Institute for Private Enterprise » Energy

Commonwealth Budget 2019/20

Des Moore — Wed, 03 Apr 2019 08:53:18 +0000

Commonwealth Budget For 2019/20 Won’t Save The Bacon

Today’s Media has included many comments on the Morrison Government’s Budget for 2019-20 as well as estimates of revenue and expenditure for the following three years. These include a large number of decisions and it would not be appropriate here to examine them in any detail: indeed I challenge anyone to examine what one journalist described as “a budget speech littered with references to plumbers, couriers, cranes, hard hats, teachers, tradies and nurses”. My general conclusion on the speech I watched on TV was that it did not impress most on the Coalition benches and some of those there tended to drop off and, after a time, showed little encouragement as Frydenberg continued well after the half-hour finishing time allocated to budget speeches. In consequence, what my comments below mainly relate to are the totals of revenue, expenditure and what is commonly treated as the deficit or surplus for the four years.

But these need also to take account of the possible reactions to budget decisions on taxation and spending on capital projects which increasingly purport to extend beyond the four years. For instance, the Morrison government’s budget announcement included an addition of $25bn to the existing infrastructure program of $75bn which is spread over in ten years. This reflects the increasing involvement of the Commonwealth in what are (or should be) basically State matters including the congestion resulting from higher immigration but which the Federal government also believes it needs to be involved in order to attract votes. The result of the election in NSW, in which both the Liberal and National parties lost seats, led the Morrison government to publicise in the Federal budget its involvement in regional NSW. On tax, the difficulty in assessing the tax policy is that the second round of personal tax reductions will not start until 2022-23 and that is then reflected in a reduction in about half the estimated surplus for that year.

In interpreting the budget it is also important to realise the Coalition will face the election in May with electoral polling which indicates it is almost certain to lose. As such, apart from possibly indicating the Coalition’s budget as no more than a manifesto with which to start the election debate, the same applies to the manifesto which Shorten has announced. He is now further developing that by announcing yesterday the 50% compulsory electric cars by 2050, which has (rightly) been widely characterised as absurd. Shorten has also failed to indicate the costs of his environmental policies. This situation further widens the gap between the two parties on the issue of dangerous global warming which appears likely to be a major discussion item. Unfortunately, the Treasurer’s budget address re-stated the Coalition’s existing policy of reducing emissions as stated in Paris and announced a $3.5bn “climate solution package” apparently designed to soften the moderates within the Coalition. Another bad poll would provide the opportunity to moderate this policy but it looks as though such a moderation is not politically possible.

Yet it is reported today that three senior ministers, including Morrison, have decided over-night to add over $300mn to energy supplements and amend the budget the day after it was introduced!

In a situation of emergency one possible policy change on the environment might extend to pointing out that the prediction in temperatures by supposed climate experts has been three times higher than the actual increase in temperature as published by the IPCC. This failure of “scientists” to get anywhere near a meaningful prediction in temperatures indicates the need to urgently review the dangerous warming belief and provides a basis for at least moderating current policies (see advertorial Global Warming as published in today’s Australian by the Climate Study Group). This research indicates that the most highly likely warming over the period to 2100 does not justify the current expenditure by governments of squillions of dollars on reducing the usage of coal.

Following are my brief comments on the major items in the Budget:

Overall, there is no indication that the Morrison government aims to reduce the size of government. Estimated payments (ie expenditure) by the Federal government are about the same proportion of GDP throughout the four years covered by the budget (24.5 -24.6%). That is fractionally lower than in 2018-19 (24.9%) but that probably reflects a spending splurge in that year to reduce the amount to be allocated in the budget year. That is estimated at 25.2% of GDP, which is fractionally higher than in the last year of the Keating government in 1995-96 and is higher than in the last few years of the Howard government;
Treasurer Frydenberg (and Morrison) have claimed that the budget showed they had not increased taxation. But tax as a proportion of GDP is shown as slightly higher in 2019-20 than in the previous year (23.1%) and only fractionally lower in the last of the four budget years (2022-23) for what that may be worth. As there is no data readily available on the split between company and personal income tax, the increase in company profits may mean that personal tax proportion of GDP may have been reduced. But total estimated taxation in the current and next three years is the highest proportion of GDP since the final years of the Howard government in early 2000s;
As has been much acclaimed by the Treasurer and Morrison, after 11 years in budget deficits and a consequent increase in net debt, a surplus is estimated for 2019/20 (0.2% of GDP). But this is not a result that a government would normally boast about, which is probably why Frydenberg has limited his reference to the four year total. It is also exposed to possible minor adverse effects from reduced company profits due to falls in commodity prices. It’s good to be “back in the black” but the aim should be to achieve a much higher surplus and pay off more debt.

Overall this is a useful budget (a “B” perhaps) but it falls short of what is needed to avoid scattering spending to buy votes, to reduce debt and does not provide a bulwark against attack from serious adverse changes in economic conditions here or overseas. It does provide a test for whether Labor is prepared to maintain the aim or fall back to the deficits incurred by Rudd. Hopefully, the latter are so recent that Shorten will be able to persuade his left wing to stick to the surplus aim.

