Stephen Harper must have watched the Tony Abbott win, the Trump win, and the Doug Ford win in Ontario. He gets the message. When will Australian conservatives? Fully 48% of Australian’s are happy to pull out of Paris. Plus 14% more are undecided, there for the taking — convince them.
Trudeau’s aggressive climate action plan appears dead
As that [carbon] price is about to take effect, growing opposition has put Trudeau on the defensive and has provincial governments rolling back other measures, raising questions about the appetite of this oil-exporting country to tackle climate change.
Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, said Thursday it would join a legal challenge against Trudeau’s carbon pricing. Polls suggest Alberta, the center of Canada’s oil and gas industry, will soon elect a government that opposes the plan. And Trudeau’s own chances of reelection next year have fallen, as his opponents seize on public resistance to carbon pricing.
How quickly things have changed. It seems hard to believe now, but just over a year ago, nine provinces agreed to Trudeau’s plan to usurp provincial jurisdiction and mandate a national carbon tax. At the time, only Saskatchewan opposed the Trudeau carbon-tax grab.
This week, going into the meeting of the premiers, the number of provinces supporting the Trudeau carbon tax looks like it’s down to five — or maybe even four. Soon it could be down to three.
Things are looking so bleak that Ian Brodie, onetime chief of staff to former prime minister Stephen Harper, stated on Twitter recently: “The carbon tax is politically dead and won’t survive the end of (the) Trudeau prime ministership. Everyone knows this but not everyone will admit it.”
What a difference a year makes. It wasn’t long ago that the pundits and so-called experts said a carbon tax was unstoppable in Canada.
Canadians are sick of high electricity prices, and carbon taxes and former PM Stephen Harper says any conservative can win “on that issue alone”:
Support for Trudeau’s Liberal Party has fallen, putting it in a rough tie with the rival Conservative Party. Trudeau’s chief opponent in next year’s federal election, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer, has said one of the first things he will do as prime minister is eliminate the carbon tax.
Stephen Harper, the Conservative who governed Canada from 2006 to 2015, also sees a political opening. “Let the other guys do a carbon tax because we can all win the next federal and provincial elections on that issue alone,” he said in a recent closed-door speech, as reported by Maclean’s magazine.
How big was that Ontario win– the ruling greener Liberals were crushed, losing 48 seats and even official party status
I’ve never seen a win and wipe-out as big as the June 7 Ontario elections. Mark it up in the history books. The Conservatives went from 27 seats to 76. The Liberals went from 55 seats to just 7. They can fit their MP’s in a mini-van. It was their worst result in 161 years. The third party is now The Opposition. Seismic is the word.
Ontario’s election last week was a humiliating and crushing defeat for Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, which went from being in government to losing official party status overnight. Peter Shawn Taylor wrote in the Financial Post on Tuesday that the election was a revolt over high energy prices caused by poor government policy. — IPA Newsletter
UPDATE: To clarify It was specifically Kathleen Wynne which suffered the crushing defeat (not Justin Trudeau). From reader Joey: Kathleen Wynne was the liberal premier (and was leader of the Ontario provincial liberal party) that conclusively lost the election (she has subsequently resigned as party leader). The federal and provincial liberal parties are affiliated but have different leaders. Justin Trudeau is the federal premier (and leader of the federal liberal party). There is a reasonable chance that the federal liberals could lose the upcoming federal election next year. Then the carbon tax will be truly dead.
As Al in Cranbrook BC says: “Jason Kenney’s Conservatives in Alberta, by every indication, will demolish the NDP (socialist) government in 2019.”
It’s hard to believe, but voters don’t seem to want to pay more for electricity to change the weather in 2100 by an amount too small to measure.
Someone tell our MP’s and get us a new P.M., or an old one, any one that is actually not centre left.
Happy to hear from more Canadians.
A populist skeptical rise,
Could give leaders some shock and surprise,
Making governments fall,
If they didn’t play ball,
And cut warmists and Greens down to size.
