The costs and benefits of a "clean" economy

The article excerpted below parades as a sober statistical analysis but is in fact just a religious tract.  It totals up all the costs of all the adverse events that are said to be due to global warming and accepts that cost figure without criticism or reservation. It thus shows that global warming would be very costly. 

But that is all dependant on the global warming theory being right.  If none of the costly events are due to increased atmospheric CO2 then reducing CO2 will not reduce the costly events listed and the whole analysis collapses.  The whole screed is simply a confession of faith in the magic power of CO2

It is no more informative than:

I believe in God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

Amen.

  


Business leaders, politicians and policymakers have spent years asking if we were to cut emissions, how much would it cost in lost income or Gross National Product (GDP) in Australia? How much worse off would we be?

If countries around the globe also cut emissions how badly would Australia’s exports of coal and natural gas suffer?

While once framed purely as an environmental issue, the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia Guy Debelle noted earlier this year that the risks that climate change poses to the Australian economy are “ first order” and have knock-on implications for macroeconomic policy.

So using recent work by Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (MSSI) at the University of Melbourne, we have compared the cost of damages from climate change, with the cost of reducing emissions from the recent Climate Council Report for economic damages under current or continued increases in emissions.

We know that climate change can have potentially disastrous effects, and the list is long; pollution, heat stress and its impact on human health, falls in agricultural productivity and permanent losses in biodiversity. 

[Climate change could indeed have such effects but will it?  And would a reduction in atmospheric CO2 have any effect on it? We do not "know" any of that. We cannot make such assumptions.  They are prophecies, not facts]

As well as damage to environmental assets such as the Great Barrier Reef, sea level rise and resulting infrastructure damage, the increased likelihood of floods and bushfires, possible increased frequency and severity of tropical storms, and severe migration pressure from countries most affected by climate change are only part of the list.

But the relative costs of emissions reduction to avoid these damages, can be hard to measure in dollar terms, given our complex and uncertain future.

As a first step, we use a large dimensional global trade and climate model, an extension of other recent work, to determine the cost of meeting Australia’s minimum target of a 26 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, compared to 2005.

We also assume that all other countries do reduce their emissions by more than double the current unconditional ‘Nationally Determined Contribution’ in the Paris Accord, or a 12 per cent reduction in emissions on average.

There are two major cost effects for Australia here; the cost of transition from fossil fuels to renewables, resulting in relative and variable price changes for energy, across all sectors, and the effect of falls in net exports of fossil fuels on national income.

For the 26 per cent target, we find only negligible effects on national income.

The total cost is only $A35.5 billion in the cumulative fall in GDP from now until 2030 in Australia – a measure much lower than previous other estimates, which range from more than $A82 billion to nearly $A300 billion, using the exact same target.

SOURCE  






Labor willing to work on religious freedom

Marvellous what an election defeat will do

Labor senator Kristina Keneally has confirmed the opposition is ready and willing to work with the government on new religious discrimination laws.

Labor has locked in firmly behind Scott Morrison's push for new religious freedom laws. The prime minister intends to make it unlawful to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs. He is proposing to amend existing marriage, charities and anti-discrimination legislation to achieve this end.

A religious discrimination commissioner would also be appointed at the Australian Human Rights Commission.

"We are willing to have discussions with the government and work with the government on a religious discrimination and freedom act," Labor senator Kristina Keneally told ABC radio on Wednesday. "We are waiting to have those conversations. We do stand ready, though, to work with the government on this."

The new Religious Discrimination Act could be brought before parliament as early as July 22.

The prime minister has told coalition colleagues he wants to work "carefully" through the issue and consult Labor on the changes.

Government backbenchers will be given the chance to shape it through a series of workshops with the attorney-general, starting later this week.

"What the government are talking about is an issue that goes to protecting religion in an affirmative way as a freedom," Senator Keneally said. "That's a conversation we are having with them."

SOURCE  





Morrison’s to-do list defies the naysayers

Scott Morrison has answered his critics and defied the charge that he is a one-trick pony with little to offer beyond income tax cuts.

This was not only Labor’s claim throughout the election but ­remains a criticism now. Morrison stood and still stands for nothing, and has no message because he lacks an agenda. Apparently he won the election on a pledge to do nothing.

On May 19, the day after the election, The Conversation website reported: “It is not clear what the government’s agenda is ­beyond their tax plan.”

If it’s not clear it’s because people weren’t and still aren’t listening. Last week, Morrison delivered two speeches. The first was domestic, the second a sharp assessment of the regional strategic situation and what Australia’s foreign policy response will be to the threats and opportunities. Both outlined exactly what the government’s intentions were.

Governor-General David Hurley’s address to parliament yesterday outlined the Morrison government’s entire agenda in lengthy point form. Contrary to claims of emptiness, Morrison’s program is extensive and, perhaps more importantly, has an underlying principle guiding it.

As Morrison has said in the past: “People just want to be left alone to get on with their lives and not be lectured to.”

It should hardly be a surprise or an offence that income tax cuts took top billing in the election. If passed this week by the parliament, they alone would be the single biggest economic achievement of a government for a decade.

But Morrison has also outlined significant industrial relations ­reform, fixing the National Disability Insurance Scheme, constitutional recognition for indigenous Australia, reform of the public service, productivity-based deregulation, a $100 billion infrastructure package, housing policy changes and laws to protect religious freedoms.

