Thought for Sunday.
Thought for Sunday.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has got behind the movement to do its bit for climate change. In a two page flyer, it covered the idea that we reckless passengers must consider our carbon footprint but at the same time help the U.N. raise $40bn in taxes, sorry ‘climate finance,’ between 2021 and 2035.
The Carbon Offsetting & Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is the vehicle which the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) intends to liberate us from our sins and help fund the waste so endemic in the NY based cabal. Wherever the UN is involved expect a sinister agenda behind the virtue.
All airlines have been required to monitor, report and verify their emissions on international flights since Jan 1, 2019. Operators will be required to buy “emissions units” from the UN. If one asked the UN would it prefer emissions to be cut or taxes to be raised, it would select the latter every time.
But why? Passengers don’t seem to demand airlines flight shame them before they board. On the contrary, many carbon offset schemes exist among airlines but hardly any passengers elect to pay them. Note the world’s largest offset program below.
In its 2017 Annual Report, Qantas boasted,
“We have the world’s largest airline offset program and have now been carbon offsetting for over 10 years. In 2016/17, we reached three million tonnes offset.”
Carbon calculators tend to work on the assumption of 0.158kg CO2/passenger kilometre.
In the last 10 years, Qantas has flown around 1 trillion revenue passenger kilometres. While the literature in the annual report denotes one passenger offsets every 53 seconds, the mathematical reality is simple – 2% of miles are carbon offset. So that means that 98% of people couldn’t care less.
Perhaps more embarrassing is that The Guardian noted in Jan 2018 that,
Kind of a massive load of hot air when you do the maths!
Which begs the question, why does the IATA feel compelled to intervene in ramping up the costs of travel when passengers aren’t calling for it? IATA’s job is to keep airlines flying and support the growth where it forecasts a doubling of air travel by 2030. Airlines have been ordering Boeing 737 MAX & Airbus A320neo short-haul jets as well as long-range B787 & A350 in huge numbers to take advantage of fuel efficiency that helps lower operating costs.
By IATA’s own admission, global air travel in totality is only 2% of man-made CO2 emissions. That is to say that all air travel is responsible for 0.00003% of CO2 in the atmosphere. Big deal! What is the point of taxing an industry where the footprint is so minuscule?
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 via flight shaming and do the right thing why not force their choice? The obvious answer is that it’s hypocritical in the extreme.
Airlines operate on about 70% capacity load factor break even so if Virgin flights end up being half full thanks to flight shaming he’ll only end up having his fleet of jets spewing more or less the same CO2 per flight which will ultimately put the airline out of business.
It is all too stupid. IATA joins the growing list of bodies petrified to talk in hard numbers about true impacts. When the 22,000 pilgrims that fly each year to UN COP summits around the world to kneel at the altar of the IPCC practice what they preach, CM may start to feel concerned Until then, CM will keep calling the climate hoax out. Deeds, not words, IATA!
While it might seem like another beat up on the ABC, we need to take a long hard look at how it operates. How is it TVNZ can operate as a self funded government entity which collects a currency adjusted 1/4 the ABC’s revenue on 1/8th staff? How many people actually understand their ABC?
Salary increases and budget increases have a 90.34% R-squared correlation meaning that budget increases tend to lead to paying higher salaries.
While some may talk about “good” content, sadly ABC’s ratings have slid considerably for over a decade in regional and metro areas. TVNZ’s have risen. So hard core left has the ABC shifted that it has created a narrower audience. The MD openly stated that if Australians wanted to protect the ABC they shouldn’t vote LNP. So much for respecting its charter which bans political bias.
TVNZ must cater to the free market for advertising dollars therefore content must meet the audience needs. It’s simple. ABC should follow suit.
Throwing more money at the ABC has not solved ratings problems. One guesses that diverting more tax dollars at kids programs that disparage white privilege, comedy shows that openly call conservative politicians “c*nts” during by-elections and producers that allows indigenous comedians to defecate on a white woman probably has a very narrow audience. Content IS the problem.
Look at The Guardian as case in point of journalism that fails to address market needs. It is free and in recent years gone cap in hand for donations because its user base aren’t prepared to stump up cash to support it. Do we need a public broadcaster to subsidize views of the left? The Guardian is simply competing in the “same” area as the ABC. ABC starves The Guardian of oxygen because we as taxpayers fully fund it. The ABC crowds out left leaning media.
Look no further than CNN. It has doubled, even trebled down on its unhinged bias. The ratings have plummeted. Fox on the other hand has risen. Whether one likes the content of Fox is irrelevant. Advertisers go there because the reach is self evident.
Moan all you want about Murdoch. His users pay and the ratings are up. Don’t shoot him if his product sells. Try self reflection. The Sydney Morning Herald tried to tell users its product was worth subscribing to. Unfortunately it ignored slumping readership and ended up being acquired by Nine Network. If you don’t cater to your audience, they won’t support you.
Staff levels at the ABC have never been higher. Ratings never been lower. Lifting the budget hasn’t caused any change. Cutting dollars will cause much needed restructuring. It is like feeding a dying patient with more morphine hoping to numb the pain. Unfortunately the body grows resistance to that. ABC staff feel this.
In the 2018 annual report, the ABC staff survey revealed engagement is at 46%, 6% below the previous survey. This puts in the bottom quartile of all ANZ businesses. #Reform desperately needed.
ABC staff complained that management doesn’t do enough to get rid of under-performers. Another clear signal that state-sponsored mediocrity is tolerated.
The culture of the organization won’t be turned around by management unless it is given a reality check of being rapidly withdrawn from the taxpayer teat. That way the c.70% of staff dedicated to content can finally listen to what the broader public want to consume rather than the echo chamber they live in. By the way, those who love the ABC needn’t worry. The limited number of good programs will stay if the audiences demand them. The unhinged radical left programming can be cut with little loss to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
Two Different Versions…. Two Different Morals
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
Channels 7, 9 and 10, the ABC and SBS show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
Australia is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on the ABC with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s not Easy Being Green.’
The CFMEU stage a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, ‘We shall overcome.’
The Archbishop of Melbourne then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.
Prime Minister Shorten condemns the ant and blames Scott Morrison, John Howard, Robert Menzies, Capt James Cook, and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight.
Tanya Plibersek exclaims in an interview on Today Tonight that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, Labor in conjunction with the Greens draft the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the night, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorise the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighbourhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote on May 18, 2019.
The Asahi Shimbun says Nissan group President Carlos Ghosn is expected to face arrest by prosecutors for underreporting salary. Noone should be above the law but to think of the number of jobs at Nissan he saved plus the return to record profitability makes CM think the tax man is well ahead on the trade.
While the Democratic Party always preaches it helps the poor and unfortunate, the IRS data actually reveals it has raised effective tax rates every time it has been in office since 1980. Republicans on the other hand have cut effective tax rates. The effective tax rates under Obama (to date) for the Bottom 50% have increased 40%. For the “Top 1%” effective rates have increased 12.6%. Under Bush the “Bottom 50%” saw effective tax rates fall 53% and the “Top 1%” declined c.13%. Under Bill Clinton, effective tax rates to the “Bottom 50%” rose 12%. Under Reagan they fell 29% over his 8 years.