#XR

You’ll never guess WHO supports the letter urging a green recovery

Criony

Thomas Sowell once said, 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.

According to an open letter signed by 200 bodies representing 40,000,000 health workers The Guardian penned,

Chief medical officers and chief scientific advisers must be directly involved in designing the stimulus packages now underway, the letter urges, in order to ensure they include considerations of public health and environmental concerns. They say public health systems should be strengthened, and they warn of how environmental degradation could help to unleash future diseases.

Who knew?

What better way to cash in on a pandemic by claiming outrageously false representation of members in an attempt to secure funding grants. The irony of this pandemic is that it has exposed the very authorities – who we dare not question – as amateurs in the very fields they claim expertise.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the revenue growth of the RACGP far outstrips that of the AMA? Should the AMA question why its membership has fallen from 95% of doctors to around 26% as it has taken on the role of a climate and social justice activist rather than the RACGP’s approach to be an advocate for better health?

How many of the 40 million health professionals described above believe the orthodoxy? It is bogus to say all followers willingly endorse what these membership bodies make blanket claims about.

Perhaps we should indulge the medical and scientific communities’ request by benchmarking their supposedly superior predictive powers against their howlingly inaccurate models produced during the coronavirus which have undoubtedly done more harm to the economy than good. Take Australia. We were told 15 million may be infected and 150,000 could die. The result to date. Less than 7,200 and 100 deaths. So much for listening to the professionals.

If we are to listen to intellectually superior academia in these fields, should we just accept the Australian National University’s latest plan to have climate change listed on death certificates?

Taken to its logical conclusion, this is an ideology speaking, not science.

We have already had decades of research to support just how flawed climate science models have proven. None of the catastrophic claims of being engulfed by rising sea levels or having to tell our kids they’d never see the snow has happened. Even hardened environmental activist Michael Moore concedes the ridiculous extent to crony socialism behind the green movement.

In February we documented the story of the National Climate Emergency Summit held in Melbourne. The mainstream media led us to believe that the best of the best scientific minds congregated. We pointed out that the list of speakers was largely devoid of scientific experts. 40% were activists, 16% were from the media, 12% were politicians, 11% were academics, 4% high school students and 3% doctors. Biased much?

Yet we have seen this type of shallow content activism before, especially with respect to open letters.

We reported that 268 Australian academics cosigned an open letter supporting the climate activist group, Extinction Rebellion.

While the content was predictable, the statistics were anything but convincing. We noted,

Perhaps the most hilarious signatory to the letter was Matthew Flinders of Flinders University. Unless the university website has another Matthew Flinders listed as an active member, our esteemed explorer seems to have navigated his way back to life…simply adding to the total lack of credibility of the cabal of 268 academics who believe they have some sort of intellectual superiority over us. If one ever wanted proof of our judiciary leaning hard left, 12% of the people that signed this document were in law-related fields.

“…Many of the woke academia come from fields such as stand up comedy, poetry, arts/education, sports management, archaeology, LatAm studies, sex, health and society, social services, veterinary biology, culture, gender, racism…are you catching the drift of those supporting XR? Even Monash University’s Campus Operations Manager and Telephony Application Administrator signed it! Wonderful individuals but should we hold our educators to such high standards when anyone’s opinion will do?”

“…Eerily, over 90% of the signatories do not appear to be renowned experts in teaching science, much less climate science. Which means, why weren’t the scientists in these universities willing to commit their names to a cause that fits their ideology? Who needs them when one faculty member from Monash University deals with ‘Imaginative Education‘?…”

What has been happening in practice? Mexico has already announced that renewables subsidies are out. It has recognized that intermittent energy has no place in rebuilding the economy in a post-pandemic world. Alberta’s energy minister Sonya Savage said with respect to the Trans Mountain expansion project, “Now is a great time to be building a pipeline because you can’t have protests of more than 15 people…” Actions, not words. 

Which brings us back to the point of blindly submitting to expert opinion which is little more than brazen activism.

