CLIMATE, CLIMATE, CLIMATE

The looming costs of Rudd's climate mania are focusing a lot of minds in Australia at the moment. Five recent climate articles from Australia below

Emission Trading Scheme paints Rudd Government into a Corner

Lord Christopher Monckton has written to Australia's Climate Change minister Penny Wong warning that pressing ahead with an Emissions Trading scheme will see Labor thrown out of office.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's new Labor Government in only 9 months has painted itself into a corner with its proposed Carbon Reduction Scheme that it may never get out of. In it's first 9 months in office Australia's economic condition has deteriorate form arguably the strongest it's ever been to talk in todays press of it quickly sliding into recession. Fuel prices, Interest rates and food prices have all soared whilst consumer spending, house prices, private and business borrowings and confidence has plummeted.

While Australians were flush with wealth and money they might have been keen for the good of the environment too endure the extra costs (read tax) that an emissions trading scheme would impose on them. However no populace that is struggling financially to pay a mortgage will accept an environment tax with very dubious environmental benefits. Mr Rudd may well learn first hand that committing to a scheme that hobbles ones own economic growth is indeed only the prerogative of a wealthy society.

He may learn why it is folly for him to believe that he can ever convince developing nations like China & India with their millions of people just emerging from a lifetime of poverty to stymie their economic growth with a carbon emissions scheme.

Increasing world wide media coverage that there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are linked to climate change coupled with the fact that whatever actions we take as a nation are meaningless unless the big emitters like China, India and the US take similar action is starting to permeate into the Australians conscious. In fact if we were to cut our emissions to zero tomorrow China's growth in extra emissions alone would make up our CO2 reduction from the global balance in just 270 days.

Lord Christopher Monckton is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute. Below is a copy of an email he sent to Australian Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.

Dear Senator Wong,

Greetings from Scotland! One of your constituents, Mr. John Cribbes, has asked me to drop you a short email about emissions trading and "global warming".

I have recently conducted some detailed research into the mathematics behind the conclusions of the UN climate panel on the single question that matters in the climate debate - by how much will the world warm in response to adding CO2 to the atmosphere? My research, published in Physics and Society, a technical newsletter of the American Physical Society this month, demonstratres that the IPCC's values for the three key parameters whose product is climate sensitivity are based on only four papers - not the 2,500 that are often mentioned.

Those four papers are unrepresentative of the literature, in which a low and harmless climate sensitivity is now the consensus.

Therefore I should recommend extreme caution before any emissions-trading scheme is put in place. Such schemes will damage Australia's competitiveness, perhaps fatally; they are prone to corruption in that they incentivize over-claiming by both parties to each trade and by the regulator; they are addressing a non-problem; and, even if the problem were real (as a few largely-politicized scientists persist in maintaining), adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper than emissions trading or any other attempt at mitigating the quantities of carbon dioxide that we are (harmlessly) adding to the atmosphere.

Therefore I strongly urge you to reconsider your support for this or any emissions-trading scheme. I have read the Australian Government's paper on the proposed scheme, and the science in it is, alas, largely nonsense.

Politically, of course, the fatal damage that emissions trading will do to the Australian economy will greatly favour the enemies of the free West, which is why I, as an ally, have locus standi to approach you.

Climatically, your emissions-trading scheme will not make any significant difference. There are many other environmental problems that are real: I recommend that the Australian Government should tackle those.

As for the climate, it is a non-problem, and the correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Similar warnings are being sent to other legislators worldwide by those of us - now probably in the majority among the scientific community, not that one should do science by head-count - who have studied climate sensitivity and have found the UN's analysis lamentably wanting.

The UN's predictions are already being falsified by events: global temperatures have been falling for seven years, and not one of the climate models relied upon so heavily and so unwisely by the IPCC predicted that turn of events. If you introduce an emissions-trading scheme, when it transpires that the scheme and its associated economic damage had never been necessary - and it will, and sooner than you think - you and your party will be flung from office, perhaps forever. It is, therefore, in the long-term vested interest of your party to think again.

Monckton of Brenchley

Source

Global Warming Religion Eroding Human Rights

Have you ever noticed that the champions of global warming are not scientists. Al Gore (ex politician), Nicholas Stern (economist), Ross Garnaut (economist) Kevin Rudd (diplomat / politician). Oh it's it a fact that 2,500 ICCP scientist have formed a consensus that humans are causing global warming. However Arthur B. Robinson, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, is one of 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition to disagree.