How to Solve the Dangerous Warming Threat

Des Moore — Thu, 21 Mar 2019 22:29:44 +0000

How to Solve The Dangerous Warming Threat

I am presenting a Commentary which has no attachments because their inclusion would make it difficult to circulate the Commentary with the attachments and because I can send an attachment to those who wish to see it. The whole Commentary with attachments will also be in my web site.

When controversial policy issues come under discussion in the public arena, there are often weird suggestions proposing government action. And the media publicises a supposed issue to give the impression that ““something needs to be done”. Take for example the idea that action to solve the dangerous warming threat might come if school children miss school one day and parade down the streets all over the country (and in other countries too) with placards instructing our elected politicians that urgent action is required. This is just what has happened. But has this publicity simply led to the school children going back to school and are people a bit tired of being told that much quoted models “prove” that climate change action is needed by government? Do such models actually so prove.

Climate expert and prominent journalist James Delingpole points out that climate scientist Bjorn Lomborg has a model which shows that even spending $1.5 trillion would reduce temperatures by only 0.04 of a degree by the end of the century (see Spending $1.5 trillion Estimated to Reduce Temps By only 0.048 Of a Degree by Century’s End). “Those kids are protesting on the basis of one massive lie”, Delingpole claims.

Of course, there are lots of other models, some taking a different view.

A model predicting future temperatures has been made by the Australian National University’s School of Art and Design with colleagues from the ANU Climate Change Institute. It purports to show that, unless emissions of greenhouse gases are much reduced, temperatures in 2050 will be so high that winters will cease to exist! (see No More Winters?). Even the Reserve Bank has jumped on the band wagon and published an article arguing that changes in climate may have adverse effects not simply at the time they occur but later too. According to this theory, “we need to think in terms of trend rather than cycles in the weather”. Yet no evidence is provided to justify this claim and there is no model. I have written to the bank asking that this analysis not be treated as official bank policy (see RBA Publishes Surprise Pre-election Analysis of CC). In a more comprehensive article in The Australian, Judith Sloan describes the analysis as “superficial and speculative” (see Sloan on RBA’s Surprise Pre-election Analysis of CC).

Then along comes another climate expert by the name of Brian Fisher who has just published a model showing the cost for Australia of achieving targeted emissions reductions by 2030 ranging from $70 billion for the Coalition to $1.2 trillion for Labor. He doesn’t predict what happens to temperatures but, although now retired, he previously advised both Labor and Coalition governments on climate policy. Yet a few days ago Labor rejected Fisher’s analysis this time. But as a poll just published in today’s Australian shows that support for Labor’s policy drops from 61 points to 9 in circumstances where implementing this policy would reduce projected 2030 wages by $9000 a year — or about $347 a fortnight – as Fisher’s analysis indicates. It seems possible that Labor (and the Coalition) could now decide to lower their emissions reductions targets so as to ensure that children keep their pocket money (see Modelled Economic Effects Show Costly for CC Policy).

Any such changes might also lead to more questioning of teachers by children about what the various model show about likely future temperatures. Assuming teachers are honest, they would have to admit that 102 of the (average of) temperature predictions by different experts (sic) show temperatures much higher than what happened with actual temperatures as used in IPCC reports (which uses temperature measurements that also overstate the actuals because of faulty measurements).

The difference between actual temperatures and those predicted from models is shown in a graph based on research by US climate scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy, both of whom have made presentations to US Congress committees. This graph is included in a short article headed “Climate Warming/Change Theory Reviewed”. It was written in Melbourne by The Climate Study Group (sponsored by Richard Morgan) and published in the Herald Sun (see Graph on CC).

The averages of world temperature (a mid-tropospheric measurement) of the 102 prediction models shown in the top line of the graph have risen from 0.0 degree in 1975 to about 0.8 degree in 2014 while actual temperatures ( as used by the IPCC) have only risen by about 0.2 degree over the same period. Thus the average predictors have temperatures rising about four times more than the actual temperatures. By contrast, if the actual temperatures continued to increase at about the same rate as they have been since 1975, by 2100 world temperatures would be only about 0.4 degree higher than now. In short, it is difficult to accept that such a small increase in likely future temperatures justifies government action to spend trillions of dollars on substituting costly sources of power for the usage of much cheaper coal.

It is relevant that, following President Trump’s appointment of physicist Dr Will Happer to head a Commission to review (in effect) the science of climate change, a very large number of climate experts has written expressing support for the project. In the second paragraph they say

“In our view, an independent review of these reports is long overdue. Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports. Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2 concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred. An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method.

It goes without saying that this is the kind of policy approach we need in Australia. It also shows that there are many climate experts and/or climate scientists who do not accept the dangerous warming thesis and the need for massive government spending on reducing the usage of coal. In previous Commentary I have argued that in Australia a much reduced target for emissions (and for renewable) would have virtually no effect on total world emissions which are increasing mainly because of the policies adopted by two of the biggest emitters and the announced intention to withdraw from Paris by the US. Our political leaders have missed the opportunity to (validly) save government spending and the welfare of our citizens.

