JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Books

World Bank likes Australia’s Emissions Trading Scheme — the “secret” ETS

According to the World Bank, Australia has implemented an ETS

It’s charades all round. Carbon markets are so dismal that the World Bank marks up the Australian ETS (which most Australians have never heard of) as “implemented”. Which makes it so much better than Canada’s which is “under consideration”. In fact the World Bank says Australia’s ETS covers half our emissions and 381 Megatons of CO2 or equivalent. Sounds “impressive”.

Strangely the Australian government hasn’t run an advertising campaign to brag about our landmark ETS legislation. I can’t think why?  Perhaps it’s because Australian’s gave the largest victory in 20 years to a man who swore a blood oath against a carbon tax? Or maybe it’s the polls that show Australian’s don’t want to pay for renewables, 80% don’t donate to environmental causes, and 60% don’t want or don’t care about the Paris deal if they could get cheaper electricity.

Let’s poll Australians and ask ‘Do we have an ETS?” — maybe 80% would say “No”. Maybe ninety. But we do have one, waiting like a paper troll, ready to spring to life. It’s largely secret hidden legislation, buried under a title called the ERF Safeguard Mechanism — (don’t mention the word carbon). It’s dormant, but the World Bank don’t mention that. Other fool countries might believe it was doing something to our economy, and that serves the World Bank. Meanwhile foolish Australians might think we will get some say in whether we do have an ETS — But not while we vote for the two main parties apparently.

The World Bank just published the State and Trends of Carbon Pricing in 2017 ready for the big Bonn junket this month. They’ve mapped all the Emissions Trading Schemes, and apart from the EU basket-case, there is only Australia, NZ, Korea and Kazakhstan, so they have to brag about Australia’s secret dormant ETS because there isn’t much else to brag about. The orange nations in “spin-language” are listed as under consideration. The  circles are states like California, Alberta, Ontario and Massachusetts. Countries with blue stripes have a carbon tax as well. Lucky them.

The report estimates that an additional US$700 billion a year will be needed annually by 2030 to finance the transition to low-carbon economies. Ambit claim du jour.

 

World Bank, Map, Global, Carbon Pricing, 2017.

An ETS in Europe, Korea, NZ, Australia and Kazakhstan. World Bank Map, 2017.

… Source: World Bank: http://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/

I might get into the World Bank numbers soon. It’s hyped from start to end — the money, the emissions, the costs, and the chances of success.

But for other countries and states waiting to hear if you succeeded in gettting an ETS that you didn’t know about, here are the maps.

***

….

People in the EU probably won’t be surprised to find their multishaded patchwork of ETSs and Taxes but lets not mention those renewables targets…

 

World Bank, Europe, Carbon tax and ETS map, 2017

The report abstract:

State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2017

Reflecting the growing momentum for carbon pricing worldwide, the 2017 edition of the State and Trends of Carbon Pricing targets the wide audience of public and private stakeholders engaged in carbon pricing design and implementation. This report also provides critical input for negotiators involved in the implementation of the Paris Agreement, particularly for the meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP} 23 to be held in Bonn in November 2017. As in the previous editions, the report provides an up-to-date overview of existing and emerging carbon pricing initiatives around the world, including national and subnational initiatives. Furthermore, it gives an overview of current corporate carbon pricing initiatives. Another key focus of the report is on the importance of an integrated approach to climate finance and climate markets, together with domestic policies. The analysis shows how such an integrated approach can be used to mobilize the scale of low-carbon investments needed to achieve the below 2°C temperature target and outlines a transition scenario and the possible role of results-based climate financing to catalyze climate markets.

REFERENCES
“World Bank; Ecofys; Vivid Economics. 2017. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2017. Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank.  License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.” English PDF    4.950MB
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (53 votes cast)
World Bank likes Australia's Emissions Trading Scheme -- the "secret" ETS, 9.8 out of 10 based on 53 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ycpmec7b

139 comments to World Bank likes Australia’s Emissions Trading Scheme — the “secret” ETS

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Don’t you wish the world bank had never been started in the first place? It’s there for one reason only, to manipulate you, me and the world for the benefit of politicians and Soros.

    Don’t you wish you could take it out easily, like cutting off a snake’s head?

    I do.

    410

    • #
      Yonniestone

      All you have to know is John Maynard Keynes founded both the IMF and the World Bank thus attracting like minded individuals.

      210

      • #
        manalive

        As with the UN itself, the original intentions of the IMF and World Bank were laudable viz. to avoid the mistakes made after WW1 to recover the economies of Western Europe, which was a success, and international exchange rate reform.
        But like the various UN agencies and all bureaucracies generally, there has been broad mission creep.

        120

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Any politician…and i mean ANY politician who bang on about how good the UN are is immediately going to lose their seat.

          These bozos need to understand that any support of the UN is political suicide.

          Until people back away from the occult, Christian hating, Israel hating, green loving ( and therefore civilisation hating ) UN, we will continue down this path to oblivion……..

          Ive nicknamed those who support the UN the UN-dead , as they are zombies for an unaccountable private oranuzation that we fund and all we get back is slow death by killing infrastructure and wrecking pur way of life.

          https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1509796180341

          Tell any pollie they are gone if they support the UN.

          50

    • #
      Geoff

      From the Emissions Avoidance Section of the Clean Energy Regulator.

      The advice received, only last week, is that the current legislation does not provide any benefit to an emitter that captures, then sequesters or otherwise prevents, the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

      That means that even if a coal fired power station was to upgrade with technology that captures, then converts the CO2 into natural gas (the user of which would be responsible for the emissions), the power station operator would still be required to purchase carbon credits solely for the financial benefit of wind/solar producers, i.e: payment for reducing emissions that do not exist.

      This policy was set up by the Labor Party (Rudd/Gillard/Rudd), however, it is currently supported by Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg and other lawyers in the LNP.

      There is an opportunity to offer major corporations the ability to obtain a credit for CO2 conversion into natural gas using Australian owned technology. This technology allows the production of very inexpensive hydrogen. Methane can be produced at a lower cost than conventional methods.

      Australia would lead the world by example, without cost to taxpayers. In fact, there would be royalties received by governments, rather than taxes for scams directed at union based super funds for windmill farms, set up by populist Labor politicians or Keynesian hole digging and filling employment schemes to avoid recessions by money printing for hand outs to rent seekers.

      140

    • #
      Graham Richards

      The ETS by stealth is not the fault of the World Bank,it has been foisted on us by our own idiot Prime Minister Turnbull. We now have the highest electricity prices in the world & you’re blaming the World Bank?? You can lay all the blame at th feet of one idiot, Malcolm Turnbull. He should be party leader of the Greens because he is obviously working for them.

      40

      • #
        Geoff

        It was foisted upon us by Greg Hunt and his advisers (economists). It was then ratified by Malcolm Turnbull as a Tony Abbott policy. It was agreed to by the Senate controlled by Labor and the Greens before the last election.

        Simply, the Australian people were lied to by all in order to be the ONLY country stupid enough to implement the CO2 targets in the Paris Agreement.

        It now costs about A$1.7B/year extra on our power bills and rapidly rising. Spruiked by rent seekers. Ticket clipped by bankers. Audited by BIG accountants.

        It will not slow the rapid increase in Australia’s CO2 emissions as despite power station emissions falling (as our industrial base collapses) there is far more coming from the LNG industry. Especially the CSG extraction of methane and its cooling to LNG and the new methane from Bass Strait and the NW shelf. There is lots of CO2 coming out of those holes.

        So expect bigger power bills. Much bigger.

        For those not “IN” on this scam don’t forget there will be lower wages.

        20

      • #
        clivehoskin

        You have to be kidding,right?Turdbull isn’t the “Sharpest Tool” in the Shed and none of the Libs,Leibor or the Greens are either.This has come about with the aid of the IMF,World Bank,the UN and the EU.See “Agender 21″ now rebranded as “Agender 2030″These”Cowardly,Lying,Do Nothing,Career Politicians” get their instructions from them and that includes”Little Johnny Howard”

        00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      If only those 36 green thumbs (as of this comment) had any real power…

      10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        PS:

        In the states don’t forget to put your clocks back an hour. Daylight savings time ended last night at 02.00 hours.

        I have always wondered how times between the second 01:00 hours and second 02:00 hours should be recorded. Anyone know? An hour is quite a big ambiguity.

