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

Abbott wins this round: Turnbull pulls Paris Agreement from NEG, but still wants to meet it “for free”

Too little, too late, not enough

Turnbull has to go.

Faced with a possible and imminent challenge from Peter Dutton, a limping Malcolm Turnbull has done the barest minimum just to stay in power. He has capitulated, and won’t try to mandate the Paris agreement through law, but he still wants the nation to meet the Paris agreement. If he had pushed it through Parliament he would have faced a leadership challenge for sure, and pundits are saying it’s still likely. How long will Liberal lemmings allow him to lead and give up the easiest, well trodden and winning election strategy?

Tony Abbott is leading the nation from the back bench.

When will the Liberals grow a spine and dump the Paris agreement completely?

Most of the party is too afraid to even talk about how much warming humans may be causing lest they be called a “denier” for doubting that it is not exactly the same as an unaudited, unelected and unaccountable foreign committee says. The nation can’t even have a sensible public discussion on climate change.

As Andrew Bolt says Turnbull’s leadership is now terminal. His clumsy gambit to present the NEG as a done deal too early shows how non-consultative he is, how bad his judgement is, and makes those that defended it look like fools.

The new “Ministerial Agreement” arrangement may be worse because it probably suits the Deep State even better. Decisions about whether to proceed will be done by a Minister advised by unelected committees using models based on a bunch of assumptions about “the cost”. Turnbull has led the party for three years while electricity costs have jumped seismically and now he just wants to keep prices at this obscene level?

The Australian:

Instead [of being legislated in the NEG] the 2015 climate change commitment will be mandated through Ministerial order and only after advice from the competition regulator that it wouldn’t increase power prices.

A condition of the order would be that the advice would have to be tabled in Parliament.

 ABC viewers blind-sided by reality again

On Tuesday The ABC news audience heard what an unqualified success it was for Turnbull to get the NEG through the party meeting. It turns out this was a complete bluff — most of the party didn’t even know what was in the plan (the Labor Party got a copy before them). The ABC didn’t point out the obvious — that speaking up against it, or threatening to cross the floor was a major risk, so Turnbull’s gambit was that he might get the illusion of support and unity by railroading it past the party in a high stakes situation. Instead it took other journalists at The Australian and on radio — Ray Hadley — to ask the right questions and expose how deep the resentment was and how fragile was the “unity”. So fragile that three days after his big win Turnbull’s head was almost on the block. We pay a billion dollars for blind propaganda.

The NEG was not about electricity costs, it was (is) primarily about emissions:

The purpose of the NEG was first and foremost to lock in emissions reductions.  Fines for failure to cut emissions are ten one hundred times higher than fines for failing to provide electricity.

Daniel Wild, IPA:

The NEG is functional equivalent to the Renewable Energy Target, an Emissions Trading Scheme, an Emissions Intensity Scheme, and a carbon tax. It uses government regulation to support weather-dependent energy generators, such as wind and solar, at the expense of coal.

“Under the NEG, energy retailers could face a $100 million fine for not meeting their emissions reductions requirements, but just as little as a $1 million fine for not meeting their reliability requirements. This means the government is favouring emissions reductions over reliability by a factor of 100-to-one.”

“The goals of reducing electricity prices and carbon emissions at the same time are contradictory. The emissions reduction component will mean that energy retailers will be forced to acquire energy from higher-cost sources than what would otherwise be the case,” said Mr Wild.

Download the IPA Parliamentary Research Brief recommending that the Australian government dump the Paris Agreement and the NEG.

See Pat at comment #2:

Sky News: Turnbull’s NEG changes could make matters worse: Craig Kelly

Prominent conservative backbencher Craig Kelly says Malcolm Turnbull’s reported changes to the National Energy Guarantee could pave the way for a higher emissions reduction target under a future Labor government…
Reportedly, the 26 per cent renewable energy target will not be regulated and not legislated. Mr Kelly has told Sky News this change could ‘make the situation worse,’ as it would allow Labor to easily change the target should it win office.
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_5823292272001   12mins 33secs: 17 Aug:

Facebook: Peta Credlin

h/t Beowulf, Graeme Campbell. Pat.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (84 votes cast)
Abbott wins this round: Turnbull pulls Paris Agreement from NEG, but still wants to meet it "for free", 9.7 out of 10 based on 84 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ybccwe8z

191 comments to Abbott wins this round: Turnbull pulls Paris Agreement from NEG, but still wants to meet it “for free”

  • #
    TdeF

    I think the key was Turnbull’s plummeting popularity, even against deeply unpopular Union lackey and double assassin Shorten. However once Turnbull began to be compared to Shorten, the gambit of two Labor/Green parties falls apart. Even Labor shill Peter Van Onsolen was scathing about the man who wasn’t there. All parties now see him as useless, ineffectual, a waste of space. An empty smirk. That hurt his ego, so he decided to make a run for fame and glory with the UN and his beloved Emissions Trading System. He will go down in history as a failure in the two things he set himself as goals, an ETS and a Republic. Any of the good stuff goes to the credit of Tony Abbott. That hurts too.

    What is so worrying is that so many in cabinet hide when it suits them behind their Westminster traditions of cabinet unity, something which never stopped them when plotting outrageously against Tony Abbott and undermining him at every opportunity. Cabinet leaked like a sieve, but all of that was Julie Bishop. After Bishop and Carr, I have to agree that Tony Abbott would make the best Foreign Minister in Australian history.

    433

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      TdeF says:

      After Bishop and Carr, I have to agree that Tony Abbott would make the best Foreign Minister in Australian history.

      To clarify. I’m sure you mean “compared with Bishop and Carr”.

      And note that I use “with” not “to”.

      142

      • #
        TdeF

        Agreed. It was not meant to be a compliment to either Bishop or Carr. Perhaps “after the absolutely disastrous performances of Carr and Bishop as Foreign Minister”.

        The very odd thing about Carr is his recent conversion to Anti-Semitism, as with Jeremy Corbyn. Stalin and Hitler were both anti-semitic but it is now very fashionable among socialists and communists. Again. Very much the thinking at the ABC as well where Hamas are the victims, not the aggressors. In the Australian parliament it is obvious that Michael Danby is being forced out of the Labor party, the only Jewish MP.

        Who decides all this group think? It seems coordinated on an international level. Why the push against Israel? Is it all oil money?

        181

        • #
          el gordo

          Jewish involvement in the Russian Revolution isn’t a myth, they were active up to WW2, Hitler referred to them as Judeo Bolsheviks and Churchill said they were ‘bad’ Jews.

          The green/left in Australia is not anti semitic, they are only against the Israeli state for reasons too complex to discuss here.

          92

          • #
            C. Paul Barreira

            Someone once remarked, from memory it was in October 2002, that anti-Zionism is ninety per cent. antisemitism. Nothing I’ve seen since has led me to think otherwise.

            50

          • #
            James Murphy

            I disagree – the party stance may be based on whatever constitutes sound reasoning for being “anti-Israel”, but supporters frequently use terms which are unmistakably anti-semitic. Replace the word ‘jew’, or similar with any racial descriptor you like (except ‘white’), and it’d be enough to send these same people running to the AHRC.

            40

            • #
              el gordo

              Fair enough, I’m only going on observation.

              What I can say is that they turn a blind eye to racial gangs misbehaving, as seen in Victoria, saying its a beat up.

              30

        • #
          Mark A

          Michael Danby the only Jewish MP.

          Not at all, there are a number of Jewish labor MPs, the shadow attorney gen. is one of them, for instance.

          50

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Who decides all this group think? It seems coordinated on an international level. Why the push against Israel? Is it all oil money?

          That’s a very good question. I suspect you can trace it back to the Socialist International and the Fabian Society.

          https://www.conservapedia.com/Left-wing_Anti-Semitism

          And, while I rarely give credence to the views of terrorists, this one seems to be on the money:

          Auschwitz meant that six million Jews were killed, and thrown on the waste-heap of Europe, for what they were considered: money-Jews. Finance capital and the banks, the hard core of the system of imperialism and capitalism, had turned the hatred of men against money and exploitation, and against the Jews. . . . Antisemitism is really a hatred of capitalism.

          —Ulrike Meinhof, left-wing German terrorist of the 1970s

          40

        • #
          yarpos

          I am constantly amazed that Carr has any credibility. NSW is still emerging from his “legacy” What is his claim to fame?

          40

    • #
      Geoff

      Turnbull until recently was seen to be silly but honest. His popularity versus Shorten was merely that of an honest persons versus a dishonest person.

      Various share trades done by Turnbull relatives and close confidants pre and post climate change announcements by Turnbull are painting a starkly different picture.

      Turnbull leaks to the media, constantly. Leaking privy cabinet information has consequences.

      It leads to insider trading of various forms.

      170

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Leaking privy cabinet information has consequences.’

        It does, but without proof its only hearsay.

        50

  • #
    pat

    following covers much of what is discussed by jo and others here, including important reminder electricity market is only one element of Paris; transport and agriculture to come. Germany missing Paris target; dishonesty of MSM in singling out Abbott and reporting Malcolm’s so-called success. plus much more:

    VIDEO ABOVE HEADLINE: 12mins33secs: 17 Aug: Sky News: Trunbull’s NEG changes could make matters worse: Kelly
    Prominent conservative backbencher Craig Kelly says Malcolm Turnbull’s reported changes to the National Energy Guarantee could pave the way for a higher emissions reduction target under a future Labor government…
    Reportedly, the 26 per cent renewable energy target will not be regulated and not legislated. Mr Kelly has told Sky News this change could ‘make the situation worse,’ as it would allow Labor to easily change the target should it win office.
    https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_5823292272001

    posting FB for the replies:

    Facebook: Peta Credlin
    In case you missed it WATCH: Prominent conservative backbencher Craig Kelly has told Peta Credlin Malcolm Turnbull’s reported changes to the National Energy Guarantee could ‘make things worse’ and lead to a higher emissions reduction target under a future Labor government
    https://www.facebook.com/PetaCredlin/

    170

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Agriculture is targeted because it was the only sector of the economy, in many countries, not just Australia, which was still dominated by small business capitalism.

      When you look at the results of the policies which the elitist National Farmers’ Federation has pursued over the last 35 years, you have to say that the Marxists have just about achieved their goal of abolishing private management of industry.

      Higher energy costs are impacting severely on many agricultural enterprises, again putting may out of business, and forcing the price to consumers to rise further.

      20

  • #
    Peter C

    IS JONOVA THE HOTTEST POLITCAL SITE IN AUSTRALIA!

    I have been working all day, so I have had only moment to keep up. So many posts. What is going on?

    It seem like the TURBULL Energy Plan hangs in the Balance at this moment and Jo Nova is not letting Go.

    As she says:

    A perfectly Good Civilisation is Going to Waste!

    Why? Because of the Turnbull NEG plan. That is why.

    It has to GO DOWN.

    For the sake of our country, For all of us.

    We CANNOT PAY ANYMORE. We are Taxed enough already.

    512

    • #
      beowulf

      I think we are all getting excited prematurely. Turnbull has not given ground, he has merely done a side step to give the appearance of change without moving an inch, in fact perhaps actually taking ground instead.

      He has done the Brer Rabbit stunt: “Please don’t make me do it by regulation . . . oh, OK you win . . . we’ll do it by regulation”. Snigger, snigger . . . suckers. He has done exactly what Shorten wanted probably as part of a deal with Labor to bypass the Libs just as TdeF said somewhere in the last thread.

      We have been conned again.

      380

      • #
        toorightmate

        Agree,
        Our slimy, sneaky Prime Minister and his entourage are still up to no good.

        230

      • #
        Bobl

        Yes, it needs to say that the reduction target must be set at a level that produces the minimum consumer cost impact (ie: zero). The fines for missing emission targets must be zero or low, no more than 20% of the fine for missing reliability targets. And there needs to be an affordability benchmark… IE unsubsidized cost of generation must be lower that $70 per MWh to qualify for the market.

        Personally I think it needs to be scrapped though.

        91

        • #
          Phillthegeek

          Bobl, Truffles bending over even further or using better lube is not going to save his job or this Govt. Now they are actually talking command economy stuff that the Commonwealth does not actually have the powers to do. That’s just digging the hole deeper.

          80

          • #
            el gordo

            I was surprised to hear them say that they were going to heavy the free marketeers and force prices down. What next, a five year plan?

            ‘….using better lube is not going to save his job or this Govt.’

            Turnbull must go or the Coalition will lose the next election, but my guesstimate is that he’ll give up the big chair after the NEG and tax cuts (for the big end of town) go belly up.

            Now with Dutton at the helm and a revitalised front bench, the Coalition should win in a landslide with the help of Rupert Murdoch.

            80

      • #
        Graham Richards

        The other sucker punch is yet to come. He wants a price cap on energy pricing. Pull the other one. If prices are forced down & capped who’s paying the subsidies??? Government taking it from taxes?
        That’s where the carbon tax on fuel (petrol, diesel) will kick in. Remember any little increase in price pushes up GST as well. That starts the price cycleeautifully! Anything transported by road increases in price & remember the GST also rises.
        The subsidies have to go, along with Turnbull, or the whole bloody cycle starts again. He knows he ( & Shorten) have push this along a bit more to make it completely irreversible. Our conservatives have to rid us of the scourge & the system behind behind it. We cannot afford to have 2 Labor Partie. They’ll kill our country!

        10

    • #

      Kudos to Jo Nova, send chocolates denizens,
      and letters to yer guvuhmint representatives.

      ‘Once more into the breach!’

      212

    • #
      Tony K

      Beowulf is correct. Turnbull and his team have the ABC on their side. Labor and the Greens might publicly criticise the NEG, but it’s a vehicle to a wide range of new government tentacles throughout Australian society, and its attributes and possibilities would be far too enticing for them not to support. First and foremost, the NEG is a mechanism for central control. It might not be labelled as a Carbon Tax, but it is designed to be and do most of what a carbon tax plans to accomplish; enable central control over economic development. The offer for the mix of renewable energy to be regulated rather than legislated would be seen as a golden egg in the eyes of a green believer.
      Comments supporting a limited option to depose Turnbull are IMO, ill-conceived and lacking in vision. Turnbull is just another climate change believer. There are millions to take his place. The Australian love affair with renewable energy has been tolerated, supported and encouraged by idealists for far too long. The reality is that it’s still not seen for what it is. Instead, Australians have this fanciful view of how they’d like to see the world with rainbows and unicorns, windmills and solar panels with free energy for everyone.
      The Lib/Nat coalition needs to re-evaluate its values and plans for governance. Assuming they manage to eradicate the NEG now, the Hydra will only come back with more heads in the future while the RET is in place. Perhaps the realisation of the impending doom at the hands of the RET is starting to dawn within their ranks, but somehow I doubt it. The ganGreen is throughout the media, Canberra and all government departments and in every state and local municipality. It needs to be cut-off from funding and support. The ABC is a great organisation. Sell it off. Let its green, renewable prognostications stand on its own funding. Demolish the multitude of government watchdog organisations which supposedly have power to tell the energy companies how they will generate electricity and how they will distribute it and sell it. REQUIRE the electricity companies to supply power 24/7 and let them determine how they will accomplish this. There are big tasks ahead, but I doubt the coalition has the fortitude to carry them through. At present, the group can’t see past the approaching massacre at the polls with Turnbull as leader. The NEG is just a side topic.