–Ruairi
Say you want to speak something you believe to be true, but it may offend or upset some people. Violent thugs threaten to turn up. In Victoria the police bills the non-violent speaker — in this case $68,000 in order to keep the peace.
How is this not “protection money” and with the police working in cohoots with bullies?
I am calling out Victoria’s Police and their masters in the Labor government. Why are you cooperating with violent fascists of the Left to stop conservatives or people of the right from holding meetings? This $68,000 bill to protect Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux is a disgrace.
Rather than going after people who actually cause violence, the Victorian police are trying to shut down a legal, law-abiding speaker and prevent her from giving a lecture. Because of threats made by some Marxist thugs.
This goes to the very heart of freedom of speech in Australia. If the police can force someone to pay $68,000 or else be silent, then freedom of speech in Australia is dead. If anything, shouldn’t the people responsible for violence be given the bill? Apparently not in Victoria today.
It doesn’t matter if you agree with Lauren or not – this isn’t about her, this is about the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
In one of the more pointless and inane “scientific” publications of the year, Brulle et al has added up climate lobbying dollars across the years and sectors, but missed the two largest sectors and blended friend and foe unto homogenised pap. Even Brulle admits that gas companies lobby for climate legislation, while coal companies lobby against it, yet Brulle still lumps them all into the archetypal ogre called “Fossil Fuels”. Let’s perpetuate a mindless stereotype, eh?
Was that an accident or an aim?
Thus and verily do “fossil fuels” predictably outspend environmental organisations:
“Unsurprisingly, sectors that could be negatively affected by bills limiting carbon emissions, such as the electrical utilities sector, fossil fuel companies and transportation corporations had the deepest pockets. Their lobbying efforts dwarfed those of environmental organizations, the renewable energy industry and volunteer groups.”
Gas companies benefit from climate change because coal is the enemy, and more unreliable generators means the grid needs more gas or oil. The only reason to blend these together under the block category “Fossil fuels” is to feed the hate-tweet memes. Go Brulle.
Carbon lobbying peak days are over
Peak years were 2009 and 2010.
The two largest lobbyists of all don’t even get a mention.
There was no “financial sector”, no bank mentioned. But then, perhaps Citigroup just spent $100b, but didn’t think to lobby on Capital Hill? Could be…
Banks involved in carbon trading
Which lobbyists are the most desperate?
Perhaps I missed it, but I saw no mention of the desperation levels of the various sides. Those selling an essential commodity have the security of knowing that demand for their products will still be running strong even if the government changes the rules tomorrow. Those selling an uncompetitive, esoteric product designed to change the weather in a hundred years are desperate. It’s do or die for them. When the government changes the rules, their market evaporates.
That’s why, one day when someone does a meaningful study on funds for climate lobbying, they’ll find it stacked heavily for “climate change”.
In this debate there are a thousand vested interests and only a few vested losers. Apart from coal, the losers are export industries and most of the population. Who lobbies for them?
Robert J. Brulle. The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016. Climatic Change, 2018; DOI: 10.1007/s10584-018-2241-z
Our understanding of the sun’s effect of Earth’s weather is so immature
Remarkably, some Japanese families kept weather record diaries in the 1700 and 1800s, and some for as long as 150 years. The connections they reveal are tantalizing but so incomplete. We are trying to fish out primitive signals from murky water. The Sun turns around on itself every 27 days, so these researchers are looking for repeating patterns in lightning that fit, but the poles of the sun spin slower than the equator and the sun spots can take their own time. Hence, it’s not a neat “27” days.
During periods of high solar activity, they found regular peaks in lightning activity with the right timing, from May to September when the cold Siberian air mass is not so influential.
Other studies we’ve discussed here have investigated long solar cycles on the 11 year or 200 year scales. But here, the researchers are thinking of day to day weather, and looking for a solar influence on timeframe that might improve weather forecasting. Obviously there is a long way to go. As for mechanisms they suspect that it’s the solar wind that is influential, but they don’t know, when sun spots peak there’s also an increase in ultraviolet rays and decrease in energetic particles.
In a paper last year they found the 27 day cycle in modern Japanese records from 1989-2015. Now they have found it in much older and longer records.
