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

Climate Lobbying is a 2 billion dollar industry — Money talks, but this report has no idea what it is saying

Royal Dutch Shell, lobbies for climate action.

In one of the more pointless and inane “scientific” publications of the year, Brulle et al has added up climate lobbying dollars across the years and sectors, but missed the two largest sectors and blended friend and foe unto homogenised pap. Even Brulle admits that gas companies lobby for climate legislation, while coal companies lobby against it, yet Brulle still lumps them all into the archetypal ogre called “Fossil Fuels”. Let’s perpetuate a mindless stereotype, eh?

Was that an accident or an aim?

Thus and verily do “fossil fuels” predictably outspend environmental organisations:

“Unsurprisingly, sectors that could be negatively affected by bills limiting carbon emissions, such as the electrical utilities sector, fossil fuel companies and transportation corporations had the deepest pockets. Their lobbying efforts dwarfed those of environmental organizations, the renewable energy industry and volunteer groups.”

Fossil fuels didn’t just outspend enviromentalists, they might as well have been them. Shell leaned on World Bank to nobble the competition. It begged for Big-Green subsidies to sequester carbon and lobbied for carbon trading. BP committed to a low carbon world, and went so far as to join Greenpeace and lobby the BBC itself.

Gas companies benefit from climate change because coal is the enemy, and more unreliable generators means the grid needs more gas or oil. The only reason to blend these together under the block category “Fossil fuels” is to feed the hate-tweet memes. Go Brulle.

Carbon lobbying peak days are over

Carbon Lobbying, USA. Graph.

Peak years were 2009 and 2010.

The two largest lobbyists of all don’t even get a mention.

The biggest players in this debate are Big-Government itself and Big-bankers. Government departments and grant-getting scientists have an obvious vested interest in increasing the size of their government department and their budgets.  Let’s talk real money: when the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act4 was signed into law, it contained some $110 billion5 in clean energy investments in the bill. Do we think none of that money went right back into lobbying? The EU by crikey, gives 20% (sic) of their budget to climate change.
Deutsche Bank, carbon clock of doom.
As for Bankers, the numbers are extreme. Brulle gets excited about two billion dollars spent on lobbying over 16 years, but  Bank of America is spending $50 billion to save the world.  Citigroup committed $100 billion to “climate change”. DeutscheBank built giant clocks of doom and wrote 50 page scientific reports. And the list goes on…  in the end, climate change is potentially a $7 Trillion dollar money making venture for bankers. You can see why they might be interested. What we can’t see, is why Brulle et al aren’t even aware they exist?

There was no “financial sector”, no bank mentioned. But then, perhaps Citigroup just spent $100b, but didn’t think to lobby on Capital Hill? Could be…

 

 

Banks involved in carbon trading.

Banks involved in carbon trading

 Which lobbyists are the most desperate?

Perhaps I missed it, but I saw no mention of the desperation levels of the various sides. Those selling an essential commodity have the security of knowing that demand for their products will still be running strong even if the government changes the rules tomorrow. Those selling an uncompetitive, esoteric product designed to change the weather in a hundred years are desperate. It’s do or die for them. When the government changes the rules, their market evaporates.

That’s why, one day when someone does a meaningful study on funds for climate lobbying, they’ll find it stacked heavily for “climate change”.

In this debate there are a thousand vested interests and only a few vested losers. Apart from coal, the losers are export industries and most of the population. Who lobbies for them?

 

Climate Scare Machine

Click for the Climate Change Scare Machine post.

H/t ScienceDaily, and ClimateDepot

REFERENCE

  1. Robert J. Brulle. The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016Climatic Change, 2018; DOI: 10.1007/s10584-018-2241-z

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-018-2241-z

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (41 votes cast)
Climate Lobbying is a 2 billion dollar industry -- Money talks, but this report has no idea what it is saying, 9.6 out of 10 based on 41 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y8r394kc

75 comments to Climate Lobbying is a 2 billion dollar industry — Money talks, but this report has no idea what it is saying

  • #
    David Maddison

    In Australia we have the RenewEconomy website that I have mentioned before here and regularly comes up on my recommended reading by Google and is highly influential among the ignorant.

    Apart from the agenda of destroying Western Civilisation with expensive, unreliable “renewable” electricity, there are vast amounts of money to be made promoting this useless form of energy. Huge amounts of highly profitable “investment” for very little actual generation.

    A great waste of economic resources.

    282

    • #
      GD

      In Victoria, Commissar Dan Andrews is paying $50 to any householder who logs onto his new ‘energy compare’ site.

      https://compare.energy.vic.gov.au

      80

      • #

        Money for nothing…

        50

      • #
        Davefromweewaa

        It’s only a rort if you’re not in it!
        Alex son of Malcolm is doing well as are the Photios family and faction. Bill Shorten would like his cronies in the super funds to do a bit better too. Both Bill and Malcolm are determined to plunder consumers for themselves and their mates.
        My fantasy palace coup would be swap Abbott for Turnbull, Dutton for Bishop and Joyce for Frydenburg. I think Barnaby might be motivated to ensure that Turnbull’s don’t do well!

        160

        • #
          el gordo

          Barnaby must be returned to the front bench, and Dutton is more likely to get the nod for PM over Abbott.

          32

      • #
        Robber

        I’ve claimed my $50. Mind you it’s typical government bureaucracy – 2 weeks to approve my application, and 2-4 weeks to get the cheque in the mail.

        30

        • #
          me@home

          Robber, It’s just taken me 2 hours to work my way through a very confused and intrusive web site to get useless info on deals from other providers and a promise of $50 sometime – just as well I’m retired – I don’t expect many busy people would bother.

          30

          • #
            Robber

            That’s right me@home, it’s a complex world of electricity pricing. But I’ve just helped a pensioner without Internet access switch providers and save $300 per year, plus apply for the Vic government’s $50 “gift”.

            30

      • #
        David Maddison

        I have previously looked at that and they require too much personal information, for example, the number of bedrooms you have. The next thing you know is that they’ll be wanting to house “refugees” in your “spare” bedrooms.

        20

        • #
          sophocles

          Love this line from the site:

          An independent Victorian Government energy price comparison site

          If it’s Victorian Government, how can it be independent? Independent from what? Uncivil civil servants? Can’t be free of money because that’s what the site is about.

          Ah, of course, it’s Independent of any power generators, but then, so is the rest of Australia.

          Never mind, David: you could always tell them you have 30 bedrooms and later claim it was a slip of the mouse
          if they want more info. But, because it’s an ‘Independent Government … site’ you’re probably right to be chary and concerned about what they want to know. As you point out, it could be used against you …

          30

    • #
      wal1957

      I have visited ‘renew economy’ website 2 or 3 times. It may as well be staffed by our ABC ‘luvvies. Modern day propaganda for the unreliables industry.

      I can’t stomach going back there again. Just as when I err in flicking over to ‘their ABC’, my blood starts to boil and I’m in danger of throwing something at the TV.

