web analytics
≡ Menu

 COP26: like 25 others—more hot air heating the planet?

21.10.21.  Before any of the Coalition’s MPs get too excited about supposedly ending the climate wars, they need to remember how they got into government and why they’re still there. They’re in government because Tony Abbott won a landslide election promising to repeal the carbon tax, giving them a big enough buffer of seats to survive the subsequent revolving-door prime ministership. They’re still in government only because at the 2019 election the Coalition had modest emissions targets and could cost and explain them. Labor had much bigger emissions targets that it couldn’t explain and wouldn’t cost. That’s why this conversion to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, in senator Matt Canavan’s words, looks like a betrayal of the quiet Australians.

Source: Peta Credlin, NCA

Glasgow bandwagon careering out of control

Trying to make the new policy palatable, Scott Morrison has let it be known that the government has modelling purporting to show that Australia’s agricultural, resource and gas exports will be even higher – yes, even higher under net zero – in 2050 than they are now. But hang on, before the 2019 election, to blast Labor’s policy as reckless, the Prime Minister cited modelling that cutting emissions by 45 per cent would cumulatively cost 336,000 jobs, cut wages by $9000 and reduce gross domestic product by a half trillion dollars. So then the modelling said a 45 per cent cut would crush the economy; now the modelling supposedly says a much bigger cut – effectively 100 per cent – will boost the economy? Go figure.
This week’s reported but not released government modelling apparently claims that in 2050 gas exports will exceed today’s figures in volume and in price. How does this square with last week’s International Energy Agency modelling that fossil fuels will go from about 80 per cent of the world’s total energy now to only 22 per cent in 2050; or Wednesday’s UK Treasury modelling that assumes getting to net zero will require a $92 a tonne carbon price in 2030 and a $295 a tonne price in 2050 (compared with Julia Gillard’s 2012 carbon tax of just $23)?
Despite all the hype about renewables being cheap and creating green jobs, in every country more renewable power has meant higher costs, lower reliability and the flight of manufacturing industry to China. Just look at the energy crisis hitting Britain and western Europe because of a wind drought and skyrocketing demand for gas.
Frankly, it staggers me that so many Coalition MPs have been prepared to jump on the COP26 bandwagon, which is careering out of control because nothing is ever enough to satisfy the climate warriors. Almost as soon as the Coalition agreed in 2015 to a 26 to 28 per cent cut by 2030 (because that was achievable within policy settings) the campaign began for more.
First, the demand was to commit to net zero by 2050. And as soon as the government started signalling that it would, the demand became higher targets for 2030. Now that it looks like existing policy will deliver a 36 per cent cut, the demand is for further cuts requiring costly and disruptive change. If the latest demand is for a 45 to 50 per cent cut by 2030, you can be certain that in a couple of years the demand will be net zero by 2040 or sooner. This is allegedly because otherwise the planet will face catastrophe; the same catastrophe that has been just around the corner for decades that stubbornly has never come.
The reason nothing is ever enough for the climate cult is because the objective is less to save the planet than to change the way we live; and if that makes us more vulnerable to China and Russia, so much the better.
Old-school Marxists were never able to persuade Western workers to revolt for equality, but today’s cultural Marxists have been much better at persuading Western elites to revolt to save the planet. This is even though China and Russia are doing no such thing and indicating their contempt for the whole emission obsession by absenting themselves from Glasgow.
What’s curious and (to long-term Liberal supporters) galling is that so many Coalition MPs have become the latest useful idiots in this campaign.
By sticking with the current targets for 2030 while committing to net zero for 2050, the Prime Minister thinks he is shrewdly satisfying the inner-city Liberals on climate and the regional Liberals on jobs. If, as is likely, this is criticised as not enough by greens and too much by conservatives, he’ll doubtless claim that being attacked from both sides shows he has got it right.
An alternative interpretation is that this is a bloke who, under pressure, can’t stick with the same position from one election to the next and thus stands for nothing.
Of itself, that’s enough to leave Morrison with a credibility gap. This will be willingly exploited by a raft of minor parties on the right, with messaging hits about the impact of net zero on low-income households, small business and regional communities, once bread-and-butter constituencies for the Coalition but looking more and more as if they’ve been abandoned in favour of the UN, big-business rent-seekers and virtue-signalling billionaires.
If decarbonising the economy really is an “unstoppable change”, why does it need to be mandated and subsidised by government?
And if it must be mandated by government, surely it’s high time to embrace the only proven way to produce emissions-free electricity via a government commitment to develop a civil nuclear industry.
Japan has quietly rethought its post-Fukushima commitment to phase out nuclear. France has just shelved its plan to reduce reliance on nuclear. And Britain is about to announce a big increase in its nuclear power program.
This week there have been pro-nuclear demonstrations in Belgium; and Bill Gates, hardly a conservative climate denier, has declared that nuclear power should “absolutely” be politically acceptable because it’s safer than oil, coal and gas. For climate activists still opposed to nuclear power, the real agenda is not green energy but less energy; it’s economic and social re-engineering disguised as saving the planet.
For Morrison, who needs to keep his team united and enthusiastic, the advantage of using nuclear to get to net zero is that his political fight will no longer be against his own natural supporters but a Labor Party with the double standard of supporting nuclear power at sea but not on land.
The Prime Minister’s colleagues suggesting that net zero was the blood price for “modern Liberal” votes to take over from Malcolm Turnbull might have a point – but what a price if they end up back in opposition for no environmental gain and a world of economic pain.