"Robinson said that in recent years the U.N. and a group of 600 scientists, representing less than one percent of the scientific population, reached a "consensus" that global warming is happening. This has never been done before, Robinson insists.

Dennis Avery, Director for the Center of Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, agrees with Robinson. "Nobody can do science by a committee. You do science by testing," said Avery. "To me it is appalling that an international organization of the stature of the U.N. would ignore the evidence of past climate changing."

The signers of Robinson's petition, including 9,000 Ph.Ds, all have one thing in common. They believe that human rights are being taken away.

Thats an interesting proposition and one that Australian Farmers have already experienced first hand. Arthur Herman a historian and author in a great article in today's Australian agrees:

"IT has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world's oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it.

Yet believers in man-made global warming demand more and more money to combat climate change and still more drastic changes in our economic output and lifestyle. The reason is that precisely that they are believers, not scientists. No amount of empirical evidence will overturn what has become not a scientific theory but a form of religion.

Of Superstition and Enthusiasm, describes how even in civilised societies the mind of man is subject to certain unaccountable terrors and apprehensions when real worries are missing. As these enemies are entirely invisible and unknown, like today's greenhouse gases, people try to propitiate them by ceremonies, observations, mortifications, sacrifices such as Earth Day and banning plastic bags and petrol-driven lawnmowers.

Fear and ignorance, Hume concludes, are the true source of superstition. They lead a blind and terrified public to embrace any practice, however absurd or frivolous, which either folly or knavery recommends."

Now think about the Australian farmers who have had their property rights taken from them with the tree clearing bans so Australia could meet its Kyoto obligations, without a cent of compensation!

Both articles go into detail how human rights will be sacrificed to the alter of the climate change religion. Well worth a read.

Source

Bullsh*t Watch: The winner is Graham Readfearn

In the tradition set by the Rudd Government with Fuel Watch, Grocery Watch, Water Watch we are launching Bullsh*t Watch. Todays Bullsh*t award goes to Brisbane's Courier Mail Journalist Graham Readfearn for his article: "Call to Act by Pioneer on Climate".

American Scientist Professor Gene Likens is speaking at the invitation-only presentation at Griffith University's Nathan campus. The presentation is on problems being faced around the globe with drought and climate change. He and other like minded people, that is climate change believers will be delivering their message to policymakers and politician including Queensland Minister for Climate Change Andrew McNamara, National Water Commissioner Chloe Munro and water commissioners from Queensland and NSW.

"Does the climate change problem exist? Yes," Professor Likens said. "The scientific consensus is so strong and so universal - there are just a handful of doubters on this. "Yet (those doubters) get such high media attention and a lot of support."

That statement lit up my "Bullshit" metre straight away. Would the "handful of Doubters" the good professor is referring too be the 31,072 AMERICAN Scientist including 9,021 PhD's who signed this petition:



The Courier Mail's Graham Readfearn would have to live under a rock to have not know that this petition exists. But wait - it gets better, turns out Graham Readfearn is none other than the author of The Courier Mails own Green Blog. It is a classic. His profile reads -

"Graham Readfearn

Environment blogger Graham Readfearn sorts the green from the green-wash and the eco from the no-go - one climate-friendly posting at a time. Green news, views and the odd shot-down eco-skeptic."

This guy is a rabid greenie, supporter of WWF (World Wildlife Foundation), Greenpeace etc, just have a look at his first article - 100 months left or try this classic - How much is enough - Eco-sinner? No mention in the paper's byline that Graham Readfearn is a rabid one eyed greenie - no the bi-line would have the average reader believe that is is just an unbiased major newspaper reporter, searching for the truth and writing a balanced article. Apparantly Not. Shame on the Courier.

What the good Readfearn also forgets to tell us is that the good professor Likens is an ecologist - not a climatologist.

Source

Rudd's carbon scheme ignores less destructive alternatives

Co-founder of Access Economics Geoff Carmody warns that Australia's emissions trading model cannot work, that it is misconceived and that it will damage Australia's economy with almost no prospect of solving the global problem. In an alternative climate change policy document provided to The Australian, Carmody warns that as the Rudd Government's model becomes apparent, "expect the strength of the adverse reaction to multiply".

Carmody argues the Rudd model is untenable. The early evidence is the demand for compensation from the trade-exposed industries, notably on the export side, liquefied natural gas, steel and aluminium. He says such demands are symptoms of a deeper problem, the flaw that will also see the system exploited "as a stalking horse for more general protection".