Coalition Remains in Serious Trouble

Des Moore — Fri, 01 Mar 2019 01:34:30 +0000

Newspoll & Subsequent Policy Announcements Suggest Coalition Still in Serious Trouble

Due to a major technical problem which put my computer out of action for two days (possibly caused by a hacker I was advised) I am now in a catch-up position in regard to circumstances where numerous pre-election statements have been floated around by both major sides of politics. It has almost seemed like a new policy per day, which seems unlikely to have attracted votes because of the limited attention by the Coalition to explaining benefits. One commentator even described Morrison as a Muppet and, despite his increased media appearance, it is difficult to see a closing of the polling gap next time.

The February Newspoll left the Coalition on a 47/53 TPP for the third successive time and showed a fall in Morrison’s net satisfaction rate from minus 2 to minus 4 (Shorten’s also fell to a similar extent). This polling occurred despite expectations that Labor would be adversely affected politically over the passage of the Medivac bill instigated by Labor/Phelps/Greens and passed because the government had lost its control of the lower House. This legislation allows refugees and asylum-seekers to be fast-tracked to Australia for medical treatment on the orders of two doctors and involves an effective loss of border control decisions by a Minister, although the concern seems more about what would be likely to happen under a left wing Labor government than about the exploitation of the Medivac.

In fact, instead of a Labor win, Morrison appears initially to have instigated a favourable course of action by announcing that existing asylum seekers on Manus/Nauru will be transferred to Christmas Island and this initially secured approval from Shorten. However, Shorten has since backed away from his “approval” and it is not clear if the possible “misuse” of the legislation can be made there too.

That aside, Morrison has responded to pressure from within the Coalition, and of course from Labor’s accusations (and from some media “experts”) that it is taking no action on climate change or to fulfill its undertaking to reduce electricity prices. Morrison has apparently decided to make various day by day announcements designed to convey the impression that action is being taken. But the measures announced would be unlikely to involve any significant reduction in prices (unless accompanied by increased subsidies) and are suddenly focused on increasing the Coalitions’ reliance on renewable as a major part of its CC policy, viz

“the Prime Minister said the government’s support for big hydro projects was vital and economically prudent, as Australia’s energy market “continues to transition towards renewables”. “If you want to have a renewables future, you’ve got to have big batteries like this, and the commercial element of that is quite compelling and that’s what the numbers so far have shown,” he said. “We get the economic harvest, we get the jobs harvest, we get the energy harvest, and we get the renewable and the sustainable energy harvest that delivers on our environmental commitments.” The opposition said the government’s commitment to hydro power “only make sense under Labor’s renewable energy policies” (see Morrison Announces More on Renewables).

However, in the same article Energy Minister Angus Taylor claimed the new energy efficiency measures would cut energy bills while lowering carbon emissions. “We know that businesses and community groups are struggling under the weight of high power prices,” he said. “That’s why we’re taking strong steps to ensure they get the practical support that they need to reduce their energy use without reducing productivity.”

True, the reduction in emissions from the (newly announced) shift to renewable would in themselves favour lower prices. But renewable additions would also add to costs (including of course the additional back-ups needed in case renewable are not available) and would be unlikely to lead to lower prices overall (see also Coalition Climate Policy).

It was particularly disheartening to see on Sky News that there was agreement amongst participant that Turnbull’s decision to expand Snowy Hydro was endorsed by Morrison as a major component of his latest climate change policy. No account seemed to be taken of the much higher cost of such expansion compared with the cost of producing the electricity using fossil fuels. As Judith Sloan points out, “were the electricity market not so distorted, there would not be any economic case for Snowy 2.0. The project has been around for many years and it never stacked up. The cost and the execution risk made it a complete non-starter. The fact the Coalition government refuses to unpick the distortions in the market, rather than adding to them by promoting Snowy 2.0, is a sad indictment of where energy policy has landed. And, by the way, for the sort of investment being devoted to Snowy 2.0, you could get several high efficiency, low emissions coal-fired plants” (see Sloan Says Snowy2.0 Fairy Story).

Many others have concluded that the Snowy2.0 should not be started but it seems likely that bureaucrats in PM&C and Environment have promoted the case.

In considering possible electricity price reductions, it is pertinent to note that under policies adopted by the various states in recent years (which have been based on the perceived need to reduce the usage of coal because of the supposed danger from higher temperatures):

The adoption of such policies has been a major contributor since 2010-11 to a trebling in average wholesale electricity prices, rising from about $30-40 per MM to about $80-110 per MM;
While businesses and households would be unlikely to have experienced similar such increases at the retail level (data for retail prices back to 2010-11 are not readily available), they would undoubtedly have increased since 2010-11 at a much faster rate than pre 2010-11;
The retail figures available for 2017-18 show an increase of more than 10% on the previous year according to figures published by theAustralian Energy Market Commission (AEMC), which was set up by the Council of Australian Governments through the Ministerial Council on Energy in 2005. In the current year the AEMC estimates a reduction of about 3% followed by another reduction of about 9% in 2019-20. The AEMC says the estimated falls since 2017-18 are “driven primarily by wholesale costs” but details of these estimated costs are not readily obtainable.
At this stage it is difficult to see any significant price reductions except by the Federal government establishing the Default price it has canvassed and by enforcing a maximum price at a lower level. Such a policy, said to be operated by regulation and claimed not to require legislation, would imply that there is inadequate competition in the current market and that seems to have been assumed in regard to the major generators. But no explanation has been given as to why the ACCC could not act to enforce competitive measures rather than the government itself establish a regulatory direct.