{ 16 comments… add one }
  • Penguinite 21/10/2021, 6:38 am

    Scom is either lying or suffering from Cognitive dissonance! According to F Scott Fitzgerald “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” I don’t see any of that in our current batch of hot air spruikers

  • Maryanne 21/10/2021, 7:18 am

    It’s time everybody, but especially governments, stopped relying on modelling. Covid hysteria is maintained by modelling. Climate hysteria is maintained by modelling. Surely only halfwits could believe that Australia’s mining and agricultural sectors will increase under zero net emissions.

    Garbage in; garbage out.

    • aktosplatz 21/10/2021, 7:28 am

      Exactly Maryanne. As soon as I saw the word ‘modelling’ in the first sentence I swore ‘Oh no – all BS here we go again’. If there’s anything that is proved consistently wrong in our affairs. it’a the use of computer ‘modelling’.

      I should have guessed this was the case.

      • DT 21/10/2021, 12:58 pm

        Computer modelling?

        Now how many deaths in Australia because of COVID-19 did modelling predict early in 2020?

    • PW 21/10/2021, 2:38 pm

      If modelling is so great that we now “believe” it, get rid of politicians and replace them with scenarios. See how that goes down. Another fake BS is organisations stating they’re apolitical and independent (as long as you are all “like minded”.

  • Lorraine 21/10/2021, 7:24 am

    Betrayal it is, what a total joke played to the quiet Australians, trust me Labor was almost right at 45% ,but I am 100% right now……Minor parties better start fielding people, we need a change of Government and not Labor/Greens

  • Albert 21/10/2021, 8:11 am

    I don’t know why there is such reliance by our ‘experts’ on computer modelling when we have truck loads of ‘EXPERTS’. It appears that we have more experts per square metre than any other country on the planet.
    For instance, take the latest from that roundly debunked ‘expert’ Flim Flammery who today writes in the SMH:

    “Australia dead last in the most important race humanity has ever faced.
    No other developed nation has performed as badly in terms of past emissions or commitments to cut them.”

    • DT 21/10/2021, 12:57 pm

      Tom Foolery knows no shame, Australia well exceeded emissions reduction targets agree to at Kyoto (Howard Government) and is well on the way to meeting the Paris targets (Turnbull Government 2015/16) by 2030.

      We are one of a very small number of UN IPCC signatory nations that achieved Kyoto and achieving Paris. Accordingly our emissions have been reduced since 2005. The cost to our economy has been significantly high to achieve the targets.

      Net zero emissions was first discussed at Paris end of 2015 as a future objective after 2030 Paris target date.