        10

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    It is increasingly obvious that Canberra is determined to bring in a carbon tax and emissions ‘trading’. I think that the push is coming mostly from the bureaucracy as the recent uproar shows that our politicians are unable to think for themselves and just do as they are advised.
    Why is this? Perhaps our bureaucracy is talking to the EU bureaucracy and the UN bureaucracy.
    How will Australians take the idea that they send yet more money overseas just because they are breathing air? I don’t know but it seems to me that Bernardi’s departure wasn’t a dummy spit, more a calculated decision, and that within 2-3 elections the Liberal party will be an also ran with no hope of a place. After all the only party that is consistently opposed to carbon taxes is the Conservatives ( One Nation followers should think about the representative demise of Roberts and the removal of that champion from the inner circle).

    250

    • #
      Dennis

      There is much going on in Australia that is semi-secret UN business and local government is the foundation with UN Agenda 21 (now 30) being implemented under “sustainability” headings. Each state has a forum for councils on sustainability and other objectives.

      The last Labor Commonwealth of Australia Government introduced Marine National Parks where commercial fishing is banned and they compensated fishing trawler owners for their loss of business and licence.

      Much more not really discussed widely to inform ratepayers/voters of programmes underway. Farmers have been feeling the green heat for years too.

      161

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Under the original UN Agenda 21 the ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) was launched as a NGO operating in association with the United Nations, Self-described as “an association of over 1,200 local government members who are committed to sustainable development,” ICLEI seeks to swallow up a nation’s independence by having local governments adopt the overall Agenda 21 program in piecemeal fashion. Because independent nations are obviously too large to swallow in a single gulp, ICLEI was created to gain control over local governments one bite at a time.

        After seeing the folly of revolutionary change via outright force the Marxist minded decided that subversion from within as explained in the Manifesto was a longer but more effective way of conquering Western based nations based on democratic freedoms, once a nations people are directed to be self critical and divisive a centralised collective ruler appears the only alternative.

        140

        • #
          Dennis

          And therefore, I assume, amalgamation of local government council districts would be another step in forcing change by removing “local” from local government.

          30

          • #
            yonniestone

            Recall in recent times the habitual overuse of the word “community” as a colloquial term to replace the many relevant descriptions previously used, the central planning of communication is fair game too I suppose.

            30

        • #
          clivehoskin

          Karl Marx said “My goal in life is to de-throne God”And it’s working.

          00

    • #

      Carbon trading is not driven by bureaucrats (not primarily). Follow the money. Which industry makes guaranteed billions on a new fiat currency — being brokers of every deal, no matter who buys or sells, or what the price is?

      At a guess, The World Bank serves _ _ _ _ _ . Starts with B. (Ends in S. How prosaic).

      Effectively financial institutions will be paid an “energy tax” direct from customers and businesses to them via broker fees on carbon credits. The money need not go through the government at all, though the govt must mandate the need for credits. But there is a power game here by pollies or deep state bureaucrats because someone gets to decide who is in or out of the “carbon credit market” given that it is purely a whimsical decision to gift some industries or players a free pass or free credits.

      182

      • #
        PeterS

        That is all true but governments have the sole responsibility of allowing all this to happen. Turnbull for example always wanted some form of ETS. Given his background it shouldn’t be surprising. Perhaps there is no way out of this given we do live in a world where there are non-elected globalist powers beyond our control that make decisions against our wishes.

        80

        • #
          • #
            Dennis

            Thank you sinn,rob.

            We need to draw voters attention to Australian Conservatives, I suspect that a coalition of the willing conservatives regardless of the their political party is what our nation needs badly at this sad and worrying point in its not so long history.

            30

        • #
          Dennis

          Peter when the United Nations was established, for very good reasons and purposes, following the destruction of Europe and the displacement of millions of genuine refugees and stateless people, the leftists immediately saw their opportunity to expand the UN and create a form of world government with sovereign nation membership constituency. And each member nation to be divided and conquered from within by comrade politicians. Unfortunately those of us who saw through their plan were not taken seriously until very recent years.

          In my experience, having been born not long after the end of WW2, and with family members who served in both world wars and later some involved in politics here, they were not prepared to even consider a new world socialist order in the making using the UN as their headquarters. Nonsense they would say, a united nations world is essential to achieve peace that can be maintained. So their very honourable attitude allowed the leftists to sneak under their guard.

          It was far left (Communist) Labor Attorney General Evatt who provided his opinion on how member nations could be manipulated. His plan was to arrange for them to sign treaties with the UN covering all possible scenarios so that governments could get around the constitutions and laws of each nation by accepting on behalf of the people enforcement of UN Treaties.

          Liberal Prime Minister John Howard was once asked by a journalist if international law could be enforced by foreigners, his reply was not unless the government of the day accepted the enforcement. As readers might know Howard and Evatt are both laws graduates.

          My suspicions were first aroused when ABC Radio broadcast a series The New World Order during the 1990s. I obtained a transcript and studied it and then did more research. One of the politicians I referred to told me it was over the top right wing based nonsense.

          We all know better than that now.

          62

          • #
            PeterS

            Yes reality is now starting to bite but much of the public is still asleep, and purposely so through various diversionary tactics, such as sports, MSM and political games played by the factions on both sides behind the scene. It’s nowhere near over yet though. It will get a lot worse before it gets better. I’d say the West as a whole is only 5% down the decline. Trump might stall it for a short time but the evil ones are by no means sitting on their backsides. If anything they probably have already finalised their next plan of attack to topple the West and put in place a one world government. It’s just a matter of time.

            42

            • #
              Dennis

              The Football Stadium diversion that would have won approval in ancient Rome.

              30

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              I think mobilizing the population through awareness will stop globalism in its tracks. Once the public know what to look for ( once simplified to make it understandable ) the globalists would be cactus.

              Dont forget too this is a religious war, so the occult globalists and their UN attack dog will push forward to be ” righteous”…. Problem is they serve the powers of darkness, not the Biblical God.

              “Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
              - Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.

              (in an address to the Bilderberger organization meeting at Evian, France, on May 21, 1991. As transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates. )”

              20

        • #
          clivehoskin

          Why do you think the UN advised “Little Johnny Howard” to get OUR guns off us?George Mason once said“To disarm the people is the most effective way to enslave them.” How true!

          00

      • #
        cohenite

        I fear nothing will happen until the bureaucrats lose their power; which probably won’t happen because as we are seeing in SA strategic diesel generators will keep the lights on for the elites.

        I really think what is going to happen in this country over the next few years is not going to be pleasant.

        72

        • #
          PeterS

          I agree. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist or even have a pass grade in history and science to see what’s happening all around us. Our only hope is for a new major party that is not hostage to the left to come forth. Unfortunately I can’t see that happening soon enough to avoid the end of Australia as we know it. Part of the reason is much of the public is asleep and too apathetic to see it. If the people were awake, both major parties would be extinguished at the next election. Given neither will be there’s really little hope for us.

          40

      • #
        manalive

        But there is a power game here by pollies or deep state bureaucrats because someone gets to decide who is in or out of the “carbon credit market” …

        Through energy supply and distribution it also hands complete and absolute control of the country’s economy over to the government.

        20

      • #
        manalive

        And for those thinking Marxism Communism Socialism, it’s broader than that, it’s Statism:
        “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” (Benito Mussolini).

        20

      • #
        sophocles

        I read somewhere, quite some time ago, that the World Bank is owned by most countries in the world holding shares. The USA, through it’s treasury, apparently holds 51%. I cannot remember where or when I read it, but that figure stuck.

        20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Highway robbery is the name for it.

        10

    • #
      clivehoskin

      Malcolm Roberts is rumoured to be running in Ipswich,I’m told.He isn’t going to go away any time soon.

      00

  • #
    wal1957

    Nailed it again Jo.
    To top it all off, they will still argue that renewable energy is cheap, AND imposes no added costs to fossil fuel based generators. Why, oh why can people not understand that a plant running on standbye for when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow has operating costs. AND that these costs have to be recovered. The fossil fuel plants are the ‘insurance policy’ for clean energy. The real problem is that we have to claim against the insurance every day!

    I would reckon 50% or more of the population have no idea what ‘baseload power’ is, or why we need it. Roll on this summer, bring on the blackouts. You bloody beauty!