The World Medical Association (WMA), the International Council of Nurses (ICN), the Commonwealth Nurses and Midwives Federation, the World Organization of Family Doctors and the World Federation of Public Health Associations, as well as thousands of individual health professionals, have signed this letter. 40 million others have not.

The proof is in the pudding. If the WMA  believes what it signed so strongly, why isn’t it included in its press releases as we publish? Admittedly it has upped the statement on its Twitter page to the 12,900 followers, a microbe in comparison to its supposed flock of 10 million physicians it represents. The ICN – which claims to represent 20 million nurses made it all too clear as to why we should dismiss it entirely – the WHO supports and promotes the letter. One wonders whether experts from the Chinese Ministry of Propaganda helped in its drafting. Afterall, China would be the biggest beneficiary were governments to fall into line.

Bes sure to read the quotes from the experts here.

17yo truant should go back to school to learn economics

CLies IT

It has been refreshing hardly seeing our 17-yo truant in chief, Greta Thunberg being exploited by her climate change doomsayers during this coronacrisis. Unfortunately, she caved to the attention deficit by feeling compelled to say she had contracted COVID19 despite not being tested for it. Not atypical of social media-obsessed kids these days.

Alas, the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day came for her to come out of hibernation and tell us,

Whether we like it or not, the world has changed. It looks completely different now from how it did a few months ago. It may never look the same again. We have to choose a new way forward

Indeed it has changed and will change. However, we believe that the coming economic depression won’t lend itself kindly to the untested prospect of a “green jobs” boom. This idea that we can sit back and flood the world with renewables to save us all. It is unworkable in practice. Why?

Let’s take the CSIRO, Australia’s chief government science body.

Why hasn’t Greta made a b-line to reference our CSIRO’s energy transition costings for Australia which exceed $1 trillion with a “T” out to 2050 (p.135)? Note this report isn’t a net-zero study – just lower emissions. So by that logic, net-zero will cost even more. c.100% of GDP. Just as tax revenues are about to go through the floor.

You will feel even warm and fuzzier after reading the next sentence.

CSIRO assures us that “these costs do not include the full integration costs of renewables, but that these costs are expected to be significantly less than $175 billion.” Who cares about billions in a world of trillions? Significantly less?

Why aren’t politicians and Greta looking at the world’s biggest renewable crash test dummy?

As we wrote, “Germany’s Federal Court of Auditors was even more forthright about the failures of renewables…The shift to renewables, the federal auditors say, has cost at least 160 billion euros in the last five years. Meanwhile, the expenditures “are in extreme disproportion to the results…”

Note 330,000 German households are in a state of energy poverty and have had their electricity provider cut them off. That is what happens when projected electricity prices at the time of the hysteria end up double that of the initial costings. Oops.

Yet, how eager are supposed activists willing to sign up to the green movement in practice?

We have a home-grown movement to reference commitment to climate change. 98.9% of households in the electorate of Warringah, that supposedly voted Zali Steggall OAM MP in on a climate change ticket, still haven’t signed up to her ‘Roadmap to Zero’ plans. Given their high powered V8 SUVs are getting one month to the gallon these devout climate change alarmists don’t seem that interested.

What about those on the front lines of the climate crisis? Surely they know best?

When we studied the language within the last 10 years of annual reports of the state fire services around Australia, why was ‘climate change‘, the words that 29 former fire chiefs told us is such a big factor, barely mentioned, if at all? Take Fire & Rescue NSW’s only mention of ‘climate change‘ on p.81 of its 2018/19 Annual Report,

Where practicable, FRNSW crews were encouraged to turn off all non-essential lights on 30 March 2019 from 8:30pm until 9:30pm, joining millions of people worldwide in showing their commitment to tackling climate change and inspiring all generations to support environmental initiatives and sustainable climate policy.

That will do it!

Then what of green jobs?

We keep on hearing about a huge surge in “green jobs”. The ABS reported that after 5 years of straight declines, rooftop solar has been the driver of the rise in the past two years.