Minority Govt Problems; Over-rule Qld Labor’s Refusal on Adani Coal Mine

Des Moore — Sat, 16 Feb 2019 05:08:59 +0000

The Problem Facing Morrison’s Minority Government

In yesterday’s Commentary I drew attention to Labor’s success in forcing legislation through Parliament which allowed asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island to “doctor” themselves to Australia for treatment without ministerial approval (except for security reasons). I added that “it also remains to be seen how long he can run a minority government where there is an opposition which is able to force legislation right through Parliament and effectively change the Coalition’s policies on other matters too” .

I added that “there has already been a (failed) attempt today to establish a Royal Commission on some failure of access to disabilities and there will inevitably be a debate on aspects of the budget set to be presented in early April. That would provide Labor/Greens with opportunities to have amendments to the budget passed through Parliament not by the Coalition but by the Opposition”.

Some recipients of Commentary indicated that they did not understand my analysis and in particular my (and others) view that an early election might be called. Today we have an illustration of what I meant. A report in Weekend Australian reports that

Scott Morrison is on track for an unprecedented second defeat on a key piece of legislation within two weeks, with Labor “confident” of passing a small-business policy in an alliance with Greens and independents. The government was considering last night how to deal with another potential loss on the floor of the House of Representatives after it suffered the first defeat on legislation in nearly 80 years with the passage of Labor’s refugee medivac bill on Tuesday. The Prime Minister faces internal spotfires as rebel Nationals MPs threaten to support Labor’s small-business overhaul in a damaging move that could split the Coalition, test the leadership of Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack and undermine Mr Morrison’s authority (see More Challenges to Minority Government).

As Parliament is sitting again from 18-21 February before the budget there are likely to be further attempts to “govern” by Labor/Greens, including in regard to the alleged need for more “action” on climate change. Then there is the period after the budget but before the election when Parliament will again be sitting from 4-18 April and when more attempts at governing by Labor/Greens/et al would be likely to occur.

All this suggests that it would be in Morrison’s own interests to call an early election, not now but as soon as possible after the budget has been presented.

Qld Left Labor Runs The State & Is Stopping Adani Coal Mine From Starting

Readers will be aware that the Indian owners of the Adani coal proposal in Queensland have been seeking approval for 7 years and thought they had it only to find that the Queensland Labor government has made a last minute attempt to stop it by asking an active environmentalist to advise whether the risk to an endangered finch would be too great. He duly did so advise.

Today’s Weekend Australian reports that “an extraordinary alliance of industry, unions and councils were last night in talks to lobby for Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s intervention to save the project that promises thousands of jobs. The contentious review of Adani’s black-throated finch management plan was ordered by Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch’s department in December, just weeks after Adani announced it had funding for the mine. The findings of the review — chaired by Brendan Wintle, a Melbourne University academic associated with anti-coal activism — are set to delay construction of the mine, which cannot begin without state approval of the plan to protect the endangered bird. After Ms Trad yesterday called on Adani to “engage in the process” led by Professor Wintle, Adani chief executive Lucas Dow claimed the review’s “misinformed and conflicting findings” demonstrated the report was biased and must be scrapped. In a letter to the government, Mr Dow outlines five key areas where he says the review contradicts the previous evidence accepted by the Environment Department, which had workshopped the plan with the company over 18 months and seven drafts before it was submitted” (see Morrison Cautions on Adani)

Unfortunately, the best that Scott Morrison could respond yesterday was to caution “the state government against “playing games” with jobs in north Queensland, which already suffered high unemployment before it was ravaged by floods this month. “I think the people of Queensland are dealing with enough at the moment without having decisions to take away their jobs,” the Prime Minister said.“We support the mining industry. We want to see mining jobs and we want to be able to see projects stand on their two feet and be given a go on the basis of their commercial realities.”

Given the changeable voting in Queensland for federal elections Morrison should be weighing in much more strongly. My attempt failed to have published a suggested response published. However, that suggested response may be worth repeating here, viz

It is not surprising that Queensland’s Labor government has established an inquiry into the dangers from an Adani coal mine to a finch. As you point out, that government is controlled by the left-wing and the Premier is just a front ( “Labor can no longer pretend it supports Adani”, 15/2). And, as shown by its behavior in forcing Shorten to edge open border controls without proper ministerial decisions, the left-wing constitutes a real threat to governing Australia federally if constituents are fooled into voting Labor in May.

The Morrison government needs to find ways of attracting the attention of voters to what they are in for if Labor wins. One possible way of getting their attention would be to adopt the same strategy as Clive Palmer has in full scale adverts on TV and published media. Of course, by presenting such rubbish in such a way Palmer is now losing the attention of voters.