    280

    • #
      Dennis

      A post on a Bolt Blog claimed that base load is an accounting factor.

      60

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      As I recall a recent article on their ABC claimed that base load power was an outmoded concept.

      100

      • #
        toorightmate

        Telling the truth is an outmoded practice at the ABC.

        142

      • #

        Baseload is an outmoded concept as long as you have infinite money.

        102

        • #
          Ian

          Abbott won the 2013 election not because he opposed the carbon tax but because Gillard lied about the carbon tax and lost credibility with the voters. Abbott then broke his pre-election promises in the 2014 budget and lost credibility with voters as shown by several polls, including Newspoll, that voters prefer Turnbull to Abbott as leader by 3 to 1 (69% to 23%). Times are changing as Elon Musk and Sanjeev Gupta are showing.

          33

          • #
            Dennis

            Ian I have written today here about the alliance of Liberal Party Black Hand Faction and GetUp arranged in 2009 when Abbott was a back bench Liberal MP and Turnbull was the Coalition Opposition Leader. The alliance was organised to smear Abbott and break down whatever support he had within the Liberal Party and more importantly, to convince voters like you that Abbott was bad news. “The Mad Monk”, “Red Budgie Smugglers”, “punched a wall” (but no witnesses) and a huge raft of other crafted political spin doctor insults and deceptive character assassination.

            See Donald Trump and the “fake news” in the US, same dirty tricks.

            Those lies are Labor GetUp Lies. Just one example that he cut education spending, a broken promise. Wrong! The undertaking was to support Labor’s May 2013 Budget Gonski Education Grants for education (done) but only until the last forward estimate year in Labor’s May 2013 Budget and after that no guarantee. The Abbott Government would discuss a new “back to basics” (remember?) education system with the state and territory governments. So the Labor Lie that he cut education spending is what he promised. No guarantee to continue with Gonski. But there was no cut in education spending.

            What I have called relentless negativity was aimed at the Hockey May 2014 first Abbott Government Budget. The budget crisis was laughed at and ridiculed by Labor ignoring the independent auditors report highlighting a crisis. There was no Labor provision made to fund their Gonski grants or provisions made for several other Labor May 2013 Budget commitments. They had to be funded with debt. The budget deficit they forecast was too low because after funding the unfunded items the deficit was much higher, and so was the Labor debt handed over, what they had borrowed and what had to be borrowed to fund their last budget.

            I have never before witnessed such political skullduggery and a compliant MSM/ABC following instructions, truth and facts overboard. Only a handful of truly professional investigative journalists exposing the lies, voices almost in the wilderness drowned out by the noise of the animals.

            I could write a book on this subject and it frustrates me that the mud slinging worked so well. It has been said in politics that if enough mud is thrown every little bit sticks and finally the target is covered by it.

            92

            • #
              Dennis

              At the time of the May 2014 Budget being revealed PM Abbott and Treasurer Hockey made it clear that the new budget was for budget repair and to aim to reduce and eliminate the huge deficit accumulated by Labor 2007-2013. And to slow borrowing and then reduce it.

              When Labor had borrowed some $270 billion halfway through their terms in office former Liberal Treasurer Costello said that even if the terms of trade, if tax revenue was at the same average level the Howard Liberal Government used to retire the Keating Labor debt it would take around 40-years to repay including interest.

              The Abbott Government, after borrowing to make provisions to pay for the unfunded Labor Budget items they left unfunded, started with over $400 billion of federal debt (plus NBNCo debt). Right now the debt is $505 billion.

              Abbott and Costello revealed in 2014 that if Labor’s borrowing rate had been continued that by 2017 debt would reach $670 billion. So their 2014/15 financial year budget crisis repair plans have been working.

              52

            • #
              Ian

              Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. Abbott made many pre-election promises just before the 2013 election and then burke them in the 2014 budget. This wasn’t the Black Hand Faction or GetUp or anyone else smearing Abbott. He broke his promises . Neither the Black Hand Faction or GetPp make or broke those promises Abbott did. The following is from the Australian Financial Review which is probably the best newspaper in Australia.

              Tony Abbott promised on the eve of last year’s election that there would be “no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS”.

              The Coalition promised no new or increased taxes, but a deficit levy on higher earners was introduced, as was a plan to restart the indexation of petrol excise.

              It promised no adverse changes to superannuation, but it agreed to extend a two-year delay to a rise in the 9.5 per cent superannuation guarantee, as part of a deal to get rid of the mining tax.

              Mr Abbott promised no cuts to education, yet slashed billions from school funding over a decade and announced plans to cut 20 per cent of university funding.

              The Abbott government also pledged no health cuts, but cut significant planned growth in state government funding for hospitals over the next decade.

              As you

              34

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Mr Abbott promised no cuts to education, yet slashed billions from school funding over a decade ”

                He did NOT.

                That funding was a non-promise by the Rudd/Gillard farce.. NEVER FUNDED.

                That funding NEVER EXISTED in the first place.

                Get your facts straight. !

                73

              • #
                truth

                Ian…
                Your list is ludicrous. It’s just plain stupid to expect that an incoming government that finds the economy in much greater deficit and debt than had been claimed…..would make no changes in the interests of the country.

                You expected TA to just put the country down the gurgler for the sake of a purity that wouldn’t have satisfied you or the piranhas of the LWMSM anyway.

                A leader who did what you claim to expect would be criminally derelict in his duty to the country.
                However ..I’m pretty sure you’re not being real…your rigid stance is just a LW pose borne of hatred of Tony Abbott..

                And why do you hate him so much?

                You hate him …your missive screams…because you feared that TA really would repair the economy as well as keeping all of those other vital promises like securing Australia’s borders…restoring the military..implementing huge FTAs…restoring the live cattle trade…massively cutting red tape..helping small business…repealing the carbon tax that was crippling industry as even Alan Joyce admitted.
                Most of the big end of town had played dead on TA because they were plotting as were your comrades at AFR…for their not so closet Leftie to bring on his coup and ditch the democratic vote so they could get their own secret social agendas up…the ones we’ve found out about only now …when they’ve fiddled around with their social sideshows until they’ve brought Australia to the brink of energy insecurity.

                In the short 15 months before Turnbull began his coup in January 2015 and the almost three years since…Tony Abbott has shown more knowledge…reason…courage….judgment…prescience…commonsense and nous…than any other leader in the world.

                Turnbull has shown himself to be the opposite on ALL those counts and moreover has for some time now had a much worse record in Newspolls…he’s up to 22 much worse losing polls…while at the first spill, TA had only 16…and those had been under the duress of the constant whiteanting with the LWMSM grooming the Australian people to hate him ..doing their bit to help Turnbull with his coup.

                And when did Turnbull tell the Australian people he would be implementing …not LNP but GreenLabor policy—that he would be trying to sneak a coal-killing EIS or ETS past us every chance he got….hiring LW FINKEL as a sure-fire ploy to try to set a coal-killing CET in concrete?

                When did Turnbull tell Australia he would hire Hillary Clinton’s preferred energy Csar to run Australia’s electricity system as AEMO boss…a woman who had long spruiked not LNP’s but exactly Labor’s policy?

                When did Turnbull tell us at an election that he’d stack his PMO with Greens…even a former Greens candidate…that he’d implement Labor’s policies for them…like GONSKI…that he’d pull every swifty he could to make sure the massive money shift from poor to uber-rich carpetbaggers would gather pace?

                The former AEMO boss…Matt Zema…warned just before he died suddenly in 2016 …

                [ 'The enormous subsidies heaped on renewables mean one thing & only one thing: "The system must collapse" ]

                So …presumably knowing that…and if not why not….and knowing he didn’t need to because America wasn’t ratifying …Malcolm Turnbull promptly rushed to ratify the Paris Accord to make sure those very COAL-KILLING subsidies were LOCKED IN…ie he locked in the heist of the millennium….billions every year shifted from the pockets of the poor to the overflowing coffers of the WORLD’s uber-rich…knowing those subsidies threatened to collapse Australia’s whole energy system…and all of our industry with it..and MUCH MUCH WORSE!

                On top of that Turnbull has never disclosed his own family’s vested interest with his son having bought a large holding in Infigen Energy soon after his father came to power by COUP.