The Sun affects Earth in so many ways, through magnetic and electric fields, charged particles at Mach 2000, and wild swings in UV radiation. Climate models treat it as if it were just a ball of light. Imagine if we had spent $100 billion looking at solar influences on the climate. We might have models that worked….
Diary entries dating back to the 1700s could help scientists understand the link between lightning activity on Earth, and the rotational cycle of the sun.
Researchers in Japan have turned to detailed logs kept by farm families and government officials hundreds of years ago, looking for mentions of thunder and lightning events. The study shows this activity lined up with the time it takes sunspots to make a complete rotation, suggesting the cycle plays a ‘very important role,’ in daily weather.
According to the team, this is the same window for a sunspot rotation, and was seen to be especially strong in years with a high number of sunspots.
“It is well known that long-term — centennial to millennial-scale — variations of solar activity influences terrestrial climate,” said Hiroko Miyahara, first author on the paper, and an associate professor of Humanities and Sciences/Museum Careers at Musashino Art University in Tokyo, Japan. “However, it is not well established whether the sun influences the daily or monthly weather.”
From the intro to the 2018 paper — this effect also occurs in England and possibly in tropical clouds:
The idea of Pulling out of Paris is barely discussed in Australia. Tony Abbott made it a national discussion for five minutes last week, but apparently that’s all it takes, or even less. After 30 years of non-stop agitprop and years of bipartisan rah, rah, solemn “history in the making” cheer, the truth is Australian’s mostly don’t give a toss. All we had to do was ask them.
It’s a loaded question framesd as “if pulling out could result in lower electricity prices”... Purists may protest that this overstates the result. Not so. If we had any kind of rational national discussion it would be obvious to all that the “could” is a wishy washy misleading and loaded term — seeding the possibility that pulling out might not lower prices. If people knew that no nation on Earth with lots of unreliables also has cheap electricity, even more people would want to abandon Paris.
By more than two to one, people want cheaper power, not Paris points:
Almost two thirds, 63 per cent, of voters also claimed that cheaper power should be governments’ priority with only 24 per cent believing reducing emissions should take precedence.
NewsPoll, Australia out of Paris, July 2018.
In any normal electorate this would be a seismic hot number. Even a quarter of Greens voters are willing to chuck Paris for cheaper power bills. And it’s clearly a dominant issue among One Nation voters. What better way for a rampaging Coalition to steal back centre right voters and win the centre left too? Except they won’t — Turnbull gave up this electoral gift and almost lost the last election, all he had to do was follow Abbott’s lead.
This revealing polling comes from The Australian, under the title:
Trump got the US out of Paris, but US taxpayers are still funding pointless climate-control deals.
The World Bank is supposed to be sorting out poverty. Instead it’s enriching the renewables industry, and keeping the poor stuck on unreliable low grade energy.
The World Bank is spending millions in government funding from various countries, including the U.S., to implement climate mitigation strategies in line with an international agreement to fight climate change — the Paris climate accords.
No other country could sort out the World Bank as quickly as the US:
The U.S. is the World Bank’s largest supporter and shareholder owning 17 percent of organization’s shares. The next largest owner, Japan, owns just under 8 percent. Several bills moving through Congress would grant the World Bank, along with other Multilateral Development Banks, roughly $1.8 billion.
“Climate change is a threat to the core mission of the World Bank Group,” the World Bank’s 83 page Climate Change Action Plan for 2016-2020 states.
Leapfrog the poor into Neverland:
The World Bank’s strategy, generally, is to leapfrog the fossil fuel rung of the “energy ladder” and construct grids powered by zero-emission renewable energy sources in countries with wide-spread systemic poverty. Wind and solar energy is intermittent power reliant on the weather and energy is produced at a higher cost relative to fossil fuels.
The US could distribute that aid direct to the countries that need it. Imagine what a difference a few reliable coal plants could make in Africa. Last time TonyFromOz looked, 15 million people in Mali used the same electricity as the 40,000 pop. town of Dubbo did. See those African energy use statistics.