Annual direct FTE employment in renewable energy activities in Australia was estimated at 17,740 jobs in 2017-18, an increase of 3,890 jobs in FTE employment (28%) from the previous year (2016-17) and represents the highest level of FTE employment in renewable energy activities since 2011-12...driven by an increase in construction activity for large scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems (1,950 additional FTE jobs) and roof-top solar PV (1,720 additional FTE jobs). Together, these two renewable energy types accounted for 94% of this increase in FTE employment in renewable energy.

The ABS notes there are 12,500,000 Aussies employed. Therefore full-time green jobs make up 0.14% of the total. Construction makes up 1.056m jobs. Manufacturing employs 770,000. Combined, these sectors make up 15% of all employed.

So our two biggest sectors employ 107x more than the peak in renewables FT employment.

In short

While Democrat Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez brainlessly tweeted you love to see it when referring to the recent trend in negative oil prices, restless natives around the globe will not tolerate governments that pursue green policies that prolong their unemployment pain. They want jobs, not spoon-fed ideological alarmism as their saviour.

This global lockdown is doing one important thing – waking us up to unpleasant truths. Comforting lies surrounding renewables investment will have no place other than the dining tables of crony capitalists who aren’t dealing with lived experience of scraping by without work. That is not to say we won’t get governments trying to prescribing a “reset” but it will be a one-way ticket to being kicked out of office when the results don’t live up to the promises.

We gambled on the wrong threat – climate change

Gamble

Thanks to SF for the flag.

The Toronto Sun has published a very sensible article pointing out that our obsession with climate change meant we focused less on where we might have.

“One of the key lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic is that for at least the past decade, we focused disproportionately, or rather our governments did, on one potential global threat — human-induced climate change — to the exclusion of all others.

Anthropogenic climate change became the issue that sucked up all the oxygen in the room when it came to a global crisis.

At the expense of, for example, a contagious and deadly virus becoming a pandemic, which public health experts have been warning us about for decades.

In Canada, our political leaders, have long ignored — perhaps the fairer word is “downplayed” — the health care threat posed by the fact our hospitals are chronically overcrowded, with thousands of patients being treated in hallways, year after year.

That’s why the greatest concern health-care experts have now is that our hospitals, overcrowded in normal times and routinely operating at or beyond their designated capacities — as opposed to 80% of capacity to be able to handle a “black swan” event like COVID-19 — may soon be overrun by critically-ill patients.

Wrong decisions have dire consequences. We’re now facing them.

That’s not to say concern about human-induced climate change (not “climate change” as we obsessively and incorrectly describe it) was entirely misplaced.

It’s one of many serious environmental challenges we face, such as the more than 900 billion litres of raw sewage we’ve dumped into our rivers, lakes and oceans since 2013.

But while human-induced climate change contributes to human suffering and death, it has never been a so-called “existential” threat to humanity, meaning, a threat to human existence.

Neither is COVID-19. It will eventually burn itself out as have previous pandemics.

The question is how effectively and for how long can we contain it through aggressive social distancing — far harder to do in democracies than it sounds — and how many of us will die or suffer life-changing consequences before there’s a vaccine?

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, some who jumped on the anthropogenic climate change bandwagon early and hard, argue COVID-19 shows us what the world will be like if we don’t quickly abandon fossil fuels.

In reality, COVID-19 shows us what the world will be like if we abandon fossil fuels prematurely, without having reliable energy sources to replace them, compounded by the fact many opponents of fossil fuel energy also oppose nuclear power.

As Robert Bryce warns in Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future: “If you are anti-carbon dioxide and anti-nuclear, you are pro-blackout.”

Consider what the world would be like today, in the face of COVID-19, without fossil fuel (and nuclear) energy, a world climate radicals crave.

Without reliable, on-demand energy sufficient to power a modern, industrialized society — which neither wind nor solar power can provide at current levels of technology — our hospitals could not maintain sterile conditions.

Food and vaccines — when one for COVID-19 is developed — could not be preserved or transported.”