      262

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Turnbull and his team have the ABC on their side.’

        Yes but we have Murdoch on our side, we can’t lose.

        44

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        The best solution would be to abolish the RET and the purchase guarantees for renewables forthwith, and pay out such reasonable compensation as is proper.

        And it’s way past time to advertise the fact that the RET was “protected” form Abbott’s landslide mandate by Clive Palmer and Al Gore. Along with many of the spending cuts.

        Al Gore through Clive Palmer has been a key player in the bastardisation of Australia’s politics over the last four years.

        10

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      But Oeter, you ignore the reality that under Socialism, the middle class must be ( CO2) taxed out of existance, so that everyine is equally muserable.

      That is the ideligical reality of Socialism…

      Now ponder the Christian Russian Tzar and his family, murdered in cold blood by the Bolsheviks in 1918…..or Maos reeducation camps, or Stalun starving millions in the Ukraine to death…..bet the lefty teachers dont teach that in schools and unis any more…

      171

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Sorry…”Peter” not “Oeter”…. fat fingers on my behalf. :-)

        20

      • #
        el gordo

        Steve lets not forget how Mao allowed 25 million peasants to starve, so that he could have good export numbers to impress the world.

        We need to have a talk about agrarian socialism, which is not to be confused with Cultural Marxism. Our roots are in 17th century England, they called themselves Diggers.

        42

  • #
    Delta

    So if the NEG still gets up, without Malcolm’s emissions target legislated, how would that work? It seems to me that there is still an emissions target only perhaps undefined to be set later by a committee. But wait on, the emissions target has already been decided to meet the Paris agreement. So would there be any difference – nothing that I can see. We would be stuck with Malcolm’s ETS with little to nothing changed and the electricity grid and the economy well on a road to destruction.

    A footnote – how despicable to shop your policies with the Opposition before your own party!

    320

  • #
    pat

    followup to UK Tele piece I posted on jo’s previous thread.
    the arrogance of Richard Black! why the need to cap electricity prices, or all the talk of fuel poverty, need to change suppliers, etc., if electricity bills haven’t gone up?

    16 Aug: BusinessGreen: Madeleine Cuff: Green Brexit? Iain Duncan Smith calls for carbon floor price to be scrapped
    The UK should use its exit from the EU to “reform” climate change policy, starting with the scrapping of the carbon floor price, according to senior Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith.
    Writing in The Telegraph today, the former Tory leader and leading Brexiteer said the removal of the carbon floor price – a policy widely regarded as central to driving coal off the UK power grid – would cut more than £1bn in costs for the energy sector, resulting in savings which could be passed on to domestic customers.

    The carbon floor price was introduced by the coalition government in 2013 to act as a top-up tax to the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS), setting a minimum price for greenhouse gas emissions emitted by the power sector. It is currently set at £18 per tonne until 2020.

    The scheme has been hailed as hugely effective by green campaigners, who argue that it has tilted the economics of the energy system away from carbon intensive coal and towards renewables, nuclear, and gas. Since its introduction, coal’s share of the UK electricity mix has dropped from 40 per cent in 2013 to around seven per cent last year, and less than one per cent this summer.
    However, environmental policies remain in the firing line for many Brexiteers, who accuse them of driving up costs and undermining UK competitiveness…

    (Duncan Smith) went on to claim that “such a policy could release more than £1bn in costs, including millions to help domestic users of electricity, tired of seeing their bills rise”.

    ***Energy bills have in fact fallen in real terms by around £115 since the Climate Change Act was passed in 2008, according to the government’s climate watchdog the Committee on Climate Change, and last year alone fell by £6, according to the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU).
    Richard Black, director of the ECIU, said Duncan Smith’s arguments were “ridiculous from the outset”. “The carbon floor price is a unilaterally British policy, so leaving the EU has absolutely nothing to do with whether the floor price stays or goes,” he told BusinessGreen. “He’s also wrong in asserting that energy bills are rising, because they’re not. The average domestic energy bill fell by £6 last year, and is down by more than £100 per year since the Climate Change Act came in a decade ago.”

    He also warned that axing the UK carbon tax would have a direct impact on Treasury finances. “Mr Duncan Smith completes his hat-trick by failing to mention that removing the carbon floor price would reduce the Treasury’s income while increasing the amount of subsidies paid to renewable generators,” Black added. “It would be really useful if backbench politicians occasionally did some research before launching into energy issues rather than believing everything that contrarian-minded ‘think-tanks’ tell them.”…
    The Treasury was considering a response to Duncan Smith’s comments as this story was going to press…

    However, the piece will further fuel fears among green businesses and NGOs that hardline Brexiters want to use the UK’s exit from the EU as an opportunity to roll back environmental regulations and emissions standards. For example, in a speech earlier this year former Foreign Secretary and leading Leave campaigner Boris Johnson hinted the UK could be willing to dilute environmental protections post-Brexit, while many back bench Eurosceptics have railed for years against EU climate and energy efficiency regulations.

    (LOL) But such a stance is not supported by all Brexit-backing politicians. In a piece for the Daily Mail today, former Conservative leader Michael Howard argued this summer’s heatwave should prompt the UK to take bolder action on climate change, insisting that to “listen, evaluate and act” on climate science is fully in line with Conservative values…

    Although Duncan Smith has no formal position in Prime Minister May’s government, he is an influential figure in the Conservative party and his comments once again highlight the risk Brexit could upset the political consensus on the UK’s response to climate change. And calls for a rethink of UK climate policy could also further complicate the already delicate Brexit negotiations with the EU, given Brussels has insisted that the UK maintaining strong measures on climate change and wider environmental issues is a red line for any future trade deal.
    https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news-analysis/3061210/green-brexit-iain-duncan-smith-calls-for-carbon-floor-price-to-be-scrapped

    30

  • #
    NB

    Seems amazing to me that a politician would sacrifice government and country for something so dubious as the Paris agreement. I’d love to know why Turnbull is so willing to lose all for it.
    TdeF proposes that it is that ‘he decided to make a run for fame and glory with the UN’. But what can be behind that? Surely he is aware of the absurdity of the UN. There has to be more to it than that…? Turnbull’s insistence is truly baffling.

    212

    • #
      ROM

      NB @ # 6

      We have had a very similar example before us for over a century past.

      “Dedicated”, note the “Dedicated” or maybe fanatical will do, communists would work for decades to get themselves into position without ever revealing their true beliefs and motives, where they would finally have the power to both destroy the capitalist system from an internal position and begin to shift the whole political and economic and social system of a nation over to what they believed in which was Communism as we know it.

      I think we are seeing an example of this type of mentality in Turnbull given his recent actions and decisions re emmissions and the Paris forelock tugging mentality .

      In short and deeply hidden to the extent that even he mightn’t realise how locked in he is to the Climate Change Cultist ideology that he is now following a similar path to those dedicated communists [ who are still there , deep and hidden in the various innumerable branches of the green movement, multitudes of organisations being the hall mark of a communistic movement ] .
      In Turnbulls case, he is totally locked into and has become a powerful pawn and an intergral player in the elitist based Paris Climate Change Mafiosa with all the serious for Australia, nation wide connations that implies.

      192

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Rom you are correct.

        One the main documented aims of the USA Communist party was to infiltrate basically everything. I suspect commies are the same the world over…..

        111

    • #
      Dennis

      Many of the answers are recorded in the history timeline commencing during his Sydney Grammar School student days …

      http://www.stopturnbull.com

      90

    • #
      angry

      I suspect that he personally stands to gain financially from this carbon tax…………

      140

      • #
        sophocles

        Angry @ # 6.3 said:

        I suspect that he personally stands to gain financially from this carbon tax

        He’s an ex-merchant banker, ergo: what is there to Suspect? You can expect it.

        30

    • #
      Mal

      Follow his personal ambition or follow the money.
      Is he, like Rudd, expecting some UN position to satisfy his ego, or does he or his mates stand to make substantial financial gain from this legislation?
      As an intelligent man who had the interest of the country as his priority, there is no way he would be supporting this economy killing legislation.

      70

  • #
    Robert R

    All of this…..emissions target, climate change, CO2 causing global warming, useless wind generators………..all such a monumental scam!!!!!!
    What is behind all this scam and how did it get to this dreadful level of influence in our great country now at diabolical risk as a result?

    252

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    If you fabricate a rigid component into a flexible frame, you will either break the rigid component or distort the rest of the frame.
    In neither case will the product work as designed, or, if organic, as evolved.
    The rest of the world can’t figure out why Australia is doing this to itself; it seems to me the universal opinion that when we meet Aussies they are real nice folks.

    150

  • #
    Graham Richards

    It’s perfectly obvious from all the rotten policies that Turnbull is up to no good. Take your eyes off him for 10 minutes & he’ll be away cooking up more obnoxious bloody ideas to screw the country over.
    He was one of the architects of the treasonous plan to hand our immigration policies over to the UN. Just for that he should spend time behind bars, let alone remain in office with his grubby paws on the levers of power.
    The NEG is a front for the full implementation of the Paris Accord. Both must be consigned to the shredders. Leave either any where on the legislative shelves means it only needs to be dusted off by the ALP should they somehow sneak into power. That’s not a risk to be taken lightly.
    Shorten & the CFMEU would just love to haul it out & agree with the Coalitions dormant policies.
    Shred it all & get rid of the dross behind it all. That means all of them. Only the can we sleep well again.

    362

    • #
      beowulf

      True, but shredding the Paris Accord will not be enough. We must salt the earth from which it grew by way of a massive popular rejection of it at the next election; we must make its political stench so foul that no party will ever dare go near it or anything like it again.

      I hope the rebel Libs have someone who is a blistering orator, because they are going to need one to be heard over the screeching of the radical Left and the money-trough dwellers.

      251

      • #
        el gordo

        There are no powerful orators amongst the ginger group, but I have a strong conviction that Dutton is the man with the greatest potential to annihilate the Opposition.

        As an ex copper he has experience dealing with ratbags and won’t have any trouble destroying Bill’s reputation, but not so much as to allow Albo to take his place before the election.

        Dutton is affectionately known around Parliament as Mr Potato Head.

        120

        • #
          Phillthegeek

          The objective reality is that in the seat next to his in QLD, the Lib primary vote has a 2 in front of it. :)

          61

          • #
            el gordo

            Good point, his seat is marginal, so back to plan B.

            ‘As Peter Dutton is forced to play down a leadership challenge, Tony Abbott has criticised the PM’s Paris target backdown.’ Oz

            20

            • #
              Phillthegeek

              Yup, Tones as PM is the best option for the country. :)

              30

              • #
                el gordo

                The latest rumour is that spud has gone to water, if this turns out to be true then I’ll second the motion.

                10

              • #
                Phillthegeek

                das UberPotatoFuhrer has declared his support for Turnbull. Obviously about to knife him. :)

                20

              • #
                el gordo

                He can afford to play the loyalty game, we expect nothing less from a Cabinet Minister, but then he already knows the leadership is his whenever he decides to move.

                10

          • #
            Greebo

            True, but don’t forget there was a 3.45% swing against him in Turnbull’s ridiculous DD Election. A change away from Turnbull might just reverse that.

            10

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Fraud! Fraud! fraud

      Jo, to me #9 looks counterproductive. Heavy stuff! 36 green thumbs, too. Don’t like it!

      00

  • #

    Energy starvation is just the first step.

    Then it’s: blur all traditional lines and roles, impose a new demographic, depopulate, urbanise and control in smart cities with smart cards, smart devices, smart appliances and smart transport. Just download the apps. This delicious existence can by yours with only a few billion deaths.

    They used to make scary novels and movies about this sort of thing. Now we just turn on a TV and listen to the smirking Malcolm Turnbull or Christina Figueres, that lady with the particularly cruel face. (They like to emphasise the cheery results of globalism rather than the means, for some reason.)

    My God we had all best wake up in a hurry.

    240

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Its all about control, which is Socialism….

      We live in an open air prison now.

      Christians know Jesus is coming back a 2nd time, and by the look of things cant happen soon enough….

      115

    • #
      Annie

      I used to think the James Bond themes were off the planet. I’m now thinking, looking at Soros and co., that they weren’t too far off present reality. :(

      111

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    When politicians spend their time at work micromanaging a non-existent problem like Man made global warming, it is a sure sign that they are neglecting their designated duties.

    The country is a shambles.

    Major cities are clogged with traffic.
    Universities are full to the brim with people studying an infinite variety of Social Justice courses.
    Our high schools are an international embarrassment after decades of laissez faire coursework and appalling standards of discipline.
    Too many are unemployed.
    Our industrial base has been severely cut.
    We no longer refine our own oil.
    Australian youth mental illness figures are a disgrace.
    There appears to be no planning for anything in the future except the idiotic Snowy hydro and French diesel Submarines.
    We allow profiteers to sell our natural gas overseas at a great profit and complain that we don’t have gas to use here.
    I’m sure I missed something, but …….

    But it’s all O.K.because they are working really hard to get CO2 under control.
    That’s really really important.

    The United Nations Said So.

    444. T

    331

  • #
    pat

    healthcare/aviation? nah. CAGW mob want all the cash:

    15 Aug: Edie.net: The £1bn opportunity: How new Government funding could spur the low-carbon transition
    After the Government announced that it will pour £1bn of funding into innovative research and development projects across the UK, edie explores five areas of the green economy which could use a funding boost if the nation is to reach future carbon targets.
    After recently investing £180m in the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult and Centre for Process Innovation, the Treasury announced on Friday (August 10) that it will assign an extra £780m to the UK’s catapult centres as the Government strives to meet the aims of its Industrial and Clean Growth strategies. Combined, this brings total Government investment into catapult centres to almost £1bn.

