|
|
The Greens will not be happy. The push for pointless decarbonization inexorably leads to nuclear power. The UK is not only about to sign deals for 16 small nuclear reactors, they are shortlisting sites for a fusion plant. It’s another unintended consequence the Greens did not see coming.
Jim Pickard and Natalie Thomas, Financial Times
U.K. ministers will put nuclear power at the heart of Britain’s strategy to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 in government documents expected as early as next week, the Financial Times reported.
Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is to unveil an overarching “Net Zero Strategy” paper as soon as Monday, along with a “Heat and Building Strategy” and a Treasury assessment of the cost of reaching the 2050 goal, the report said.
The main strategy will have a heavy focus on Britain’s nuclear power program. Prime Minister Boris Johnson was expected to give the go-ahead to the documents on Friday, according to the report.
The catch, consumers will have to pay a levy years before they get the electricity:
The creation of a “regulated asset base” model will be key to delivering future large atomic-power stations. Under the plan, households will be charged for the cost of a plant via an energy levy long before it begins generating electricity, the report said.
The nuclear levy is still a “Green Fee” or a “carbon tax”. But at least it won’t leave the country facing an energy crisis every time the wind slows. The UK still has plenty of shale gas to be fracked if only they’d let themselves use it.
Half of Australians already support nuclear power
A recent Essential poll shows that without any public debate at all, 50% of voters already support nuclear power. When the undecideds (18%) hear that there are 450 nuclear plants around the world, the number of supporters can only grow.
Australia will “go Nuclear” too if the Green Blob pushes us to adopt the witchcraft Net Zero goal that uses power plants as “weather changing” machines.
The thing slowing nuclear power in Australia was that coal power was so much cheaper. There is an opening here for one of the big parties to pull a nuclear rabbit out of their hats. The Coalition may lose the coal territory seats of Queensland and the coming election, especially given how unpopular they are in WA too. The Australian Workers Union now backs nukes. Imagine if the Labor Party planned for nuclear power which would allow them to offset the emissions from an extension of coal stations. The Labor Party would suddenly look pragmatic, differentiate itself from The Greens, and the Liberals would be left holding the “Green Hydrogen” and Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro fantasy bag that no one believes in.
One third of the Greens might even vote Labor because they support nukes.
Support for nuclear energy in Australia
 Essential Poll https://essentialvision.com.au/support-for-nuclear-energy-in-australia
9.8 out of 10 based on 63 ratings
It’s an interesting moment in US history. Most Australians may not know what “Let’s Go Brandon” means. Our major news outlets haven’t yet mentioned this cultural phenomenon. It’s being censored.
In the US, The People are not happy, and they’re finding new ways to protest. Traditional protests by the Unmentionables are being banned, or sabotaged by violent infiltrators and ignored by the media. It’s become dangerous to walk the streets and carry placards. A few fake protestors wearing horns can capture all the media glory — and the media is happy to use them to falsely define a largely Christian middle and working class phenomenon as “domestic terrorists”. So a movement has sprung up spontaneously at stadiums of thousands of people. How many Australians are even aware that mass chants of “F*** Joe Biden” are happening at football games in Utah, Oklahoma, Mississippi and New Jersey? These are crude mass declarations of rebellion. It’s being called “a movement” and it’s spreading. Individuals can’t be punished or silenced, and while it’s a desperately pitiful national conversation, it makes a point. It’s gross disrespect for the Office of the President.
So in front of that incendiary mass rebellion, an NBC TV Interviewer was interviewing a NASCAR Driver called Brandon. Anyone with eyes and ears knew exactly what was happening in the background, but she tried to pass off the “F*** Joe Biden” chant as “Let’s Go Brandon”. It was a form of brazen but desperate media gaslighting, and the non-left have picked it up as a slogan against both Biden and the media. “Let’s go Brandon” is the epitome of fake news.
And as mysterious mentions of “Brandon” appear in social media, onlookers are being Red Pilled. Did 80 million Americans really vote for this most popular President ever, and is the media really telling us what’s going on?
Tucker explains the phenomenon:
…
Australians might also find it eye opening to know how many people in the US are walking away from their job over vaccine mandates.