Carmody tells The Australian: "I have never felt so concerned about a single policy issue in my professional life. The reason is because it is being fundamentally misconstrued. Under the model, by being a 'good global citizen' Australia, by its own actions, loses competitiveness against countries free-riding on our efforts. These countries gain from being slow to act (or not acting at all) as production shifts to them, their imports decline and their exports increase. The architecture of the policy is misconceived."

Pointing to the failure of the Doha trade round, Carmody says: "If we cannot cut a deal on global trade liberalisation where even unilateral action confers benefits on most if not all countries, what chance do we have of cutting a deal where such action confers zero or negative benefits and we only gain if we all move together? The answer for Australia is: none whatsoever. Welcome to the world of Kyoto post-2012. "Commercially, the US, China and India (and others) are unlikely to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on an emissions trading system production-based model. Recession, or even slowing economic growth, make such expectations laughable. Jobs are already being lost. "No more losses will be acceptable for promotion of distant climate change objectives."

Carmody argues for a new model. In its construction he assumes the majority scientific view on climate change and he assumes that nations will not move together on mitigation, rejecting the phony optimism of global co-operation. He proposes three main reforms to achieve a viable Australian model.

The first and most pivotal is to have a policy target based on consumption of greenhouse gases, not their production, thereby excluding the export sector, whose output is consumed abroad. "Australia can only control its consumption of emissions," he says. "Attempts to control Australian production are likely to drive it offshore with less stringent or no policy controls over emissions.

"In a world where all countries acted together to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, it wouldn't matter whether we targeted production or consumption. But, realistically, we assume countries will not act together. In this situation the difference between production and consumption is crucial."

A target based on production includes exports but excludes imports. A target based on consumption includes imports but excludes exports. This means a production target "sets up incentives to shift local production, economic activity and employment, whether for exports or for import competition, offshore".

Consider what this means. For Carmody, it not only hurts Australia's economy. It promotes evasion of the true aims of climate change policy by "diverting production, employment and trade to countries not acting in the same way to curb greenhouse gas emissions production". He argues, by contrast, a consumption target "largely or wholly" eliminates incentives to shift production offshore. That is, because it is trade neutral, it achieves the aim of policy by focusing the emission reduction effort in the host nation.

Carmody appreciates that targeting production has a long history in environmental economics. But this needs to be revised in relation to climate change. "It cannot work, or work very well, in a world where producers can relocate production to where it's most cost-advantageous," he says. He argues it is folly to think poorer nations won't switch to cheaper sources of supply than Australia once we impose a serious carbon price. It is also folly to think that Australia itself won't switch its own spending to cheaper emissions-intensive imports.

Within weeks of the green paper there is much talk about exemptions for steel, aluminium and LNG exports. There is talk about the problem on the import-competing side for cement and manufacturing. Such concerns, Carmody says, "carried to their logical and equitable conclusion would carve out all exports and all import-competing local production".

The real cure for this problem is a consumption target. He says it is better at delivering emission reductions and better at minimising dislocation and job costs. Carmody says: "Imagine the uproar if John Howard had proposed a GST that hit exports and exempted imports instead of the other way around. Effectively, that is the starting point for the current Government. This seems to be a policy no-brainer."

His second reform is to entrench the philosophy that Australian action should neither lead nor lag the world. The sensible stance for Australia is to reduce emissions in line with the developed nations. But how should this be delivered? Carmody says Australia must not base its policy on anything that other governments say. That would be a mug's game. History shows the pledges of some governments are "meaningless or worse". Australia should base its actions on what other nations do. That means a carbon price set as a weighted average of developed nations' existing carbon prices.

This would guarantee Australia was making the same average effort as other developed nations. Such a mechanistic formula, once agreed, would eliminate any need for annual reviews by government or parliament with the "diabolical" political problems this would cause. The price adjustment could be made by Treasury or the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Carmody's third main reform is to ensure that price does change energy consumption behaviour. That means there is "no justification" for compensation for higher prices. He accepts the political reality that some compensation will be given to the needy but says in this case the least worst method is tax relief or transfer payments. "One thing seems certain," Carmody concludes. "If, as the Government asserts, 'failure is not an option', then neither is failure of policy design." The risk with Rudd's model is that it becomes "an exercise in cosmetics while still imposing new costs on our industry".

Source

"Climate change" blocks development in Victoria

THE threat of rising sea levels has persuaded a tribunal to refuse a housing development in South Gippsland. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal said it was "reasonably foreseeable" that climate change would affect the allotments, which could be flooded and storm-damaged. It is believed to be one of the first cases in Australia where climate change has been given as a reason to refuse a coastal development.