    The fresh investment – which is the largest the Government has made into innovation research and development projects in four decades – is set to benefit aspects of the economy ***ranging from healthcare to aviation. However, the deal could also fast-track the nation’s efforts to meet future carbon budgets, by targeting solutions in the renewable energy, green aerospace and energy systems spheres.

    But of course, the issues which these projects seek to tackle will form just a small part of the sustainability challenges which the Government is facing as it seeks to limit the UK’s annual emissions to 57% below 1990 levels by the year 2032 and 80% by 2050…

    1) Carbon capture and storage (CCS)
    However, ministers have faced criticism over its handling of CCS projects since closing the £1bn competition fund in 2015, with critics claiming that the decision could cost the UK an additional £30bn if it is to meet its 2050 carbon targets…

    2) Decarbonising heat
    Nonetheless, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has found that the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) is set to install barely one-fifth of the 513,000 new renewable and low-carbon heating systems which were promised to be delivered by the scheme.
    Through the Clean Growth Strategy, the Government has committed to spending £4.5bn on projects which support renewable and low-carbon heat, including £184m for innovation programmes. However, with the cumulative additional cost of decarbonising the UK’s heating system by 2050 estimated to be as high as £450bn, green groups are continuing to call for additional funding…

    3) Greening the built environment
    In a bid to achieve these aims, the Treasury has aside around £3.6bn of investment to upgrade around 500,000 homes through the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) scheme, while ministers last year struck an agreement with the construction industry to halve emissions in the built environment over the next eight years.
    Nonetheless, the UK’s built environment sector, specifically the homebuilding sector, has been named by the CCC as a climate change laggard in the wake of the Government’s decisions to cancel plans to make new houses zero carbon and to axe home insulation incentives..

    4) Electrifying transport
    After failing to achieve the global average of 2.81% renewables mix in transport in 2015 – with a proportion of just 2.31% according to the UNSD – the UK Government has launched a £1bn support scheme for ultra-low emissions vehicles to support its 2040 phase-out for sales of new petrol and diesel cars.
    It has additionally claimed that it will pour £840m of public funding into low-carbon transport innovation to accelerate new fuel uses through the Clean Growth Strategy…
    However, with research repeatedly concluding that slow infrastructure investment may hamper electric vehicle (EV) adoption in the UK, calls are now being made for the Government to do more to support the transition away from petrol and diesel ahead of its 2040 ban.

    5) Recycling infrastructure improvements
    Compounded by the UK’s aim to phase-out use of certain types of plastic by 2042, the likes of the Foodservice Packaging Association, Incpen and WRAP have campaigned for a reform of the existing Packaging Recovery Note (PRN) system to increase funding for recycling infrastructure. For the UK, the cost of purchasing PRNs is around €20 per tonne of packaging, but other European nations have an average of around €150 per tonne.
    Producer Responsibility Obligations (PROs) from UK businesses, which create a legal obligation for packaging producers to ensure that a proportion of their marketed products are recovered and recycled, currently contribute to just 10% of the cost of waste disposal, with taxpayers paying the remaining 90%. A revamped investment approach could set the UK on a new trajectory for waste management; one that champions indigenous, closed-loop solutions.
    https://www.edie.net/news/11/Billion-pound-opportunity–how-new-government-funding-could-spur-the-low-carbon-transition/

    50

    • #
      Spetzer86

      On (4), how are they going to power those EVs? At a bet, not with solar and seems like the wind stopped for a few days in the UK not that long ago. Be a lot of unpowered lithium sitting around on the city streets after a bit.

      90

  • #
    ROM

    Delta @ #4

    “how despicable to shop your policies with the Opposition before your own party!”
    .

    Something I really have had trouble getting my mind around is that somebody let alone the supposed leader of a nation should be so low in his personal morals and ethics that he would even think of stooping to this abysmal level of a complete lack of any moral intergrity in that he sells out his political party members to the opposition to seemingly gain some personal benefit and kudos for himself alone as a “successful” agent of the Paris climate catastrophe cartel .

    But Turnbull is a banker so have a look at the Australian bankers moral and ethical culture as demonstrated in the Royal Commission you will get some idea of the complete lack of any moral and ethical integrity in any of them.

    And the higher you go, the worse it gets with Turnbull at the top of the heap.

    With Turnbull and his banking and insurance mates as examples of the ruling elites of this nation, is it any wonder so many of us believe we are going down the gurgler of national irrelevance in the world of nations.

    262

    • #
      ROM

      There is of course a possible and far more prosaic reason for Turnbull actions .

      Its called “Occam’s Razor”, the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct explanation.

      In the case of Turnbull , it could be that he knows he is finshed politically regardless so he has decided to take his revenge out on his own political compatriots whom he blames for his political descent and oncoming poilitical eclipse , by undermining them and making damn sure they won’t get back into power.
      And from Turnbull’s perspective, a hope that a lot of them have the trauma of being wiped out at the next election and losing their seats and can therefore never get back into politics.

      190

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        A pretty cynical view ROM. However, I find it compelling.

        Sad isn’t it. Turnbull has a mental health issue that he needs help with.

        140

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Communists are outcome, not morals driven. There is your answer.

      91

  • #
    pat

    what a grand plan!

    16 Aug: Bloomberg: Canada, U.K. Plan the First Paris Climate Deal Carbon Trades
    By Mathew Carr; With assistance by Brian Parkin, Jesper Starn, Josh Wingrove, Jonas O Bergman, and Christopher Flavelle
    Canada and the U.K. are among six countries preparing the first carbon trades under the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change, part of an effort to unlock as much as $4 billion for the fight against global warming.
    The nations are assessing projects to cut greenhouse-gases in exchange for emission credits that can be used to comply with goals they set under the United Nations pact sealed in 2015, according to the World Bank Group, which is overseeing the program.
    “We are now in the selection process of programs to be endorsed,” the World Bank said in a response to questions. The other countries contributing money to the bank’s $200 million Transformative Carbon Asset Facility are Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

    With a target to raise $500 million, the World Bank program would help encourage private companies and development banks to contribute many times more for projects aimed at reducing emissions. The work is a rare sign of new demand in UN carbon markets and would revive a program choked off because the European Union limited its use of imported credits as it repaired its carbon market.

    The bank’s program will demonstrate how international collaboration can help spur private investment to meet the target set out in the Paris deal, which is to limit temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, according to the U.K. government, which is paying 60 million pounds ($76 million) into it.

    ***The nations are pressing ahead despite pushback from some business and consumer groups resisting higher economic costs from carbon prices. Still, the point of the programs is that only polluting goods and services go up in price…

    ***The World Bank facility will build on the Certified Emission Reductions established by the UN in the 1990s, which have been trading near zero for six years.

    While credibility is key, “there’s no limitation,” so the credits could even come from a country installing new policies to boost energy efficiency, (Kenneth Mollersten, an official in the Swedish Energy Agency) said in a phone interview. TCAF will inform climate talks as they progress this year, he said. Programs might include cutting emissions in a country’s power or cement industry, or even lowering methane emissions in rice growing, the official said…

    It’s not yet clear what Sweden and the other nations will do with the credits they end up with. “That’s a future political decision,” he said. Options might include using them for compliance with a nation’s Paris pledge, trading them or canceling them…
    The facility is meant to create the “carbon assets” under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which will apply globally after 2020…

    While Canada is still considering “whether and how” it will use international carbon markets to meet its 2030 Paris emission targets, the TCAF may reveal how they can “catalyze scaled-up public and private investment,” (Jennifer Gearey, a spokeswoman for Environment and Climate Change Canada) said by email…

    “If successful, the facility could provide far better bang for the buck than previous project-based UN markets, because it’ll help countries start to self-govern large-scale emissions reductions,” said Jahn Olsen, an analyst in London with Bloomberg NEF.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-16/canada-u-k-plan-the-first-carbon-trades-in-paris-climate-deal

    30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      pat:

      The major problem is that ‘low emission projects’ are largely meant to collect subsidies, not issue certificates. If they can sell the certificates then money might be spent on start-ups, but the prospect of every other subsidy trougher trying to get their share and wrecking the scam might make some cautious.

      40

  • #
    pat

    ABC couldn’t care less how the public feel about their horrendous electricity bills – why should they? taxpayers pay for theirs.

    prefers to talk about appeasing rebels/critics/Abbott:

    17 Aug: ABC: Malcolm Turnbull dumps plan to legislate Paris emissions targets
    By political editor Andrew Probyn and Melissa Clarke
    Malcolm Turnbull has capitulated to rebels in the Coalition party room, dumping a plan to embed emissions reduction targets in Commonwealth legislation.
    To appease critics and lessen the prospect of a backbench revolt, the Prime Minister will instead propose setting emissions targets by regulation, which does not need the assent of Parliament.

    The reconfigured climate and energy policy will be more heavily geared towards driving down prices — in part to satisfy Coalition critics who say Mr Turnbull has been more focused on the Paris climate settings rather than household price pressures.
    Mr Turnbull’s predecessor, Tony Abbott, was PM when Australia agreed to set emissions targets of between 26 per cent and 28 per cent by 2030, but Mr Abbott has since railed against abiding by this target…

    Former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce is yet to be briefed on the change.
    “Mate, I haven’t had time to look over it,” he told RN Drive.
    But he welcomed the prospect of more oversight of power prices by the ACCC…

    Liberal MP Craig Kelly told Sky News the Prime Minister’s change “could make this thing worse, not better”.
    “The great concern is if you put it in regulation, that gives a future Labor party, a minister, just by a tick of a pen or a stroke of a pen to change the regulation and put the target up higher even without taking it through the full democratic process of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.”…

    Mr Joyce also addressed the issue of Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership, suggesting the Prime Minister should consider his electoral standing sometime before the next election.
    “It’s beholden for any leader to make sure his side wins and that’s down the track.”
    Mr Joyce suggested that wasn’t an immediate concern for Mr Turnbull, but an important consideration in the future.
    “He’s got to make sure before an election that we have the capacity to win.
    “Any leader, that’s the same as the Labor party, make no mistake about it.
    “They won’t be going to an election with Mr Shorten if they think Mr Shorten is going to lose, they’ll go with Anthony Albanese.
    “That’s politics.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-17/turnbull-dumps-plan-to-legislate-paris-agreement-targets/10134284

    40

  • #
    PeterS

    The elephant is still in the room. As long as Turnbull is the leader the party will lose the next election by a landslide and Shorten will implement something much worse than whatever the NEG could have been. That is a fact. In any case Turnbull has been proven to be treacherous to his own party by allowing the ALP to have a copy of the NEG while much of the LNP members are still waiting to see it. We are rich in cheap coal and Uranium yet we have the highest power prices with much more to come if and when Shorten becomes PM. We should have the cheapest power prices not the most expensive. Other nations in particular the big emitters like US, Russia, China and India are thumbing their noses at the emissions reduction nonsense. It’s time we do the same. The only way we can avoid a Shorten government is to replace Turnbull now with someone who can sell these messages to the public and win. It can be done.

    202

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘It can be done.’

      Yes indeed, but it would be prudent to organise the front bench first.

      Dutton for PM, Abbott as Foreign Minister, Kelly deserves Environment (or whatever they call it these days), but now I’m stuck.

      Any suggestions?

      53

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Environment Department? Why?

        Get rid of it altogether, including the green-left bureaucrats that infest the joint. Put the management of environmental legislation into the Treasury, if it’s not possible to rescind it.

        71

        • #
          el gordo

          Attaching Environment and Energy was a cunning trick, so we have to separate them and look at the environment unblinkered.

          If we take AGW out of the equation the government can give the go-ahead for major infrastructure programs and with Energy free of Environment they could stop Hydro 2 and put the money into a Hele or two.

          Retain the Ministries so that we can clean up this mess.

          50

    • #
      el gordo

      If Turnbull is sacked, followed by a shakeup of the front bench, Cory could come in out of the cold and rejoin the fold.

      I’m talking about the possibility of sitting on the Front Bench, what Ministry would suit him?

      21

    • #
      el gordo

      Looking over his bio he doesn’t stand out, so may I suggest we give Michaelia Cash the flick and Cory could have Minister for Jobs and Innovation.

      30

      • #
        Phillthegeek

        I suggest we give Michaelia Cash

        No, No, No, eg……..its too entertaining that sexy whiteboard thing she does… :)

        20

        • #
          el gordo

          Come on bruvver, she is a liability, but perhaps you have someone else in mind for that Ministry? Not sure if Cory got my memo.

          20

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    Judith Sloan: National Energy Guarantee dies in Turnbull’s hands
    Opinion-The Australian-2 hours ago

    17 Aug: Guardian: Turnbull ditches legislation for 26% emissions cut to head off backbench dissent
    Government to set target by regulation in move to defuse internal opposition – and court Labor
    by Katharine Murphy
    The Turnbull government is preparing to set the emissions reduction target for the national energy guarantee by regulation rather than legislation in a move to court Labor’s support and defuse some internal tensions about enshrining the Paris climate commitments in Australian law…

    The states, who can make or break the Neg through the Coag energy council, have also demanded the target be set in regulation so it can be ratcheted up…

    Turnbull loyalist Christopher Pyne sounded a warning shot to restive colleagues during his regular Friday appearance on the Nine Network, criticising Abbott’s supporters for “hyperventilating” over the government’s energy policy.
    “We are not on the ropes,” he said in answer to a question about the government’s re-election prospects.
    “The polls are about 50-50 and there’s a lot of hyperventilating going on and there’s a few people I think who are trying to put the band back together from the late 2000 and noughties.”
    Asked who “they” were, Pyne said: “I think we know who they are.”…
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/17/turnbull-ditches-emissions-legislation-to-head-off-backbench-dissent

    17 Aug: AFR: Malcolm Turnbull scrambles NEG in bid to fend off leadership challenge
    by Phillip Coorey
    This addresses the principal demand of those threatening to cross the floor – that any commitment to Australia’s Paris climate change targets should not be locked in by legislation…

    Ironically, the Labor states have been demanding the target be set by regulation so a future federal government can more easily increase the NEG’s emissions reduction target…

    To try to guard against ad hoc changes using regulation, the modified NEG will include a mechanism requiring a future government to demonstrate the impact on power prices as a condition of regulating a higher target.
    A party strategist said the solution should satisfy rogue Liberals who have made a legislated Paris target their tipping point for crossing the floor. There were early signs it had worked…

    Prospect of a spill was ‘bulls***’
    One prominent MP who had been threatening to cross the floor on this very point, and who was involved in internal discussions Friday, told AFR Weekend last night that the prospect of a leadership spill was ‘bulls***’.