A Coalition adverts strategy would be structured to identify the many problems in the policies already announced by Labor, such as border openings, increases in taxation and unbelievable reductions in emissions by 2030. It is not too early to start a Palmer-like strategy now.

There are other possibilities, including asking a credit rating agency to examine Queensland’s rating. Queensland’s LNP opposition has undertaken to restore the AAA rating which Labor lost and it could play that role with Federal support. It might even be possible for the Federal government to use its external affairs power to approve the mine by saying it is important for Australia’s foreign relations with India and its foreign investment policy that it go ahead.

It is in the interests of the Morrison government, both economic and political, to do as much as it can to have the Adani mine started.

Border Controls; Early Election Now Likely

Des Moore — Thu, 14 Feb 2019 01:11:34 +0000

Morrison Says No Early Election – But For How Long Can He Run A Minority Government

On Tuesday I referred to Andrew Bolt’s suggestion on Sky News that the decision by Labor to push legislation through the lower House allowing asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island to “doctor” themselves to Australia for treatment without ministerial approval and, by obtaining court approval, to then “recuperate” here for a indefinite period. With the support of the Greens et al, this legislation has now passed the Senate too but, despite his strong attack on Shorten and accusation that he has broken what had seemed a bipartisan agreement on border control, Morrison has said that he will not call an early election. Even so, Bolt tonight again repeated on Sky News his advocacy of an early election by taking advantage of the policy windfall provided by Labor.

Morrison’s attack on Shorten for showing “weakness” in handling Caucus is obviously correct (as the emergence of Deputy Albanese on TV suggests) and provides a useful stick for Morrison to use and argue that, if Labor were to win the election, they would again allow border controls to be breached. Morrison has already established that up to 300 refugees have obtained the approval of doctors to be transferred to Australia (see Possible Effects of Labor Legislation on Refugeesand Bolt Says Labor’s Legislation Allows Asylum Seekers to Come To Aus). It seems likely that under Labor border controls would be eased and smugglers would again penetrate access in one way or another (see Sheridan Says Labor Shameful).

But as electorally beneficial as it would likely be, Morrison can’t rely only on using such a stick. Other policies need to be finalized and presented, including the budget.

It also remains to be seen how long he can run a minority government where there is an opposition which is able to force legislation right through Parliament and effectively change the Coalition’s policies on other matters too. There has already been a (failed) attempt today to establish a Royal Commission on some failure of access to disabilities and there will inevitably be a debate on aspects of the budget set to be presented in early April. That would provide Labor/Greens with opportunities to have amendments to the budget passed through Parliament not by the Coalition but by the Opposition.

Labor’s success in obtaining the passage of legislation on Manus/Nauran refugees has changed the management of government picture and makes it more realistic for the Coalition to think of an early election. This is not simply to take advantage of its win on border control strategy but to avoid the potential loss of control of Parliament and its own policies.

Energy Policy

I have already criticized the energy policy developed by Energy Minister Taylor particularly its retention of the targets for reducing emissions and his support for increased usage of renewable and the emergence of estimates of much higher costs for the latter than previously thought. I have also questioned the use of divestiture powers by a minister who would be doing so on the basis that he accepted advice that a company displayed “market disconduct” and was not allowing prices to fall.

Reports emerged this afternoon that, instead of voting on a bill to give effect to Taylor’s “model” (sic), Treasurer Frydenburg has announced that the divestiture power would become a component of election policies. He is reported as saying that

“Our legislation to prohibit energy market misconduct is an important reform that aims to hold the big energy companies to account and drive competition in the market and lower prices for consumers. We will be taking this policy to the election which forms our response to the ACCC inquiry into retail electricity prices. It was on the Labor Party’s watch when they were last in government that electricity prices doubled and now they are obstructing key reforms which save money for Australian families and businesses” (see Coalition Says Big Sticks Policy Now To Be Taken to The Election).

The report also makes it clear that had the government attempted to pass the bill now it would have faced major amendments from Labor. This seems to confirm that there is likely to be an early election – possibly immediately after the budget.

Can Electricity Prices be Reduced?

Des Moore — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:14:43 +0000

Will Electricity Prices Be Allowed by Governments to Fall?

The improvement in the Coalition’s Newspoll on 29 January (still down at 47/53 TPP) has almost been forgotten and questions continue as to whether Morrison is able to address the “two big things” (quit Paris accord and slash immigration) needed to give the Coalition a chance. The need for quitting the Paris accord has been enhanced by what has happened under heat waves in Victoria, South Australia and now NSW.

Since my 29/1 Commentary the possibility of the Coalition establishinga policy which would, as promised, allow lower electricity prices to happen and be sustained continues to be highly unlikely– except of course if government controls are able to be imposed legally and producers/retailers are compensated for a proportion of the existing higher costs which would otherwise be met by consumers of electricity, but with taxpayers then having to pay the costs. As indicated in the this article (Forward Electricity Prices Increase), at present futures markets are operating on the basis that the increasing reliance on renewables under announced policies will mean that there will be periods when major shortages of supply occur given that states have policies which will rely on up to 50 per cent of power coming from renewable and prices will have to increase to choke off a proportion of demand (the discussion in the article is confused because the author and the AFR itself supports existing policy).