Energy Minister Greg Rickford said the move will save provincial ratepayers $790 million — a figure industry officials dispute, saying it will just mean job losses for small business.
In a statement Friday, Rickford said the government plans to introduce legislation during its summer sitting that would protect hydro consumers from any costs incurred from the cancellation.
“For 15 years, Ontario families and businesses have been forced to pay inflated hydro prices so the government could spend on unnecessary and expensive energy schemes,” Rickford said. “Those days are over.”
Opponents complained that this would cost jobs. Obviously they forget the Green job multiplier: for every Green job lost 3 – 5 real jobs will be created.
Renewables fans said this will lead to big lawsuits and called it a war on science. What they did not say was how this was an opportunity missed because all these projects would be profitable selling electricity to local businesses.
If only they could have…
New Greens reason: do it because you’re supporting a big Vested Interest
Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said the cancellation means the province is turning its back on the global renewable industry, which he said is worth billions and is a proven job creator. Schreiner added the decision also sends a number of negative signals about the province to business.
Because billion dollar industries need all the help they can get, right?
Last week only fringe loonies who were clinging to a dead technology were calling for a coal revival (mock mock mock). But now that the ACCC has spent months investigating and 400 pages reporting, they discovered that Tony Abbott and Craig Kelly and the Monash group were, hey, all right all along.
This is Turnbulls get-out-of-jail card, if he used it as an excuse to be sensible. He has in the past taken those cards and set fire to them. In a best case, he might, with arm twisted in a one-spare-seat-government, “build new coal” sometime in the far distant future, but whatever he does he won’t do anything other than minor hand waving about the Crony Green-Theft runaway train profits.
A proposal for the federal government to financially guarantee the construction and operation of new dispatchable power generation, which could include clean coal-fired plants, is expected to be taken to cabinet with the backing of the Prime Minister.
Malcolm Turnbull yesterday confirmed he would seriously consider the key recommendation of a report by the competition watchdog to underwrite and potentially subsidise new “firm” and cheap power generation for industrial and commercial users.
Signalling a possible end to the energy wars within the Coalition partyroom, the recommendation was immediately endorsed by Nationals MPs, who have interpreted it as a green light for government to intervene in supporting the future of coal generation.
h/t RobK
The government wouldn’t need to buy new coal plants if our market wasn’t so screwed in the first place. But it is screwed, so “OK”. Better would be for the government to get out of the market, stop trying to use our electricity grid as a Global Climate Controller, stop forcing consumers to buy green electrons, stop trying to pick-the-winners in the tech game, stop big energy groups from owning every kind of generator and game the bidding system, stop building transmission lines to Kalamazoo and stop employing green activists to run our national energy market.
No End to the Energy Wars
As for the idea that this “signals an end to the energy wars”… Not A Chance.
As long as customers are being forced to spend money on magical glass panels to stop droughts and save whales, or to subsidize windmills to hold back the tide and stop crocodiles, there will be no end to the energy wars. As long as Chinese Crypto miners can get electricity at a third of the price in Australia that Australian Newsagents can we know we still have a problem. Once the public realizes how fool politicians sold them out to the renewables industry with witchdoctor excuses, there will be hell to pay.
The large Hazelwood Coal Units closed a year ago, so the Snowy Mountain Hydro Scheme has been working hard to fill the holes in the unreliable generation that replaced it. And they’ve been collecting tidy profits from earning RET certificates too.
What could possibly go wrong?
This — levels of Lake Eucumbene have fallen to 24%. This is the lowest since 2010. It’s not the lowest ever (so that’s alright then).
The rain will just fill it right up, unless there is an El Nino. Don’t look now… Odds are “above average”.
Lake Eucumbene is now at its lowest level since 2010 and on its way to a repeat of 2007 when electricity generation had to be stopped in favour of a heavily polluting fossil-fuel generator in Victoria.
The Hydro chief said they had been generating more to “take advantage of tight market conditions.” And we all know what that means.
This is tough for fishermen and tourists.