    The strategist said there was no hope of reasoning with Tony Abbott, whose motive was toppling Mr Turnbull, and rogue Nationals frontbencher Keith Pitt was also considered a lost cause.
    Otherwise it was hoped everyone else would be satisfied by the new measures and changes that could be announced as early as Monday…READ ON
    https://www.afr.com/news/pm-scrambles-neg-in-bid-to-fend-off-leadership-challenge-20180817-h143gn

    31

  • #
    EternalOptimist

    Emissions target. Renewables (incl nuclear). Cheap Electricity.

    Pick any two.

    60

    • #
      Mal

      Coal in the interim. Latest generation nuclear as baseload
      Thorium for the future? .
      Maybe we can have our cake and eat it.

      20

    • #
      Mal

      Coal in the interim. Latest generation nuclear as baseload
      Thorium for the future? .
      Maybe we can have our cake and eat it.

      30

  • #
    pat

    do all these “journos” collude – their pieces are almost identical in what they include and omit from their articles:

    17 Aug: SMH: David Crowe: Malcolm Turnbull approves radical NEG redesign in bid to prevent backbench revolt
    The new approach also meets demands from Labor governments in Victoria and the ACT to allow the target to be changed by regulation, improving the odds of a deal with the states and territories to approve the NEG by October…

    Liberals told Fairfax Media they were getting messages from party members in the past week wanting the government to dump the NEG, dump the climate change targets and, in some cases, dump Mr Turnbull.
    Another said a leadership test was possible if hard action was not taken on energy prices, but that this did not mean the party room had a “strong plan B” to justify replacing Mr Turnbull as leader…
    Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne said the cabinet was “100 per cent united” behind Mr Turnbull, while Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said he was not aware of any talk to draft Mr Dutton.
    “We are both very committed to the success of the Turnbull government, to winning the next election,” said Senator Cormann, who is close to Mr Dutton…

    “Dutton is just a glove puppet for Tony Abbott – back there on the backbench causing all of this chaos,” Mr Albanese said…
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/malcolm-turnbull-approves-radical-neg-redesign-in-bid-to-prevent-backbench-revolt-20180817-p4zy6d.html

    60

  • #
    pat

    17 Aug: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: South Australia will be at 100% renewables by 2025 – market operator
    That, at least, is the assessment of the Australian Energy Market Operator, which makes this prediction as part of its Integrated System Plan, its 20-year blueprint for the integration of renewables into Australia’s electricity grid.
    The prediction contrasts dramatically with the modelling prepared for the NEG by the Energy Security Board, of which AEMO is a member.

    The ESB modelling (extract below) suggests that South Australia will reach 75 per cent renewables by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2022 – and then it somehow imagines the state installing not a single added megawatt of large scale solar or large scale wind until after 2030.

    Just who the ESB is trying to kid with this sort of modelling nonsense is not clear. The ISP modelling, on the other hand, is alive to the sound of good economics and building intentions.
    It factors in developments such as Sanjeev Gupta’s plans for up to 1GW of solar and storage, and the numerous other projects in the pipeline…

    Notice how combined cycle gas generation effectively disappears from around 2024, presumably from the time a new transmission link is completed to NSW, and peaking gas and diesel plays only a minor role behind that – much less than storage.
    McConnell says the scenario underlines value of interconnection and planning – and the fact that while the reduction in synchronous generation presents challenges, they are not insurmountable…

    Saddler notes that the ISP modelling assumes South Australia jumps to almost 100 per cent renewables in 2025, as the various gas turbines are shut down – including the ageing 50-plus year old Torrens Island gas-fired steam power stations, and the more modern combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) stations at Pelican Point and Osborne…

    “One of the key components of the first five years of AEMO’s integrated system plan is a new high-capacity synchronous interconnector, called RiverLink, to run from the mid north of South Australia to southern New South Wales and be completed by 2025.
    “By implication, AEMO has concluded that, when RiverLink is completed it will be sufficient, in combination with the other new types of grid services mentioned previously, to eliminate the need for local synchronous generation…

    To be sure, AEMO says there are significant issues in South Australia that will need to be managed, such as system strength, voltage and frequency…
    Despite all the ravings about reliability, the AEMO plan envisages no “baseload” coal, not even any “baseload” gas in South Australia’s electricity mix.
    It is all about exploiting the cheapest form of bulk generation – quite clearly wind and solar – and ensuring that these are married with dispatchable capacity that can fill in the gaps and provide the system strength.

    Meanwhile, in Canberra, the base-load bovver boys are out in force …. not just the politicians but also the big business guys like Bluescope and smelter in the Hunter Valley. We can’t run the smelters on renewables alone, they claim.
    Gupta and South Australia, are about to prove them wrong.
    READ COMMENTS
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-will-be-at-100-renewables-by-2025-market-operator-52312/

    60

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Thanks pat, I knew there was a reason I gave up reading RenewEconomy. Did they have a bit about the Fairy Godmother and her magic wand in the planning?
      I leave this for others to describe how a “new high-capacity synchronous interconnector … to run from the mid north of South Australia to southern New South Wales” would work given the distances involved and the fact that NSW doesn’t have excess supply. It is a long way from the mid north of SA to the generators in NSW – might there be losses?

      90

    • #
      yarpos

      “base load bovver boys” the people that hold the network up and deliver real power 24×7, for the the 50 years and today

      40

  • #
    pat

    16 Aug: Bloomberg: Populists May Rip Up Sweden’s Nuclear Code of Conduct
    By Jesper Starn
    Sweden’s biggest ever cross-party energy deal was designed to provide stability for utilities for almost three decades, but the 2016 accord is now at risk of being ripped up after next month’s general election.
    The Sweden Democrats, which some polls show could emerge as the biggest party, would revoke nuclear-plant closures central to the agreement if they came to power. The Christian Democrats, one of the accord’s co-signers, on Tuesday echoed that view and pressed for key parts of the deal to be renegotiated.

    The agreement ended more than 30 years of bickering over nuclear power, extended support for renewable energy and stated that there should be zero emissions impacting the climate by 2045. It effectively boosted the lives of the nation’s six newest reactors until at least 2040, but didn’t address how the capacity of four older Vattenfall AB and EON SE units will be replaced.
    “It is an empty agreement that lacks concrete details,” said Runar Brannlund, head of economics research at Umea University in northern Sweden. “It doesn’t deal with how to have enough capacity when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. But sooner or later this will become a real issue that the parties will handle, and then we will see how they act.”

    Whoever emerges as the winner next month will have to act fast. Grid manager Svenska Kraftnat warned that the nation from this winter will depend on imports to meet peak demand. It could get even worse if Vattenfall’s Ringhals reactors on the west coast are shut in two years time as planned.
    There are several options to replace the lost capacity, including adding more plants to a national reserve, batteries or increased demand flexibility. But unless something is done, Sweden will be dependent on imports and could face soaring power prices, according to the network manager.

    Nordic power prices already rose to records this summer, something Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB and Nordea Bank AB say will stoke inflation.
    The Christian Democrats, which could be on its way out of the parliament after struggling in the polls, on Tuesday mooted the possibility of new nuclear plants to meet growing power demand.

    The Sweden Democrats, who was not invited to join talks ahead of the agreement, does not see the point of closing reactors and instead import power from nuclear reactors and plants burning fossil fuels abroad. They would start talks with Vattenfall to extend operations at the Ringhals units, energy spokesman Mattias Backstrom Johansson said by phone.
    “Security of supply is more important for Sweden than Vattenfall’s economical targets,” he said. “In the past the system has been stable enough for politicians to play around with energy policy without causing any harm, but now we are approaching the first winter where Sweden will not be able to supply domestic demand.”

    Other parties have signaled they will do what they can to devoid the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats of any real influence on how the country is run, even if they end up with the most votes in the election…

    “The energy agreement has already failed and the cracks are staring to show,” said energy spokeswoman Maria Weimer in an interview.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-16/nuclear-revival-talk-could-upend-historic-swedish-energy-accord

    50

  • #
    pat

    17 Aug: Guardian: Most-polluting wood burner fuels due to get the chop
    Environment secretary Michael Gove to banish house coal to curb harmful emissions
    by Heather Stewart
    The sale of traditional house coal will be phased out under proposals set out in the government’s draft clean air strategy in May, which are expected to be confirmed by Gove’s department on Friday.
    Restrictions are also expected to be placed on the sale of wet wood, particularly in urban areas. Burning wood before it has been properly dried releases more of the damaging particulates that contribute to air pollution.
    The government will also tighten standards on solid fuels, forcing manufacturers to cut down on sulphur emissions and ensure only the cleanest stoves are sold…

    The clean air strategy is a response to an EU directive on cutting harmful emissions. As well as stricter rules on wood burning, it included separate plans to reduce emissions of ammonia from farms and dust from vehicle tyres and brakes…
    The new rules are the latest example of Gove’s interventionist approach to tackling environmental challenges, which has included proposed bans on cotton buds and plastic straws…
    The environment secretary’s attempt to restrict the use of polluting fuels were recently ridiculed by Liz Truss, the chief secretary to the Treasury, who joked in a speech about regulations on “wood-burning Goves”…

    The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, has suggested that he could go further than Gove and ban wood-burning stoves altogether in the capital…
    (Areeba Hamid, of Greenpeace) called for the introduction of clean air zones across the country and the phasing out of the internal combustion engine by 2030…
    Gove, who campaigned for Brexit in the 2016 referendum, has repeatedly insisted that leaving the EU will not mean dismantling Britain’s environmental standards…
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/16/most-polluting-woodburner-fuels-due-to-get-the-chop

    30

  • #
    pat

    16 Aug: Politico: Europe’s freak weather, explained
    Climate change is not only hiking up temperatures, but changing the dynamics of weather itself.
    By Stefan Rahmstorf
    We’re seeing five times more monthly heat records — such as “hottest July on record in California” — now than we would in a stable climate.
    As part of this pattern, we can expect more heat drying out soils and causing more drought and wildfires. We also expect to see more extreme rain, given that a warmer atmosphere can take up and then release more moisture. A global increase in rainfall records has also been documented in weather station data.
    But there is something more interesting going on here too…

    Let’s take a look at a concrete example. In my home town Potsdam, near Berlin — which boasts a high-quality weather station with uninterrupted homogeneous data since 1893 — April was the warmest April since measurements began, and May was the warmest May. Although June and July did not set any new records — those were recorded in 2003 and 2006 — they were also among the warmest. Just how extraordinary the current hot weather anomaly really is can best be seen when looking at the period between April and July.

    We see a steady climate warming of around 2 degrees Celsius in the smooth climate curve since 1980, in parallel to global warming but twice as fast. This is typical of continental areas; ocean areas warm less due to heat storage and evaporation. We also see that 2018 was a whopping 4.3 degrees above the average value of the first 30 years in which data was measured, and nearly 2 degrees above the smoothed climate curve. This is by far the largest outlier relative to the climate curve. What’s going on?…

    This is currently one of the hottest topics in climate research. The basic idea is that the jet stream — a band of high winds around the Northern Hemisphere that significantly influences our weather in the mid-latitudes — is changing…READ ON
    https://www.politico.eu/article/climate-change-gobal-warming-freak-weather-explained/

    20

  • #
    pat

    Butler’s claims won’t face scrutiny from Katharine Murphy/Guardian:

    17 Aug: Guardian: Neg: Labor warns it will not back taxpayer support for new coal-fired power
    Shadow climate change minister Mark Butler says Labor open to dealing with Neg legislation before states sign off
    by Katharine Murphy
    “The idea that taxpayers would take on a risk that investors are not willing to take on I think would be a gross abuse of the political office of prime minister,” he told Guardian Australia’s politics podcast…

    He said if the government managed to secure support elsewhere in the parliament and pressed ahead with underwriting a new coal power project in the coming months, Labor would not feel obliged to honour that commitment if it wins the next election…

    Asked whether he was prepared to weather a politically-charged debate about sovereign risk, Butler said: “We have a strong view about maintaining investor confidence in an economy like Australia that depends so much on investment, including overseas investment – but equally we have been crystal clear on this.”
    Butler declared new coal power was “not good for our energy system or for our economy”. He said no one could feign surprise about this position, because Labor had been “clear about our views on that”…

    Butler says Labor is open to parliamentary debate even though the states are yet to give the Neg the green light – a signal that the opposition will not make the government sweat unduly as it battles internal dissent.
    But Labor will insist on a substantial Senate inquiry.
    Butler said when debate comes on in parliament, Labor will attempt to change the current emissions reduction target of 26% to 45%. The Greens have declared 45% is not good enough…

    (Greens’ Adam) Bandt says 45% is Labor’s economy-wide target for reducing pollution so its target for electricity should be higher, because it is cheaper to reduce pollution in the energy sector than in other sectors of the economy.
    But Butler says “from a position of opposition, where we are only dealing with a piece of energy legislation and we don’t have advice before us about what transport can do between now and 2030, what the land sector can do, what manufacturing and mining can do … we are going to move an amendment which is 45%”.

    He also said the Neg legislation “needs to not tie the hands of future governments” and Labor would not “cop any devices to lock in low ambition”. Butler said business was already acutely aware the government’s current target would need to be lifted…

    He said he was “very confident” Labor’s position lined up with the views of most Australians, and he said the government would have difficulty prosecuting a cost-of-living campaign against the ALP as Tony Abbott did with the carbon price in 2013 because renewables were now the cheapest source of energy…

    Butler said Labor continued to develop its policy for emissions reduction across the economy. He said the policy to be released before the next federal election would include mandatory emissions standards for vehicles, and “some kind of emissions trading scheme” for liable entities – big polluters emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon a year.
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/17/neg-labor-warns-it-will-not-back-taxpayer-support-for-new-coal-fired-power

    30

  • #

    Aloha! Looks a lot like the liberal socialist democrats here in America during the Obama days who instructed the US Senate they had to pass Obamacare before they could find out what’s in the law! No peeking behind the curtain allowed! This is a direct result of “career politicians”! We were fortunate enough to get a President who never held public office but the repercussions the “career politicians” and their “career media” are engaging in is to impeach a sitting president based on the idea that only professional career politicians may rule America. Money isn’t the root of all evil … politics is!