This is basically what happened during last week’s heat wave and little wind power and which led to a sudden major increase in costs. It is reported that Victorian and South Australian consumers of electricity had to pay additional costs of about $1bn for just two days last week, which indicates the frailty of existing policies operated by those two states (see Power Costs Increase by $1bn in Two Days) and which other states also operate. Indeed, NSW has today experienced blackouts which appear less than in Melbourne but which include outages (and additional costs) in hospitals (see Blackouts in NSW Too).

Note that Federal Resources Minister Canavan said that this occurrence “justifies investment in reliable sources of power, such as coal-fired power”. But he fails to recognise that the private sector will not make any such investments under the existing climate change policy which aims to reduce usage of coal. Note also that the climate “expert” employed by The Australian, Graham Lloyd, comments that “Renewable energy might be the cheapest option to build but it makes sense only if there is power available when it is needed”(see Graham Lloyd on Renewable). But he doesn’t canvass a reduction in usage of renewable or a basic problem with policies.

The “solution” of course is to withdraw from the Paris accord which Turnbull signed on our behalf (sic) and, instead, adopt a climate change policy which preferably eliminates any target for using renewable or reducing carbon emissions but at least reduces such targets to a major extent. Properly handled, that would provide a major weapon with which to fight the election given that Labor has adopted an even larger bunch of targets to use renewable and to reduce carbon emissions. But Morrison has first to indicate that his government is now not in agreement with CC policies adopted under Turnbull.

Newspoll Lift Helpful But Coalition Has a Long Way to Go

Des Moore — Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:24:15 +0000

Helpful Lift in Coalition Newspoll But Still Well Behind

Today’s first Newspoll for 2019 shows a helpful improvement for the Coalition in its TPP gap from 45/55 in early December to 47/53 but Morrison’s “Satisfactory” rate as PM went down from 42 to 40 and his “Dissatisfaction” rate went up from 45 to 47. By contrast, the “Satisfactory” and “Dissatisfaction” rates for Shorten each improved by a point and left him only 3 rates behind Morrison. In the “Better PM” rate Morrison also dropped a point while Shorten’s rate was unchanged, albeit at 7 points behind Morrison. This Newspoll was taken during the period when three ministers announced they would not stand at the next election (see Newspoll TPP Loss Reduced to 53/47).

One might say that the improvement in the Coalition’s TPP is not cancelled out by the deterioration in satisfaction and better PM rates. But the improved TPP has also to be assessed by noting that it is still suggests a 3.4 per cent swing against the government since the July 2016 double dissolution election won by Turnbull by one vote. Remember also that the Turnbull government itself experienced a swing against it then of over 3 per cent ie the Coalition has a lot of ground to make up.

The NSW State election on 23 March (for all seats in the lower house) will provide the next electoral test for the Coalition, although there will also be more Newspolls before then.

In my Commentary on 27 January I argued that Morrison needed to get cracking on enunciating policies asap and drew particular attention to the problems arising from existing energy and climate change policies, including of course the large blackouts in Victoria. Commentary concluded that “the cost of producing more power, and reducing electricity prices, would also be reduced if the existing policy of reducing emissions from coal usage was either dropped or substantially reduced and the non-binding agreement in Paris was dropped or reduced”. I also argued that increased usage of renewable is not the way to reduce electricity prices.

Note too that, according to Simon Benson at News, Morrison believes that the Coalition’s attack on Labor’s negative gearing and dividend imputation policies “represent a significant vulnerability in Labor’s economic argument”. But the (correct) attack on such policies is likely to have only a limited effect on polling.

So far there is no sign of any movement on the most important policies and Morrison’s announcement today of tax concessions for small businesses, apparently at a cost of $750mn , is only touching the edges of policy (see Morrison Announces Tax Concessions for Small Businesses). Equally, to meet his prediction that there will be an increase in jobs of 1.25 mn over the next five years (similar to Abbott’s successful prediction), appropriate policies and circumstance will need to be in place.

In today’s Herald Sun et al, Terry McCrann says “Sorry Scott and Josh, but there ain’t anything you can do to stop it. Labor is going to win the federal election. The two of you, and especially Scott, won’t do the two big things that are so critical to Australia’s future and, properly argued “axe-the-tax style”, could at least make a fight of it. That’s to slash immigration and walk away from the Fake Paris Climate Accord” ( see McCrann: Labor will Shutdown Lights/Economy)

Morrison needs to address in a substantive way the “two big things” mentioned by McCrann.

Morrison Falls Short of Coherent Leadership; Victorian Coalition Likewise.

Des Moore — Sun, 27 Jan 2019 05:16:28 +0000

Morrison’s Behaviour Raises Questions About His Leadership

My previous Commentary have argued that, as a Coalition leader facing an election, Scott Morrison needs to get cracking on enunciating policies asap in the New Year. But although active since early January, he seems to have focussed on matters which are mostly “organisational” and would have limited appeal to the electorate in general. Indeed, his poor handling of some of these matters might even have attracted negative comment or a sort of “well what was that all about”.

