Managing Director, David Anderson, and his management team. Our employees, in content areas and vital support functions, need a strong sense of direction and a feeling that management has their backs. I feel we are now providing it.”
Tucked away in the back pages (p.216) is an interesting subsection on the Code of Practice. There is some eye-opening content with respect to the way it conducts its business.
Take this gem to start with on complaints as to whether it constitutes a potential breach of the charter:
“A complainant is entitled under section 150 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (“the BSA”) to take their complaint to the ACMA if, after 60 days, the ABC fails to respond to the complainant or the complainant considers the ABC’s response is inadequate.
The ACMA has a discretionary power to investigate a complaint alleging the ABC has,
in providing a national broadcasting service, breached its Code of Practice. Section 151 of the BSA provides that the ACMA may investigate the complaint if it thinks that it is desirable to do so.
The ACMA’s jurisdiction under sections 150-151 does not encompass the ABC’s print content or content disseminated by the ABC over the internet or through mobile devices.”
Print and internet-based content fall out of the remit for complaints. So technically ABC can say what it pleases. ACMA is hardly wielding a big stick when it comes to the ABC.
Accuracy is a fun area which would seemingly fall foul of rarely being presented in context:
“2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.”
Why did the ABC report that less than 1% of burnt area in the recent bushfires had been started by arsonists? Given that most fires couldn’t be attributed to anything at the time, the ABC forgot to mention the “unknown” category so it could slice the data so it could list the smallest possible percentage. 12,000 fires had been reported since August 2019. 1,700 had been investigated with 42% reported by the NSW Police as deliberately lit.
“…The ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:
• a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
• fair treatment;
• open-mindedness; and
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.”
Why did it allow a bunch of radical feminists to openly call for the murder of men, providing a platform to a convicted terrorist or happily release a tweet that said former PM Abbott liked anal sex? Or calling conservative politicians “c@nts“? Guess we’re just not open minded enough.
4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.
4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic
principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.
Why does the ABC constantly run a climate alarmist narrative? Why does Q&A attack conservatives on the panel almost every episode?
Secret recording and other types of deception
“5.8 Secret recording, misrepresentation or other types of deception must not be used by the ABC or its co-production partners to obtain or seek information, audio, pictures or an
agreement to participate except where:
(a) justified in the public interest and the material cannot reasonably be obtained
by any other means; or
(b) consent is obtained from the subject or identities are effectively obscured; or
(c) the deception is integral to an artistic work.
In cases, the potential for harm must be taken into consideration.”
Why did the ABC insert itself into the election campaign with a program timed to derail the election prospects of the Left’s hate figure, Pauline Hanson and One Nation? An Al Jazeera expose, How to Sell a Massacre, was a sting three years in the making, employing hidden cameras to record One Nation’s unsuccessful attempts to solicit foreign funding with the aid of the National Rifle Association. Why was the ABC consorting with the national broadcaster of a foreign power which has highly exceptional human rights standards which flies in the face of all the woke agenda pushed by the ABC? Double standards much?
“Privacy is necessary to human dignity and every person reasonably expects that their privacy will be respected. But privacy is not absolute. The ABC seeks to balance the public interest in respect for privacy with the public interest in disclosure of information and freedom of expression.”
That is a whole can of worms. Can we trust the ABC to execute fairly in this regard?
Harm & Offence
“7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.
7.2 Where content is likely to cause harm or offence, having regard to the context, make
reasonable efforts to provide information about the nature of the content through the use of classification labels or other warnings or advice.”
7.6 Where there is editorial justification for content which may lead to dangerous imitation or exacerbate serious threats to individual or public health, safety or welfare, take appropriate steps to mitigate those risks, particularly by taking care with how content is expressed or presented.
7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.”
Again, what purpose was there to get a panel of radical feminists outright calling for the murder of men? Or just use taxpayer funds on an article on how to give blow jobs?
“Take due care over the dignity and physical and emotional welfare of children and young people who are involved in making, participating in and presenting content produced or commissioned by the ABC…Take particular care to minimise risks
of exposure to unsuitable content…”
Why did the ABC run a kids program attacking white privilege?
We have long supported a shift to the TVNZ model, where the kiwi national broadcaster is forced to raise most of its own revenue by appealing to the demands of the market.