      111

      • #
        alwaysBskeptical

        wal1957
        Don’t bother with the propaganda on the NEM website.
        Just look at the NEM widget, Live Supply and Demand, every day.

        50

      • #
        RickWill

        This site no longer gets devout followers of Climate Change. There are a few red thumbs but the red thumbers no longer offer any thoughts.

        If you want to have some influence in the CC debate you need to make posts on sites like reneweconomy. A couple of months ago I pointed out that the poor consumers pay the cross-subsidy for rooftop solar and grid scale ambient generators. That silenced some of the commenters. It is a sore point with the young, “educated” on the evils of CO2, to realise they are contributing to the older generation with their own home and a roof with solar panels through the electricity bills.

        The first time I posted there I had no support. I now see there are others who question the belief.

        110

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Well it doesnt stop the Leftist A.C.T. from nxing more productive land for the sake of appeasing the mythical green “gods”…

      https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/corbell-back-on-solar-game-with-100mw-solar-farm-planned-for-sutton-20180718-p4zs65.html

      “Residents have reacted with alarm to plans for a massive solar farm at Sutton, which will cover 370 hectares of farmland.

      Former deputy chief minister Simon Corbell, who led Canberra’s ambitious move to fund solar and wind projects around Australia, is an advisor to the project.

      At 120 megawatts, the Springdale Solar Farm is five times bigger than the Royalla farm outside Tuggeranong, which was Australia’s largest solar farm in 2014 at 20 megawatts.

      It also dwarfs three other ACT government-funded farms, Mugga Lane at 13 megawatts, Williamsdale at 11 megawatts and Mount Majura at 2.3 megawatts

      The farm is to be developed by Sydney-based Renew Estate, with construction slated to begin in April next year and the farm is expected to be operational by January 2019.”

      Note that green projects never lower the cost of electricity……so in real terms, there is no net benefit to A.C.T. residents or the economy apart from the one-off construction jobs…..and CAGW is a myth, so….

      51

      • #

        This proposed solar plant will have a Nameplate of 120MW, so at (the hoped for) Capacity Factor (CF) of 20%, that then equates to a Nameplate according to power generation of 24MW.

        The cost is (around) $150 Million, and see how cheap that is.

        So, to deliver the same power as a new tech USC coal fired plant of 2 X 1200MW units at a CF of 90%. you’ll only need, umm, 90 of these solar plants, and with the USC at twice the lifespan of the solar plant, 180 of these solar plants, hence $27 Billion.

        No single USC would cost anywhere near that.

        See how cheap these renewables really are.

        That new tech USC would deliver the same yearly generated power output from this solar plant in, umm four days.

        Oh dear!

        Fail!

        Tony.

        200

        • #
          ivan

          Tony, no matter how clear your calculations are you will never convince the greens and/or politicians. They are deficient in knowledge of science and maths. To them it is a religion and all about feelings, stroking their egos and virtue signaling.

          40

          • #
            David Maddison

            Most Greens, warmists and politicians don’t even have a primary school understanding of science (US = elementary school).

            20

            • #
              David Maddison

              Correction. They don’t even have that understanding. I wish they did!

              20

              • #
                sophocles

                That’s why they’re politicians. Only those with ‘feelings’ need apply. Education? Go away, you’re dangerous.

                30

      • #
        Hivemind

        A more important question is “how much power will it generate at 6 PM, when everybody is getting home from work, want to turn their airconditioning on in summer, or heating on in winter, cook their meals & watch TV?

        None, that’s how much.

        60

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    The Map of the Climate change Scare Machine looks like something that could fuel some interesting conversation.

    It may help us keep in sight the fact that vast sums of Taxpayer and Consumer cash is being Churned in useless projects and dead end “research” for One very big Reason.

    The Skim.

    Out of sight, out of mind for the average voter.

    The Elites Skim and laugh as the rest of us get to pay for dysfunctional governments and work even harder to pay for the Smokescreen that covers it all up.

    Masterful; our betters sup on champagne while we suck lemons.

    Can you hear the sound of angry voters yet?

    KK

    191

    • #
      PeterS

      Can you hear the sound of angry voters yet?

      As per the movie “Margin Call”…

      John Tuld: So, what you’re telling me, is that the music is about to stop, and we’re going to be left holding the biggest bag of odorous excrement ever assembled in the history of capitalism.

      Peter Sullivan: Sir, I not sure that I would put it that way, but let me clarify using your analogy. What this model shows is the music, so to speak, just slowing. If the music were to stop, as you put it, then this model wouldn’t even be close to that scenario. It would be considerably worse.

      John Tuld: Let me tell you something, Mr. Sullivan. Do you care to know why I’m in this chair with you all? I mean, why I earn the big bucks.

      Peter Sullivan: Yes.

      John Tuld: I’m here for one reason and one reason alone. I’m here to guess what the music might do a week, a month, a year from now. That’s it. Nothing more. And standing here tonight, I’m afraid that I don’t hear – a – thing. Just… silence.

      Yes some of the public are making some angry noises but the music is still playing loud and clear well above that noise. We will hear the real screams once the music stops. It has a long way to go as yet.

      70

  • #
    Yonniestone

    We looked at dumping AGL after the Liddell announcement but looking at the alternatives they were just as bad with pushing and profiteering off cony climatism.

    100

    • #

      What I can’t figure out with AGL is this.

      They have Liddell, and even though it can’t generate 500MW per Unit any more, it can still manage 430 to 450MW. Even operating at 60% Capacity Factor of a typical older plant that’s a yearly power total generation of 9,467,280 MegaWattHours. (MWH)

      They get paid the market cost for that based on the AEMO structure, but that’s not the point.

      Any renewable of choice (wind or solar) they construct will have a hugely lower Nameplate, and a much lower Capacity Factor, hence these renewables will generate way way way less total power a year, and being paid at that same AEMO rate for every MWH of electricity, they will make nowhere near the money they get from an already ancient and run down Liddell.

      I seriously wonder if the shareholders in AGL have any idea of this, and from that, I seriously wonder if AGL understands this, because surely they must have advisors who tell them these sorts of things.

      I reckon that there’s something else going on here, just mouthing the words they think the public wants to hear from them, while patiently waiting for all this other ‘stuff’ to just go away.

      Tony.

      120

      • #

        But the renewables get $85/MWh. Coal doesn’t. PLUS if we take out another coal bidder the winning bids will leap — as they did after Hazelwood closed. And all bidders who win will get paid at the newer higher level. Them’s the rules. One bid sets the price — the last bid needed in the stack to meet the demand, and all the lower bidders get paid at the same rate. It’s in every generators interest to get rid of the lowest bidders in the system.

        It’s in every consumers interest to stop that.

        220

      • #
        Kneel

        “What I can’t figure out with AGL…”

        AGL are looking for the best margins and the biggest profit – that is not evil, that is what companies do; if they fail to do this, then the company itself will fail.