    190

  • #
    Sean

    Australia could go along way to meeting its CO2 targets by exporting coal, burn its natural gas domestically and drop the renewable nonsense. It’s a shell game that won’t accomplish much globally but at least power would be affordable and you could claim success in the target numbers game nonsense.

    41

  • #
    Ruairi

    Beguiled by warmist seduction,
    To meet target emissions reduction,
    Without thought, heed or care,
    For the people’s welfare,
    Should cause a political ruction.

    80

  • #
    TdeF

    It is still amazing that Turnbull continually blames the electricity companies for the massively high electricity prices, the evil ‘Gentailers’ when he knows who is paying for all the windmills and solar panels, everyone but the government.

    Sure the electricity companies markup the costs and pass them on to us in our bills, exactly as intended by the RET. It’s hard to accept that any Prime Minister is so publicly and blatantly and continually deceitful.

    As for his NEG, that is about Emission and Carbon Credits, not reliability or prices. The public are heartily sick of this deceit. The world’s highest electricity prices are obviously due to government legislation and Malcolm tells us that we need more? Zero truthfulness. Just a smirk. How does he sleep nights?

    110

    • #
      TdeF

      I mean he has told us for 20 years that his carbon ‘abatement’ is going to cost a fortune.

      He knows the government pays nothing for windmills and solar panels.
      He knows the money is hidden in our electricity bills under government order and policed by the government with fines.

      So how can he blame the electricity retailers who are obliged to collect the money paid to his friends with the windmills and solar panels? Yes, they are making a fortune too. All part of government legislated obligations.

      Everyone is guilty of ripping off the public except the man who is doing it. His story is that the government is not getting the money. That just makes it illegal as well as morally wrong.

      110

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Turnbull is worth a fortune what the hell would he care about a higher electricity bill?

      Absolute soulless scum.

      90

  • #
    TdeF

    Perhaps Malcolm could explain how Green community group Hepburn Wind is funded?

    With Victorian government assistance (our money) this award winning Green group bought their own windmill to save the planet. Thanks to record high prices and sales of LGC certificates, they paid off the windmill 10 years early and now have no debts.

    They are a simple example of what is very wrong with Australia.

    With record electricity prices, they sell their special Green electricity wholesale for $700,000 a year.
    but they continue to receive a ‘subsidy’ of $800,000 a year for certificates. We pay that too. Why?

    Firstly their accounts reckon $700,000 a year is not enough to operate a windmill profitably, even with very high prices. So much for cheap let alone ‘free’ electricity. The only thing ‘free’ is the windmill. We paid for it.

    Then we pay them even more just to exist. This is called a ‘subsidy’. Why?
    No wonder AGL want to get out of coal.

    Then if ‘renewables’ are free and cheaper than coal, why are we paying double what they get on the open market for their free energy?

    Malcolm Turnbull, could you justify this from any perspective? How does the $800,000 a year annual gift lower CO2?

    160

    • #
      TdeF

      For all those people who struggle to earn $50,000 a year,for those people who run small businesses, restaurants, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, carpet layers, builders, small factories who struggle to employ a few people and pay their wages. How would you like $800,000 cash a year to operate a windmill and a guarantee to buy all your electricity at top dollar plus a cash gift of nearly a million dollars a year every year? That’s like winning Tattslotto every year. Not only that, the government will pay to set you up.

      This is criminal. Malcolm, tell us how this is preventing Climate Change?

      190

    • #
      • #
        TdeF

        “A first-year economics student could point to the market perversion caused by the LRET; and the manner in which it has destroyed Australia’s once reliable and affordable power supply.”

        Yep.

        81

        • #
          TdeF

          Consider, the Hepburn Wind single windmill is being given most of a Million Dollars a year for nothing.
          Think of all the other million dollars a year windmills. This is on top of being paid for the ‘free’ electricity at the world’s highest rates.

          I thought windmills were free power?

          This is not a subsidy. This is theft. Why is this small business, every windmill in fact being given $1Million of our money a year?

          Malcolm blames price gouging by the electricity retailers. Is he suggesting they are marking this up this cost for nothing by another million dollars per windmill per year for nothing?

          80

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    So many extraordinarily insightful comments above, it’s hard to pick a winner.

    They All contribute to the picture.

    The Grifters are everywhere and have always been there in so many of our public services and institutions.

    The Great challenge is to expose and remove them and reduce their damaging effect; being realistic they’ll be hard to completely eliminate but control is vital.

    On the immediate front an immediate withdrawal from the U.N., the IPCCCCC is in our best interests.

    Dissociation from anything to do with the EEU is likewise essential.

    With a new PM we could do worse than open up more trade with America where common sense and reality have begun to reappear.

    Revolt. Remember Wat Tyler.

    KK

    120

    • #
      Aussiepete

      I agree KK, there is so much worth reading in these comments, i don’t when i will find time to get through half of it.
      I would like to put my tuppence worth in however and would like to point out something that I’ve been saying for years and that is that the Paris/UN/AGW/NEG will eventually be won or lost at the ballot box. The events in Canberra this week all boil down to that. There are wider issues of course, such as the relative merits of various politicians and parties. The gormless, the witless, the ideologue, the right and left and so forth.
      In all of this carry on, there are two words that seem to be used more frequently than any other; COAL & RENEWABLES.
      Coal power is invariably depicted as a power station belching out silhouetted steam whilst renewables are represented by a benign one or two windmills wafting away gently in the breeze on some grassy hillside.
      Readers of this blog will know that both images are grossly incorrect but that gets me back to the ballot box and the voting public. To put it bluntly, the vast majority do not have the foggiest idea of the reality but are being asked to vote on it.
      As always, i’m afraid, propaganda trumps truth.

      150

    • #
      Another Ian

      Time for another run

      Cromwell’s speech to Charles 1st.

      ” “YOU HAVE BEEN SAT TO LONG HERE FOR ANY GOOD YOU HAVE BEEN DOING. DEPART, I SAY, AND LET US HAVE DONE WITH YOU. IN THE NAME OF GOD, GO!.”

      60

    • #
      James Murphy

      As this is about electricity, maybe we need someone called Watt Tyler to…errr…amp up the crowd, though would not wish them to meet the same fate as Wat Tyler.

      10

  • #
    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks Dennis,

      “A Bill for an Act to set out national electricity emissions intensity targets, and for related purposes”

      Says it all doesn’t it? No wonder he didn’t want it to get near the sceptics.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      30

  • #
    Robber

    I have been puzzling over the claims by Turnbull/Frydenberg that we are going to save $550 per year from our electricity bills with the NEG.
    I fnally found the modelling assumptions by the Energy Security Board on future electricity prices. (See xlxs spreadsheet file at bottom of page).
    It’s a big spreadsheet so will take some careful examination.
    But what jumps out immediately is their projection of wholesale prices with no new policy in place. Do nothing, and wholesale prices are going to drop from an average of $85/MWhr last financial year to $49/MWhr in 20/21 (and to $43 with the NEG), giving savings in household bills of $467/year by 20/21 with no NEG, and $530/year with the NEG.
    Wholesale prices $/MWhr 2017/18 18/19 19/20 20/21
    NSW Time-weighted RRP 83.88 81.26 59.84 50.03
    QLD Time-weighted RRP 73.66 64.12 50.04 45.29
    SA Time-weighted RRP 101.15 83.34 69.06 56.40
    TAS Time-weighted RRP 92.59 84.22 63.97 47.14
    VIC Time-weighted RRP 95.93 81.29 61.38 48.96
    Key assumption seems to be a reduction in natural gas usage with more wind, large solar and rooftop solar. Also assumes lower coal prices.
    Generation mix TWhr sent out by financial year. (Details are also available by State).
    NEM Black coal 103.8 102.9 96.2 93.7
    NEM Brown coal 33.0 34.3 33.9 33.1
    NEM Natural gas 18.2 7.8 5.4 4.7
    NEM Liquid Fuel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
    NEM Hydro 14.0 14.9 14.1 14.2
    NEM Wind 9.4 13.9 20.4 23.9
    NEM Solar 0.7 5.6 9.5 9.8
    NEM Roofsolar 7.4 8.4 9.6 10.7
    NEM Total 186.7 187.8 188.9 190.1
    NEM Renewable share 16.9% 22.8% 28.3% 30.8%

    They then show estimated household savings relative to 2017/18 in $/year. Network costs are assumed unchanged.
    Savings even with no policy 85.02 325.32 467.21
    Additional savings due to Guarantee 0.00 0.00 64.24

    Isn’t modelling a wonderful thing? Make the right assumptions, and our electricity bills will drop even without the NEG. What’s all the fuss about? /sarc
    Welcome some further crowd-sourced analysis.

    120

    • #
      joseph

      Robber, made my day!

      So easy to see we’re headed for free whatever happens or doesn’t happen.

      30

    • #
      RickWill

      There is one key assumption that delivers all the nEG savings:

      Coal prices are expected to moderate somewhat from their currently elevated levels. International thermal coal prices are assumed to converge to US$60 per tonne in the long-term from around US$120 per tonne currently

      This assumption causes the wholesale price to halve by 22/23. From there the price rises slowly again as the market share of intermittents increases resulting in higher cost of LGCs.

      The problem with this assumption is that the rest of the world is increasing coal usage and that is maintaining high demand for thermal coal and supports stronger prices:
      https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/coal/021318-global-thermal-coal-demand-to-outstrip-supply-grow-by-5-in-2018-noble
      The banks are withholding investment in coal production so that guarantees price pressure.

      Electricity prices are not coming down. The only way to get lower prices in the short term is to get rid of all mandated transfer payments for intermittent generation.

      Why did the ACCC condemn STCs transfers but left LGCs transfers intact!!

      50

  • #
    Hat Rack

    From my crossword dictionary – “Machiavellian: astute, crafty, cunning, deceitful, sly, wily.”

    Add “untrustworthy”.

    Who springs to mind?

    70

  • #
    angry

    “he still wants the nation to meet the Paris agreement”

    WHAT THE HELL !!!

    WHY???????

    THIS RAT TURNCOAT HAS TO GO !!

    NO CARBON TAX !!!!!!!

    110

  • #
    pat

    16 Aug: Daily Caller: Chris White: ‘It’s A Nightmare’: American Indians Blast Western States For Waging A War On Coal
    Coastal states are using environmental regulations to destroy American Indians’ ability to produce coal, gas and forms of energy required to lift communities up and out of poverty, according to one prominent American Indian tribe.
    A handful of western states — led by Washington — are using EPA regulations to hamstring coal production and transportation, CJ Stewart, a Crow Tribal member and co-founder of the National Tribe Energy Association, told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Thursday. Stewart’s tribe is dependent on coal production for its survival.
    “Tribal economies face many obstacles to success, and currently the economy of the Crow Tribe is facing a critical crisis,” Stewart told Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso and others on the panel. “While we are blessed with untold mineral wealth in oil, coal, and gas on the Crow reservation, regulatory roadblocks and political crisis force us to languish in poverty.”
    “The tribe currently has an unemployment rate of 70 percent,” he added. “Imagine having a trillion dollars in mineral wealth under your feet and yet your people are starving and destitute before you. It’s a cruel nightmare.”

    The Crow Tribe is heavily dependent on energy from coal and gas for its economic well-being…
    Stewart blamed the Section 401 of the EPA’s Clean Water Act, which was intended to provide states with a way to apply key water quality protections to federally permitted activities. The U.S. holds more of the world’s coal reserves than any other country, Stewart told the panel, adding that the coal “mined by the Crow Nation is preferred by high efficiency, low emission power plants” that are in operation and being built around the world.

    Washington has come under intense scrutiny in recent months over Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee’s decision in January to deny coal mining company Lighthouse Resources a permit to build an export terminal to ship western coal to Asia. Lighthouse sued Inslee and the State’s Department of Ecology for allegedly violating the Constitution’s commerce clause in denying the permit for what would be America’s largest coal export terminal.
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/16/coal-crow-tribe-washington-regulations/

    40

  • #
    ROM

    Lots of theories as explanations for Turnbull’s actions and deviousness so here is another addition;
    .

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder
    .

    The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder include: grandiose sense of importance, preoccupation with unlimited success, belief that one is special and unique, exploitative of others, lack of empathy, arrogance, and jealousy of others.
    These symptoms cause significant distress in a person’s life.

    120

    • #
      Dennis

      Former Treasurer Peter Costello says:

      “Turnbull’s supporters were ruthless in tearing down Nelson. Weakened by this campaign and suffering poor polls, Nelson called another ballot. Turnbull won by four votes. In total, only three votes moved. It was an ominous sign. He got there, but not by building support among his colleagues.”
      Brendan Nelson later says:

      “Most of the people who supported him [in the Liberal party room ballot for the leadership] voted for him to get rid of him… If you had any idea of what he said to me over those 10 months [of Nelson’s leadership], you would be shocked…. You need to look up narcissistic personality disorder. There’s about 5 per cent of the population who are born with narcissistic traits, and about 2 per cent have narcissism. He’s got narcissistic personality disorder. He says the most appalling things and can’t understand why people get upset. He has no empathy.”
      Turnbull though, in an interview on Channel 9’s A Current Affair program immediately after the knifing, tells an outright lie. Host Tracy Grimshaw asks the following question:

      “…you and your supporters have been the key destabilisers of Brendan Nelson these past 10 months haven’t you?”
      Turnbull replied:

      “That is completely untrue. That is absolutely untrue.”

      http://www.stopturnbull.com

      50

    • #

      Minister fer Goldman Sachs,
      mebbe Narcissus gazing into
      a pool and seeing hisself,
      post – 2018 – globalist
      supreme at the UN or EU,
      whatever, like George Soros

      https://www.wikiart.org/en/honore-daumier/the-beautiful-narcissus-1842

      20

  • #
    pat

    from cached version:

    16 Aug: BusinessGreen: James Murray: Minister hails emergence of smart meter-enabled tariffs
    Energy and Clean Growth Minister Claire Perry has today hailed the emergence of new smart technologies and tariffs that are being enabled by the UK’s smart meter roll out, arguing they have the potential to save money and even generate income through electric vehicles and other smart technologies.
    Perry today visited the Bristol HQ of energy firm OVO Energy, which has invested in a smart meter enabled software platform for managing residential energy use called VCharge and early stage vehicle to grid charging technologies designed to allow electric vehicle (EV) owners to sell power back to the grid at peak times.

