Ahead Of Tony Abbott’S Global Warming Policy Foundation Lecture, Australian Government Ditches Green Energy Target

The Turnbull Government has prevented a backbench revolt by moving to ditch the Clean Energy Target proposed by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel.

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has given the strongest indication yet the Federal Government would not adopt the policy, saying a freefall in the cost of renewables meant there was no point in more subsidies.

Instead the Government is considering another kind of target, which would mandate a certain amount of dispatchable generation – power that can be dispatched on request – within the grid.

Dawson MP George Christensen said he would have crossed the floor to vote against the CET. “I think that the Energy Minister’s comments regarding the lack of a need for subsidies for renewables are an astute observation,” Mr Christensen said.

“I declared my hand (opposing the CET) long ago, I was against it. There were a lot of backbench members who were expressing privately what I was saying publicly.”

Nationals senator Matt Canavan said more supply of baseload power was now needed. “We now need more power in the market and our job would be made so much easier if Labor dropped its opposition to new coal-producing technologies,” Mr Canavan said.

It is understood the Government will not proceed with a target as recommended by Dr Finkel, which would have required a certain amount of power come from clean energy and likely included subsidies for renewables through the issue of certificates.

SOURCE






Tony Abbott tells climate sceptics forum global warming may be good and climate science is ‘crap’

TONY Abbott has told a climate sceptics’ forum in London that global warming may actually be a good thing, while doubling down on his view that climate science is “absolute crap”.

The former prime minister likened climate scientists to the “thought police” in his address to the Global Warming Policy Foundation on Monday night and said that a “gradual lift in global temperatures” may be beneficial.

Meanwhile, it became clear yesterday that Malcolm Turnbull would likely cave to internal backbench pressure on energy reform and reject a recommendation from the Chief Scientist to introduce a Clean Energy Target.

In his speech, Mr Abbott said there was growing evidence data sets had been slanted to fit the theory of “dangerous” man-made global warming. And while that did not make the warnings about global warming false, “it should produce much caution about basing drastic action upon it”, he said.

He then raised the possibility that global warming might be beneficial if higher concentrations of carbon dioxide were “greening the planet and helping to lift agricultural yields”.

“In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heatwaves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.”

Mr Abbott doubled down on his 2009 pronouncement that climate science was “absolute crap” and likened the current policy position to primitive people killing goats to “appease the volcano gods”.

Australia’s stance on limiting greenhouse gas emissions through supporting renewable technology was only hurting its industry and would have little impact unless other major emitters followed suit, Mr Abbott claimed.

“We’re more sophisticated now but are still sacrificing our industries and our living standards to the ­climate gods to little more effect,” he said.

“So far, climate change policy has generated new taxes, new subsidies and new restrictions in rich countries, and new demands for more aid from poor countries.

“But for the really big emitters, China and India, it’s a First World problem. “Between them, they’re building or planning more than 800 new coal-fired power stations — often using Australian coal.

“Should Australia close down its steel industry; watch passively while its aluminium industry moves offshore; export coal but not use it?  “Of course not, but these are the inevitable consequences of continuing current policies.

“That’s the reality no one has wanted to face for a long time: that we couldn’t reduce emissions without also hurting the economy; that’s the inconvenient truth that can now no longer be avoided.

“The only rational choice is to put Australian jobs and Australia’s standard of living first; to get emissions down but only as far as we can without putting prices up.

“After two decades’ experience of the very modest reality of climate change but the increasingly dire consequences of the policy to deal with it, anything else would be a dereliction of duty and a political death wish.”

Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen accused Mr Abbott of stopping any sensible policy progress on climate change.

“It’s 2017 and we have a former prime minister overseas denying the science of climate change,” he told ABC radio.

“He can say what he likes, he’s calling the shots on the policy of Australia. He is an effective handbrake on the elected prime minister.”

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg told an energy summit on Monday the government was considering its new policy against a backdrop of the rapidly falling cost of renewables and storage, greater efficiencies being found in thermal generation and the need for sufficient dispatchable power.

In 2013, former prime minister John Howard told the annual lecture an international agreement on emissions would never be reached and Mr Abbott’s own election victory was in part a backlash to “overzealous action” on global warming.

SOURCE






The Australian sharemarket is actually doing quite nicely

Some commentators claim that Australia's stock market is somehow broken while the rest of the world is surging ahead on sunlit plains extended.

Two graphs from the Reserve Bank will suffice to destroy the latter headline. The first shows the ASX basically travelling in line with the global index. Yes, the American market is clearly outperforming us and the rest of the world. I'll come back to that.



The second graph shows what the  story ignored – we're much richer from dividends than the world average, let along the dividend-shy Americans.



Add the extra couple of hundred points in dividend yields, never mind franking credits, and the ASX is very comfortably beating the rest of the world.

Our love of dividends is why the simple All Ordinaries Index, or S&P ASX 200, doesn't tell the true story about the Australian market. For that, you have to go to the accumulation version, the index that adds the value of dividends – although it still ignores the benefits of franking credits.

Go to the S&P 200 Accumulation Index and you'll see our market is actually running around a record high.



The trick the knockers use to compare our market is to ignore our dividends and compare the previous boom-time peak with the present. Do that with the Accumulation index on a first-of-the-month basis and we've gone from 42,623.8 on October 1, 2007 to 56,137.99 ten years later – a rise of 32 per cent.

Not exactly the "going backwards" of the give-me-your-money-to-invest-overseas mob, is it?

But that's also misleading. The peak of the last cycle was an unnatural time, a bit of a nonsense the way such peaks are. It would be an extremely rare individual who only invested everything at that peak.

More likely for any investor with half a brain is that they steadily add money as the market rises and falls. Let's take, say, a 12-year range to factor in that bit of irrational exuberance as well as the subsequent GFC panic. On October 1, 2005, a dozen years ago, the Accumulation index was on 25,942.8. It's risen by 116 per cent.

Not so shabby, is it?

The bigger thing though is that the Australian market doesn't have to be all things to all investors. Yes, it is overweight banks and miners – but the US is overweight a handful of big tech stocks.

It is the reasonable thing for investors to diversify their holdings across asset types and geographies. That's what we do.

There is no need to talk down the Australian market in the process.

SOURCE

 


Golliwog dolls still for sale at sweet shop

A BRISBANE lolly shop has come under fire after announcing they’re still selling Golliwog dolls despite complaints that they are racist and offensive.

Aboriginal man Ben Wilson, from the Jagera people, said he noticed the dolls on display at Candy Time at Westfield Carindale when visiting family in the area last week and was offended they were for sale.

He complained to the store attendant and Candy Time’s head office. “I was absolutely appalled to see these dolls on display,” he said.

“These dolls do not only offend Aboriginal people such as myself, but a number of different races from all over the globe.”

Candy Time owner Tanya Jones said the dolls, made by Australian company Elka, were faithful to the traditional doll.  “People buy them because they love them,” Mrs Jones said. “They think they are beautiful and why can’t they be beautiful?”

“A lot of people get misinformed about the dolls’ heritage and I think it is sad that people in society have turned something that is loving to something that has this stigma ... to something hateful.

“As a company, we stand by the sentiment that these dolls originated from love and people adore them for how beautiful they are.

“We have the occasional person who comes in and says they are about black slavery or American slavery and that’s not true. That has nothing to do with this doll.”

Mrs Jones said the store had carried the dolls for the past two years and were popular children’s gifts.

SOURCE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here