        So what matters, balance sheet wise, to AGL is that they use the lowest cost generator they can and that they sell at the highest price they can, and that they get the most of any Govt subsidies that they can.

        What matters, publicity wise, to AGL is that they are (or at least appear to be) “good corporate citizens”.

        AGL can improve both it’s bottom line and its corporate image by pushing renewables – image because “everyone knows” AGW is “the moral challenge of our time” and bottom line because they can make more margin off renewables when you take into account the RET, NEG, XYZ etc ad nauseum.

        So my take remains that AGL does NOT want to sell Liddell, nor does it want to demolish it.
        It DOES want to close it soon, so that demand will more closely match supply, putting upward pressure on prices and no pressure on costs (AGL is highly vertically integrated, owning power stations, substations etc). But they also know that this (closing Liddell) might tend to leave the market somewhat “short” on reliable power, so…
        The plan is (in my opinion), to threaten closure of Liddell (and even do it if the bid fails) and with the Govt demanding they keep it open for “energy security”, they can say “Well, it’s not economic to upgrade and get back on-line…” and Govt will hand them a cool $1B or so to “overhaul” Liddell. AGL then becomes “the good guys” because they “kept the lights on”, the govt gets to “correct” a market “failure”(of course, they distorted it to cause the issue in the first place…) and AGL gets a to extend the life of a performing asset at no cost.

        All perfectly sensible and actually the right thing for a company board to do – they didn’t create the problem, Govt did. They are just taking advantage of circumstances.

        And everybody gets rich, while no-one is really poor – well, no-one worth speaking about, anyway!

        110

  • #
    PeterS

    Big governments and big banks. Yes that’s it for sure. It’s just one step closer to the day a one-world government is allowed to be thrust upon us. Allowed by whom? By the people of course since they are not in a hurry to protest and vote against or walk away from the very same groups. It’s history repeating itself yet again. Another way of saying it is along the lines of evil wins when even good people do nothing to stop it because they are gullible, fools, uninterested and/or just don’t give a damn. I wonder where Turnbull the globalist will be promoted to when it all completed. It has hit a little speed hump with Trump the nationalist being elected and that won’t last for long as he can’t be President forever. It’s still all full speed ahead for the globalists simply because they have all the money, the power and the approval (willingly or unwillingly) of the people.

    131

  • #
    Geoff

    Its saying “BUY OUR GAS” and “WE DO NOT OWN A COAL MINE”.

    The rest is bull.

    50

  • #
    manalive

    Robert J. Brulle is an environmental sociologist and professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University.
    “… He advocates aggressive political action to address global warming … Brulle endorsed Bernie Sanders in the 2016 U.S. presidential election …” (Wiki).
    Misleading propaganda techniques are standard procedure for aggressive advocates of action to address global warming, aka CC™.

    70

  • #

    Some great points made here.

    Australia stands to be biggest loser of all in these criss-cross wars of climate/energy.

    Tom Steyer was able to move himself out of southern hemisphere coal when his billions were made and the price began to tank…then immediately become a Field Marshal in the War on Coal. Australia, however, cannot move itself away from its most critical resource. Tom changes position with the tap of a keyboard, Australia stays where it is, between the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

    Big Oil shamelessly uses the anti-carbon system to sell its carbon. Norway has actually managed to transform itself into a green saint by selling its oil and gas to everyone nearby while running the domestic power on hydro. If a bit of coal power trickles back into its system in time of need…Norway dunno nuffin’ ’bout that. Norway green, you bad. Norway rich, you not. Norway dodge, you stuck. Silly you.

    The anti-carbon system runs on hypocrisy. Sadly, our politicians in Oz, though experts in hypocrisy, go straight on this one. We who have the most to lose are playing softest. Makes you wonder about Malcolm, Josh and Ben Ean Julie, doesn’t it? Nah, surely not. Globalist conspiracies? Bilderbergers under the bed? That’s only in the movies, right? After all, we voted for Malcolm. Well…sort of.

    Then there’s the media, where a really thorough job has been done. And then some. I used to frequent Climate Etc till it occurred to me that the whole thing may be an operation to corral skeptics by frequently feeding them what they like while slipping in sharp little pills of warmism at regular intervals. If things hotted up there were those navel-gazey posts on the meaning of uncertainty etc to help keep the climatariat afloat without saying anything at all.

    So they’ve done a real job on us, and the biggest loser among “us” is coal-rich Australia. And if we try to move an inch to the right, Malcolm goes and Labor comes. Like I said, quite a job.

    80

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Good outline, but we don’t want to move to the Right, that’s politics.

      We must move Forward with the True Science and Engineering.

      50

      • #

        Yeah, you’re right, KK. Right is for war and debt, left is for debt and war. (Yes, globos, some of us have taken note of the recent booms in war and debt. We note how you’ve snuck them in and we still don’t find them to be a necessary part of the rich, rainbow fabric of life in your NWO, like being free to marry one’s favourite coffee mug.)

        True science and engineering will do me. I couldn’t care if a government, a private consortium or the Mysterious Invisible Hand of the Market builds a nice new coal plant. I just want a coal plant that gets all the juice out of every lump.

        I’d also like the climatariat crushed and ground to a fine dust then dispersed to the winds…before I get really serious with it. But that’s just me.

        80

        • #
          Kneel

          “I’d also like the climatariat crushed and ground to a fine dust then dispersed to the winds…”

          Just feed ‘em into the coal crusher of your shiny new coal-fired power station!
          Crushed to powder, burnt at several hundred C, then turned into “filler” for concrete, where they can actually be used to support something real.
          :-)

          70

  • #
    John Trigge

    Did the ‘research’ account for the salaries of the politicians touting renewables and denigrating climate ‘deniers’?

    We in Mayo are about to have a by-election and the recently ousted (non citizen?) incumbent considers that deniers need to be ‘railed against’, thereby adding to the lobbying.

    My email to her:

    Rebecca,

    I write as a voter in the Mayo electorate who feels deeply insulted by recent comments attributed to yourself

    An article in this week’s The Courier (“Aldgate forum hot on climate”) quotes you as stating that communities need to “rail against climate change deniers”.

    How is it that you wish your followers to ‘rail against’ persons such as myself? One definition of ‘rail against’ is explained as:

    “To protest something vehemently, especially using strong language”

    Is this how you expect the residents of Mayo to function in their day-to-day dealings with those they disagree with?

    The ‘climate denier’ term is often likened to those reprehensible persons who are holocaust deniers making it an extremely hurtful label.

    You are promoting yourself as a representative for ALL residents of Mayo but seem to be denigrating a large proportion of them as they do not accept your view of the effects of the much-maligned carbon dioxide molecule (not carbon, an element).

    What policies would you be taking to Canberra to silence us?

    Would I be welcomed in your office to discuss this or any other aspect of life in Mayo/Australia or would you require me to remain silent and unseen?

    If anyone is a ‘climate denier’, it is those who believe that climate is steady, unchanging and controllable – you included from your reported comments.