    The company is also amongst a handful of energy suppliers to use smart meters to offer customers time-of-use based tariffs that reward them for charging their EVs at off-peak times…
    Previous government estimates suggest the roll out of smart energy technologies that better manage supply and demand across the grid could save the UK up to £40bn between now and 2050, by curbing the need for new generation capacity, enhancing efficiency across the system, and slashing carbon emissions…

    “Almost 12 million meters are already empowering consumers to reap the rewards of a smarter energy system, putting homes and small businesses on the road to a smarter future,” she said. “Smart meters will be the cornerstone of a cleaner, flexible and efficient energy system, saving the country tens of billions of pounds. New innovative products and tariffs like these will put consumers in the fast lane when it comes to control of their energy use, saving and even making them money when using their electric vehicles.”…

    Stephen Fitzpatrick, CEO and Founder of OVO: “The smart meter roll out is a huge and complicated programme,” he said. “However, there’s no question it needs to be done as we can’t build the energy system of the future unless we know accurately how much energy people are using and when. OVO is using technology like electric vehicles, smart electric heat and batteries to help lower energy bills for consumers and enable us to use more renewable energy. None of this technology will work without smart metering.”

    The roll out has face criticism from a number of quarters, with critics questioning the cost of the deployment, the interoperability of the smart meters being installed, and delays that mean the original target date for completing the roll out of 2020 is unlikely to be met.
    According to the most recent data, there are now around 12 million smart and advanced meters operating across homes and businesses in Great Britain. By the end of 2020 the government is aiming for more than 50 million to be in operation across the country…

    The government said that currently more than 400,000 meters are being installed by energy suppliers across Great Britain each month. Consumers are now entitled to call their supplier and book and appointment to have one installed.

    In addition to enabling new tariffs and services, smart meters are also expected to help make people more aware of their energy use leading to potential energy savings. The government has said that if every household in Great Britain got a smart meter, the UK could save enough energy to power every household in Exeter, Plymouth and Swindon for two years
    https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3061212/minister-hails-emergence-of-smart-meter-enabled-tariffs

    more to come.

    10

    • #
      pat

      17 Aug: UK Telegraph: Energy minister has smart meter fitted in her home six years after roll-out began, while her boss still does not have one
      By Anna Mikhailova
      The energy minister Claire Perry has only just had a smart meter installed in her home – six years after the Government’s roll-out began.
      Meanwhile her boss, Business Secretary Greg Clark, is still “on the waiting list” for his, the Telegraph can reveal…
      However, there have been problems with some smart meters going “dumb” when a supplier switches provider, meaning and the device’s smart functions stop working…
      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/17/energy-minister-has-smart-meter-fitted-home-six-years-roll-out/

      AUDIO: 46mins36secs: 17 Aug: ThisIsMoney(Daily Mail): Why are smart meters being pushed onto households and are they a waste of money? This is Money podcast
      The Government’s £11billion scheme to install 53million smart meters in homes and small businesses by the end of 2020 has been plagued by problems.
      Now it appears there may be more hidden nasties. A wireless tech expert says they have the power to take over customer accounts.
      In theory, this means suppliers could cut off a household’s electricity or gas without visiting the property, add debt to a meter, remove credit on an account, change the charge levied or turn the meter into a pre-payment device.
      Authority to use these functions has yet to be granted – but it all sounds a little big brotherish.
      In this week’s podcast Simon Lambert, Lee Boyce and Georgie Frost question, is it time to rethink the smart meter push?…
      http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/podcast/article-6070407/Why-smart-meters-pushed-households-Money-podcast.html

      30

  • #
    pat

    18 Aug: The Age: David Crowe: Peter Dutton declares support for Malcolm Turnbull as leadership speculation swirls
    Mr Dutton said on Saturday morning he backed Mr Turnbull and the government’s policies, a statement that came after the Prime Minister’s decision to use regulation rather than legislation to cut carbon emissions.
    “In relation to media stories today, just to make very clear, the Prime Minister has my support and I support the policies of the government,” Mr Dutton tweeted.
    “My position hasn’t changed from my comments last Thursday.”…
    Mr (Andrew) Hastie said on Thursday it was wrong to construe his concerns about the Paris target to cut emissions as a push for leadership change…

    ***Contrary to some reporting, the revised position agreed by ministers does not abandon the government’s commitment at the Paris talks on climate change, keeping the 26 per cent target agreed by Mr Abbott as prime minister in 2015.
    The new approach also leaves the mechanism of the National Energy Guarantee unchanged to apply benchmarks for reliability and emission reductions…
    While the original bill imposed the 26 per cent cut by legislation, the revised bill will apply the cuts by regulation with a mechanism to adjust the target according to advice on the price and affordability of electricity…

    The new approach meets a demand from Victorian Labor premier Daniel Andrews and his energy minister, Lily D’Ambrosio, to allow more flexibility in setting the target.
    It also avoids requiring Coalition MPs to vote in parliament for a fixed, legislated target they do not support.
    However, it opens the government to new criticism from Mr Abbott and Mr Kelly that the regime makes it too easy to increase the target with the “stroke of a pen” under a future minister, helping a Labor government impose its target of 45 per cent…

    Mr Kelly said on Saturday morning the new approach to imposing the target made him less likely to support the bill.
    Mr Turnbull and his advisers do not expect the new approach to prevent Mr Abbott and some others from crossing the floor on the issue…

    Greens climate and energy spokesman Adam Bandt accused Mr Turnbull of a “surrender” on climate change to appease the “coal-huggers” in the Coalition party room.
    “Malcolm Turnbull has just put coal before climate and profit before Paris,” said Mr Bandt.
    “Australia now has no hope of meeting the Paris climate goals.”
    https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/peter-dutton-declares-support-for-malcolm-turnbull-as-leadership-speculation-swirls-20180818-p4zy8y.html

    20

  • #
    Dave

    The Limp Wristed LIB & LNP members will
    Sink Turnbull & the Black hand within two weeks

    The Lemmings have seen the cliff face and don’t like it!

    70

  • #
    Global Cooling

    Seems that Turnbull wants to please the Green Oligarchs by allowing them to continue exploiting the sheeple. Corruption?

    70

  • #
    pat

    18 Aug: Daily Mail: Turnbull sells out Australia: PM jeopardises trade with Europe and risks losing $6.5BILLION deal after ditching key Paris energy pledge to save his own skin – as rebels rush to back leadership rival Peter Dutton
    By Greta Levy (ex-Vice/News Corp/Seven Network- LinkedIn)
    But the move could spell the end of a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between Australia and the European Union.
    The lucrative deal is set to benefit between Australia and the EU, with current two-way trade worth $101 billion.

    The EU is Australia’s second largest trade partner, third largest in export market and second largest services market, and the FTA stands to add $6.4billion to Australia’s GDP.
    According to Trade Minister Steven Ciobo, a failure to meet Paris climate targets could have devastating consequences for the agreement.
    ‘I can tell you one of the very first consequences if we were to adopt that approach (to pull out) is we could kiss goodbye on a trade agreement with Europe,’ Mr Ciobo told Sky News earlier this week.

    A collapse in FTA talks threatens to hurt farmers, and cost consumers who stand to benefit from cheaper imports.
    Wine and designer goods from Europe would no longer fall in price, and the current five per cent vehicle tariff and luxury car tax would remain…
    Access to Europe’s 510 million consumers through an FTA could deliver a substantial payout between $4.1 and 6.4billion in GDP for Australia by 2030, according to a European Union study published last year…

    The backflip comes after a group of right-wing MPs – led by Tony Abbott – told Mr Turnbull they would vote against his energy policy…
    What is the National Energy Guarantee?
    •The National Energy Guarantee (NEG) has been designed to offer cheaper and more reliable power. The objective is to do this while lowering carbon emissions…

    The PM has promised Australia’s power bills will be cut by $550 a year with the National Energy Guarantee (NEG).
    Beginning in 2020 the agreement is designed to bring down the yearly price and requires retailers to source electricity that meets reliability and Paris Agreement emissions reduction targets
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6070993/Turnbull-jeopardises-trade-Europe-risks-free-trade-deal-ditching-Paris-agreement.html

    20

  • #
  • #
    pat

    18 Aug: Guardian: ‘PM has my support’: Dutton backs Turnbull as Abbott renews Neg attack
    Abbott says new plan to regulate rather than legislate energy emissions is ‘no way to run a government’
    by Katharine Murphy
    With the conservative wing of the government restive, the former prime minister Tony Abbott has been escalating his public attacks on Turnbull and the Neg for the past fortnight in an effort to build a confrontation to coincide with the resumption of federal parliament after the winter recess.
    Those attacks have been amplified by a group of media commentators hostile to Turnbull – Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, and Abbott’s former chief of staff Peta Credlin – attacks that create a negative feedback loop through Liberal party branches.

    Abbott’s attacks continued on Saturday. Despite declaring all week that the government should not legislate the Neg’s emissions reduction target, because that would be a breach of Australia’s sovereignty, Abbott blasted Turnbull’s proposed overhaul that would see the target set by regulation, not legislation.
    He declared the recalibration “no way to run a government”, and said the Coalition should concentrate on fighting Labor at the next election, rather than trying to solve a problem in the energy market that a range of stakeholders want solved.
    “I say no, no, no. Let’s create a real contest, not a false consensus. Let’s fight the Labor party on this – it’s the only way to win the election,” Abbott told 2GB…

    Labor blasted the government’s “energy chaos” on Saturday but welcomed the substance of the recalibration.
    “There must be the ability more easily to lift those targets in the future and a shift from legislation to regulation, I think, will deliver that easier pathway,” the shadow climate change minister Mark Butler said.
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/18/pm-has-my-support-dutton-backs-turnbull-as-government-reshapes-neg

    30

    • #
      Dennis

      Yes, all the leftist globalists would like freedom to do as they please with no accountability, a shift from legislation to regulation, creating an Australian law to reinforce the UN Treaty/Agreement.

      What’s next?

      61

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Guys and Gals – Jo is doing an incredible job in following this unfolding disaster for Turnbull and the Country. It is time we all bought her lots of chocolates! Get to it.

    60

  • #
    TdeF

    There’s something missing from my understanding of this new NEG idea.
    Why is Turnbull legislating if he can just regulate anyway?
    If he can do it at any time, why can’t Shorten?

    Why are the states being asked anything if Turnbull can just do it?
    It must be to do with the States rights under the Constitution.
    Basically you cannot legislate or regulate unless you have the power to do so under the constitution.
    Clearly Turnbull does not have the power to do what he wants to do. Once the States give him that power, he can do as he pleases. It has never been a question of legislation vs regulation. There is nothing one government can do which the next cannot undo. So there has to be a real shift in control.

    So what specific State Rights are the States being asked to pass to the Commonwealth?
    Why aren’t we being told?
    Once the Liberal States pass over these rights, what is to stop Shorten passing laws or regulating as he pleases anyway?
    Why did the States want to wait to see what the Party room said?
    Why would the Labor states want to make sure a specific law is passed before they passed over the rights?

    This is the problem with this incredible Turnbull plot, this hidden agenda. It’s all about moving control of something like energy, coal, gas, oil, taxation, carbon credits, mining from the States to the Federal government.

    My suspicion is control of resources, the thing which stopped Gillard from bringing in a real mining tax and just bringing in a mining profits tax.

    You get the feeling we are being robbed, the country is being changed and the states are being stripped of their rights under the Constitution. Which rights? Why is no one saying anything? Why all the secrecy?

    120

    • #
      TdeF

      It’s a bit like the RET, a law which forces everyone to pay strangers for nothing. Carbon is not mentioned, not a single word. Fossil fuels are simply ‘ineligible’. Then is not a ‘tax’ as the money does not go into general revenue.

      So it falls under the category of enforced enrichment of third parties, something explicitly forbidden under the Westminster democracies for 900 years. Supervised and enforced by the government, the stuff of Bad King John which caused the revolution and Magna Carta. The requirement that you are not robbed by your government. The RET is robbery. People get millions for nothing at all.

      The NEG is shaping up as the same deceit, stripping the States and that’s us of our rights without explaining what they are doing. Labor and Liberals both.

      110

      • #
        TdeF

        .. but then Malcolm Turnbull is not leading a conservative government. He is partnering with Shorten to rob Australians. Their common enemy is Abbott.

        90

    • #
      RickWill

      The States are not giving away anything. They control electricity retailing and the NEG operates at the retail level. The Federal legislation would lock in the Paris target as a minimum and would require new legislation through both houses to alter. The Labor States already have higher targets than Paris so they can do as they please anyhow.

      If the RET did not operate at a federal level, and then implemented consistently by the States, then any State not applying the RET would have an economic advantage. It would present an interesting opportunity for companies with Australia wide operations.

      The national grid removed the State monopoly on power generation and that resulted in reduced power prices through the 1990s. However an Australian wide business could purchase power from any retailer.

      The NEG legislation (or regulation) will not apply to WA because they are not connected to the so-called national grid. However WA is included in the RET and trade LGCs.

      It is all so simple that anyone can understand it and have a clear appreciation of the components that make up their electricity bill. They can readily identify that they are contributing 50% of their electricity payments to the Climate Change Cause, which include Alex Turnbull’s growing wealth.

      30

  • #
    TdeF

    The last time this was done, it was the GST. The States had to agree. So John Hewson fought an election on the GST and lost. John Howard fought on the same subject and won the mandate for a Federal Sales tax, the GST.
    Of course it has since been rorted massively to favor the Labor states. It was a huge change.

    This time our Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have decided that changing the interpretation of the Constitution by agreement with the States is something we do not need to know anything about.

    Labor are agreeing, providing they get a say in the law which enforces that authority Federally. This is the NEG. Once the States cede this right, it is game on to control resources and electricity at whim at a Federal level.

    It is typical of Turnbull. That is why even his own party does not need to see it. They will do what he tells them. The critical party is the opposition who have to agree because it is in their immediate interest to agree and that includes Daniel Andrews. This is a secret deal at Federal and State levels without any mandate at all. It is a Labor/Green deal. We, the people, are to be told nothing until we cannot stop it.

    100

    • #
      TdeF

      We the people should decide such changes to the constitution. Otherwise the decision is being made by Turnbull and Shorten and the Labor premiers. Turnbull’s view is that all branches of the Liberals and National Liberals and Nationals will do what they are told and do not need to read the legislation. It’s his party. He paid for it.

      100

  • #
    TdeF

    To quote Abbott

    ““To have a chance of winning the next election, the Coalition must create a policy contest on energy, not a consensus [with Labor]”

    What he fails to understand is that Malcolm does not care about the next election. He wants his carbon taxes, his carbon credits, his Emission Intensity Scheme and he agrees totally with Labor and the Greens because that’s his politics and in every sense, it’s his party.