Now we have a situation in which three of his ministers have said they will not stand again but, in what seems bad strategy for the Coalition, will remain as ministers right up to the election and yet whatever they pronounce will have no application as future policy in itself. Morrison’s response is that such “refreshing” is normal but it gives the appearance of rats leaving a sinking ship (see Morrison Loses Three Ministers). Moreover, while the “pick” by Morrison of former President of the Labor party, Warren Mundine, for the seat of Gilmore should help retain that closely fought seat, Morrison seems to have mishandled the arrangements for the de-selection of a popular local candidate and he felt forced to publicly attack that candidate. This has apparently upset not only the candidate but other local Liberal members, some of whom resigned. It will not have helped the next Newspoll by the Coalition.

Today’s article in the Herald Sun by Peta Credlin points out that, while Mundine “delivered a devasting indictment of the party that had been his DNA for decades”, the “immediate attention of the media focussed on the cack-handed way the former Liberal candidate was replaced and the unhappiness of local branch members. Instead of Mundine’s move signifying just how much the coming election matters, its been treated as further evidence of Liberal chaos” (see Re: Credlin on Mundine Highlighting Added). With what is almost despair Credlin adds “As you know, I’ve been a critic of the current government for not being sufficiently different from Labor, whether that’s been rolling PMs or pandering to the green lobby by destroying Australia’s energy advantage. But for all the government’s mistakes, Mundine’s move highlights the gulf that still remains between the two big parties. Labor’s instinct is always for more spending, more regulating and more taxing, especially on anyone who works hard to get ahead”.

Importantly, neither Morrison nor his Energy Minister (Taylor) seem to have been able to indicate why they have not made any substantive change in energy policy and/or how they are going to effect the promised reduction in electricity prices. Alinta, one of the our large retailers, has indicated that no reductions are likely in the next 18 months. If correct that would follow the about doubling of wholesale prices in Victoria over the last six years (which covered the closing of Haxelwood) and similar increases in other states.

Note that Alinta was bought by a Chinese group in 2017 “from private equity for $4bn as part of a wave of foreign investments targeting growth opportunities in Australia’s power and utility sectors following a jump in gas and electricity prices over the past few years” ie it would seem that the Chinese saw that the increased prices offered high returns and no effective action was subsequently taken by the ACCC to try to ensure competition, rather the so-called regulatory solution. (see Power Prices To Rise further). The implication is that Atlinta feels that any policy changes by either the Victorian or Federal governments will be accompanied by price increases.

Indications remain (but without detail) that, to ensure (sic) reliability and to control prices, the Morrison government will likely announce a highly regulated energy policy, possibly in the budget. Such a de facto nationalisation would naturally suit Labor, which has been attributing part of current problems to privatisations undertaken by former Premier Jeff Kennett. But instead of pointing out the gross inefficiency of the SECV when he came to office, the latter’s main contribution to existing political difficulties facing the Coalition seems to be to push some of the oldies in the Liberal Party to resign, including existing “conservatives” such as Kevin Anderson and Tony Abbott. Yet Morrison shows no sign of even bringing them back as ministers, even though that should at least improve the image from the existing left of centre!

The concern which the extreme left feels about a return of Abbott to the Coalition ministry is indicated by the front page article published by today’s Age. It is headed “An Olympian’s Task: to kick out Abbott” and written by two journos, Peter FitzSimons & Bevan Shields, whose writings would raise a question about The Age’s claim of being “always independent”. According to these two, “World champion athlete-turned-barrister Zali Steggall has called time on Tony Abbott’s “destructive and divisive” 25-year career in federal politics, launching a major bid to seize the former prime minister’s blue-ribbon Sydney seat of Warringah… the four-time Winter Olympian said Mr Abbott was an “aggressive” national figure who had lost touch with the affluent electorate and deserved to be thrown out of Parliament for his role in the demise of Malcolm Turnbull, and views on the environment… Tony Abbott, who has been a handbrake on Australian progress on many fronts but particularly effective action on climate change”. (Note that my first message conveying this article was rejected because “the content was rejected due to suspected spam”. When I sent the same message again the suspected spam had disappeared!).

The Coalition’s (Federal & Victorian) failure to enunciate a coherent energy policy was important in the abysmal handling of the policy during the heat wave and may well constitute another challenge or two in the period ahead if (as is forecast) further high temperatures occur. In considering the various policy “explanations” it is pertinent to assess what the main policy makers said that during the heat wave yesterday (see The Incredible Story of Vic Energy Policy under “Extreme” Eventsextracted from reports/comments in yesterday’s Australian):