    Please do not justify your position on climate change by quoting any form of consensus on this issue as that is, from my extensive reading, irrelevant to understanding science. If consensus was taken as truth then you should leave politics as the current consensus in voting in Australia is that the Liberal Party are the best to run the country as they are currently in power.

    Should you regain your position as my representative in Parliament, I encourage you to listen to ALL points of view on the many matters you will be required to consider. If you disagree do not attempt to silence those with the differing opinion. At the very least, do not insult those whom you aim to represent.

    Sincerely,

    John (redacted)
    Mount Barker

    210

    • #

      Excellent letter John.

      150

    • #
      sophocles

      John,
      I join Jo in praising your letter. Can/could you publish (any) reply from the candidate here? It would be most interesting to see a reaction to electoral reality …

      30

    • #
      John Trigge

      The response:

      Many thanks for your email. Rebekha has asked me to respond on her behalf.

      I am certainly not aware of the comments quoted in the newspaper, so I cannot speak to them directly, but I can assure you that Rebekha would not seek to denigrate anyone – that is simply not her style.

      You are right in that Rebekha agrees with the broad scientific consensus that human-induced climate change is occurring (I appreciate that there are always a few dissenters), as echoed by the advice provided to us by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

      However, Rebekha’s community-focused approach means that she seeks to build consensus, not pit people against each other like the major parties all too often do. Whilst the two of you may hold different views on climate, Rebekha respects your right to have an opinion, and also will seek to incorporate such concerns held by any sizeable part of the community in any decisions she makes, as she has done so in the past. You may not always agree, but I have always personally found her to be genuinely interested in what you and any member of our community have to say.

      Many thanks again for your email, and do not hesitate to contact Rebekha or myself if we can be of further assistance –

      All the best,

      -Michael


      Michael Cornish
      Campaign Office

      and my counter-response:

      Michael,

      Thank you for a response.

      I find it difficult to understand how you can respond on Rebekha’s behalf when you have not seen the newspaper report nor the words attributed to her.

      Your starting point for a response should surely be whether or not she said that communities need to “rail against climate change deniers”.

      Has she been misquoted? If not then she might consider taking more care on her choice of words as she has definitely caused me to take umbrage.

      Your glib dismissal of ‘a few dissenters’ and your belief that there is a ‘broad consensus’ regarding human-induced climate change seems ill-informed. There are many thousands of scientists of all disciplines that disagree with the oft-stated ‘consensus’ and the BOM have been found lacking in so many areas of their weather observations and their handling of same that you should be wary of anything they say.

      The argument is not whether humans effect climate (we do) but the extent and whether or not it is worth the stupendous amounts of money being spent to attempt to mitigate it, plus the massive societal changes being caused by the removal of base-load power systems with unreliable ones.

      You might also be wary of using the BOM as a source in this matter as there are several ex-BOM scientists and informed others who have shown many failings within that organisation. If you are unaware of these criticisms then I urge you to investigate further rather than blindly relying on them as an authority.

      I should also declare that I have voted for Rebekha to retain her seat in parliament, regardless of our differences of opinion. Just be aware that any vote for her does not necessarily mean that we agree with everything she stands for and that she does not have a mandate for all of her stated policies. The ‘best of a bad bunch’ would possibly best describe the voting public’s view of our selection a representative at this time.

      Respectfully,

      30

      • #

        Love your work, John.

        20

      • #
        John Trigge

        This is the latest from Sharkie’s campaign office:

        Understood, and many thanks for your support. Rebekha will certainly not take the support she receives for granted.

        All the best,

        -Michael

        I am of the opinion that, knowing I voted for her (as the best of a bad bunch IMO), he is no longer interested in the issues I raised.

        End of story as far as he is concerned.

        I may follow up with him and demand an answer to whether or not she said the words reportedly spoken by her, just to keep the pot boiling. Being retired, I have plenty of time to send emails.

        10

        • #
          John Trigge

          I decided to keep the conversation going:

          Michael,

          Have you read the article?

          Did she or did she not say the words reported in The Courier?

          Perhaps you could ask her

          I realise you are busy with the election but this is an issue of importance to us all considering the money and societal impacts of Rebekha’s belief in CAGW.

          10

  • #
    pat

    full of it:

    20 Jul: Guardian: Coalition’s national energy guarantee predicted to drive up power prices
    New modelling forecasts Labor’s 45% target will force down Australian prices but government’s 26% will not
    by Katharine Murphy
    A national energy guarantee with a more ambitious emissions reduction target of 45% by 2030 would lead to power prices falling over the life of the scheme in contrast to the Turnbull government’s proposal, according to new modelling.

    With the Neg bound for a make-or-break meeting in August, the new number crunching by the respected energy analysts RepuTex, funded by Greenpeace, boosts the case for emissions reduction in the scheme to be made more ambitious…
    It suggests under the more ambitious emissions reduction target, wholesale power prices would fall by a quarter to around $60 per megawatt hour (MWh) by 2030, as more renewables enter the energy mix. In contrast, under the Neg, power prices would be at just over $80.

    Prices are higher in the Coalition’s proposal because coal continues to dominate the market, investment in large-scale renewables is largely static, and gas takes a higher share to provide flexible dispatchable power as coal assets leave the system.

    Over the life of the Turnbull government’s scheme, wholesale electricity prices are forecast to fall initially, reflecting the entry of already committed renewable capacity, then rise above $70 per MWh after the Liddell coal plant in New South Wales closes, then climb to $80 per MWh after the expected retirement of Yallourn in Victoria 2028…

    Green groups and the solar industry are marshalling ahead of the make-or-break meeting of the Coag energy council in August in an effort to convince the Victorian and Queensland governments to torpedo the scheme unless the level of ambition in emissions reduction is increased…

    “The Neg is not a policy but a political document for Malcolm Turnbull to appease Tony Abbott and the coal-obsessed far right of the Coalition,” the Greenpeace Australia Pacific head of research and investigations, Nikola Casule, said…
    Greenpeace and GetUp have produced television advertisements to run in Victoria and Queensland in the weeks leading up to the energy council meeting in an effort to put political pressure on the larger Labor states…
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/20/coalitions-national-energy-guarantee-predicted-to-drive-up-power-prices

    10

    • #

      With the Neg bound for a make-or-break meeting in August, the new number crunching by the respected energy analysts RepuTex, funded by Greenpeace….

      Now, I wonder how they came up with that eh!

      Tony.

      60

      • #
        Annie

        I was wondering about that Tony. Respected? Funded by Who?! Oh, Greenpeace….righto then. Ha ha ha!