Is that a nurse shortage you see? Are those storms over SouthWest Airlines?
T-shirts and Hats for sale already.
 Who wants a T-shirt?. Reap what you sow. Who started the gross disrespect for the Office of the President and using sport for politics? Not conservatives.
Glenn Reynolds:
[The “F*** Joe Biden chants] seems to be happening all over. It’s amusing to see Democrats respond by demanding respect for the office, and the separation of politics and sport. Too late guys. Enjoy the new rules you made.
When a democracy surrounds the elected representatives with barbed wire, and the media denies the people a voice, they find another way.
People who haven’t seen the F*** chants could watch Russia Today.
9.7 out of 10 based on 94 ratings
 Edible crab like the one used in the study. Jean-Pol Grandmont Wiki It’s a Nightmare on Crab Street
Crabs are being drawn to high electromagnetic (EMF) fields around undersea cables and getting trapped there for hours, “mesmerized”.
They are not just immobilized, in lab tests it screws up their blood chemistry and circadian rhythm too.
Nature-lovers might wonder what other marine life is also being impacted? What if the magnetic fields are playing havoc with migrating fish and turtles too? It might be handy to find that out before we build bigger taller towers offshore with bigger stronger cables.
Where is the Green outcry, or the Save-the-crabs campaign? Perhaps some kinds of pollution are OK “for the greater good”?
These are not some esoteric rare crustaceans, by the way, but common dinner crabs — the ones food chains and fisheries depend on.
If these crabs were victims of coal plants the headlines would be a catastrophe.
Underwater power cables are ‘mesmerizing’ crabs around Scotland
In a new study, researchers found brown crabs ‘freeze’ when they come too close to the electromagnetic fields generated by these cables. This disturbing behavior may negatively affect the marine creature’s migration habits, among other things.
For their new study, researchers at Heriot-Watt University studied nearly 60 crabs at the St Abbs Marine Station in Scotland and found that the high level of electromagnetism coming from the subsea cables is affecting the blood cells of the crabs, which could make them more susceptible to bacterial infections. And that’s not all.
“This doesn’t sound like a problem”? The journalist feels they have to explain why this might not be so good to have mass unemployed crabs sitting around soaking in the milliGauss?
Alastair Lyndon, a researcher from Heriot-Watt University and one of the study’s authors, said that crabs are attracted to the electromagnetic field and just sit still when exposed to it. While this doesn’t sound like a problem, if crabs aren’t moving they aren’t looking for foraging for food or a mate. The researchers also found the magnetic fields are causing changes in the animals’ sugar metabolism.
Isn’t renewable energy supposed to “protect the environment”?
From IFL Science
Keep reading →
9.3 out of 10 based on 73 ratings
8.7 out of 10 based on 15 ratings
Everyone knows what they are supposed to say, but one in four Americans won’t even say it.
The CEI has done a new poll of 1,200 regular US voters. Supposedly 71% of Americans claim they are very or somewhat concerned, but it’s just a fashion statement for half of them.
 Click to enlarge. When it comes to spending their own money to change the global climate, they don’t want to.
Americans can’t be too worried about “climate change” if they don’t want to fork out more cash on gasoline and electricity to save the world. Fossil fuels might be destroying life on Earth, but 4 out of 10 Americans don’t want to spend an extra red cent on gas and electricity. That’s annually — a whole year of power and fuel bills.
And remember, it’s only a theoretical question. Anyone can say they’ll spend a lot.
 Click to enlarge. When will politicians realize that they are being gamed by all the inadequate meaningless surveys that only ask “do you believe”? Those surveys are apparently not designed to find out what the punters think about climate change. For all the world, their main purpose looks like being a tool to frighten and fool politicians. And if that’s the case, their vagueness is a feature, not a flaw.
Americans say “give me my gas guzzler”
Only a quarter of people in the US want to spend more swapping the old car for an EV.
…
Americans don’t want to be told what kind of car they should buy. Except for the baffling 1 in 7 people who want the government to choose their car for them.