                51

            • #
              Ian

              Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. Abbott made many pre-election promises just before the 2013 election and then burke them in the 2014 budget. This wasn’t the Black Hand Faction or GetUp or anyone else smearing Abbott. He broke his promises . Neither the Black Hand Faction or GetPp make or broke those promises Abbott did. The following is from the Australian Financial Review which is probably the best newspaper in Australia.

              Tony Abbott promised on the eve of last year’s election that there would be “no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS”.

              The Coalition promised no new or increased taxes, but a deficit levy on higher earners was introduced, as was a plan to restart the indexation of petrol excise.

              It promised no adverse changes to superannuation, but it agreed to extend a two-year delay to a rise in the 9.5 per cent superannuation guarantee, as part of a deal to get rid of the mining tax.

              Mr Abbott promised no cuts to education, yet slashed billions from school funding over a decade and announced plans to cut 20 per cent of university funding.

              The Abbott government also pledged no health cuts, but cut significant planned growth in state government funding for hospitals over the next decade.

              23

              • #
                Dennis

                Opposition Leader Abbott made it very clear before the September 2013 federal election that he and his colleagues did not trust the rubbery figures they suspect were contained in the last Labor Budget delivered May 2013. When they won the election they commissioned independent private sector auditing of that Labor Budget and the many budget items for which no provision to pay for had been made were exposed. Therefore Labor’s budget deficit forecast was under estimated and more borrowing was required to fill those “black holes”. A “budget crisis” was creatively accounted for by Labor knowing they would probably lose government.

                If the writer of those words at the Fin Review is who I think it was then put them in the classic Faux Facts category and go back to Union Labor GetUp political spin doctoring.

                Come in spinner Ian.

                41

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Mr Abbott promised no cuts to education, yet slashed billions from school funding over a decade ”

                STOP LYING !! That money NEVER existed.

                52

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Times are changing as Elon Musk…. blah, blah…. ”

            Yep, Tesla stock, big drop as government subsidies for EV is dropped.

            Oh Dear. :-)

            Peak renewables?? as soon as there is no more government subsidy slush fund.

            53

        • #
          clivehoskin

          “Socialism only works until you run out of OTHER peoples money.

          00

      • #
  • #

    Maybe this is why “pantouflage”, the practise of drawing promising functionaries into banking for a few years before re-inserting them into politics and admin, is now so common.

    By their fake tans and green politics shall you know them.

    180

  • #
    Stuart Elliot

    The Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia each have carbon taxes. No one has told the residents how cold it has to get before the taxes are cut, but I am pretty sure it will involve hell freezing over.

    230

    • #

      The excuse that was given for an Alberta carbon tax was that it would give social license and ease the way for pipelines to transport Alberta oil to market. Of course, it had none of this effect whatsoever. There is no way to appease the rabid alarmist, catastrophe preaching, activist. Our current government is pretty far left and many of it’s sitting members obviously agree with them, even if they try to keep their leanings hidden from the voters.

      20

  • #

    Anything the World Bank likes must be wrong.

    210

  • #
    Dennis

    It is interesting to read the World Bank history, aims and objectives. The following caught my attention;

    Sovereign immunity

    The World Bank requires sovereign immunity from countries it deals with. Sovereign immunity waives a holder from all legal liability for their actions. It is proposed that this immunity from responsibility is a “shield which The World Bank wants to resort to, for escaping accountability and security by the people. As the United States has veto power, it can prevent the World Bank from taking action against its interests.

    140

  • #
    PeterS

    The World Bank is a globalist organisation. Turnbull i a globalist. Is there any question as to where his allegiance lies? It’s certainly not with Australia.

    200

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      What a pity the The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia doesn’t contain a section 44 (vi):

      Viz:

      44. Any person who -

      (vi) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to globalist entities or is entitled to the rights, or privileges of a member of a globalist entity.

      shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

      60

  • #
    Forrest Gardener

    I knew Australia had an ETS and that it was introduced by stealth. I didn’t realise it was dormant. Thanks for the good news Jo.

    100

    • #

      The Cap on the ETS has been set so low that the ETS is ineffectual (as I understand) at the moment. However it can be changed at any time and will not require new legislation to do so. The sacrificial thumbscrews are on our economy, all a pollie has to do is start turning.

      It’s democracy, but not as we know it.

      Naturally, we are safe because the media do such a great job … &%*^&$*

      110

      • #
        ROM

        .
        Jo @ #9.1

        It’s democracy, but not as we know it.

        Actually we don’t have a true “Democracy” here in Australia or in the UK with its “Mother of Parliaments” at Westminster and other similarly governed nations.

        A true “Democracy” is one where the individuals can vote on proposals and an individual or group can place a proposal before the people to be voted on.

        What we have is a “Representative Democracy”, one where the people choose and elect Representatives to both create and introduce proposals to Parliament and to vote on those proposals on behalf of those who elected them.

        With a “Representative Democracy” as ours is, the individual voter basically loses almost all say over what how any proposals are introduced into Parliament and how their elected Representatives vote on those proposals.
        .

        And just for interest, Iceland has what is regarded as the world’s oldest Parliament, the “Althingi “ which was established in 930 AD.

        40

      • #
        clivehoskin

        Prime Minister John Howard says the Federal Government will introduce a new “cap and trade” emissions trading system.

        Mr Howard made the announcement in a video message posted on the Prime Minister’s website.

        The Government will increase spending on measures to tackle global warming by $627 million.

        Mr Howard says the new emissions scheme will help Australia substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest cost.

        “Australia will more than play its part to address climate change but will do it in a practical and balanced way in full knowledge of the economic consequences for our nation,” he said.

        Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull says the carbon emissions trading scheme will be comprehensive.

        “It will cover 80 per cent of all emission outside agriculture and about 55 per cent of total emissions in Australia,” he said.

        So,anyone who thinks that”Little Johnny Howard”is as pure as the driven snow,is having them-selves on.

        00

    • #
      PeterS

      I still shake my head as to why people are so surprised at this. After all Turnbull was and still is one of the strongest advocates of some form of ETS. That’s just one of many reasons why he knifed Abbott.

      120

      • #
        Dennis

        It is also why when he was Opposition Leader (after he bumped Dr Brendan Nelson who replaced John Howard out of the position) fully backed Rudd Labor on the ETS which was the last straw for Coalition MPs and Tony Abbott was drafted to replace Turnbull.

        By the way, it is now known that the Liberal Black Hand Faction of leftists or centre left MPs recruited GetUp (activist group founded by Union Executive Bill Shorte with AWU money, that is still funded by unions and George Soros) to attack and smear Abbott even though he was a back bench MP. Christopher Pyne was apparently the organiser and Malcolm Turnbull gave encouragement fearing that Abbott might be drafted to replace him as leader).

        That was in 2009.

        40

  • #
    el gordo

    A bald face lie.

    “We know we can’t end poverty without protecting the planet and its people,” says chief executive of the World Bank Jim Yong Kim.

    90

    • #
      Curious George

      They can’t end poverty, period.

      80

      • #
        PeterS

        - only create poverty. Governments are really good at that, especially leftists style governments like the one we have now.

        51

        • #
          Dennis

          The present leftist government is still nowhere close to the 2007-2013 further left governments.

          But that is not a recommendation.

          41

          • #
            PeterS

            Are you sure there’s much difference? The national debt is out of control – some 3/4 trillion and climbing rapidly. I don’t think Turnbull is any more interested in balancing the budget that Rudd or Gillard were.

            20

            • #
              Dennis

              The gross federal government debt is $505 billion (the rest is state, territory and local government) or just above at present and borrowing has slowed markedly since Labor left office in September 2013.

              After borrowing to make provision to pay for various Labor 2013/14 financial year budget items debt was just over $400 billion. The independent auditors reported to the Abbott Government that if borrowing continued at the Labor borrowing rate then by 2017 debt would be $670 billion.

              I am not excusing debt creation since Labor left office.

              20

    • #
      sophocles

      They could, but they won’t countenance the changes to national tax systems to enable it to be made.
      It’s covered by Henry George in Chapter 17 The Functions of Government in his book Social Problems[1883].
      But the World Bank will try its very best to eradicate all forms of tax advocated by George.

      20

  • #
    Sean

    The World Bank is not the only game in town. There is a bigger financing mechanism called the Chinese Development Bank and their international arm makes more loans than both the World Bank and the Asia Development Bank. http://www.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/1189404/aggressive-global-loan-expansion-china-development-bank The second link below from about a year ago shows there is still a lot of investment being made in coal by the Chinese in foreign countries. https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9264-China-stokes-global-coal-growth

    100

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Perhaps they can loan some money to Adani coal mine now that Palacechook has pulled the funding rug out from under them .