        50

  • #
    pat

    18 Jul: Guardian: Coalition’s national energy guarantee described as having ‘no benefit’ to emissions
    Former head of Clean Energy Finance Corporation says governments should not support Neg in current state
    by Katharine Murphy
    Oliver Yates, the former head of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, says state and territory governments should not sign on to the Turnbull government’s national energy guarantee until such time as it contains meaningful emissions reductions…
    Yates, a ***respected industry player now active in the renewables sector, and a board member of the Smart Energy Council – a solar group critical of the Neg – told Guardian Australia the Turnbull government’s policy “doesn’t do anything other than create a stable emissions profile for existing coal-fired power stations.”
    “It’s absolutely of no benefit to the national transition away from emissions,” Yates said…

    He said companies active in renewable energy in Australia would be “better off with nothing” than the current emissions reduction target…

    The ACT’s climate change minister, Shane Rattenbury, said again on Tuesday he would find it “very difficult” to sign up to the Neg in its present form, and he said he would pursue changes, hopefully in cooperation with other Labor states, when the Coag energy council meets…

    Sections of the renewables industry are marshalling a campaign to exert political pressure on the Victorian and Queensland governments to reject the Neg, with television advertisements put together by Greenpeace and GetUp! set to screen in the two states before the August meeting.
    Stakeholders have told Guardian Australia the Andrews government in Victoria, which faces a tough election contest later this year, has responded furiously to the planned television campaign…

    ***The chief executive of the Smart Energy Council, John Grimes, said on Tuesday that he was consulting with about 400 renewable energy companies seeking an injection of funding for a campaign directed at Queensland and Victoria to bolster the work being done by environmental groups over the coming weeks…

    The managing director of Aemo, Audrey Zibelman, told Sky News that existing coal was “more competitive at a cost basis than new resources and … new coal cannot compete at this point with other resources”.
    She said the forecast confirmed “what everybody in the industry has been observing” – that the falling cost of renewables would transform the grid, because renewable energy projects did not pay for fuel, and it would be “very hard” for other technologies to compete with zero fuel cost
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/18/coalitions-national-energy-guarantee-described-as-having-no-benefit-to-emissions

    20

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I find this interesting but predictable – they create a “crisis” and offer a “solution” that slowly pushes the average consumer into a strait jacket approved by the UN Agenda 2030….

      Turncoat et all are obedient globalists ….

      70

      • #
        PeterS

        Well we were warned about that by Lord Monckton prior to Turnbull displacing Abbott. it was so obvious it was heading that way before Abbott was displaced yet it went over the heads of most people, except the left who applauded it. One thing is for sure. This nation is stuffed big time partly because almost half the people don’t give a damn and almost another half prefer the socialism path. Otherwise why is ALP+Greens tipped to win the next election, or at best it will be a close one?

        20

    • #
      Mark M

      ” … and it would be “very hard” for other technologies to compete with zero fuel cost”

      If the fuel cost zero and you want to save the planet with it, why would you charge any money?

      20

  • #
    pat

    19 Jul: SMH: David Crowe: NEG vote will be reality check for emissions cuts
    PHOTO CAPTION: Influential Greens figures Bob Brown and Shane Rattenbury
    Now the former Greens leader who made that fateful call nine years ago, Bob Brown, is calling the National Energy Guarantee a “cop out” that needs to triple its emission cuts. That means replacing a 26 per cent cut in emissions by 2030 with a target of about 75 per cent for the electricity sector…

    Labor wants a target of 45 per cent. This leaves Brown on a unity ticket with Tony Abbott in damning the NEG – one of them because it does not cut enough carbon, the other because it cuts too much. This is 2009 all over again…

    Due to a twist of fate in a tiny territory, the key vote on August 10 belongs to the Greens. The energy minister in the ACT is Greens member Shane Rattenbury, one of Brown’s long-time supporters. While Labor state governments appear likely to accept the NEG, the Greens are keeping their options open…

    There is nothing to stop a future government, and a Senate including the Greens, from legislating deeper cuts to emissions…
    This is the singular difference with 2009…

    The goal of improving reliability should not be overlooked. The blackout in South Australia and the brownouts elsewhere should not be waved away. All the key regulators warn about pressure on reliable electricity supply.
    Those who want faster closure of coal-fired power plants need to explain how to avoid price hikes and problems with reliability. The shutdown of the Hazelwood coal-fired power station was followed by an 85 per cent rise in average wholesale spot prices for electricity in Victoria during 2017, according to the Australian Energy Regulator…

    Customers were not the only ones who had to pay: taxpayers funded a $266 million rescue plan for workers from Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews. The full costs of this huge transition in the electricity grid cannot be ignored…

    The government plan is to legislate the 26 per cent cut for a decade. The bill will set up a review in 2025 but make sure any higher target would only take effect after 2030. This looks unacceptable to Labor, let alone the Greens…
    Opposition Leader Bill Shorten needs a way to mandate a higher target in the event of a Labor victory at the next election, but Turnbull and Frydenberg have no reason to make it easy for him. They are likely to reject any demand from Shorten for an earlier review, because shaking hands on that deal would expose them to a knife in the back from Abbott…

    Energy companies and big manufacturers will be investing on the basis of long-term targets. They need this to be set in legislation, not changed by edict…
    No Parliament can bind a future one. If Shorten wins the election, it will be up to him to deliver his promise of a 45 per cent cut to emissions…
    Importantly, the NEG does not prevent deeper cuts to emissions because it sets the 26 per cent figure as a floor, not a ceiling…
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/neg-vote-will-be-reality-check-for-emissions-cuts-20180719-p4zsds.html

    10

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      The first rule of the globalists is control both side of the argument – i.e. own each set of mugs.

      Then no matter what happens, the result you want, is guaranteed.

      Everyone says you cant get a roll your own ciggie paper between the greens-labor-liberals….well…..

      20

      • #
        PeterS

        By the way Turnbull keeps flip flopping with is explanations on what his policies mean I can understand how he is the master of duplicity.

        10

  • #
    Mark M

    ICYMI:

    The Clean Energy Council is having a knees-up hootenanny and jamboree …

    The 2018 Australian Clean Energy Summit will take place from 31 July – 1 August at ICC Sydney.

    The Summit is the peak gathering of leaders driving Australia’s energy transformation.

    http://www.cleanenergysummit.com.au/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=ACES2018

    FAQ:

    - Yes, there is limited parking.

    - Brought to you by fossil fuels.

    30

  • #
    ROM

    .
    Jo raises a rather interesting point in her headline comments.
    .
    Tony of Oz asks a question directly related to that same point as do a few other commentators here.

    Simply and basically renewable energy and its underlying propaganda driving the belief in its cheapness and emmissions free production of energy is a dead end proposition.

    On this site we are all aware that this is likely to be the case .

    But from the general public’s perspective this may not yet be very apparent primarily due to the heavy propaganda of the various vested interests in the renewable energy, media, economic and political sectors.
    But that is changing and like a dam wall with a small but growing leak, the whole renewable energy craze is quite likely to come literally crashing down, financially, politically and publicly when that dam wall finally gets eroded enough and weakened enough that the lies that sustain renewable energy today in the public sphere can no longer be regarded with any semblence of respect and actual truthfulness.
    .
    Renewable energy will be and already beginning to be seen as a dead end proposition due to;
    .
    1/ The fact that today, only around a quarter of the world’s population and nations are treating the so called [ "future", always "future" ] climate change catastrophe with any regard.
    The other three quarters of mankind and the nations he is living in are all either building fossil fueled generators or are aiming to do as as soon as they can either get the money or have the technological capacity to both build and run a large fossil fueled generator system and build a grid to service their populations.