Perhaps they’re the ones who already own an EV, and what they really want are the government to force EV’s on everyone else.
….
 Click to enlarge. Sensibly, while people don’t want to pay to change the climate, more are willing to spend money to reduce the impacts of climate change. Presumably they are thinking of sea walls, trees and flood levees.
But even then, half of the population don’t want to spend more than $10 a month. It’s tiny.
 Click to enlarge. A more telling question would be “what do you spend to reduce the impacts of climate change”. That would reveal how much people are donating to green groups and weather changing charities. But the CEI didn’t ask.
The Washington Times
h/t Marvin W
…..
REFERENCE
CEI National Poll, October 2021, https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CEI-National-Poll-Final.pdf
9.9 out of 10 based on 67 ratings
8.1 out of 10 based on 16 ratings
 James Cook University won a Pyrrhic victory at the High Court today. By spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars (how many exactly?), all they have proven is that we can’t trust any research done by that university.
Even if the professors there are being sincere and honest, we will never know whether they are only telling us what their Vice Chancellor, Supreme Ruler Sandra Harding, wants them to say. The government should not be funding this sort of institution. It serves its administration, not the Australian taxpayer.
Two years ago, JCU had already spent $600,000 to make sure all their staff know they can’t criticize the uni.
Peter Ridd was JCU’s best asset until they sacked him. He helped expose manipulated photos of reef fish by a JCU researcher, Oona Lönnstedt, who had already been caught fabricating data in Sweden. Yet JCU “investigated” and sacked Ridd faster than it investigated her suspicious lionfish shots.
Every JCU employee’s work is tainted by this. We will never know what any JCU researcher really thinks, or which results were dropped in the bin, no matter what they say, because we know employees of JCU will be afraid to report bad behaviour, fraud, or sloppy work from other staff. Staff admitted they were too afraid to use their uni emails. Their quality assurance is terminally flawed. This makes the entire institution useless as a research body. JCU protects reputations, not the reef. The government could fix this entire embarrassing debacle in five minutes. They just need to withhold JCU funding ’til the uni gets new management and demonstrate unequivocally that they support free speech.
 Peter Ridd’s book. Click to order. VC Sandra Harding’s judgement is so poor that JCU’s reputation will not recover until she is replaced. She who earnt was paid $975,000 in 2018 has done far more damage to the university’s reputation than anything Peter Ridd ever did or said. He was the one trying to maintain scientific standards and trying to protect the reef. Weak science, fraud, and false news hurt the environment because real problems get ignored while fashionable-but-fake-ones vacuum up the funds.
The Big Win was free speech laws a year ago
Despite the loss in the High Court today, let’s not forget that the judgement was about Peter Ridd’s original contract. The biggest win from his battle is that the government finally, belatedly, did something a year ago to define academic freedom. This decision doesn’t affect that, though academics, especially at JCU won’t feel inclined to test it. So JCU’s case and the High Court decision will help the cheats, frauds, and fashionable academics to relax.
October 2020: As Education Minister Dan Tehan told Sky News:
“[James Cook University] wouldn’t have been able to prosecute Peter Ridd if these laws had of been in place.”
“By defining academic freedom in legislation, Education Minister Dan Tehan is ensuring the dismissal of an academic like Peter Ridd can never happen again,” said Mr Rozner.
This Act is the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Act 2020.
Academic freedom means the following:
(a) the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research;
(b) the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in intellectual inquiry, to express their opinions and beliefs, and to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research;
(c) the freedom of academic staff and students to express their opinions in relation to the higher education provider in which they work or are enrolled;
(d) the freedom of academic staff to participate in professional or representative academic bodies;
(e) the freedom of students to participate in student societies and associations;
(f) the autonomy of the higher education provider in relation to the choice of academic courses and offerings, the ways in which they are taught and the choices of research activities and the ways in which they are conducted.
Though was free speech enshrined in law, or did the Government just make it a “moral code”?