Alan Basford, who has been at Anglers Reach Caravan Park on the shores of Lake Eucumbene for 50 years, said things were becoming desperate.
“We have been very concerned for a long while,” Mr Basford told The Australian.He stopped pumping water for the park three months ago and said what usually was a 3km stretch of water out the front of his property was now “just a river”.
The fishing is still good but visitors can no longer get to the water. “We haven’t had any rain for a long time but it’s going down like mad because they are generating electricity,” Mr Basford said.
“They are generating all the time and using water like it is going out of style.”
What about that rainfall?
Heavy rains are required to replenish the Eucumbene reservoir, but the Bureau of Meteorology winter outlook is for below-average rainfall for NSW, South Australia, northern Victoria…
Look at what happened to Q2 prices on the NEM the last time we had a major hydro drought?
See that big bump years ago? That was it. Across all eastern states.
…..
We pay $1b a year to genius investigators at the ABC to help us have a national conversation to avoid these blindingly obvious risks. Find that discussion…
The ACCC is a powerful body created to protect consumers in Australia. Now, after ten years of poor people being forced to pay for middle and upper class solar panels in a kind of semi-secret subsidy-tax, NOW, it says maybe it is time to stop?
The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission’s electricity affordability report reveals the huge cost of environmental schemes across the National Energy Market, including the large-scale renewable energy target, the small-scale renewable energy scheme and solar feed-in tariffs.
The schemes add a combined $170 to household energy bills in South Australia, $155 in Tasmania, $109 in NSW, $93 in Victoria and $76 in Queensland.
The ACCC waffles some reasons:
The ACCC said the costs associated with the LRET were expected to fall significantly after 2020, and did not recommend any action to wind up the scheme before its 2030 end date. But it said the SRES, which cost $130 million in 2016-17, should be wound down and abolished by 2021, almost a decade ahead of schedule, to reduce costs for consumers.
When did the ACCC ask what value non-solar customers were getting from this deal?
Solar installers must be starting to panic….
Western Sydney Solar owner Rod Grono said he was worried that abolishing the rooftop solar subsidy would lead to a plunge in solar installations.
And the truth about the return on investment becomes clearer:
“Confidence will fall. For a $10,000, 5.2kW job, (small-scale technology certificates) are about $3300. That means a four-year payback becomes a seven or eight-year payback. That might tip people over,” Mr Grono said.
Solar is competitive if you give it a one third head start:
Modelling suggested the SRES would fund about 32 per cent of the cost of a 5kW system by 202
I’ll have a lot more to say on this. Sadly am crook. Thanks to TDeF, Robber, ROM for help. Watch this space….
*Why is the burden on non solar homes? Because some with solar panels got paid above market rates for green electrons, and other solar homes got the use of subsidized equipment so they just didn’t have to buy so much electricity.
Britain is suddenly very interesting (for the eight hundredth time in the History of Western Civilization). It’s a defining moment. Fans of the establishment didn’t want Brexit, so they tried a scare campaign, which failed. They tried on a second vote and legal means, and namecalling “xenophobic isolationist” — all the usual. Anything but a polite list of good reasons to stay in (something to counter the brilliant Daniel Hannan’s points, not to mention the happy existence of Switzerland and Norway). Now they wear the cloak and try the Remain By Stealth option (like our Carbon Tax by Stealth). Call it Brexit but make the reality the same. It is an absolute scandal for the working class and poor in the UK. Hence the string of resignations…
The peasants don’t want people in Brussels deciding what kind of hair dryer and vacuum cleaner they may buy.
We’re planning to spend $5,000 million on something to smooth out the bumps from unreliable generators. It is entirely unnecessary in a system where coal supplies the baseload and we have not created artificial rules forcing people to use green electrons in preference over stable and predictable ones. Most estimates of costs from wind and solar ignore the hidden costs — the destructive effect on the whole grid.
Energy project financier David Carland — the executive director of Australian Resources Development Limited — argues that once the Snowy Hydro project is operating it will provide only partial back-up energy at a high cost.