      61

      • #
        el gordo

        if Labor joins our cousins across the gap, signing up to the OBOR, then I can visualise a Chinese built power station next to the Adani mine and no rail line to the coast.

        The problem for Turnbull, sitting on your hands is not an option.

        40

    • #
      el gordo

      Seemingly inscrutable, but in fact its a steep learning curve.

      ‘In its first year, AIIB has co-financed 75 percent of its projects with other banks, such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. By doing this, the AIIB says it wishes to learn lessons. That may be so. But it has also simply delegated responsibility to these partners to apply social and environmental protections and manage a project’s outcomes.’

      The Diplomat

      20

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Off thread, but related. Pres. Trump is trying to end the $7,500 per electric car credit, and Tesla stock is dropping.
    Maybe we will see if even one of the Green/leftist ideas will survive without massive insertion of taxpayer funds to support their foolishness.

    211

    • #
      Sean

      I don’t think you should blame the loss of the tax credit much in Tesla’s case. I believe the full tax credit ends at 200,000 vehicles and phases out after another year. Tesla was half way to that number about 18 months ago with primarily the Model S. I suspect they would have hit the max in the spring and phase out shortly thereafter. So people who got the expensive Model S will likely have used up the credit by the time the Tesla Model 3 got shipped in volume. Tesla’s problem is that it can’t seem to get ramped up to make a mass market car.

      30

      • #
        sophocles

        Tesla’s problem is that it can’t seem to get ramped up to make a mass market car.

        … because, as you have said, the tax credit(s) will ramp down after that 200,000 threshold.
        Tesla is just like a wind farm, except it’s possibly better described as an EV Farm.
        Oh Dear …
        How Sad …
        Too Bad …
        Never Mind.

        40

    • #
      old44

      Tesla? Posidon? same difference. Massive increases in share prices on promises and no dividends.

      Sorry, there is one difference, Tesla is losing $660 million every 6 months.

      60

  • #
    Cookster

    Off topic but hopefully Jo is working on it but this story was just posted in The Australian …

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-climate-report-contradicts-trump-team-on-humans-role/news-story/1b0c6028f2f3538a6c85f7c7482f1d95

    Scientists said global warming is already sickening, injuring and killing Americans with changes to weather, food, air, water and diseases. And it’s expected to get worse, hurting the economy, wildlife and energy supply.

    The usual suspects will be frothing at the mouth I hate to think what is going on at NYT, The Guardian, Fairfax and the ABC :-(

    91

    • #
      el gordo

      Tipping Points

      The scientists argue that their will be a decrease in ice sheets across Antarctica and Greenland, and the Atlantic conveyor will slow down.

      This is not happening and will never happen.

      They also say that El Nino will become stronger in a warmer world, but the Red Team reckon they know better.

      50

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Yes I see the best they can come up with in that report is ” extremely likely ” because they can’t find another explanation for the warming so it’s Co2 wot dunnit .
      They’ve even given up trying to use dodgy maths these days because they know their shoddy work will be found to be wrong .

      40

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Or to put it another way , ” we don’t know how you dunnit but we know you dunnit ” !

        30

        • #
          el gordo

          Its up to us to disprove their nonsense, one step at a time, this from Peter Hannam in the Guardian.

          ‘Extreme El Nino events will more than double in frequency, even with the most ambitious goals to curtail global warming, exposing large regions to severe droughts and placing coral reefs in peril, a team of scientists including Australians say.’

          When the open thread kicks-in the Red Team will have a definitive answer.

          30

          • #
            robert rosicka

            Unfortunately for them Elgordo Mother Nature just won’t play ball , according to nine news a place in south west Victoriastan had the coldest November temps in more than 20 years and there were a few places with similar overnight temps .
            I’m calling unprecedented but they’ll just hit back and say it’s due to global warming .

            30

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    I’m surprised to hear you categorize the World Bank’s estimate of $US700,000,0000,000.00 per year as an ‘ambit claim’.
    Bjorn Lomborg estimates the cost of the Paris ‘Agreement’ as 1 trillion US dollars per year, to achieve 1 percent of what the models forecast as being necessary.

    So instead of being an ambit claim, I see that number as just the tip of the spear point.
    It’s like Kevin Rudd’s estimate that Solar would add 1 dollar per week to electricity bills. The reality is it’s a dollar a kilowatt-hour and rising.

    91

  • #

    Here’s an analogy that some of you might appreciate. Imagine you’re driving your car along a road with some hills and valleys. Its a straight road with no sharp corners. The task is to keep the car going a constant speed. The required speed is 50kph within a small window. You’re not allowed to go faster than 52, nor slower than 47. If you do the motor will shut down and you’ll have to start again. This is like our grid that has to run at 50Hz. 50 Hz is the rotational speed of the grid, corresponding to the generators rotating at 3000 RPM. 52 Hz is too high and 47 Hz is too low.
    We have a cruise control in the car to help us. We can set it to 50kph, but in order for it to work effectively it has to have control of the gas pedal. When we approach a hill and the speed drops a little, the cruise control can add some gas to compensate for the extra power needed to climb the hill. And when we get to the top the cruise control will back off. The cruise control can also compensate for the wind loading on the car. If we have a head wind, or maybe a tail wind, the cruise control can compensate.
    The old petrol motor has lots of mass (also known as intertia). A bit like the old coal fired stations on the grid. This mass is important for controllability. The mass acts to regulate the change of speed. As the headwind or tail wind changes, the speed does not change too much. The rate of change of speed is like one of the acronyms used by the power industry (RoCoF, rate of change of frequency, of df/dt for the mathematically inclined. This is based on good ol’ Newton’s second law F=ma).
    Now there’s a new motor mechanic in town who want to repower the car. The new guy is insisting that we use his new motor. It is new whizzy technology, but unfortunately this new device cannot be ‘cruise controlled’. Also the new motor has very little mass, and it works when ever it thinks it is convenient for it. Which is almost random. Not correlating at all to the hills and valleys along the road like the old motor with mass and cruise control. This tends to speed up the car at times. And slowing it down at other times. And because the new motor can’t do the whole job we still have to have a motor using the old technology too, but is is smaller than before. So our ability to compensate for the variability of the changes in load, and now the changes in the generation that comes and goes at will, is reduced. The lesser mass also impacts the variability in speed. Not just because the power imbalance is greater, but also because its mass is less now as well. Going back the Newton’s second law again, and rearranging to look at acceleration, a=F/m. The changes is F have increased and m has reduced. The equivalent on the power Grid is RoCoF or df/dt=P/M. P is power imbalance and M is the angular momentum of the synchronous generators.

    150

    • #
      PeterS

      Excellent analogy – really accurate too. It could have been worse – the new motor mechnaic’s big brother could have come into the picture and forced us all to dump our AC appliances and move to DC as they change the grid to DC.

      40

  • #
    Robber

    Off topic, but is this any way to run an electricity grid reliably?
    In SA on Saturday morning at 9.10am, demand shrank to only 849 MW and 5 minute electricity wholesale price hit minimum cap of -$1,000, 5 minutes later up to -$80, and 5 minutes later back to $53. From 9-9.30 am, average price -$179/MWhr.
    At 9.30am AEMO Dispatch Overview reports SA demand 824 MW, with wind providing 1004 (from nameplate capacity 1700 MW), and gas 471 MW, with exports through Vic interconnectors at max 500 and 150 MW. SA price $51, Vic price $74.
    I believe that under these circumstances AEMO would be forcing SA gas to run to keep system stability, and possibly even asking some wind generators to go off grid.
    At 9.40 am, SA 5 minute spot price is back to -$1,000. Switch on all electricity appliances in SA and celebrate as you get paid to consume surplus power :-) Be quick now, this sale can’t last!

    50

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      Robber, somebody will be making a windfall profit but somehow I doubt the benefit of negative pricing will flow to consumers.

      50

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Almost makes one of Kim’s missiles welcome.

    30

  • #
    David Maddison

    O/T

    I would appreciate it if someone could check the following calculation simplified from my earlier posting.