Keep reading →
9.4 out of 10 based on 98 ratings
 The Gösgen Nuclear Power Plant by Pareixk Federi The global energy crisis is squeezing the green religion to its logical endpoint. As long as we pretend “carbon” is pollution, the only way out of the maze for badgered politicians is nuclear power. The renewables industry may have thought that beating us over the head with climate propaganda was going to make renewables dominant and profitable, but it may just push everyone into nukes instead.
With the gas price crisis, wind drought, and coal shortage, suddenly everyone is talking about nuclear power:
Michael Shellenberger
National leaders around the world are announcing big plans to return to nuclear energy now that the cost of natural gas, coal, and petroleum are spiking, and weather-dependent renewables are failing to deliver.
France was reducing nukes from 70% to 50% of its total power generation fleet, but not any more:
“The number one objective is to have innovative small-scale nuclear reactors in France by 2030 along with better waste management,” said French President Emmanuel Macron.
“But the mood has now changed,” the paper writes today. “Macron said on Tuesday he would begin investing in new nuclear projects ‘very quickly.’” — Financial Times.
Public support for nuclear energy rose 17 percentage points in France. “I do not want our country to lose its energy sovereignty under the pretext of an absurd energy transition copied from Germany,” said a conservative French presidential candidate seeking to defeat Macron.
Finland has joined France, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic in lobbying the European Union to categorize nuclear power as sustainable.
Yesterday, Japan’s new prime minister, Fumio Kishida, defended his pro-nuclear policies in Parliament. Kishida came to power on a pro-nuclear platform.
Half of Australia wants nuclear power
The AUKUS “nuclear subs” announcement was a bolt from the blue after decades of Nuclear-free energy debates. But a recent poll shows Australians are rapidly growing to like the idea. Of course, electricity prices have rocketed since 2015 too, adding to the shift.
In 2015, forty percent of Australians supported it, and forty percent opposed it, and one hundred percent of politicians avoided discussing it. Now suddenly, we’ve bought a couple of nuclear subs and in a blink 50% support nuclear power and only 30% oppose it.
Just like that, and with no discussion, suddenly nuclear power has potential. Imagine what the numbers would be if people actually discussed it?
The bottom line is that the West had better hurry.
China is the Fastest growing Nuclear Power in the world
As Jo Nova said in May:
China is poised to be the largest global nuclear power by 2030, overtaking the USA in the next nine years. In the last twenty years, China has increased its fleet of nuclear power reactors from three to 49, with 17 more plants under construction. That means it will soon surpass France which has 57 reactors. At the rate the USA is closing plants, China may hit the No 1 spot faster than expected.
China has a nuclear Belt and Road project too, Argentina, Iran, Pakistan:
Future projects are also being developed in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and South America
Brown coal is still the cheapest kind of electricity there is, and we are mad not to use it, especially because it’s only $30 a MWh and feeds plants and we have a 300 year supply sitting there in the ground.
 Rise of Nuclear Power in China. Graph.
9.8 out of 10 based on 83 ratings
9.2 out of 10 based on 13 ratings
On the one hand, our bureaucrats are telling us coal power in Australia might be finished by 2035.
 .. On the other hand, in the rest of the world, coal prices are hitting records, China and India are suffering rolling power cuts. In China, floods have shut about 10% of the 682 coal mines in the Shanxi Province. China is so desperate for coal that a few days ago, it finally unloaded the Australian coal it held hostage in the 80 bulk carrier ships that have languished offshore for months in a petty trade war. Pune, in India is in a coal shortage crisis, forced to shut down 13 power plants because they’ve run out of coal. They’re asking people to be “sparing” between 6 and 10 both morning and night. India has 135 coal fired plants in total, and fully 70 of them are currently working with less than four days coal supply.
Even with the efforts, China could face a coal supply gap of 30-million to 40-million tonnes in the fourth quarter, Citic Securities analysts said in an October 8 report. A shortage of the fuel could cut industrial power use by 10% to 15% in November and December, which would potentially translate into a 30% slowdown in activity in the most energy-intensive sectors like steel, chemicals and cement-making, according to UBS Group AG.
The State Council said electricity prices will be allowed to rise by as much as 20% against a benchmark, compared with a current cap of 10%.
Meanwhile BHP is suddenly renegotiating the coal assets it was giving away a bit too cheaply.