Using Snowy Hydro’s modelling assumptions, Dr Carland’s calculations show the “levelised cost of energy” — or unit-cost of electricity over the lifetime of an asset — will deliver power significantly in excess of $90/MWh, after allowing for the cost of storage, cycle losses and the initial cost of buying energy at off-peak prices.
The effect of “cycle losses” means Snowy 2.0 will have to buy around 30 per cent more power in order to pump water uphill than it can generate when water is released from the upper storage.
“Snowy 2.0 is a pump storage operation that is a net user of energy and therefore cannot resolve the longer-term issues of the lack of baseload supply in the national electricity market,” Dr Carland told The Australian. “Based on Snowy Hydro’s own modelling the scenario in which Snowy 2.0 prospers is a world in which average power prices continue to rise.”
Costs are never coming back down
Kiss goodbye to the old $30/MWh average cost of the NEM wholesale electricity market.
….
Why is the NSW old average $50/MWh? I think that’s artificially high. Retail prices fell from 1955-1980 and then held stable for decades. They ominously started rising faster than inflation from 2005 which was when intermittent generation began to build on the grid. There was also a major drought in 2007.
NSW (dark purple). QLD (light purple), SA (red), Vic (grey) and Tas (green)
Those days are gone unless we save our old coal plants and stop favouring green electrons.
The government doesn’t need to build coal plants, it needs to abandon the RET and all pagan attempts to change the weather with our generators.
The market will sort the problem out if the government gets out of the way.
Scientists wondered whether climate change was affecting super high clouds that people rarely see and there is virtually no data on. So they used models which fail on clouds and water vapor only ten kilometers above the Earth and tried to predict what happened to both way up at 80 kilometers up and 150 years ago. They “found” (their phrase, not mine) the increase was man made. So once again, your car exhaust and dinner steak are to blame for changing these night-shining clouds.
How could it be any other way?
This is pure crystal ball science that starts with errors and ends with extrapolations. Researchers are fooling themselves using words like “results”, “indicator” and “significant” as if this was an actual experiment.
PUBLIC RELEASE:
Climate change is making night-shining clouds more visible
AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION
WASHINGTON — Increased water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere due to human activities is making shimmering high-altitude clouds more visible, a new study finds. The results suggest these strange but increasingly common clouds seen only on summer nights are an indicator of human-caused climate change, according to the study’s authors.
Noctilucent, or night-shining, clouds are the highest clouds in Earth’s atmosphere. They form in the middle atmosphere, or mesosphere, roughly 80 kilometers (50 miles) above Earth’s surface. The clouds form when water vapor freezes around specks of dust from incoming meteors. Watch a video about noctilucent clouds here. [Or not, there is no link? – Jo]
Humans first observed noctilucent clouds in 1885, after the eruption of Krakatoa volcano in Indonesia spewed massive amounts of water vapor in the air. Sightings of the clouds became more common during the 20th century, and in the 1990s scientists began to wonder whether climate change was making them more visible.
Or was it just that there were six billion more people to notice the noctilucents? Who can tell?
In a new study, researchers used satellite observations and climate models to simulate how the effects of increased greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels have contributed to noctilucent cloud formation over the past 150 years. Extracting and burning fossil fuels delivers carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor into the atmosphere, all of which are greenhouse gases.
Why bother with satellites, we can just simulate space and history…
In the new study, Lübken and colleagues ran computer simulations to model the Northern Hemisphere’s atmosphere and noctilucent clouds from 1871 to 2008. They wanted to simulate the effects of increased greenhouse gases, including water vapor, on noctilucent cloud formation over this time period.
Who needs observations?
“We speculate that the clouds have always been there, but the chance to see one was very, very poor, in historical times,” said Franz-Josef Lübken, an atmospheric scientist at the Leibniz Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Kühlungsborn, Germany and lead author of the new study in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
The researchers found the presence of noctilucent clouds fluctuates from year to year and even from decade to decade, depending on atmospheric conditions and the solar cycle. But over the whole study period, the clouds have become significantly more visible.