On foreign policy, his strategic and economic intention is to project Australian soft power into the region while pursuing free-trade deals in Europe and elsewhere to broaden economic partnerships beyond the China-US nexus that still threatens to undermine growth.

The reason his critics continue to deny Morrison an agenda, and consequently a mandate, is ­because they wrongly confuse agenda with government activism.

Morrison’s view is that reform is pointless unless it is singularly designed to make people’s lives better or at least less encumbered by government. It is a view that says an agenda doesn’t have to be ideological to qualify.

Morrison has a substantial program ahead of him. However, he will want to approach it calmly and without fanfare. He won the election by, among other things, not scaring the horses.

In seeking to project the image of a prime minister with little interest in grandstanding, he claims to be interested only in being judged on outcomes. Success for Morrison will be measured when people look back and say it was a government that actually got quite a bit done. That starts tomorrow when the Senate will decide whether Morrison can begin to deliver on his agenda by passing the $158bn in income tax cuts — or not.

SOURCE  






Zali Steggall happy as an independent, for now

Independent MP Zali Steggall is not ruling out a switch to the Liberal Party before the next election but has expressed scepticism about the need for a religious discrimination act.

The Warringah MP, a former Olympic skier who defeated Tony Abbott in the blue-ribbon Sydney seat, said being an independent gave her freedom to speak about issues important to constituents.

When asked if she would rule out joining the government benches in this term of parliament, Ms Steggall said: “I am not going to be engaging in any of that conversation at this point. I’m not going to comment on it because no matter what I answer or what I say it will be interpreted one way or the other.

“At this point I will be true to the electorate and that is the basis of which I am here. “I feel strongly as an independent I have an opportunity to speak out on issues of which people in the party can’t.”

With the government set to push for a religious discrimination act later this year, Ms Steggall said she was yet to be convinced of the need for one. “I don’t accept there is a case for change yet. I am not convinced and so I will need to wait and see what is suggested,” Ms Steggall said.

Ms Steggall, who won a bronze medal at the 1998 Winter Olympics, said the Israel Folau case was an issue of contractual obligation rather than freedom of speech. “From the Rugby Australia’s point of view it is a contractual dispute,” she said.

“I think there is a responsibility when you are in the public profile over the impact of what you do and say will have on others, especially the vulnerable.”

She will push the government to take stronger action on climate change, declaring the Coalition could not hit its 26 per cent Paris target without the “appalling suggestion” of carrying over credits from the Kyoto Protocol. “Twenty-six per cent is not a strong enough target and I don’t think we are going to meet that,” she said.

Ms Steggall, who supports the government’s income tax package, will also push for a federal anti-corruption body and a tightening of political advertising regulations.

“Both sides of politics have a duty to restore faith in the political system,” she said. “There is a real necessity for tightening the political advertising regulations. I think we need a ‘minimum of truth’. The standards we apply in the business world, we should be able to accept from political parties.”

SOURCE  






Either stand with Folau now, or you're next

Israel Folau is one of the bravest men in Australia. While countless so called "conservatives", "libertarians" and even so-called men of faith have bowed, scraped and apologised before the leftist establishment whenever they demanded it Folau has stood tall.

Yet for some on the so-called "Right" this hasn't been enough. They whinge and bitch and whine about "contracts" and "private companies". Such grovelling worms need to understand one thing; if they can take down a multi-millionaire rugby player for repeating what has been Christian orthodoxy for two millennia there is absolutely nothing to stop them doing the same to you. If they can get a high profile sportsman fired, cut off his efforts to fund his own defence and even go after his wife for not condemning her husband what do you think they can do to you?

What Folau said about unrepentant homosexuality was considered common sense four decades ago and an acceptable opinion not long ago at all. His stated beliefs align with those held by the vast majority of the world's two billion plus Christians and Muslims. If they can make as high profile as him an unperson for saying something as commonplace as that what can they do to you? If the forces of darkness win this one and drag him down what on earth makes you think you won't be next?

You think that because you don't hold silly religious beliefs that the leftist thought police will pass you over? You think if you stay quiet enough and only say what you really think online or in private that you'll be safe? You think that if you scream along with the leftist crowd that they won't one day turn on you?

When they come after your job and you can't pay your mortgage or feed your family, when they put pressure on not only your friends but your wife and children to disown you or suffer the wrath of the baying leftist mob it won't matter if you threw Folau under the bus now. They'll still take everything they can from you, turn you out into the street and dance with joy if you get hit by a truck.

The Left isn't coming for Christians, they're not coming for "homophobes" or "racists" or "sexists". They're coming for everyone and everything that doesn't enthusiastically bow to their ever changing dogmas enthusiastically enough for their liking. They're coming for you and they won't rest until every independent thought you've ever had is beaten out of you, your spirit broken, your life in tatters and the shrivelled husk of what used to be your body is enthusiastically applauding.

Whether you like it or not Israel Folau is fighting for you. Remember these people have the pitchforks and torches out because a man most of them had probably never heard of said that a God they don't believe in declared in a book they've never read that unless they repent of a sin most of them haven't committed and none of them believe is wrong they will go to a place they don't even believe exists.

If you don't think they'll come after you for disagreeing with them on anything more substantive than that you're kidding yourself. And if you're still joining in the anti-Folau dogpile you should be ashamed.

Because after him they're coming for you.

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