    And that is beginning to happen right now right across the planet and will continue on for the next few decades.

    2 / This second factor might prove to be the most important factor in the eventual demise and elimination of renewable energy as supposed and proposed power source to drive our civilisation.

    There is now a two generation, going on three generation cultural memory of the cheapness and reliability and universality of the fossil fuel, coal fired in particular, universally available electrical energy and all the benefits it brought to those generations.

    The realisation that the current and foreseeable technology involved in renewable energy , in the case of wind being merely an updated version of the same five hundred years old wind energy technology abandoned some 250 years ago by our forebears, can never match those essential to civilisation energy production characteristics of fossil fuel fired generators.

    And that is the message that the cultural memories, the memories of those mostly still living generations have of fossil fueled power systems that provided them with a huge increase in the standards of living over their couple of generations and the message that is being now being spread and sustained right throughout our society as the real disadvantages and the costs and the reasons for enforcing renewable energy onto the populace become disproven and / or are seen as an impossible economic goal to achieve if we wish our living standards to be maintained or bettered in the decades ahead.

    As the highly deleterious effects of the instabilities of renewable energy on our society, the excessive costs and the inbuilt inherent unreliability and unpredictability of renewable energy generation systems steadily gain ground amongst the general populace then the death notice of renewable energy will be well and truly written in the anals of future history.

    70

  • #
    Robber

    Well said ROM. But when the media keeps quoting the mantra “renewables are cheaper, because sun and wind are free”, people hear and believe.
    Despite seeing their electricity bills skyrocket, they still believe the myth that prices will “soon” fall, all we need is more sun and wind power.
    What we need is a simple proof along the following lines:
    Operating windmill generators delivers power when the wind blows, not when consumers want power. So the system also needs a reliable power source like coal/gas that can deliver power when it’s needed. Therefore the system needs double the required capacity – how can that be cheaper?

    Of course the next response is batteries are getting cheaper. Like SA, where the Musk battery at a cost of $50 million delivers just 30 MW some of the time, and that’s just 2% of SA’s average demand, so you would need at least 50 Musk batteries at cost of $2.5 billion in addition to the cost of the windmills. If SA were fully wind-powered, that would require a nameplate wind capacity of 5,000 MW at a capital cost of about $9 billion – how can that be cheaper?

    60

    • #
      Dennis

      How could they all work out what $9 billion represents in value when most can’t work out small change?

      50

  • #
    pat

    20 Jul: Bloomberg: New York’s Global Warming Suit Against Oil Companies Tossed
    By Bob Van Voris and Kevin Crowley; With assistance by Alex Nussbaum
    U.S. District Judge John Keenan dismissed the city’s claims against Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., BP Plc, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and ConocoPhillips, ruling that the federal Clean Air Act controls carbon dioxide emissions and blocks suits such as New York’s. The problem of climate change is for Congress and the Executive Branch to address, he said.

    “The immense and complicated problem of global warming requires a comprehensive solution that weighs the global benefits of fossil fuel use with the gravity of the impending harms,” Keenan wrote Thursday…
    “The Mayor believes big polluters must be held accountable for their contributions to climate change and the damage it will cause New York City,” Seth Stein, a spokesman for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, said in a statement. “We intend to appeal this decision and to keep fighting for New Yorkers who will bear the brunt of climate change.”

    Shell and Exxon hailed the decision…
    “Judge Keenan’s decision reaffirms our view that climate change is a complex societal challenge that requires sound governmental policy and is not an issue for the courts,” Shell said in a statement.
    “We have said all along that addressing the risks of climate change is a serious global challenge that should be addressed by policy makers and not by the courts,” Exxon said in a statement.
    BP declined to comment.

    ConocoPhillips said that while it recognizes the role of human activity in global warming, “we continue to manage and have successfully reduced greenhouse gas emissions in our operations and have integrated climate-related activities and goals into our business planning,” according to a statement.
    Chevron said: “It is time for this waste of taxpayer money and judicial resources to end. Responsible leaders should engage in an honest conversation about the policy issues of climate change rather than filing lawsuits and vilifying the men and women who produce the reliable, affordable energy upon which we all depend.”

    New York sued in January, claiming the five oil companies are responsible for more than 11 percent of all the atmospheric carbon and methane pollution since the Industrial Revolution. The city argued that greenhouse gases produced by the use of the industry’s products constitute a “public nuisance” — an illegal threat to community welfare, such as a brothel, drug den or illegal hazardous waste dump — and “private nuisance,” an unreasonable interference with the use of someone else’s land.

    The city argued that oil companies denied findings of climate-change scientists despite knowing that the use of gas and oil posed “grave risk” to the planet. New York also claims the oil companies are liable for trespass, or the intrusion of increased heat, flooding and sea-level rise onto city property.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-19/new-york-s-global-warming-suit-against-oil-companies-thrown-out

    10

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    13 Jul: NewAmerican: Obama-era EPA Deal With UN to Impose Agenda 2030 Still in Force
    by Alex Newman
    The Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quietly signed a deal with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) vowing to cooperate on everything from climate change “education” to imposing the highly controversial UN Agenda 2030. The EPA-UNEP agreement, which has gone almost entirely unnoticed until now, bypasses normal constitutional and legislative procedures and facilitates what one leading critic described as the “globalization” of the U.S. Government. And so, even while President Donald Trump has announced that America would withdraw from the UN Paris Agreement on “global warming” and other UN schemes, federal bureaucrats are still dutifully working to implement them. The implications for sovereignty, self-government, and liberty are massive.

    The so-called “Memorandum of Understanding” (LINK) (MOU), which was sent to The New American magazine by a high-level source within the environmental movement, is supposed to “consolidate, further develop and intensify” the “cooperation” and “effectiveness” of the EPA and the UN in achieving what the document describes as “their common goals and objectives.” According to the agreement, the “UNEP and the EPA share common goals and objectives.” Those objectives include hampering American energy, subverting U.S. sovereignty, further undermining private-property rights, perpetuating poverty in the Third World, and much more, analysts said after reading the agreement. And under the plan, the EPA purports to have the power to cooperate with other governments and international organizations “to protect the environment globally,” it claimed in the MOU…
    https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/29531-obama-era-epa-deal-with-un-to-impose-agenda-2030-still-in-force