    You have 200MW nameplate solar panels but 20% capacity factor so effective average output 40MW over 24hrs. CORRECT?

    You have total battery and hydro storage of 700MWh.

    If the system was charged and you drained it to empty it would produce 69MW for 24hrs. That is 40MW from solar and 700/24 = 29MW.

    To RECHARGE the system from solar it would take 700/40 = 17.5 hours of sunshine (I originally said days).

    NOW, where I am not entirely clear is what the maximum continuous rating of this system would be. I previously calculated 4MW which is based upon 69MW/17.5h = about 4MW. Is this correct?

    The alternative interpretation is that it is in fact 40MW because this is the nominal average output over 24 hrs for the panels. During the day some of the power would be diverted for recharging the batteries and hydro.

    Which is the correct figure for continuous power output for this system?

    Many thanks in advance.

    30

    • #
      Robber

      David, another way of looking at it:
      200 MW nameplate solar will deliver for say 5 hours so average of 1000 MWhr per day.
      Storage simply allows you to deliver over the 24 hours, less losses.
      So average output is about 40 MW.

      40

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Surely you need to allow for losses during the charge and discharge cycles? I believe that these losses would easily exceed 10% for charge and 10% for discharge. (The losses would include battery cooling.) Also, if I presume that the battery is from Tesla, then it’s most likely to use the same battery cells as the cars, and these cells don’t like being discharged to below 20% capacity, otherwise their lifetime significantly reduces. They don’t like being charged beyond 80% capacity, so that’s another factor to consider.
      Also surely the maximum rated output would depend on the inverter design?

      30

      • #
        ROM

        I have read electrical engineer’s claims that the losses from Grid to Battery and back from Battery to the the Grid supply can be up to 18% of the original input to the Battery system.

        Most of the loses occur when the Grid high voltage AC current is converted to low voltage Direct current to charge the Batteries and then in the conversion back from the Battery low voltage Direct current supply back up into the High voltage AC Grid supply.

        Losses at the 18% level I understand have also surfaced in the electrical vehicle industry between the grid power used to charge the vehicle batteries and the output of those same batteries when powering the vehicle or using the vehicle battery as a standby power supply.

        40

        • #
          ROM

          This abstract refers to vehicle battery losses but is probably transferable to roughly the same level of losses in Grid batteries as well .

          Measurement of power loss during electric vehicle charging and discharging. [ 2017 ]

          In this study, the authors experimentally measure and analyze the power losses of a Grid-Integrated Vehicle system, via detailed measurement of the building circuits, power feed components, and of sample electric vehicle components.

          Under the conditions studied, measured total one-way losses vary from 12% to 36%, so understanding loss factors is important to efficient design and use.

          Predominant losses occur in the power electronics used for AC-DC conversion. The electronics efficiency is lowest at low power transfer and low state-of-charge, and is lower during discharging than charging.

          20

          • #
            robert rosicka

            Also need to take into account the effect extreme heat has on batteries .

            20

            • #
              Graeme#4

              Yes Rob. Wonder how much energy is being expended in the liquid cooling ( and I presume heating?) system used in the mobile Tesla car battery modules. And I suspect that there is additional heating/cooling in the stationary battery cabinets and inverter cabinets. All lost system energy.

              20

          • #
            Graeme#4

            Thanks ROM, lots of interesting reading there.

            20

            • #
              ROM

              Re liquid cooling of batteries in vehicles.

              I’ve mentioned this previously some time back.

              As vehicle batteries being nearly solid in construction and therefore bloody heavy are all placed as low as possible in a vehicle so as to keep the centre of gravity of the vehicle nice and low, it is going to be interesting when some of these battery powered vehicles try to cross or get caught in some decent flood waters.

              I fear that not only many sparks and much flashing and crashing as everything shorts out but the very strong probability that somebody including possibly rescuers are going to get electrocuted or at best very severely burnt by electrical burns.

              As sure as night follows day a situation will arise sometime, somewhere where battery powered vehicles will throw up what was never expected or catered for in the way of death traps just as has every other bit of technology that mankind has ever created.

              30

              • #
                Graeme#4

                Looks like the Tesla battery assembly is sealed very well ROM – have you seen the video of the guys breaking into the assembly? Took quite an effort. Also very instructive on how the assembly is constructed.

                20

  • #
    David Maddison

    O/T

    It’s never a good idea to base your business model on government subsidies or protection from competition.

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/02/tesla_share_price_drop_tax_break/

    30

  • #
    pat

    1 Nov: SanDiegoUnionTribune: Stanford professor sues critics of his 100% renewables article
    By Rob Nikolewski
    Stanford professor is angry about a study that criticized his work about the feasibility of the U.S. economy completely running on renewable energy by mid-century— so angry that he filed a lawsuit in Washington D.C. Superior Court (LINK), claiming $10 million in damages for libel.

    Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering, said the author and the publisher of a peer-reviewed study that came out this summer harmed Jacobson’s career by saying a 2015 paper that Jacobson wrote committed a host of mistakes based on overly optimistic scenarios.

    The suit specifically names Chris Clack, a mathematician who is the chief executive of the grid modeling firm Vibrant Clean Energy, and the National Academy of Sciences, which published Clack’s paper and — ironically — also published Jacobson’s study as well…
    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-jacobson-lawsuit-20171101-story.html

    3 Nov: WaPo: When scientists sue scientists
    By Jonathan H. Adler
    On Wednesday, Jacobson filed a defamation suit (LINK) in the District of Columbia against Clack and the NAS for publishing a peer-reviewed critique of one of his co-authored papers (LINK) in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.” Jacobson further claims that the NAS wronged him by failing to follow its own publication guidelines. (The complaint is here LINK. An explanatory statement is here LINK.) The underlying issue is the credibility of Jacobson’s claim that 100 percent of the United States’ electricity needs may be met by renewable energy sources…

    Jacobson objects to Clack, et al., charging that some of Jacobson’s conclusions were based upon unfounded, undisclosed assumptions and “modeling error.”…
    Clack, et al., for their part, have responded in detail (LINK) to Jacobson’s claims. Readers may judge for themselves who has the better of the argument…

    Like Michael Mann’s long-running defamation suit, this complaint appears to be little more than an effort to use a legal club to stifle robust critique and debate. (In that regard, it should be no surprise that Jacobson’s suit was filed in the same venue.) Whomever one believes is right on the merits, these are claims that should be resolved through open debate and discourse, not filings in court.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/03/when-scientists-sue-scientists/

    70

  • #
    old44

    Wonder who they had to bribe to reach that conclusion.

    20

  • #
    pat

    a good read, lots of detail:

    31 Oct: TheLidBlog: WAKE UP Libs! It’s Impossible For Renewable Energy To Meet Our Needs
    by Jeff Dunetz
    The truth is that after decades of beefy government subsidies wind power still meets just 0.46 percent of earth’s total energy demands, according to data from the International Energy Agency (LINK) (IEA). The data includes not only electrical energy but also the energy consumed via liquid fuels for transportation, heating, cooking, etc. Solar farms generate even less energy. Even when combined, the figures are minuscule: wind and solar energy together generate less than 1 percent of earth’s energy output…

    Given these facts, we can reasonably conclude that the green energy industry is little more than a corporate welfare scheme marketed under the guise of noble intentions.
    http://lidblog.com/impossible-for-renewable-energy/

    30

  • #
    pat

    still think this was one of the bigger stories of late, even if it’s behind a paywall!

    25 Oct: CarbonPulse: China ETS financials’ ban dims future for carbon brokers but power companies poised to benefit
    China’s proposal to ban financials from trading in the national CO2 market is sending carbon brokers scrambling for other business opportunities while power companies stand to gain from the move.

    31 Oct: CarbonPulse: China ETS is for emission cuts, not gambling, official warns
    China will put restrictions in place to avoid excessive speculation in its emerging carbon trading programme to ensure market stability, a government official said Tuesday.

    3 Nov: CarbonPulse: Australia OKs emissions increases for Virgin, BHP Billiton
    Australia’s Clean Energy Regulator this week published new benchmarks under the Safeguard Mechanism, allowing airline Virgin and two BHP Billiton projects to increase their emissions while capping CO2 from Chevron’s new Gorgon LNG plant at 8.3 million tonnes…

    3 Nov: CarbonPulse: EEX cancels EUA auction due to low bidding interest
    Germany’s EUA auction was cancelled on Friday due to low bidding interest, host EEX said, the second time in three months the bourse has been forced to abandon a sale.