TVNZ gets $310m of its $318m purse from advertising. It’s staff costs excluding capitalizing into programs is $72m which converts to 23% staff cost/revenues. They do with 642 FT employees. Revenue/employee is $495,000 vs half that at the ABC. It paid a dividend back to the government of $3.7m. i.e. it is a revenue generating asset.
In 2007, TVNZ had $339m in revenue. It employed 1,023 people. Therefore revenue per employee was $331,380. So in a decade, TVNZ efficiency improved almost 50%. A 6% cut to revenue on 63% reduction in staff. TVNZ ratings are up too.
So instead of Ita Buttrose impersonating Oliver Twist she should be channeling Jerry Maguire and asking advertisers to “show her the money!”
The ABC needs to live in the real world of media because it provides no distinct differentiation from what is already available in the marketplace. You see our ABC should be confident that it has a sustainable audience for its type of journalism. It shouldn’t be one to fear but one to embrace.
For the ABC, it’s best not risk it. Easier to suck on the teat of the taxpayer and ask for even more money so it can try to arrest the decline in so much content that is totally unsalvageable.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria is wanting to push legislation to allow companies to pay women a higher rate of superannuation than men to close the gap. Adjustments to the Sex Discrimination Act would be required.
Given the legislation that allows one to change gender without question in Victoria, why would anyone identify as male if their superannuation might be higher with a company that wanted to be woke? Who are companies to deny my right to identify as the gender I claim to be.
Even if companies wanted to voluntarily pay women more superannuation, they should prepare for a revolt by men. As bogus as those making a gender change claim might be, if they have it formalized on their birth certificate then, as a matter of law, companies would be forced by their own hand to pay men who identify otherwise.
The market is a wonderful weighing mechanism. Obamacare was one of the largest contributing factors as to why 94% of jobs growth under President Obama was part time. Companies avoided red tape by bypassing the legislation that would raise costs to unsustainable levels.
If governments want to create higher unemployment, pushing higher super is one way to put a brake on jobs growth and push companies to hire cheaper male employees.
So by the very misguided altruism of the Victorian government, women could end up worse off and the gap even wider.
What if a person with genuine gender dysphoria identities as a trans male. That would mean under the legislation a company would be entitled to lower super payments.
There are plenty of other ways to address the gap – this isn’t one of them.
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.
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again.
While the alarmist media continues its attack dog mission on PM Scott Morrison over the bushfires, they overlook the most glaring hole in the argument of the fire chiefs – consistency.
If former FR NSW chief Greg Mullins truly believes that “climate change” is such a critical issue, why was the subject absent for so many years in the annual reports which were submitted to parliament that he oversaw? Surely he had the perfect opportunity to raise awareness year after year on the topic. Yet he didn’t.
Annual reports are like an opus magnum. They document the key opportunities and challenges for an organization. In Mullins’ case, the mention of climate change is conspicuous by its very absence. In the 2018/19 FRNSW annual report there is a reference to climate change by way of voluntary participation in Earth Hour. Hardly a detail oriented study on the effects of bushfires and global warming!
Now that Mullins is in cahoots with the Climate Council, it is very convenient to drum up ‘awareness’ on climate change post the bushfires for a Royal Commission (RC). Forget that 95% of a RC would probably draw on the exact same advice garnered from 57 former enquire since 1939.
Our belief is that incompetence has reigned supreme. Fire department senior management seemed more engaged on ticking the diversity & inclusion box (please see data in the above link) in annual reports than providing rich data on the core business i.e. preventing and extinguishing fires.
That is to take nothing away from the brave fireys who risk their lives on the front line. As some volunteer firefighters have made clear, they think the senior management act like a mafia.
For Mullins to use the get out of jail free card of climate change in any RC by saying it will ‘fail at the first step’ without is ridiculous.
To include it now should highlight the media by years of exclusion when he had the authority and opportunity to do something but didn’t. Why? Will anyone ask this question? Not with our powderpuff mainstream media.
Statistically speaking, to introduce climate change in the 58th review in 81 years would smack of being an outlier. Outliers shouldn’t be ignored but they must be viewed in context of the relatives of intensity, area burned, fuel loads, hazard management, weather conditions, people and machines deployed. It is likely that these fires will be less than one standard deviation off the mean which effectively would conclude that climate change wouldn’t be a driver.
Climate change is now a phrase of convenience tossed around more frequently than Casanova telling girls they are “the only one” on Valentines Day.