    00

    • #
      pat

      19 Jul: The Hill: As Trump abandons globalism, governors take to world stage
      By Stewart Patrick
      (Stewart Patrick is the James Binger senior fellow in global governance at the Council on Foreign Relations)
      As Donald Trump abdicates U.S. leadership and dismantles the democratic international order, prospects for global cooperation look bleak. Fortunately, America is more than Washington and the United States is more than the federal government. Around the nation, governors are going global. In states both red and blue, they are engaging governments abroad, partnering with foreign provinces, and promoting cross-border trade and action on climate change.
      The White House may be in retreat, but statehouses are not about to turn their back on globalization…

      At the forefront of this activism is the National Governors Association (NGA), which begins its annual summer meeting today in New Mexico. The organization is a venerable body, founded in 1908 by Teddy Roosevelt, then governor of New York. Until recently, it focused overwhelmingly on domestic matters. That has changed because the international has become the domestic…
      Beyond organizing trade and investment missions abroad and arranging visits from foreign delegations, they are lobbying the U.S. government and foreign governments to pursue policies to advance shared security, prosperity, and the well-being of the planet.
      Beyond these “push” factors has been the “pull” from abroad in the wake of Trump’s election…

      When Trump renounced the Paris Accord, Democratic governors Jerry Brown of California, Jay Inslee of Washington, and Andrew Cuomo of New York announced the formation of a climate alliance, pledging to stay “in” the pact. Several days later, Brown traveled to China to explore “bilateral” cooperation to mitigate global warming, receiving a welcome from President Xi Jinping that was fit for a head of state…

      In the past decade alone, note David Engstrom and Jeremy Weinstein of Stanford University, states across the nation have signed more than 200 compacts with foreign governments, ignoring requirements for Senate approval. Some of the most significant are regional cap and trade agreements linking American states to foreign governments and provinces…
      http://thehill.com/opinion/international/397906-as-trump-abandons-globalism-governors-take-to-world-stage

      4 Dec 2015: CFR: Stewart Patrick: Combating Climate Change Beyond Paris
      The UN climate talks in Paris are just one part of the international climate policy regime, write Stewart Patrick, director of the Program on International Institutions and Global Governance, and Research Associate Naomi Egel. In this post, part of our ongoing guest series on the Paris summit, they note other institutions contributing to the climate policy process and highlight several climate policy options from CFR’s Global Governance Monitor (LINK).
      More effective alternatives to the intergovernmental system include the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, a private-public partnership designed to curb short-lived pollutants and their associated health risks, and the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.

      New and Evolving International Institutions
      Intergovernmental bodies are also taking action on climate change. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) was founded in January 2009 as the first international body specifically mandated to advance renewable energy, and has been highly praised for its innovative approach in identifying best practices and developing new tools.

      Climate change is also increasingly addressed by a host of other international organizations whose mandates have evolved to include this challenge. Within the UN system alone, some twenty agencies work on this issue through their own specific lens, including the United Nations Environment Program, the Global Environment Facility, and the United Nations Development Program. Additionally, the World Bank has incorporated financing for mitigation and adaptation projects into its activities: at present, 21 percent of the Bank’s funding is climate related, totaling $10.3 billion a year. And in October 2015, the Bank pledged to increase its climate financing to up to $29 billion annually by 2020.
      https://www.cfr.org/blog/stewart-patrick-combating-climate-change-beyond-paris

      10

      • #
        pat

        19 Jul: Daily Caller: Trump Has Been Set Up, Framed And Relentlessly Persecuted By The American Intelligence Community
        by Sidney Powell
        http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/19/trump-has-been-set-up-framed-and-relentlessly-persecuted-by-the-american-intelligence-community/

        10

        • #
          pat

          re the Daily Caller writer, Sidney Powell:

          Sidney Powell, former federal prosecutor and veteran of 500 federal appeals, is the author of “LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.” She is a senior fellow of the London Center for Policy Research and senior policy adviser for America First.

          Amazon: Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice
          by Sidney Powell
          https://www.amazon.com/default/e/B00LF4P0T6?redirectedFromKindleDbs=true

          10

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            The friction and between Trump and the Deep State is now getting to a critical point. The hope is he wont buckle, as the Deep Staters ( shadow govt in effect ) are brutal in trying to maintain their control over the USA, and see Trump as a roadblock to their preferred modus operantii of war. This is why the Putin-Trump meeting has their heads exploding and going incandescent – it seemed the Deep State were setting Russia up for a war, and Trump comes along and demolishes it. The fact the lights went out is a pure power play to show the world they are in control. Call it what you will, but the USA is in a very bad spot right now. If Trump doesnt prevail, the Washington swamp creatures will demolish this planet….

            50

  • #
    • #
      Annie

      Oh, right. How much electricity is imported from Victoria when there is no wind or sun?

      50

      • #
        Annie

        Coal-fired, partially at least!

        30

        • #
          Dennis

          Apparently, I have noted reading various comments elsewhere, base load is no longer applicable, dispatchable is the future and no need for dirty old coal fired power stations here.

          31

          • #
            rollo

            Yes, let’s turn off all those dirty coal burners tomorrow! Baseload is an outdated concept according to Reneweconomy and others.

            31

      • #
        Robber

        Don’t forget SA also has gas and diesel – enough to run what’s left of industry, and build those diesel subs – come to think of it, why haven’t the greenies demanded those subs be powered by renewables?

        61

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    19 Jul: CNN Money: 24% of Tesla Model 3 orders have been canceled, analyst says
    by Jordan Valinsky
    https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/19/technology/business/tesla-downgrade/index.html

    19 Jul: Forbes: Tesla’s Struggles Are A Threat To The Future Of Electric Cars
    by Daniel Sperling
    (Dan Sperling is the Distinguished Blue Planet Prize Professor of Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy at the University of California, Davis)
    I don’t have any personal, professional, or financial interests in the success of the company. But as someone who has dedicated a career to studying electric vehicle (EV) technology and policy, I am confident that we need a strong private-sector leader like Tesla pulling EV technologies and markets forward in the United States.
    Such leadership has profound implications for ***climate change, pollution, and U.S. competitiveness in the global economy…

    The status of EVs is fragile, especially in the United States. EV market share has crept up to 1.4% nationwide. The Trump administration is threatening to freeze national fuel-efficiency and CO2 standards, which would undermine automaker investments in EVs. It is also threatening to block the zero-emission vehicle mandates in place in California and nine other states, further undermining investments…

    The success of EVs is crucial in so many ways — to the success of the U.S. auto industry, cleaning up our cities, and ***slowing climate change. So far, Tesla is the only company leading that charge.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielsperling/2018/07/19/depending-precariously-on-tesla/

    19 Jul: Electrek: Tesla had over 7,000 new orders (5,000 Model 3’s and 2,000 S/X) last week, says Elon Musk
    by Fred Lambert
    In a rare move, Tesla CEO Elon Musk has revealed the automaker’s new order breakdown from last week in order to dispel the notion that demand for the Model 3 is flattening.
    Musk says that Tesla received over 7,000 new orders: over 2,000 for Model S and Model X, and 5,000 for Model 3.
    The move comes after top Wall Street analyst Rajvindra Gill at Needham issued a new note to clients today in which he claimed that Tesla is getting more Model 3 cancellations than new orders…