    20

  • #

    I see where the fake tan brigade (EU+banks) are offering Armenia all kinds of euro-lollies if it sacrifices 40% of its electricity by folding its nukes.

    Will there be Caspian oil if they’re good about pipelines? Maybe, but think of all those mountain ridges just begging for wind towers. Think Spain. More likely there’ll be lots of clean, green, renewable solutions on the table, plus reduced dependence on Russia and rapprochement with those fine neighbours of the Christian Armenians, the Turks and Azeris. An impoverished land-locked nation is to give up 40% of its power and rely on the good graces of its ancient and bitter enemies and the guidance of the EU. What could go wrong?

    Party like it’s 1915, Armenia!

    50

  • #
    Mark M

    Prepare for manageable cyclones …

    Carbon farming could be worth $8 billion to Queensland by 2030

    https://mysunshinecoast.com.au/news/news-display/carbon-farming-could-be-worth-8-billion-to-queensland-by-2030,52066

    10

  • #
    pat

    3 Nov: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: The Climate Study NYT Warned Trump Would ‘Suppress’ Is About To Be Released
    Despite fears of some scientists, there was never any indication the White House would suppress the congressionally mandated study or any of its findings…

    Not only was the report made publicly available online for months before TheNYT’s report, scientists working on the paper repeatedly said there was no indication of White House meddling…

    TheNYT was forced to issue a correction two days after its front page story on the climate report was published…

    While Democrats highlight the report’s dire warnings, some scientists are asking tough questions about the more debatable claims made in the report…READ ON
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/the-climate-study-nyt-warned-trump-would-suppress-is-about-to-be-released/

    3 Nov: NYT: U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials
    By LISA FRIEDMAN and GLENN THRUSH
    ***The White House put out a statement Friday that seemed to undercut the high level of confidence of the report’s findings.
    “The climate has changed and is always changing,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said in the statement. “As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on ‘remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth’s climate’” to greenhouse gas emissions, he added…

    DOWNLOAD REPORT (LINK)

    The report has provoked consternation in scientific circles for months. Though the study has been in the works since 2015, several scientists said the election of Mr. Trump, who has labeled climate change a “canard” and appointed cabinet members who disputed the scientific consensus, caused them to worry the report would be blocked or buried(NYT LINK).

    That did not happen…

    The only significant turbulence, according to one person familiar with the process, came from a midlevel political appointee at the Department of Energy who grilled the report’s authors on changes that had been made to temperature and other climate data over the years. The authors responded by adding a more detailed explanation of their methodology and all of the agencies then gave their approval, the person said.

    Mr. Trump was barely aware of the report’s existence, several White House officials said…

    Some critics of climate change science attacked the report as the product of holdovers from the Obama administration and chastised the Trump administration for allowing it to be published.
    “I’m saddened that they have decided they will let the permanent government, the civil servants, continue down this road without supervision,” said Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian advocacy group.

    Scientists said the report’s findings were clear.
    “This new report simply confirms what we already knew. Human-caused climate change isn’t just a theory, it’s reality,” said Michael E. Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University. “Whether we’re talking about unprecedented heat waves, increasingly destructive hurricanes, epic drought and inundation of our coastal cities, the impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. They are upon us. That’s the consensus of our best scientists, as laid bare by this latest report.”…

    ***“This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is ***extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the report states. “For the warming over the last century, there is ***no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”…
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html

    00

    • #
      pat

      btw more revision at NYT:

      4 Nov: FreeRepublic: Trump takes a knee?
      by sparklite2
      They just took it down, but there was a banner atop the (NYT) front page that said, “Breaking News. The White House has stated they believe humans cause global warning.”
      I kid you not.

      (LINK SHOWS NYT HOMEPAGE WITH EARLIER FRIEDMAN/THRUSH HEADLINE) “White House Backs Report at Odds With Its Climate Stance” By LISA FRIEDMAN and GLENN THRUSH 10:29 PM ET WHICH IS NOW CHANGED TO: “U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials AS PER MY PREVIOUS COMMENT)
      http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3601380/posts

      4 Nov: Reuters: Emily Flitter: In clash with Trump, U.S. report says humans cause climate change
      The rapid pace of global climate change is ***almost certainly driven by human activity…

      In an emailed statement, White House spokesman Raj Shah said: “The Administration supports rigorous scientific analysis and debate and encourages public comment on the draft documents being released today.”

      Officials at the EPA declined to comment…
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate/in-clash-with-trump-us-report-says-humans-cause-climate-change-idUSKBN1D3275

      hilarious.

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      pat, this will be just volume one of a series called…
      Fourth National Climate Assessment.
      U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report.
      http://www.globalchange.gov/content/cssr

      The Weather Underground describes it as a blockbuster report, leading with the intriguing claim “Humans are likely responsible for 93 – 123% of Earth’s net global warming after 1950″.

      For those in the know… here’s all you need to know:
      It’s co-authored by one K. Hayhoe and “NOAA established the procedures for the report”. :-(

      10

  • #
    pat

    from the red team/blue team man, Steven Koonin:

    3 Nov: ClimateDepot: Steven Koonin: ‘A Deceptive New Report on Climate’
    The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century.

    The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission…

    This isn’t the only example of highlighting a recent trend but failing to place it in complete historical context. The report’s executive summary declares that U.S. heat waves have become more common since the mid-1960s, although acknowledging the 1930s Dust Bowl as the peak period for extreme heat.

    These deficiencies in the new climate report are typical of many others that set the report’s tone.
    Consider the different perception that results from “sea level is rising no more rapidly than it did in 1940” instead of “sea level rise has accelerated in recent decades,” or from “heat waves are no more common now than they were in 1900” versus “heat waves have become more frequent since 1960.” Both statements in each pair are true, but each alone fails to tell the full story.

    FROM WSJ 2 NOV (LINK)
    A Deceptive New Report on Climate
    True, the U.S. has had more heat waves in recent years—but no more than a century ago.
    By Steven E. Koonin
    (Mr. Koonin was undersecretary of energy for science during President Obama’s first term and is director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University)
    The world’s response to climate changing under natural and human influences is best founded upon a complete portrayal of the science. The U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report, to be released Friday, does not provide that foundation. Instead, it reinforces alarm with incomplete information and highlights the need for more-rigorous review of climate assessments…READ ON
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/11/03/steven-koonin-a-deceptive-new-report-on-climate/

    10

  • #
    Robber

    In South Australia today, wind has been providing over 100% of the state’s demand for electricity, delivering an average of 1000 MW this morning, and 900 MW this afternoon. Demand was 850 MW at 9am, dropping to 640 MW at midday as solar kicked in. Only problem is that that would create an unstable network, so gas has been running at 450 MW, with surplus power of over 600 MW being exported to Victoria. SA prices were negative for a couple of hours this morning.
    But by evening, prices are predicted to return to $70-80/MWhr as demand reaches 1100 MW. There is a strange anomaly in SA – peak demand goes back over 1100 MW at midnight – what are those crow-eaters doing?

    20

  • #
    My Poor Country

    WHAT IS TRUMP DOING?

    Trump Administration Issues Report Concluding That Climate Change Is Real And Man-Made

    On Friday, the Trump Administration allowed the publication of a federal climate report, begun under President Barack Obama, which concludes that the Earth is warming at an alarming rate due to human activity.

    The bottom line, and what may spark controversies among Trump supporters, is that the central premise of the report, that climate change is real and that humans are to blame, contradicts previous statements of President Donald Trump and many high-ranking members of his administration, who have questioned the scientific findings regarding climate change.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-03/trump-administration-issues-report-concluding-climate-change-real-and-man-made

    00

  • #
    el gordo

    So the Australian taxpayer dollar won’t build the rail line from Adani to the coast but that only plays into Beijing’s hands.

    ‘Adani’s proposed Carmichael coalmine may end up being bankrolled by the Chinese-state-owned enterprise China Machinery Engineering Corporation (CMEC), according to public statements.’

    Guardian

    40

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Which just goes to show that Adani has a Belt and Braces strategy that dovetails nicely with China’s Belt and Road.

      Who cares where the investment dollars come from?