      I suspect that with the mounting evidence that another cooling phase is underway, NASA satellites the most accurate records, the UN is trying to force the signing of net zero emissions in 2021 knowing that with each new year and cooling the number of nations willing to sign the agreement will become fewer and fewer.

      China won’t even attend the Glasgow Conference and they produce close to 30% a year of global emissions. And other nations are apparently not attending.

  • nev 21/10/2021, 10:25 am

    I like your choice of words Peta. Shrewdly, yes that describes this thigh slappin PM to a T.
    Everything Scotty from marketing does, is in his mind so dazzlingly clever and shrewd and then suddenly it’s not. Flat on his face again and again but there’s always someone to shrewdly throw under the bus, (Christine Holgate springs to mind) up one dead-end rabbit hole after another, pitty his ministerial followers haven’t yet figured out how shrewd their leader really is!

    • DT 21/10/2021, 12:49 pm

      Nev, PM Abbott is not mad and he was never a Monk and PM Morrison was never in marketing but as a senior manager in tourism of course he was consulted by marketing people on new advertising plans.

      See his employment history, Wikipedia is a quickly accessed source.

      The Scotty from Marketing tag was created by Labor, so why help them?

  • DT 21/10/2021, 12:46 pm

    China emissions are close to 30% of total global emissions, Australia produces 1.3% of global emissions, and China is increasing emissions every year by more than Australia’s total annual emissions.

    And if emissions really were a problem, noting that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, not human activities, why would the UN IPCC tolerate the increasing emissions output from China and other member nations not far behind China?

    Australia’s Chief Scientist admitted at a Senate Committee Inquiry that if Australia stopped producing emissions it would make no difference to the global temperature average.

    And as for the Business Council of Australia, during the 2019 Federal Election they claimed that new zero emissions would cost a huge amount of money and badly damage the Australian economy, as the Morrison Government also argued at the time, and today the BCA wants net zero emissions, and the National Party refuses to support the Government’s back flip.

    • PW 21/10/2021, 2:46 pm

      Yes with 30% emissions is Krudd still backing the Chinese regards the greatest moral challenge of all time?
      After all with no industry in Oz anymore its obvious we’ve passed these emissions onto China as has the world.

  • aktosplatz 21/10/2021, 1:28 pm

    ‘Much ado about nothing’ as Shakespeare once said. Carbon Dioxide is a Life supporting gas because it is biologically converted to release of oxygen, via a process called photosythesis.

    On that basis I would have thought we would be pushing for higher CO2 levels, not less. The good news is that nobody can stop it, so the ultimate increased oxygen supply is very handy.

    Of ciourse, you realise you can’t make any more money out of increased CO2 and photosynthesis ( unless you pay carbon dioxide credits!)

    • DT 21/10/2021, 1:33 pm

      Three points;

      * At this point in history with CO2 at 410 ppm (0.0410%) the amount in the atmosphere, CO2 level is at one of the lowest levels in history.

      * In an ideal world there would be 1,000 ppm to 1,500 ppm of CO2 and resulting in greatly increased food crop yields and other plant life.

      * A report in recent years from the United States Navy included that up to 8,000 ppm of CO2 is in a submerged submarine’s atmosphere with no adverse impact on the health of crew members.

    • aktosplatz 21/10/2021, 3:19 pm

      In my Youth, DT, I worked in the Brewing Industry, and the CO2 levels in the were so high in the air you could feel it bite quite often.

      The CO2 was collected from the top of the CO2 tanks, scrubbed in water and then activated charcoal, and stored under pressure for use in the soft drink industry.

      One tank developed a pin hole leak near the base and we saw it in a few hours because the surrounding grass suddenly started to grow rapidly, and it was a deep green colour. Very thick and very lush.

      That’s the so-called “Pollution” I observed. The lies we are told about CO2 and its properties are quite insulting to our intelligence.

  • DT 21/10/2021, 1:29 pm

    See news.com and read about the growing concern and worrying about a new COVID-19 Delta strain mutation recently discovered that threatens the UK.

    Just in time for COP26 international delegates by the hundreds arriving in Glasgow.

Leave a Comment