    Some notes on the numbers: 2,000 orders for Model S and Model X vehicles in a week is what Tesla is trying to average globally, which is good.
    As for “5,000 Model 3 new net orders”, the “net” indicates that it is after cancellations, which undoes Gill’s point, but it is also important to note that it comes after Tesla opened the design studio to everyone in North America and stopped the reservation process in the market.
    Therefore, those new orders are likely only for North America. Tesla could also still be growing its backlog of reservations internationally…
    https://electrek.co/2018/07/19/tesla-model-3-s-x-new-orders-elon-musk/

    19 Jul: ZeroHedge: Tyler Durden: Why Are “Thousands” of Teslas Sitting In a Field in California?
    When Tesla finally met its Model 3 production run rate target, astute investors and analysts pointed out the use of the word “factory gated” in the company’s press release: “Not only did we factory gate 5000 Model 3’s, but we also achieved the S & X production target for a combined 7000 vehicle week!” Musk wrote in an email to his staff that week.
    It was a term that Tesla hadn’t used before…

    Now, thanks to a couple of sleuths on Twitter, we may have just found out what the term means. Twitter Tesla sleuth @ISpyTSLA, with the help of others, has been trying to figure out exactly where all these vehicles are winding up. @ISpyTSLA found that it appears that “thousands” of vehicles are being stored “in a field” 500 E Louise Ave, Lathrop, CA 95330…READ ALL
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-19/why-are-thousands-teslas-sitting-field-california-0

    20

  • #
    pat

    13 Jul: Courier Mail: Judith Kerr: Logan fire network takes on CSIRO over smoke alarm test data
    A LOGAN community organisation is challenging the government’s top scientific agency, the CSIRO, for endorsing a range of smoke alarms, it deems dangerous.
    Logan House Fire Support Network, founded by Crestmead husband-and-wife team Louie and Christine Naumovski, accused the CSIRO of endorsing unsafe smoke alarms.
    The couple, along with the World Fire Safety Foundation, also demanded the agency release the data on which it based its decision

    Mr Naumovski played a crucial role in 2016 in getting Queensland to make it mandatory for photoelectric smoke alarms in all houses.
    He took up that campaign after 11 people perished in a 2011 Slacks Creek fire, the greatest loss of life in a house fire in Australian history.

    Now Mr Naumovski is in another “David and Goliath” battle in the administrative appeals tribunal taking on the federal government for the release of CSIRO smoke alarm test data, from 1993 onwards.
    He claimed the data would show most smoke alarms in homes don’t activate in time to save lives.
    In 2016, his Freedom of Information request to CSIRO was for the agency to release data showing at “what levels of smoke do the ionisation smoke alarms activate when tested”.
    But CSIRO refused to release the tests, commissioned by manufacturers, saying it was protected by commercial confidentiality.

    “Our stance is, and always will be, public safety first and the public has a right to know if the product on their ceilings won’t alert them in time to get out of a fire,” Mr Naumovski said.
    “Our argument was there was no commercial confidence as the CSIRO is the only agency that tests smoke alarms for Australian Standards under AS3786-1993…
    “What we do know is that the ionisation smoke alarms activate between 40-60 per cent smoke obscuration … which is up to three times later than the safe limit and puts people’s lives at risk. If the public was told the dangers of their existing alarms they would switch to photoelectric as soon as possible.”

    Photoelectric alarms are compulsory in hospitals and hotels but Mr Naumovski said the ionisation alarms, which respond to flames but not smouldering, were common in homes — especially in Logan. The tribunal was due to make a decision on whether to release the data on Monday, July 9 but that date was put back to the end of the month.

    Mr Naumovski said since January there had been 62 structural fire call outs in Logan, 235 in southeast Queensland and 887 across the state…
    https://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/logan/logan-fire-network-takes-on-csiro-over-smoke-alarm-test-data/news-story/e3562a228fa2f7cd523a44ead0616593

    10

  • #
    pat

    comment in moderation re: Logan fire network takes on CSIRO over smoke alarm test data

    perfect spin from theirABC:

    20 Jul: ABC: Steel giant Bluescope turns to solar in largest power-purchasing deal of its kind
    ABC Illawarra By Gavin Coote
    Australia’s biggest steel company is investing in a major new solar farm in a bid to cut energy costs and improve reliability.

    Bluescope and ESCO Power signed a seven-year deal in Wollongong on Friday, in what is the country’s largest-ever solar power-purchasing agreement.
    It will result in the steelmaker underwriting the construction of a 500,000-panel solar farm at Finley in the NSW Riverina region

    The company had explored the possibility of having solar panels at its Port Kembla steelworks, but said the flat, open land at Finley was ideal for tapping into solar.
    Bluescope chief executive of steel products John Nowlan said power generated from the solar plant would meet 20 per cent of the company’s energy needs.
    He said it would help improve energy reliability and affordability at the Port Kembla steelworks.
    “As you can imagine, we’re a large user of electricity. What we’re balancing is the need for reliable power, low-cost power and clean power, so this is a step in the right direction on all those fronts,” Mr Nowlan said.

    Reducing costs by saving on electricity
    ***Mr Nowlan said while other power sources were vital for supplying the company’s round-the-clock operations, solar would form a crucial part of the energy mix…

    “Over the last couple of years our electricity costs have more than doubled, and they’ve gone up by something like $50 million over the last 12 months or so.
    “That’s a significant increase in our costs, and what we’re trying to do is put downward pressure on our energy costs, and this arrangement helps us to do that.”..

    ***Power-purchasing agreements involving solar power are growing in popularity, with Telstra striking a deal last year with a major solar farm in Queensland.
    NSW Energy Minister Don Harwin said it was a good example of the private sector taking action in arresting rising power costs.
    “Power-purchasing agreements are a way of the future and this one, the largest one ever signed, is something that we really all should be very happy about,” Mr Harwin said.
    “I would encourage more industrial and commercial users to look at doing this in the future.”…

    Large-scale solar farms have been popping up right across inland NSW, and Mr Harwin said solar, along with hydro and wind, would lead the energy transition…
    “But it is of course intermittent, so it needs to be backed up by firming capacity, either by storage or other means…

    “I’m confident that we’re in a good place going into that [COAG] meeting, and that all of the other state energy ministers, no matter which party they’re from, are approaching this exercise with good faith.
    “Because what we want more than anything else is energy that’s clean, affordable and reliable.”…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-20/steel-giant-bluescope-turns-to-solar-to-reduce-energy-costs/10018532

    10

  • #

    [...] Prompted by this short story I went to the source (Matthew C Nisbett 2018) to research the Follow the Money chapter in my work in progress. My thesis is that the funding for alarmism outguns the corporate funding for climate realist groups by a factor of 10 or maybe 50 or even 100. This is actually inventing the wheel that was made by Jo Nova and others but it has to be said again to update the situation and spread the word. This is her latest contribution. [...]

    00