Kerry Schott’s declaration of the death of coal is a brave announcement given that Australia is still 70% coal powered. In 14 years it would take a big shift to get it to down 50%, much less zero. But it’s especially heroic given what’s happening in the rest of the world.
It’s almost like Kerry Scott had the press release on her desk since the last COP ready to be released “on schedule” for this one.
The Daily Mail
It’s just a blip.
9.9 out of 10 based on 88 ratings
Satire:
Infrastructure Bill Includes Capitol Building Expansion To Hold All The Pfizer Lobbyists
 WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senate leaders revealed today that Biden’s “Build Back Better” infrastructure plan will include $86 Billion for a brand-new Capitol Building construction project. The Capitol will be expanded to hold 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, and 1,423 Pfizer lobbyists.
h/t Tom Nelson
Not satire:
There’s plenty more lobbying where that came from:
-
-
- By Melissa Holzberg and Tara Suter, Open Secrets
Pfizer reported $5.6 billion in net income during the second quarter of 2021 — that’s up more than $2 billion (from $3.5 billion) from its second quarter of 2020 report to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the first half of 2021, Pfizer reported nearly $10.5 billion in net income. The company brought in $6.9 billion in the first six months of 2020.
In 2020, Pfizer spent $13.2 million on its lobbying efforts — that’s up from $11 million in 2019 and the most the company has spent on lobbying since 2009 during the debate over the Affordable Care Act.
Speaking of profiteering:
Merck’s 4,000% Markup of Taxpayer-Funded COVID Drug Is ‘Extortion,’ Critics Say
Pharma giant Merck is facing accusations of price gouging after it charged the U.S. more than $700 per patient for a taxpayer-funded coronavirus treatment that, according to research, costs just $17.74 to produce.
And plenty of ways to potentially lobby:
Political staffers and top bureaucrats score good Pfizer jobs. Nice career path if you can get it:
by Natalie Winters and Raheem Kassam October 6, 2021, RightsFreedoms
Many of the new Big Pharma hires have come from consulting firms with deep and historical links to the current White House, and President Joe Biden himself. In October alone Pfizer tapped Sudafi Henry, Joe Biden’s former legislative affairs director from his days as Vice President.
David Schiappa, a longtime Republican staff member of the Senate holding the role of Secretary for Leader Mitch McConnell, is also lobbying for Pfizer.
It might be all legal. What would stop this trainwreck? An investigative media.
Anyone seen one?
9.7 out of 10 based on 90 ratings
…
8.9 out of 10 based on 17 ratings
The only people worth silencing are those who are right
— Hacktivist Parody Google
Google is waging a war against skeptics because skeptics have the truth on their side and they win debates too easily. How do we know? There are plenty of wrong people on the internet, and acres of misinformation, but Google is happy to feed those creators. The Flat Earthers are not spreading fast on Youtube, they’re not attracting millions of views. But no one needs to cut off their money supply because their arguments aren’t persuasive. To stop those ideas from running amok, the world only needs free speech.
Google announces: …a new monetization policy for Google advertisers, publishers and YouTube creators that will prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change. This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change.
by Ian Miles Cheong, Rebel News
Arrogance knows no bounds:
The tech giant claims it will be able to differentiate between content “that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim.”
Who needs scientists anyhow –just Google the truth instead of doing all those experiments?
It’s time for skeptics to hone their skills in satire and parody. Let’s screw those algorithms!
For content creators who were relying on Youtube adverts, losing the monetization could kill the business, it’s a cruel blow. Google’s behaviour is grossly unfair and deceptive. It sold itself as a “platform” deceived people into watching and sharing their creative talents, and on November 1 could wipe them out. But good talent can still find a way — not only are there other, better video homes, but it’s so much better to get a business model that doesn’t feed or rely on Google. My advice would be to connect with your audience, set up a blog or a website, and ask for help and donations. Use Youtube while you still can, to set up a list.
Does anyone believe the Google-excuse?