      If Australian private investment dollars don’t build it then those very dollars will build something else. If government dollars don’t build it? Good. Government needs to be small and stay out of the winner picking game (governments are notoriously bad at picking winners – eg NBN Co, pink bats, Snowy hydro MkII etc).

      The important thing is that the Adani mine gets built and the coal gets sold.

      All export revenue is good export revenue.

      The jobs are Australian jobs. The taxation is Australian taxation. The power, fuel, mechanical repair of machinery are all purchased in Australia. The meat, the potatoes, the noodles and the vegies, the beer, the wine and water that feeds and quenches the thirst of the miners is purchased in Australia. The insurance is purchased in Australia. And so on. Even the union dues are purchased in Australia.

      On this I hope that The Guardian is correct. However, knowing its track record I wouldn’t bet on it! :-)

      20

      • #
        Dennis

        Last time I checked China investment in Australia ranked No. 6 with United Kingdom No. 1 and United States No. 2

        For example, of foreign owned agricultural land ownership in Australia UK own 53 per cent, US own 15 per cent and China own 3 per cent, Singapore 4 per cent for comparison.

        Of course foreign investment into Australia is how our nation was built and national prosperity.

        20

  • #
    pat

    2 Nov: NYT: Lisa Friedman: Trump Team to Promote Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power at Bonn Climate Talks
    The Trump administration will promote coal, natural gas and nuclear energy as an answer to climate change at a presentation during a United Nations global warming conference this month, the White House confirmed Thursday.

    The program is billed as a discussion of how American energy resources, particularly fossil fuels, can help poor countries meet electricity needs and drive down greenhouse gas emissions. Entitled “The Role of Cleaner and More Efficient Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power in Climate Mitigation,” it will feature speakers from Peabody Energy, a coal company; NuScale Power, a nuclear engineering firm; and Tellurian, a liquefied natural gas exporter.

    “As the world seeks to reduce emissions while promoting economic prosperity, fossil fuels will continue to play a central role in the energy mix,” a preview of the Nov. 13 presentation says…

    Barry K. Worthington, executive director of the United States Energy Association, who will speak on the panel, said he hoped to deliver a dose of reality about the future of fossil fuels at a forum dominated by activists demanding the end of coal, oil and gas. He argued “no credible projection” shows fossil fuels meeting less than 40 percent of global energy demand by midcentury.

    Mr. Worthington said he expected that delivering that message before climate change activists would be a “horrible experience” but it is important for many to hear.

    “The reality of it is the world is going to continue to use fossil fuels,’’ he said, “and if I can throw myself on the hand grenade to help people realize that, I’m willing to do it.”…
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/climate/trump-coal-cop23-bonn.html

    30

  • #
    James Murphy

    The cognitive dissonance is strong with “the Left”. The same people who think international carbon credit schemes, and global punitive action against ‘big pahllooders’/western civilisation is a great idea, are, quite literally, violently opposed to the IMF, and World Bank because they have too much global control, and money.

    Madness…

    30

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Looking at the map..very interesting..Russia Not Included!!!
    Putin doesnt believe in AGW, so that probably explains it.

    30

  • #
    pat

    this sounds despressingly familiar:

    4 Nov: Townhall: Paul Driessen: Renewable Energy – By Royal Decree!
    In 2016, Missouri generated 96.5% of its electricity with fossil fuel and nuclear power, 1.6% with hydroelectric, and just 1.5% with wind and solar. The St. Louis Metro Area did roughly the same.
    But now, by royal decree, the St. Louis City Crown has made it clear, the climate must be perfect all year – and by 2035 the city will somehow, magically be powered by 100% “clean, sustainable” electricity.

    The Board of Aldermen unanimously passed a resolution calling for this to happen – via tougher energy efficiency measures and a transition to wind and solar power…READ ALL
    https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/11/04/renewable-energy–by-royal-fecree-n2404737/print

    10

    • #
      Curious George

      It is an ancient American belief that “Every problem can be solved by signing a check.” Especially if the payee is your niece.

      20

  • #
    pat

    includes an online poll, asking if Trump was right to pull out of Paris Climate Accord. 83% of 2,700-plus say yes.

    4 Nov: UK Express: REVEALED: EU wasted £520 million on decade-long green project that produced ZERO results
    EUROCRATS blew £520 million of taxpayers’ cash on a decade-long project to reduce carbon emissions that produced absolutely zero results whatsoever, it has emerged.
    By Nick Gutteridge, Brussels Correspondent
    An investigation found that Brussels blew the colossal sum of cash on a drive to build underground storage facilities for CO2 emissions – but no such facilities were ever constructed.
    This week the architect of the scheme, a former Lib Dem MEP, admitted this was because officials bungled their predictions for the environmental costs facing businesses.
    The revelations, uncovered by the website EUobserver, will heap further pressure on EU chiefs who are already facing increased scrutiny over their spending due to Brexit…

    The reports concern a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) project the EU set up in 2007, which was designed to help companies reduce their emissions and so save money on Brussels’ green taxes.
    Under the scheme businesses could buy pollution permits, or allowances, from eurocrats the proceeds of which would then be spent by the EU on capturing and storing carbon emissions
    However the fund, called NER300, did not support a single such project after officials catastrophically miscalculated carbon emissions pricing in Europe, which they expected to go up but which actually dropped drastically just after the programme was announced.

    Reflecting on the scheme he helped create, former Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies told EUobserver: “The expectation was that the carbon price would rise from thirty euros up to a hundred euros.
    “The incentive to not to have to pay a hundred euros a tonne for every tonne of CO2 emitted, was very strong indeed. The assumption was industry would do it, without us requiring any other means. Industry would take all these risks.”
    However, he said that when the carbon price crashed – it now stands at just seven euros – the scheme attracted virtually no participants and only ended up funding projects already in the renewable category…ETC
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/875213/European-Union-EU-wasted-green-project-carbon-capture-zero-results

    40

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    The Outsiders on Sky News today is hilarious. It will be repeated at 6 PM AEDT.

    10

  • #
    General P. Malaise

    really, do you need to look past the name. heck they call it a scheme in it’s name.

    schemers gotta scheme.

    00

  • #
    General P. Malaise

    does anyone know what the actual cost of one wind turbine is, the physical purchase cost sans any rebate or subside and what the cost of planting one in a field is??

    00

    • #
      Robber

      In Australia several wind farms have published reports indicating a total investment of about A$6 million for each 3 MW nameplate capacity wind turbine.
      If you assume a 30% capacity factor, operating costs of 3% per year, amortization over 20 years so 5% pa.
      To provide a Return on Capital of 6% pa gives a required electricity price of $100/MWhr, about the recent wholesale price.
      However, wind generators also get to sell RET (LGC) certificates for about $82/MWhr under government legislation to meet the annual renewable energy target, currently about 15% of total electricity generation.
      So all up that gives a total return on capital employed of 17.5%.
      Any wonder the rent seekers have been lining up to milk electricity consumers?

      10

      • #
        General P. Malaise

        thanks. Yes it is a cash cow for the politically connected.

        My question is do they even produce as much energy as it took to make and maintain them.

        I don’t need the return on investment since those numbers are more than less manufactured.

        none of these turbines make the 20 or 25 year lifespan. The gear boxes haven’t been making it 7 years on average. plus the actual electrical consumption of the turbines is never factored in. In Australia it probably isn’t as high as countries where the temperature goes below freezing.

        cheers

        10

      • #
        General P. Malaise

        thanks. Yes it is a cash cow for the politically connected.

        My question is do they even produce as much energy as it took to make and maintain them.

        I don’t need the return on investment since those numbers are more than less manufactured.

        none of these turbines make the 20 or 25 year lifespan. The gear boxes haven’t been making it 7 years on average. plus the actual electrical consumption of the turbines is never factored in. In Australia it probably isn’t as high as countries where the temperature goes below freezing.

        cheers

        00

  • #
    kramer

    I remember several decades ago here in the USA that democrats were the ones calling for higher taxes on the rich. With a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, the middle class is going to end up being the main source of revenue for governments which will get the rich off the hook (they are pretty much already) to pay more taxes on their massive wealth.

    In other words, a CO2 tax or cap-and-trade is just a way for the rich to preserve their wealth at the expense of the middle class.

    Same applies to Obamacare.

    I think its time we f*ck the rich by increasing taxes on them. Let the rich pay the bulk of the healthcare costs for the poor and lets also tax them more for social programs…

    10