Over the whole study period? Meaning during the last ten minutes…
Read the introduction of the paper. “Little is known”, “observations are rather challenging” but there is a consensus…
Everyone is talking about the NEG (National Energy Guarantee) which will supposedly attain the mythical trifecta of cheap, reliable, and planet cooling electricity. In terms of meeting our Paris “commitment” Tom Quirk wondered how we are doing in other sectors, like farms, cars, rubbish — and whether we had cut emissions there. Well, ho, ho, here’s that report. Thank you, Tom. Looks like a lot of cows and sheep will have to go. Still, we want to stop storms don’t we?
Key points:
The NEG is not enough on its own to reduce Australian emissions from 608Mt to 444Mt.
Most of our reductions so far have come from just two sectors: the electricity sector and from changes to land-clearing.
We’ve “achieved” nothing in other sectors like agriculture, transport, waste and industry.
Methane emissions from sheep and cattle amount to 60Mt. Trashing the live-export trade may help reduce
With enough bad luck, and poor management, plus some sacrificial lambs on the altar, we might be the only country on Earth that meets its Paris agreement. Rejoice.
This is assuming that our population stops growing and Australia blocks all immigration tomorrow. That’s right, Tom Quirk has not made any allowance for the 250,000 immigrants arriving presently.
These are optimistic best case numbers.
Jo
___________________________________
Will Australia make it to Paris 2030?
Guest post by Tom Quirk
In 2005 Australia emitted 608 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 – equivalent greenhouse gases. To achieve a 26 to 28% reduction we must cut emissions to an average of 444 Mt.
Due to accounting changes to land use and forestry, Australia could claim a fall of 104 Mt of CO2 from 2005 to 2012. The emissions from cutting down trees were no longer to be accounted immediately but could be written off over longer periods of years. A most interesting change was for forest fires to be treated as Acts of God and not counted in national emissions. An external issue is whether God is anthropogenic.
Forest and peat fires are a major source of atmospheric CO2. Consider that during the 1997 – 98 El Nino, Indonesia alone was estimated to have produced the equivalent of between 13 – 40% of the annual global fossil fuel emissions and the total estimate for the El Nino was 50% from forest and peat fires.
The changes for Australia are shown in Figure 1 along with the emissions from agriculture. The emissions from agriculture show no changes over the years of land use changes. This may be the result of enteric emissions of methane being some 90% of the agriculture CO2 equivalent emissions.
Figure 1: Emissions for changes in land use and forestry and from agriculture.
The changes in land use and forestry appear to have plateaued from 2012 to 2017. So for this analysis no changes are assumed after 2017. A reassessment would be necessary if there are new government regulations on land use.
The Hockeystick graph rewrote history and was used to justify billions of dollars of expenditure. The people who created it were public servants dedicated to science and writing businesslike emails to each other — which is why they fought tooth and nail and with hundreds of thousands of dollars for 1,763 days to stop you reading them.
Marvel that after 1,000 years of working as thermometers, trees suddenly decalibrated in 1961 just as our national networks of adjistimongered-thermometers were established. See that red line rise…
Arizona Appellate Court Decides Hockey Stick Emails Must Be Released Despite the University’s Appeal.
One thousand seven hundred and sixty-three days ago, on behalf of its client, the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, PLLC (FME Law) asked the University of Arizona to hand over public records that would expose to the world the genesis of what some consider the most influential scientific publication of that decade – the Mann-Bradley-Hughes temperature reconstruction that looks like a hockey stick.
The University refused. …
“This decision by the Appellate Court is much more than a small procedural action,” said Dr. David Schnare, the member-manager of the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, PLLC, who is prosecuting this case. “We asked for the full history of the hockey stick graph and much more. We sought the history of the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report and the discussions among the scientists as they discussed climate papers and the then burgeoning antagonism between climate scientists not of like mind.” Chaim Mandelbaum, Executive Director of FME Law explains, “This case is not over, but we appear to be at the beginning of the end.”
Trump got the US out of Paris, but US taxpayers are still funding pointless climate-control deals.
t at the Leibniz Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Kühlungsborn, Germany and lead author of the new study in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
Recent Comments