“In recent years, we’ve heard directly from a growing number of our advertising and publisher partners who have expressed concerns about ads that run alongside or promote inaccurate claims about climate change,” said YouTube in its policy update notice. “Advertisers simply don’t want their ads to appear next to this content. And publishers and creators don’t want ads promoting these claims to appear on their pages or videos.”
This is a company that specializes in harvesting data and placing customized adverts with a highly targeted audiences and they say they can’t stop solar panel adverts showing up on climate skeptic sites?
At the nub of it all, is the dangerous popularity of skeptics:
Bloomberg reports that on YouTube, inaccurate videos about climate change received more than 21 million views and frequently ran ads, according to research in 2020 from Avaaz. The explosive report prompted members of Congress to admonish the tech giant, which proudly boasts about its environmental record.
The latest censorship step shows how fragile the global warming movement has become. Google wouldn’t be silencing skeptics if it wasn’t losing the arguments. And Google wouldn’t be losing if they had truth on their side. They have billions of dollars, control of almost 90% of all internet searches and support from governments, uni’s, professors, the UN and the whole renewables industry.
All the truth needs is a fair and open debate.
h/t Marvin W
9.9 out of 10 based on 143 ratings
8.5 out of 10 based on 13 ratings
…
9 out of 10 based on 17 ratings
The COP 26 organizers must be quaking in their chardonnay. Just when they need all the usual hyped up wind powered record headlines, they’re getting headlines of record gas prices, rocketing inflation, and industries thinking about shutting down.
Welcome to the Green Revolution:
Rob Davies and Joanna Partridge, The Guardian
 … Wholesale gas prices hit new all-time highs on Wednesday, prompting warnings that factories could be forced to shut down over winter or switch to more polluting fuels just as the UK hosts the Cop26 climate conference next month.
Trade body UK Steel said it was now “uneconomic” to make steel at certain times in the UK, with British firms facing double the electricity prices paid by rivals in Germany, France and the Netherlands.
Don’t say “oil” say “polluting fuels that had been abandoned”:
Paul Pearcy, the federation coordinator at the trade body British Glass, said companies that make windows could be forced to revert to powering their furnaces with polluting fuels that had been abandoned.
British Glass makers are thinking of using fuel oil again because gas prices are so unaffordable. One industry player said with “Cop26 around the corner, it’s not a great advert.”
Indeed.
EU spooked by energy prices running wild & Net Zero in doubt
Bloomberg,
European energy prices are spiraling out of control. Gas prices have surged 60% in just two days, pushing industry in the region to the breaking point and rattling financial markets.
…environment ministers across the bloc are getting jittery, with a number of countries expressing growing concern over the EU’s plans to create a new emissions trading system for road transport and heating — something they deem will hit the poorest most.
Panic is spreading, and prices are rising to the point where people will be forced out of business or back to using coal
by Ole Hansen, Head of Commodity Strategy, Saxo Bank
The global energy crisis continues to gather momentum, and since the Chinese government issued its “whatever cost” order last week, the price of Dutch TTF gas, the European benchmark had by early Wednesday surged more than 80% to EUR 155 per MWh, before witnessing a sharp correction to EUR 115, reflecting an increasingly difficult market situation. The focus on ESG and green transformation has reduced producers’ normal long-cycle capex response to surging prices and rising demand. Without a response from producers, the only other option is for prices to reach levels that triggers demand destruction, and that is the phase we have now entered.
Some real hockey stick graphs in gas, coal, and cost of electricity:
 …. The rally which started in Europe several months ago has during the past months been spreading like a wildfire to the rest of the world. The combination of gas in short supply, and lower-than-expected power generation from solar and wind has forced utilities to buy coal in order to maintain the required baseload across the electrical grid.
To put the current elevated prices in Europe into perspective, the price of Dutch TTF first month gas earlier today reached a record €155 per MWh or $52.5 per MMBtu or around eight times higher than the average seen during the previous five years. German power prices for 2022 delivery have risen to €155 per MWh and more than 4X the five-year average. Tight supply of gas has forced power generators to turn to coal…
Ole Hanson points out that the squeeze may ease up if the weather doesn’t get too cold, or if enough heavy industry shuts down so the storage tanks can be filled before winter.