Heathrow jettisons reality for religion

Forget economic planning for the next 20-30 years. Drag up the non-binding Paris Climate Accord (of 2015) and use it as an excuse to hobble economic growth by claiming the third runway at Heathrow Airport is illegal. Forget the fact that passenger growth is a true underlying reflection of travellers’ true feelings about climate change. When it comes to offsetting one’s own carbon footprint by electing to pay a penalty, the truth is that 98% of people couldn’t care less.

Stopping Heathrow’s 3rd runway follows a dangerous path. Surely councils can see airport expansion benefits the community more than impedes it. Why do councils fall for tales of doom spewed by activists who often haven’t the first clue about what they are protesting about other than what they have read in The Guardian or heard from Hollywood star Emma Thomson who flew in from NY to tell them to panic?

Officers at Uttlesford District Council in Essex had recommended the approval of proposals to increase London Stansted Airport’s passenger cap to 43mpa in 2018 from 35m. However, the council’s special planning committee members rejected the scheme in January 2020.

Bristol Airport applied to the North Somerset Council to expand capacity by 30% in 2017, to keep up with the faster than expected demand. It was recommended for the jobs that would be created but the council rejected it, despite assurances the airport itself would be net-zero emissions in its operations.

While the activists may well rejoice at stopping the expansion, some fast facts about Heathrow Airport should send chills down the spines of Westminster:

  1. Currently operating at 98% capacity with 473,000 flights a year (capped at 480,000). It was 350,000 in 1991.
  2. Civil Aviation Authority notes Heathrow handled 80.9m passengers in 2019 up from 63m in 2002 and 40m in 1991. 
  3. Heathrow handles 50% of all London’s flights and 27% of all UK flights.
  4. Heathrow estimates 30% for business, 35% for holidays and 35% for visiting friends and relatives.
  5. 65% of passengers are going to the UK. 35% use Heathrow as a hub to connect.
  6. 76,000 are employed at Heathrow Airport.
  7. Heathrow is the 7th busiest airport in the world.

Demand is growing. Moreover, Britain’s population is expected to swell from 66m today to over 73m by 2045, the largest country in Europe.

The simple thing is facts don’t matter. Despite today’s modern fleet of aircraft burning 15-20% less fuel and spewing far lower emissions of planes even 10 years old, hysteria wins the day.

By the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) 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. Heathrow makes up 0.1% of all commercial flights globally.

Not to worry, IATA has got behind the movement to do its bit for climate change too. 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.

What of the UN IPCC summits going forward? How will activists, government officials and observers manage to get to upcoming climate conferences if their ability to fly is curtailed? Best allow for expansion to ensure their vacuous jollies remain uninterrupted, especially after Greta Thunberg’s efforts caused a 50% rebound in attendees at Madrid.

Forget fears of Brexit hurting the economy. Just let green councils run amock based on religion. The ultimate irony will be when airlines, bursting at the seams, request to put on larger aircraft to cope with the growth that has been restrained by the infrastructure.

CSIRO cost energy transition at $1tn (oh plus $175bn to integrate renewables)

CSIRO

As our political class push for net-zero emissions by 2050, we shouldn’t be surprised that there aren’t costings. In reality, we would prefer politicians pave the roadmap to where the mystical decarbonized industries that will replace all of the jobs we will give up in mining, agriculture and transport will come from to fund it all? One way to cut our emissions is to tank the economy. Job done. After all being on the right side of history involves sacrifice. Our grandkids will thank us for it. Greta assures us.

The bigger question is why haven’t our politicians made a b-line to reference our CSIRO’s energy transition costings which exceed $1 trillion with a “T” out to 2050 (p.135)? Note this report isn’t a net-zero study – just lower emissions. So by that logic, net-zero will cost even more. 

You will feel even warm and fuzzier after reading the next sentence.

CSIRO assures us that “these costs do not include the full integration costs of renewables, but that these costs are expected to be significantly less than $175 billion.” Who cares about billions in a world of trillions? Significantly less? Can anyone name a government project that has come in on time and on budget? Submarines? NBN? The beauty of spending other people’s money.