    110

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      TdeF:

      Go back one month; there were the Liberals quietly optimistic, they had endured 2 years of adverse polls but were buoyed by the thought that they were gaining ground – the general public didn’t like Shorten so the preferred PM poll was an indication that they could make up ground in a general election. Besides the DELCONs had “no where to go, and would come back”. Going into the Super Saturday of by-elections they hoped to win 1 or 2 seats and cause enough trouble for Shorten’s leadership. Instead they lost all 5 and by increased margins.
      Suddenly a lot realised that the main Election was not that far off and they were going to lose their seat unless something changed. Instead they got this dog’s breakfast of a NEG scheme. It keeps changing as Turnbull thrashes around but every change guarantees higher electricity bills. This made many face up to the coming end of their political life and any support for MT evaporated. He is just trying to get his (and Labor’s) policy into Legislation as a last resort. The Party is desperate for a way out and Turnbull will go in the next few months (or the Party will collapse into oblivion). It doesn’t matter who claims to support the PM, it is the numbers in the party room, and Turnbull know he doesn’t have them, hence his manouvering.

      30

  • #
    TdeF

    In this light of this, the only way to stop this conspiracy is to demand the Liberal premiers defy their Federal bosses and refuse to hand over State powers.

    Consider that if Daniel Andrews and Annastacia Palaszczuk are happy to agree to Turnbull’s deal, it cannot be good for us.

    It means these State powers are going to be enshrined in the NEG. That is why they insist that the NEG is real nd passes the party room so that they can be sure the powers are used in the way that is promised, along the policy lines of the Labor/Green parties. Why else would they agree?

    We are being robbed. Nothing of this significance should be done without a mandate at an election. The spectacle of Turnbull and Shorten and Di Natale agreeing on the transfer of State powers cannot be a good thing for conservatives. Once done, it cannot be undone.

    Please tell me I’m wrong.

    110

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      TdeF;

      Neither Andrews or Palasczuk are going to agree to whatever Turnbull comes up with because it will take away some of their authority. Andrews in particular is facing an election, and having the Federal branch of the Liberals in disarray won’t be any incentive to him to make a quick agreement. Far more likely he will ask, as he has done, for Federal guarantees of lower emissions AND lower prices. Since that is impossible to deliver (as distinct to promising) he covers his **.

      **Euphemism employed to get around MODS.

      20

  • #
    TdeF

    It also explains why Turnbull did not want anyone outside Cabinet to see the NEG legislation. A careful reader with an understanding of Constitutional law would understand why the States would have to make concessions.

    So to what are the States being asked to agree? Why would the Labor States agree?

    Why are we being kept in the dark about a significant change to our Constitution by agreement between the states?

    90

    • #
      TdeF

      Are the conservatives voters, who elected a nominally Conservative government, being sold up the river by the Prime Minister to please his EU/UN/Banker friends? Why else would Labor agree?

      90

      • #
        TdeF

        Why else would Labor care about what happened in the Liberal Party room? That’s amazing. I mean, why would Daniel Andrews make it condition that the proposed NEG passed the party room? Because he thought Turnbull would not get away with it. He is not going to hand over rights unless he has a say in what happens next.

        So Turnbull took the NEG to the party room without giving party members a copy of the proposed Act. That was only given to Labor. Obvious in hindsight. How could party room Liberal MPs disagree with a NEG they had not even been given a chance to read? Obviously Labor were going to agree. This is how to hoodwink Liberal MPs. Trust me, I’m the Prime Minister and this is my party.

        70

        • #
          TdeF

          I am reminded of the death of President Hindenburg in 1934. Hitler just made himself President as well, removing any brake on his powers. He banned other political parties. Simple

          So next you may see Malcolm making himself President. That’s impossible, but from what Andrew Bolt has just written, the word is out that Malcolm is going to appoint Julie Bishop as Governor General. Unbelievable.

          70

  • #
    TdeF

    Remember we were only told that Turnbull wanted to run the NEG past COAG, presumably for their opinion? Now that doesn’t make sense. Then Andrews wanted conditions on his agreement, to what?

    Now I suspect Turnbull has had further legal advice that once the states cede their exclusive powers to the Federal government, whatever they are, he can just regulate and does not have to legislate at all. So like his uphill water system, he can just decide on his own without the party room, without the people, without explanation. So can Shorten. It must be a Labor party dream, the Liberals giving them what they want.

    As I wrote, the only way to stop this now is for the Liberal states to refuse. If the the Labor States agree there is a reason it matches Labor policy. However I suspect the Liberal leaders in South Australia and NSW will do what the party tells them. So the hurry is to move before Victoria falls to the Liberals in November and Labor’s Daniel Andrews is thrown out.

    110

  • #
  • #
    Phillthegeek

    Just when Malcolm thought he had come up with such a great idea. :)

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I liked that bit where he said he would rather “change the policy rather than the leader”. From someone who bought hob nailed boots to dance on MP’s poltical grave it sounds nice.

      30

    • #
      el gordo

      At first the ginger group didn’t want it legislated because it would be enshrined on the wall in Brussels, a milking cow.

      Now they don’t want it regulated because that means Butler will raise the target when Labor gets into power.

      Turnbull must think we are all mugs, the ginger group have no choice but to cross the floor.

      50

  • #

    They say ministerial/party staff etc monitor these blogs…

    Pass this on, monitors. It’s not about persuading, reforming, improving, re-centring etc Turnbull, Frydenberg and Bishop.

    It’s about the removal of Turnbull, Frydenberg and Bishop. It’s about the departure of Turnbull, Frydenberg and Bishop. It’s about the absence forever of Turnbull, Frydenberg and Bishop.

    It’s much more serious than the coal thing, though the coal thing is very serious. Globalism is a loopy and lethal collectivism which is having its fashionable peak now just as communism had its fashionable peak in the 1930s. Like communism it will take some stopping in blood and treasure over decades, it will be strong in almost every institution, it is already passively accepted by millions of the educated in the prosperous West…so get it out of the Liberal and National Parties now and keep it out.

    Turnbull, Frydenberg and Bishop can think, believe, preach, advocate whatever they like. Turnbull, like the angry peasant he really is, can desert the Wentworth seat which he (or friendly others?) have spent millions retaining. But he must be gone.

    Party responsibles, let us know if you are having any trouble with any part of “gone”. We’re here to help.

    110

  • #
    TdeF

    Does anyone have any idea what the States have to concede to make the NEG work? What are they giving up?

    As said, Turnbull no longer believes he needs to legislate the NEG. He can issue regulations once the states give him the power. He does not need the party room.
    He can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, despite the gang of ten. Victory over Abbott. Again.

    What is most worrying is that Labor clearly agrees he has a great idea. The only condition was the NEG being passed into law. Now that is not necessary. If Daniel Andrews thinks Turnbull’s idea is great, it has to be terrible.

    Remember the Labor states will only agree if it fits Labor/Green policy and that means more ‘renewables’, more carbon taxes, carbon credits, windmills, solar panels and shutting down manufacturing. It is certainly not because of ‘downward pressure on electricity prices’ and concern for poor Australians. Christmas will come early for Labor and the Greens. Their man on the other side will deliver.

    60

    • #
      Robber

      Perhaps it’s about National Emissions Guarantee? Qld and Vic already have their own RETs. Once the national assembly gives its approval to the NEG legislation, it will go to the state parliaments for ratification, under the rules of the National Energy Market.

      20

      • #
        TdeF

        However introducing the rules of the NEG by regulation requires none of that.

        It all gets back to the Constitution and that is a problem as energy was not part of the constitution. An unknown concept at the time. Nor in fact income tax for example, the huge new tax which made the Federal government the strongest part and gave them control of most of the money, especially after the GST surrender.

        You can pass all the laws you like in State Parliament. They do not go beyond State borders. There has to be some power or agreement Turnbull needs from all the states. Ratification is not it.

        20

        • #
          TdeF

          In fact when Federal and State laws collide, the rule is that Federal laws are supreme. The States though have to give their authority to the Federation. Turnbull requires some important concession from all the States.

          30

        • #
          beowulf

          I don’t believe so TdeF. The NEG is only CONTROLLED by, but not ESTABLISHED by regulations. Those regulations must first be established themselves by a new federal Act or an amendment to an existing Act regardless of what the states do. Regulations can’t appear out of thin air without the authority of enabling legislation as their basis no matter how much Turnbull wishes it, so maybe there is yet some hope at a federal level. Of course once they are established, they are open slather for the minister to manipulate at will.

          10

  • #
    TdeF

    Also Turnbull may be gambling on an alliance with the Greens. Again. He was close last time but DiNatale renegged on swapping Green Preferences for Turnbull’s Liberals when it was discovered. He backed down. Now Turnbull has delivered a Liberal party which is identical to Labor, without the unions.

    So if Turnbull can be seen to be more Labor than Labor, more Green, the Greens might change alliances. That would utterly devastate Labor as unlike the Liberals, most Labor seats are utterly dependent on Green preferences. Labor and the Greens would swap seats. Lots of Green MPs, supported by Liberal preferences. Such a move could even grab Nationals seats.

    Turnbull’s Liberal Green Alliance would hold most of the Federal seats. The Greens would have arrived with their leaders, Malcolm and Richard. All quite possible. Turnbull is no heir to Robert Menzies.

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    His Great Uncle George Lansbury would be proud, the leader of British Labor and great promoter of Adolph Hitler. In fact Lansbury published “his political credo, My England (1934), which envisioned a future socialist state achieved by a mixture of revolutionary and evolutionary methods”. This is Turnbull’s real vision, a socialist state.

    50

  • #
    pat

    17 Aug: Paul Homewood: Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?
    As we know, Michael Howard claimed in the Mail this week that Margaret Thatcher warned of the dangers of global warming 30 years ago. However, he fails to tell the whole story, which Christopher Booker revealed in 2010…READ ON
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/08/17/was-margaret-thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic/

    17 Aug: Breitbart: James Delingpole: Margaret Thatcher Would Have Backed Trump on Climate
    The Daily Mail has published a rubbish piece by Michael Howard, former leader of Britain’s Conservative party, attacking Donald Trump, claiming that man-made global warming is real and that Margaret Thatcher was a true believer…
    It’s drivel – worthy, if one could be bothered, of a complaint on grounds of accuracy to the press regulator IPSO…READ ON
    https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/17/delingpole-margaret-thatcher-would-have-backed-trump-on-climate/

    30

  • #
    pat

    a few of the comments are worth noting:

    17 Aug: Reason.com: Public Utility’s Recording of Home Energy Consumption Every 15 Minutes Is A “Search,” Seventh Circuit Rules
    An important ruling in the wake of Carpenter v. United States.
    by Orin Kerr
    In a fascinating new decision, Naperville Smart Meter Awareness v. City of Naperville (LINK), the Seventh Circuit has held that a public utility commits a “search” of a home when it records every 15 minutes how much electricity the utility is providing the home, at least until the smart readers that enable this data collection come into general public use. At the same time, the court says, the utility’s search of the home is reasonable and therefore permitted without any cause or suspicion. The Seventh Circuit’s analysis relies on Carpenter v. United States for a significant step in its reasoning…

    A group of citizens sued the city, arguing that the city’s recording how much energy homes were consuming violated the people’s Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, the citizens argued that if you know how much electricity a home is using every 15 minutes, you can get some ideas as to what is happening inside the home. You might be able to tell when people are home, when they’re awake, and when they are doing things that require a lot of electricity such as cooking dinner or charging up their electric cars. This surveillance searched the homes and violated the Fourth Amendment, they claimed…
    54 COMMENTS AT TIME OF POSTING
    https://reason.com/volokh/2018/08/17/public-utilitys-recording-of-home-energy

    30

  • #
    pat

    report from International Institute for Sustainable Development:

    14 Aug: IISD: Will the world’s switch to renewable energy support conflict?
    The growing use of solar panels, electric vehicles and wind turbines is a necessary part of tackling climate change.
    But poor and opaque management of the minerals needed for these green energy technologies – from the mine site to the end customer – could fuel fragility, conflict, and violence, a new report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development says.

    Released today, Green Conflict Minerals (LINK) applauds the global surge in demand for green technologies and tracks the full spectrum of minerals required for their production. While this should translate into economic boons for communities near required minerals, strategic reserves can become fuel for exploitation if not managed responsibly. This a risk when they are found in countries already struggling with fragility and corruption…

    While previous studies have examined minerals in the wider tech sector or concentrated solely on rechargeable batteries, Green Conflict Minerals is the first study to look at the broad swathe of metals needed for low-carbon technologies and point to gaps in the responsible management of supply chains…

    Peer reviewers:
    Blanca Racionero Gomez and Kate MacLeod, Levin Sources
    Isabelle Ramdoo, Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development
    John Drexhage, World Bank
    Louis Maréchal and Luca Maiotti, OECD
    Sophia Pickles, Global Witness
    https://www.iisd.org/media/will-worlds-switch-renewable-energy-support-conflict

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Oddly enough most people, regardless of their skin colour, are rational and want what is good for them and theirs. This is where the Green diktak falls down, as coal fired is so much cheaper and more reliable than renewables that 62 countries want to build new coal fired plants. The Greens can posture, control the World Bank etc. but with China prepared to build new coal fired plants (in return for some influence) then there will be more coal fired plants.