In their joint judgment, VCAT's deputy president Helen Gibson and member Ian Potts said the relevance of climate change to planning was at an "evolutionary" stage. But they said they could not ignore the preliminary view of CSIRO scientists that the Grip Rd area of coastline near Toora would experience storm surges and potential flooding. Ms Gibson and Mr Potts said the CSIRO studies were sufficient to show rising sea levels would change the shape of Victoria's coastline. "In the present case we consider increases in the severity of storm events, coupled with rising sea levels, create a reasonably foreseeable risk of inundation of the subject land and the proposed dwellings, which is unacceptable," they said.

In their judgment, they stressed they did not adopt predictions of a 0.3m rise in storm surge levels within 100 years because the claims had not been rigorously tested. "There is a general consensus that some level of climate change will result in extreme weather conditions beyond the historical record that planners and others rely on," it said. "It is no longer sufficient to rely only on what has gone before to assess what may happen again in the context of coastal processes, sea levels or for that matter inundation from coastal or inland storm events." The risk of damage to the coastline was a relevant matter to consider in a planning decision, they said.

Ms Gibson and Mr Potts said that apart from coastline concerns the six allotments, each 2ha to 4ha, were in a farming zone and were not reasonably linked to agriculture. The planning appeal was lodged by Gippsland Coastal Board against a decision by the local shire council to grant permits for the houses.

Source





The South African influx

Last time I was there I got the impression that just about ALL white South Africans would now leave if they could. There are certainly a LOT of them in Australia already. I know a few. South Africa is a very dangerous place for everybody these days

Like many countries around the world, South Africa is experiencing a "brain drain" of skilled workers who are migrating to better working conditions around the world. According to the Financial Mail, Australia and Canada are attracting more South African skilled workers than ever, creating a skills shortage in South Africa's economy that has been coined its "Achilles heel".

The news provider has been told medical specialists and higher-end management comprise the biggest groups of skilled South African emigrants. Since 2000, the number of South African emigrants has risen from 18 per cent to 40 per cent, leaving a massive gap in the South African workforce.

The Australian Government is also desperate to fill skills shortages and have opened its doors to skilled workers willing to move to Australia. Figures released from the Australian High Commission in Pretoria showed that last year, approximately 4,000 South Africans moved to Australia, and 15,000 more visited the country on an Australian tourist visa.

Marketing Manager for Pentravel David Randall said this year flights from South Africa to Australia increased by 30 per cent. He added that the increasing demand for South African immigration to Australia has resulted in Pentravel securing a special immigration fare with Qantas, Australia's national airline. "It is not only the sales of one-way fares that have increased, but tickets for people making exploratory visits to Australia," said Randall.

The regional manager for an immigration agency in South Africa said most of his clients were Afrikaans seeking a better lifestyle in Australia because it provides higher wages, low crime rates, employment equity, and a stable government.

Charles Luyckx, joint CEO of removal company Elliott International, said many of the migrants were taking advantage of the skills shortage in the mining industry in Australia. Under the General Skilled Migration program, overseas workers can apply for an Australian skilled migration visa if they intend to work in an industry considered to have a skills shortage. The Australian Government is currently campaigning for more foreign workers to apply for jobs in the mining industry, particularly in South Australia and the Northern Territory so the country's main source of GDP can support the continually expanding export economy.

Source





Political defeat for bureaucratic "safety" nonsense

Premier jumps to the rescue of banned carousel

PREMIER Anna Bligh will intervene after a bureaucratic decision to bar an antique merry-go-round from this year's Ekka met a popular backlash. Ms Bligh said the Grand Carousel - which was deemed a potential hazard by a Workplace Health and Safety Queensland inspector - was an Ekka institution. She said she had been on the carousel with her own sons and it would be a pity to lose it. "I was surprised to see that decision and I will be asking some questions about the basis for it," Ms Bligh said.

The 120-year-old carousel, which has thrilled children at the Ekka every year since 1951, is currently operating three days a week at Melbourne's Southbank Promenade, owner John Short said. It has been deemed safe by inspectors from WorkSafe Victoria and WorkCover NSW. But the WHS Queensland inspector found children risked falling off the carousel horses and being crushed under their stirrups. He insisted the carousel would be prohibited from the Ekka unless it underwent a substantial redesign, which Mr Short was unwilling to carry out.

Readers flooded The Courier-Mail website with posts ridiculing the notion a merry-go-round could be a safety hazard. "There isn't that many young children-friendly rides at the EKKA and now there is even less. Arrrrrgh!!!" wrote Tracy of Brisbane on couriermail.com.au.

Source