The power generation pathways are quite interesting. In Pathways 1 & 3, solar and wind are capped at 45%. Pathway 1 relies on biomass (actually dirtier than brown coal) with Pathway 3 allowed to include HELE coal, nuclear and geothermal. In Pathway 2 renewables are uncapped with battery storage. Pathway 4 is the same as Pathway 1 but with additional electricity consumption from hydrogen electrolysis for transport.

Electricity wholesale prices are contained on p.231. Even in the best-case scenario, we should expect a 50% increase in electricity costs. In the worst-case scenario on Pathway 3, wholesale prices will surge over 4x. Politicians should proudly tout to the public that they have energy prices under control.

Retail prices remain the cheapest on a no abatement basis (p.233)…who knew? In 2016 dollars, no abatement electricity will rise 40%, Pathways 1-3 +60% and Pathway 4 +80%.

CSIRO also assumes that by 2030, 5% of rooftop solar owners elect to leave the grid increasing to 10% by 2050.

Why aren’t our politicians looking at the world’s biggest renewable crash test dummy – Germany? As we wrote, Germany’s Federal Court of Auditors is even more forthright about the failures…The shift to renewables, the federal auditors say, has cost at least 160 billion euros in the last five years. Meanwhile, the expenditures “are in extreme disproportion to the results…

Note 330,000 German households are in a state of energy poverty and have had their electricity provider cut them off. Australia is around 45,000.

We have a home-grown movement to reference commitment to climate change. 98.9% of households in the electorate of Warringah, that supposedly voted Zali Steggall OAM in on a climate change ticket, still haven’t signed up to her ‘Roadmap to Zero’ plans. Maybe they are just too busy filling their high powered V8 SUVs on Military Rd to get around to it.

If we want to stop global warming, at the very least politicians should stop creating all this hot air. This net-zero policy is an economic suicide note.

When climate alarmists start trusting bankers

If global warming alarmists ever wanted to pick an industry as steeped in unreliable forecasts as climate scientists, one would find it hard to beat investment banking. Having been in that industry for two decades, the list of woefully misguided and poorly researched puff pieces is endless. There is a reason global banks are trading at fractions of their former peaks. They don’t add much value and most never picked the GFC of 2008. If they were smarter, greed wouldn’t require recessions.

Never mind. When JP Morgan economists are portending climate doom, why not hitch them to your global warming wagon? There is a kind of conflict of interest. Evil, greedy fat bonus paying tax avoiding corporates preaching virtue on climate.

By the way, you won’t find a research analyst who believes they don’t deserve air travel at the pointy end and luxury limousine transfers to and from the airport.

Yet they are aligned with the hypocrites at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which told us at the 1500 private jet junket at Davos that it’s central bank members are “climate rescuers of last resort.” This despite their monetary policies having played a major part in fueling overconsumption via the debt bubble. Ultra low interest rates will ultimately have a profound effect on carbon emissions – a global economic crisis of epic proportions which won’t require one wind turbine or solar farm to achieve. They’ll save the climate by destroying the wellbeing of so many in the process.

On the one hand, JP Morgan can now claim some kudos for allowing such free thinking which isn’t at the behest of the investment banking team.

Maybe it’s worth pointing out that most banks keep meticulous (but useless) data on the readership of such reports. Much like the media chasing advertising dollars through clickbait, research analysts strive for internal point scoring to boost their year end review chances to push for bigger bonuses to their excel spreadsheet obsessed line managers who look at quantity, not quality. So if a warmest piece can create noise, irrespective of the quality of the content, then that serves a purpose for internal bosses.

Such has been the hollowing out of investment banking research teams, the last remaining life jackets are in short supply. It was only last year that Deutsche Bank closed its entire global equity platform. While regulation is part of the problem, there is simply very little value add to convince clients to pay for.

While the report supposedly chastised the bank’s lending of $75bn to the fossil fuel industry, in a world of ESG, which puts ideology ahead of risk assessment, JP Morgan can now claim it has seen the light so it can hopefully fool green tech companies in need of cash that they are worthy environmentally friendly financiers. This will also give the public relations team a welcome talking piece to the media and ESG retirement fund managers that they practice social responsibility.