      60

  • #
    pat

    15 Aug: The Intercept: “Hothouse Earth” Co-Author: The Problem Is Neoliberal Economics
    by Kate Aronoff
    By shifting to a “wartime footing” to drive a rapid shift toward renewable energy and electrification, humanity can still avoid the apocalyptic future laid out in the much-discussed “hothouse earth” paper, a lead author of the paper told The Intercept. One of the biggest barriers to averting catastrophe, he said, has more to do with economics than science…

    Asked what could be done to prevent a hothouse earth scenario, co-author Will Steffen told The Intercept that the “obvious thing we have to do is to get greenhouse gas emissions down as fast as we can. That means that has to be the primary target of policy and economics. You have got to get away from the so-called neoliberal economics.” Instead, he suggests something “more like wartime footing” to roll out renewable energy and dramatically reimagine sectors like transportation and agriculture “at very fast rates.”
    That “wartime footing” Steffen describes is a novel concept in 2018, but hasn’t been throughout American history when the nation has faced other existential threats…

    Climate modeler Glen Peters saw a gap between the relatively measured perspective provided in the paper and the doomsday tone of press coverage…
    “I don’t think many scientists think that if we met our Paris commitments, we would end up in a hothouse,” Peters said. “I think at least the media coverage went too far. The final paragraph in the paper says these are all speculative and that to sure it up, we will have to do lots of research on these questions. … The media takeaway is that we’re heading to a hellhole.”…

    Peters notes that upon first read, he skimmed over the section in the paper describing what humans can do to prevent climate change. “I’ve read that a billion times. I don’t need to read it a billion and one,” he joked. That reining in emissions will require massive transformations in the Earth’s productive systems isn’t controversial within the scientific community, which has long argued that world economies need to decarbonize by midcentury at the absolute latest — and that’s a assuming a best-case scenario in which so-called negative emissions technologies can by that point be deployed at scale…

    For high-emitting countries like the U.S., Steffen says the first step to avoiding planetary apocalypse is basically self-evident: “absolutely no new fossil fuel developments. None. That means no new coal mines, no new oil wells, no new gas fields, no new unconventional gas fracking. Nothing new. Second, you need to have a rapid phase-out plan for existing fossil fuels,” starting with coal, he says…

    The main constraints on action are “our value systems, politics, and legal systems,” Steffen told me, adding that taking climate change seriously also means taking “a completely different view of economics, going away from viewing the natural world as resources to viewing it as an essential piece of our life support system that needs to be maintained and enhanced.
    “I think you simply have to go right back to the fundamental science of who we are, the planet we evolved into, how that planet operates and what’s happening to it,” Steffen maintains, “and that will tell you immediately that so-called neoliberal economics is radically wrong in terms of how it views the rest of the world.”…

    From Europe’s emissions trading system to recurring talk of pricing carbon in the United States, climate policy making conversations around the world have tended to focus on market-based instruments for reducing emissions, premised on the idea that setting the right price will encourage polluters and consumers to change their behavior — so-called sin taxes.

    ***Asked what he thought the balance should be between those sorts of market-tweaking measures and regulations, Steffen cautioned that he wasn’t an expert in the field. “Naively from the outside as a non-expert,” he said, “I would say regulation every time: throw people in jail, fine them, do whatever you need to do. But make sure you get the biophysical outcome. From what I’ve seen, market mechanisms don’t always deliver that.”
    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/14/hothouse-earth-climate-change-neoliberal-economics/

    ***The Intercept writer, Kate Aronoff, wouldn’t consider Steffen’s words extreme; she also writes quite regularly for The Guardian, e.g:

    9 Nov 2016: Guardian: Trump won. Now we organize to block him, every step of the way
    by Kate Aronoff
    It happened. Less than a month ago, the odds of a scandal-racked Donald Trump winning the election were just north of 8%. The man whose candidacy began as a joke in the summer of 2014 has become the leader of the free world. Faced with a Trump presidency, the urgent task now isn’t to dissect and explain how we lost. It’s to plan how to block his regime every step of the way forward…
    More analogies to Hitler’s rise will feel painfully relevant this morning…
    And the way world powers took on fascism in the second world war is a poor script for learning how to snuff out today’s far right…

    30

    • #
      tom0mason

      Also Pat,
      Paul Homewood reports on the drought affecting Australian farmers and how unusual it is… see ‘Telegraph’s “Worst Australian Drought In Decades” Fake Claim’ HERE

      No doubt published by the UK Daily Telegraph to re-enforce the ‘hothouse’ meme to the gullible UK readership.

      30

    • #
      sophocles

      The earth going into a hothouse? If the originators of that idea think the recent and increasing signs of cooling are indicative of such warming, boy have I … ah, now where did I put the documentation for that bridge I was going to offer to sell them them? Ah Yes, The Bridge has significant earning potential from road tolls but until they build the approach roads, (and the other necessary attractions to generate the traffic), the earning potential is just like their paper: worthless.

      Their opening words “We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks …” was an Early Warning Sign of propaganda, pure propaganda and nothing but propaganda with some nice but irrelevant, not to mention fictional, graphics. Nature abhors positive feedbacks, so much so that Everything Seen So Far indicates strong negative feedbacks. To rely on such makers of high instablility is not sound science but speculative fiction.

      The “apocalyptic future” is far more likely to be from ice and snow than any amount of “fossil fuel warming,” proselytized by these fules, which means we are going to need our fossil fuels in the very near future more than ever. The current solar trends are not to be so easily ignored.

      The paper is highly, if not entirely, speculative, clinging to propaganda and not presenting any new knowledge. The authors seem to be unaware that the temperatures of the earlier Holocene were at least 2° C warmer than now and the climate was balmy and warm, with hippopotami and crocs disparting themselves in semi-tropical lakes amidst the forests across North Africa (the rains began to dwindle, about 5 thousand years ago, and stopped coming soon after the death of Carthage) where the dry sands of the Sahara Desert rule now. The climate has been there before. Less than 10,000 years ago. That was when the Amazon jungle began. About 2 – 3 thousand years before, it was just grassland, the Patagonian Plains.

      One has to wonder what sort of a literature search they did. Did they look only for supporting and very recent context? It can’t have been very wide for such non-awareness of recent history— unless recent means only the last few decades.

      Our world has been there before and there was no climatic instability. Why should there be some when the planet has actually cooled since then.

      The use of “the Anthropocene” is a second major warning, this time to the inaccuracy of the “researchers” bias/prejudices. If they had used the officially sanctioned name the Meghalayan I might have sat up and read more of the propaganda … ah … paper.

      AR6 must be coming close to publication, otherwise there wouldn’t be such Cargo Cult Posturing and preposterous pseudo-scientific claims. But it’s just what the MSM likes.
      It’s not even worthy of a serious criticism. Flinging way “over-ripe fruit” at the authors is a more suitable reward.

      40

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    14 Aug: UK Times: Emily Gosden: Wind farm with lucrative subsidy turning Japanese
    Innogy has cashed in on its lucrative subsidy deal for the Triton Knoll offshore wind farm by selling a stake in the £2 billion project to Japanese investors.
    The German energy group said it had sold a 25 per cent stake in the proposed development off the east coast of England to J-Power and a 16 per cent stake to the Kansai Electric Power Company for an undisclosed sum.

    Analysts said the Japanese companies were likely to have paid several hundred million pounds for the stake, in addition to the £800 million they will pay for their share of construction costs. In return they will share in a generous subsidy contract, awarded by the government last year, which guarantees Triton Knoll a fixed price for…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wind-farm-with-lucrative-subsidy-turning-japanese-bgmc595fd

    ***following is the subsidy referred to above:

    18 May: LincolnshireReporter: Lewis Foster: Triton Knoll subsidies push up energy bills
    Consumers will pay about £1.5 billion too much for electricity after government ministers awarded unnecessarily generous subsidies to the developers of Triton Knoll, the wind farm off the Lincolnshire coast.
    In 2017 the government increased energy bill by an extra £176 million a year for 15 years to subsidise three large offshore wind farms and several other smaller energy ventures.
    The Times reports that the 860-megawatt offshore wind farm amounts for more than half of that funding, an estimated £100 million a year.

    The subsidies were introduced by ministers in 2015 as part of an effort to encourage competition and drive down costs, but instead a flaw in the process will mean consumers will be paying £1.5 billion extra over the contracts’ 15-year life.
    Whereas the two other wind farms were awarded £57.70 per megawatt-hour, Triton Knoll will be getting ***£74.75 for every megawatt-hour of electricity it produces…

    Jonathan Bullock, Lincolnshire MEP and energy spokesman for UKIP, said: “It is very concerning a flawed tender process had led to the consumer overpaying on its energy bills.
    “Unless renewables are competitive they should not be part of the energy mix. The poor consumer is yet again being hit in the wallet on the alter of green subsidies.”…
    https://lincolnshirereporter.co.uk/2018/05/triton-knoll-subsidies-push-up-energy-bills/

    30

  • #
    PeterS

    Abbott won the previous round and Shorten is winning the current one now that he has upped the ante on cutting power prices. So when is Turnbull going to resign and hand over the LNP leadership to someone who will break the ice and promote the only means that will actually reduce power prices significantly – namely to scrap the RET schemes and Paris Agreement?

    40

    • #
      sophocles

      PeterS @ # 62:

      So when is Turnbull going to resign and hand over the LNP leadership …?

      Peter, you were jesting when you wrote that, surely?

      Turnbull is A Man On A Mission. Resign? He can’t resign. The Climate isn’t Safe, yet!

      He won’t resign … he will have to be “shot” by a caucus No Confidence vote, aka a Revolt. The ego can’t see what’s coming or doesn’t want to admit it, and will try to hang on to that magical Power whatever it takes.

      The sooner, the better! Best of luck!

      20

  • #
    PeterS

    The elephant is still in the room and it’s smashing the LNP right, left and centre. Before long the rest of the LNP members will have to come to the realisation they have lost the next two elections at least if they still have Turnbull as PM at the next election. Sometimes it’s prudent to cut your losses and run, and this is that time – cut out Turnbull from the party and run like hell away from him. He is poison to the LNP not just now but well into the future if he remains in the party.

    20

  • #
    macha

    I read or heard somewhere, sorry no link, that if Australia continued on current business as usual/ do nothing it would exceed the 26% target anyway. hence the political desire in Turnbull to lock-in regulation and claim the achievement. What gets me us why so many don’t seem to like Abbott. I would divert all 50-100yr modelling expenses (esp. Junkets) to 5-10yr direct action plans. Eg drought proofing Australia… Take a look at how many dams have been built lately. We waste so much and let even more get away when it dies rain. Where is Viv Forbes…

    10

    • #
      Phillthegeek

      Take a look at how many dams have been built lately. We waste so much and let even more get away when it dies rain

      Problem with dams in a drought prone environment is that it tends to turn the rivers into toxic drains of no use to anyone for anything. Easy fix…ban cotton growing.

      10

  • #
    DaveR

    Turnbull has taken his MPs and the Nationals coalition partner for granted in perpetrating this monstrous fraud on the people and businesses of Australia. That it got all the way to draft legislation before the conservatives took action is a poor commenrtary on the quality of our politicians.

    The Liberals must use this opportunity to remove the fatally-flawed Turnbull and the toadying Frydenberg at the same time. Bishop has to go for her untrustworthyness.

    There is plenty of time for the Coalition to install a new leader and achieve the one critical action needed to win the next election: reunite the Liberal-National voter base.

    00

  • #
  • #
    angry

    October 2009….

    Turnbull announces: “I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.”

    https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/eyeing-off-the-end-game/news-story/ce8b16f5a9189412464c102f47b5c10a

    scumbag !!

    20

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Bachy

    OK this is just my view on the whole topic. I’m an AGW skeptic, but I do consider myself an environmentalist. The subject of overpopulation and ecological debt are of some concern to me, as is the importance of equality.

    Western nations with their current population are consuming too much of the world’s renewable resources. If all nations were of equal standing and consumption of our own western society, we would need approx 2.4 Earths to provide sufficient renewable resources to meet our needs. I like equality so I cannot accept a situation where a large number of nations must live in poverty so we can live to excess.

    So, as far as I can see there are 4 solutions.

    1) War. Any war which can reduce the population of the planet enough to solve the problem will cause so much physical devastation that our civilisation will come to an end. Not acceptable.
    2) Disease. Whether natural or man made, any epidemic large enough to solve the problem will be deadly enough to wipe out not just a lot of the world’s population, but has a chance of wiping us all out. Not acceptable.
    3) Population control. Only one nation has tried birth rate control (China) and they abandoned it after a short period. The majority of the world’s nations will never accept it. So not acceptable.
    4) Control of production and consumption of renewable resources. The easiest and really only way of controlling this is by controlling the production of power. The availability of power determines what we can produce and what we can consume.

    The only really achievable one of these is #4. This, I believe, is the goal of the UN and the IPCC. It’s not about the climate and it’s not about the environment, not directly.

    So I find myself at a point where I’m not sure which side to take. I dislike lies and manipulation intensely, the people in control should be honest. But if the situation is as I believe, then does the ends justify the means? It’s always a slippery slope.

    01

    • #
      sophocles

      To Bachy @ # 70.

      Your opinion sounds as though it has been strongly influenced by Paul Ehrlich. He was debunked by Julian Simon (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17572998-the-bet.) It’s not so much “the western nations” at fault as the forms of economics forced on those nations by their wealthiest few. If you want more fairness and just economics then you will find plenty of reading (aided by videos) explaining this hijack and what really needs to be done. (http://www.henrygeorge.org/bob/understanding-economics-site-map/)

      You can rest assured that the UN’s so-called “Sustainability” which is to “replace” Capitalism (the UN’s words) embodies and includes none of these concepts of economic fairness and justice and seeks to pursue the present injustices with the further theft of private property through extra taxes.

      Ehrlich’s and probably your opinions are predicated on static conditions. That was Ehrlich’s mistake. It could be yours. Nothing on this planet is static: it’s all dynamic. It’s how to use, rather than abuse, that dynamicism which is difficult to see and almost all environmentalists fall into that trap.

      You can read Ge0rge’s books online, if you wish:
      1. The fundamental causes of poverty: http://progressandpoverty.org/read-online/progress-and-poverty-table-of-contents-drake-edition/ Progress and Poverty. The UN doesn’t want to know this.
      2. http://schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/science-of-political-economy/specontents.html The Science of Political Economy (which is now called simply Economics.)
      3. http://schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/social-problems/spcont.html Social Problems. These were the problems the Socialists tried to fix but without George’s analysis and solutions, they are always doomed to fail. (Watch the UN’s Sustainability turn into a vicious Socialist bureaucratic tyranny. This book shows the sign posts as they were present in the 19th century and explains the cure—the correct cure.)

      Enjoy.

      Read, listen, watch, think, and enjoy.
      Be careful you are not inventing problems which do not exist or which are subject to change and control in ways you do not suspect. There is always a synthesis which can work better and faster and fairer than any brute force method. Perhaps these books, with some thought, can show you the way.

      00

    • #
      yarpos

      “3) Population control. Only one nation has tried birth rate control (China) and they abandoned it after a short period. The majority of the world’s nations will never accept it. So not acceptable.”

      One bad example doesnt mean , something doesnt work or is unacceptable. One child is pretty radical and only needed in desperation. Two children would be an easier sell and is below replacement level. Thing is the places that really need it , mainly Africa are already basket cases and have enough trouble providing basic services let alone implementing anything like this. The West has already achieved the goal economically but if others dont it will just be engulfed and problem continues.

      00