GWPF says Boris should get serious about Shale Gas:
Boris should kick-start a shale revolution to avoid an energy cost disaster
GWPF & Gaia Fawkes, 7 October 2021
If Boris Johnson wants to avoid a worsening energy crisis that could threaten his premiership sooner rather than later, if he wants to bring down the price of natural gas, if he wants to level up by creating a new and high-wage industry in the North of England, if he wants to energise Britain and improve energy security, he should abandon his foolish ban on shale gas extraction and kick-start the much delayed shale revolution in the UK.
GWPF remind us of what Boris said, not that long ago:
“It [fracking] is glorious news for humanity. It doesn’t need the subsidy of wind power. I don’t know whether it will work in Britain, but we should get fracking right away.” — 9 December 2012, Telegraph
h/t GWPF.
9.9 out of 10 based on 75 ratings
Strangely, making electricity affordable makes it harder to employ people. Who knew?
 The IPA shows that nearly 650,000 Australian jobs are at risk from Net Zero policies, and most of those jobs will be lost in the regions and thus in National Party electorates. Seats predicted to escape that pain are in inner city areas.
Thus and verily, the price of Net Zero will be largely paid by the deplorables.
As we saw in Britain, Spain, Italy, and California, more Green jobs always means less real ones. For every “green job” artificially created, between 2 and 5 actual jobs were lost. Green jobs are the vandals of civilizations.
The Liberal Party (theoretically, conservative) holds many inner city seats. So we can explain the schism tearing the Coalition of the Liberals and Nationals apart on energy policy. The Coalition holds 17 of the top 20 electorates with jobs at risk, but also holds 12 of the 20 lowest risk electorates.
The IPA issued a report on likely job losses in February this year, and a report on the electoral landscape yesterday:
“A worker in an electorate represented by the National Party is threes times as likely to lose their job than a worker in an electorate represented by the Liberal Party under a net zero emissions target” according to the IPA.
An analysis of the employment impact of a net zero emissions target in Australia, estimated that up to 653,600 jobs could be put at direct risk as a result of a net zero emissions target and that potential job losses would be concentrated in the agricultural (306,200 jobs), heavy manufacturing (74,100 jobs), and coal mining (62,000 jobs) industries.
17 of the top 20 electorates with the highest proportion of jobs at risk from a net zero emissions target are held by the Coalition. Six of the top 10 electorates with jobs at risk are held by the members of the National Party Room.
73% of the seats in federal parliament held by the Nationals are ‘at risk’ seats, compared with just 10% of seats held by the Liberals, and 3% of seats held by the Labor Party.
With an election coming, it’s time to make sure The Deplorables and their MP’s know what the price is for trying to perfect the global climate.
“A net zero emissions target would be a carbon tax by stealth.”
Hat tip to Alan Moran.
REFERENCES
Cian Hussey, and Daniel Wild (2021) Net Zero Emissions Will Divide Australia, IPA, October 6th 2021.
Daniel Wild and Cian Hussey (2021) Net Zero Jobs: An analysis of the employment impact of a net zero emissions target in Australia, IPA, Feb 2021.
9.8 out of 10 based on 69 ratings
8.9 out of 10 based on 13 ratings
…
9.7 out of 10 based on 14 ratings
Spare a thought for the people of India having to bid against a desperate China to get enough coal.
CHENNAI: Indian utilities are scrambling to secure coal supplies as inventories hit critical lows after a surge in power demand from industries and sluggish imports due to record global prices…
Over half of India’s 135 coal-fired plants have fuel stocks of less than three days, government data shows, far short of federal guidelines recommending supplies of at least two weeks.
That is a lot of coal burning:
India is the world’s second largest importer of coal despite having the fourth largest reserves.
“Domestic consumption increased by about 10% in the last two years because of work from home and air conditioning,” a senior Tamil Nadu government official told Reuters.
Remember when coal was a stranded asset?
 Australian coal prices
9.9 out of 10 based on 83 ratings
|
JoNova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
.JPG)
.JPG appelé tourteau par les gastronomes. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT){kind=link}
Recent Comments