Back to the report. On what pretense do the JP Morgan analysts have for the climate crisis threatening the human race? Citing the IPCC (where scientists have slammed the processes which prioritize gender and ethnicity over ability and qualification) and the IMF (which couldn’t pick economic growth it it tried) are hardly the sort of data one would gladly source as gospel to compile a report.

It seems everyone is an expert on climate change nowadays. Central banks, ASIC, APRA, RBA, the Australian Medical Association and now investment banks. As we pointed out earlier in the week, where were the scientists who made a b-line to speak at the National Climate Emergency summit in Melbourne? That’s right 2/3rds were activists, lobbyists, left-wing media and academics with no scientific background.

You know when alarmists are channeling bankers, that they are running out of credible evidence. Even worse, most banks have an uncanny ability to act as contrarian indicators.

We can be sure that a whole lot of malinvestment will continue thanks to governments trying to declare emergencies to justify infrastructure spending to replace sensible business friendly structural reforms that would have a far better chance of keeping them in power for longer.

In closing, it seems even the media has lost faith in investment bank research, choosing to channel NY Mets baseball pitchers for commentary on stocks instead.

Seattle City Council strikes again

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.

Global Coal-fired power statistics – Diary of a Wimpy Kid

What is it with the self-flagellation over coal-fired power? The announcement that the Morrison government intends underwriting “ONE” coal-fired power plant brings with it the hysteria of publicly force-feeding kindergarten kids with highly radioactive sludge at recess time. Naturally, none of this outrage is based on facts. It is all tokenism.

Here are the stats for coal-fired power stations globally:

Coal Capacity

Australia has only 2.5% of the coal-fired capacity of China. Versus our total of 58, China has almost 3,000 in service.

Coal Operation

Coal-fired plants that have been announced, are under construction, permitted and pre-permit stage around the globe total 1,046. Where are the climate activists in China, India, Vietnam, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Japan, Russia, Mongolia, Botswana, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, South Korea, Thailand, Malawi, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Turkey, Egypt, Poland and South Africa?

New Coal

The mt CO2-e output of each country is as follows. Note China produces 36x more CO2.

Coal CO2

So China and India are responsible for 58% of coal-fired power generated emissions and will be 50% of all new capacity additions going forward.

Coal CO2 Contrib

China has 100x more coal-fired power on the drawing board than Australia yet we behave as though we are the biggest climate sinners on the planet! China and India have consistently been 70%+ of all new coal-fired plant capacity additions since 2006.

Coal Capa

So do Australian activists honestly think that canning one domestic new coal-fired power plant will have the slightest effect on global temperatures when our Asian and African neighbours are full speed ahead?

There have also been arguments made by activists that our coal exports should be counted against our totals in terms of emissions. Fine. Then by that logic, FNF Media expects the total emissions of every car sold in Australia (including fuel consumed) to be charged back to Japan, China, Korea, America and Europe. Every aircraft, every electronic device, every imported building material, crane, bulldozer, wind turbine, solar panel and truck that transports it. It would equal itself out pretty quickly.

Our global neighbours seem to be prioritizing national growth over climate alarmism. For it would appear they do not have the same level of brain-washed fanatics telling our kids that they have inherited a planet that will make them the last people on earth to survive.

The quickest route for Australia to end its prosperity is to cower to this insanity. To fall in line to the idea that renewables are cheaper (they aren’t) and more green is preposterous. Wind turbine blades are being put into landfill and solar panels are toxic to recycle and likely to end in the same place. Germany is giving us a great beta test case of how renewables are failing them. Indulge yourself here.

Coal-fired plants in Australia are forced to run sub-optimally to cater to the demands of the fluctuations in renewables which must be given priority to the grid. Ask anyone in large scale manufacturing how being forced to run at fluctuating levels destroys efficiency. It really is that simple.

Coal Price

Thermal coal prices are far from going out of control. So our power plant electricity generation isn’t becoming pricier due to input costs.

We have to stop becoming emotional about numbers and data and look at what they are telling us rather than build a narrative and reverse engineer the results. It always catches up to us in the end.

Our government needs to show some backbone and provide easy to understand data about reality. Rather than fold at the confected outrage which appears backed by crony capitalists.

Now that former PM Turnbull is weighing in on the debate (contradicting comments made while PM) saying that it is lunacy to pursue coal. Given his record of poor judgment, it stands to reason building cleaner coal-fired power plants is a sensible way to lower energy prices and remain a competitive global economy.

As FNF Media likes to say, the numbers will always be right in the end. Fiddle them at your peril.

Telstra’s CEO should close down operations to be on the right side of history

Telstra CEO Andy Penn has suggested that climate change will be the “defining challenge” of the decade but proclaims he doesn’t want to be drawn into the government policy debate. 

He has called for “more urgent action on climate as changing weather patterns deliver more frequent bushfires, floods, droughts and storms” at an American Chamber of Commerce lunch yesterday. 

What a pity that the UNIPCC’s March 2018 report on weather extremes (with respect to anthropogenic induced global warming) contradicted Mr Penn:

“…There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systemsin some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods…low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences..low confidence in projections of changes in extreme winds.. low confidence in projections of changes in monsoons…low confidence in wave height projections…overall low confidence because of inconsistent projections of drought changes…low confidence in projected future changes in dust storms…low confidence in projections of an anthropogenic effect on phenomena such as shallow landslides.”

Never mind what the scientists ‘actually’ think. Just run the narrative of the activists instead to prevent Extinction Rebellion nutcases from super glueing themselves to the lobby entrance. FNF Media could indulge you on what the scientists actually think of the IPCC. For those interested please see the link here. Spoiler alert – it is exceedingly critical.

Mr Penn said that businesses and individuals should become aware of their carbon footprints. He admitted Telstra is one of the biggest consumers of electricity in the country as data storage needs explode by up to 50% per annum.

If it is such a massive concern, Penn should put Telstra’s shareholder money where its mouth is and charge customers extortionate fees for data storage and data usage such that he can force them to lighten their evil digital-driven carbon footprint. That way he can slow his electricity consumption. Then, Telstra can await all of those woke customers fleeing Vodafone and Optus in droves to sign up for inferior service for more money. Not quite sure what shareholders would think of that…

Even better he could suggest to the board that they close the business for good for the sake of the planet. After all, by going the whole hog he can sleep safe in the knowledge that his kids and grandkids will know he was on the right side of history (the standard alarmist playbook) before we’re swept away by the rising sea levels. Think of all that energy saved.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen this vacuous corporate virtue signalling tokenism before. Who could forget the comments made by Josh Bayliss, the 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 didn’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.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has already positioned behind the flight shaming 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.

Still, the easiest way to gauge public fear on climate change is not via a biased think-tank poll but monitor individual consumption patterns. It isn’t just population growth, because it isn’t growing  at these rates. Three examples:

  1. Aircraft demand – In 2019, Boeing reported airlines will need around 44,000 new commercial aircraft worth $6.8 trillion by 2038, vs. 43,000 planes worth $6.49 trillion estimated in 2018. There are currently 25,830 commercial airliners in service.
  2. Smartphones – estimated that the number of global mobile subscriptions could be 13.8 billion in 2025 and 17.1 billion in 2030. The number of global mobile subscriptions has already reached 6.7 billion in 2013. Smartphones will grow from 6.3bn units in 2020 to 12.1 billion by 2030.
  3. Energy Consumption  – the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that world energy consumption will grow by nearly 50% between 2018 and 2050. Energy consumed in the buildings sector (including residential and commercial structures), increases by 65% between 2018 and 2050, from 91 quadrillion to 139 quadrillion Btu. Rising income, urbanization, and increased access to electricity lead to rising demand for energy.

So good luck trying to get people to feel awkward about their individual carbon footprints. They’ll be to busy charging their mobile devices while booking the next overseas holiday to the Maldives.

“Climate change” Casanova

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.