Federal energy minister Angus Taylor said the government was closely monitoring the energy situation in Victoria and thanks AEMO for the job it has done managing a difficult situation in collaboration with the wider energy industry. “The conditions experienced over the last two weeks across the national electricity market reinforce the need for investment in reliable 24/7 generation and the retailer reliability obligation.“That is why the government is backing in new reliable generation investment through its Underwriting New Generation Investments program which has had strong responses to its registration of interest process that closed on 23 January.“The government will carefully consider all proposals and will have more to say once we have considered all the submissions and feedback received during this process.”
Labor leader Bill Shorten said he was very concerned about the load shedding, suggesting the Morrison government was partly to blame.“Ever since the federal government said they could lower power prices and took responsibility for the power debate, it’s now partly on the federal government’s head this challenge of blackouts,” Mr Shorten said.“They’re the ones who said that renewables were a waste of time – well they’ve been in charge now for the best part of six years.
“I do expect the federal government, having said they could lower prices, to do more for the reliability of the system rather than just blame the states but it is most serious and let’s just keep our fingers crossed.” Mr Shorten said the last six years of energy policy had been a disgrace.“While this government has been debating the scientists and the community about renewable energy there has been a virtual freeze on investment in power generation and now sadly when we need our power the chickens have come home to roost,” he said. “While you have a government that can’t deliver a coherent national power policy, there will not be investment in new generation and where you don’t have investment in new generation, sooner or later the old generation will fall over and then we face these sorts of crises.“To me it highlights everything that’s wrong with the LNP and the Liberal government in Canberra in 2019 – they spend so much time arguing about the politics, and now we’ve wasted 2000 days and we’re no better off, indeed we’re worse off, than we were six years ago.”
Victorian Energy Minister, Ms D’Ambrosio said voters had spoken loudly and clearly on the Coalition’s credibility on energy policy at the November election.“They had no energy policy. The only energy policy they took to the last state election was to build a new coal-fired power station which – even if you started building it today – would take eight years to come”. “No-one is prepared to finance it, and we can see that the problems we’ve got now is that we’ve got a 20th Century system for a 21st Century climate, and the fact is our thermal generators are ageing, they are becoming less and less reliable.“That has been palpably evident in the last couple days.” “More energy supply is available to us in Victoria this summer than it was this time last year. That’s because of our strong emphasis on renewable energy: the quickest form of energy to be built, the cheapest and, of course, if we have a look at today, the most reliable.“Wind power came through today. Wind power produced sufficient power generation – as was anticipated.“Our batteries – our large batteries – were available last night when we needed them the most.” AEMO data showed the batteries generating just 25 megawatts of a Victorian total of 8,622 megawatts at 7pm last night.
Wind is currently generating 8.1 per cent of Victoria’s energy.
Victorian opposition leader Michael O’Brien said the load shedding today in Victoria has shown the failure of the Andrews government’s energy policies.“Something is seriously wrong when the power goes out in Victoria because we don’t have enough supply,” the Liberal leader said.“On a day of extreme temperatures, there are serious health and safety concerns with deliberately cutting off supply.“When Labor policy led to the closure of Hazelwood Power Station, the Liberals and Nationals warned that Victoria was left exposed.“We are not a Third World country. We deserve a safe and reliable power grid.
“Daniel Andrews loves to boast he’s good at ‘getting things done’. Keeping the power on would be a good start.”
Victorian opposition acting energy spokesman David Southwick said it defied belief that in a first-world country like Australia, Victoria has a state government that can’t guarantee enough electricity for people to go about their daily lives.“Melbourne is currently hosting thousands of international tourists for the Australian Open who must be wondering why the state government is asking its citizens to refrain from using common household appliances to prevent large scale blackouts,” Mr Southwick said. “Most Victorians agree that renewable energy is the future but we need to make it a sensible transition that doesn’t threaten power supplies and cost Victorians a fortune.“Daniel Andrews owes all Victorians an explanation as to why he can’t keep the lights on.”

Conclusions

Readers of this Commentary will recognise the ineptness of these statements of policy makers, both Liberal and Labor. Of course, Australia can increase the usage of renewable but the limited wind yesterday showed that they produced only 8 per cent of power in Victoria. This low contribution occurs quite frequently (similar low contributions occur in other states). If the reliance on renewable is increased so too will there be a need for considerable additional investments in back-up power sources, such as gas and diesel. This futher addition to the cost of producing power requires either additional subsidies by taxpayers (already large) or further increases in prices (already doubled in the last six years). A reduction in the unnecessary government restrictions on investment in gas would also help as it has enormously in the US.

The cost of producing more power, and reducing electricity prices, would also be reduced if the existing policy of reducing emissions from coal usage was either dropped or substantially reduced and the non-binding agreement in Paris was dropped or reduced.

A belated Happy Australia day

Morrison’s Objectives Not Clear; Sea Levels; O’Dwyer Resignation

Des Moore — Sun, 20 Jan 2019 05:32:29 +0000

Where is Morrison Going?

In my Commentary for 17 January I noted that “there is no sign yet of a more comprehensive presentation of Coalition policies even though Turnbull has gone”. Recent developments have now raised the question of what Morrison is actually seeking to achieve as leader of the Coalition. For example, his three day visit to Vanuatu and Fiji, accompanied by his wife, and the announcement of financial provisions for extensive infrastructure and other aid have made it appear an important initiative for Australia (see Australia/Fiji Relations).

Yet while this might help limit Chinese activity in the region, and help Fiji itself, it scarcely rates as an initiative which the Coalition leader should undertake at a time when other policies need to be developed prior to an election in May. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who was Minister for International Development and the Pacific, and had made 35 trips to the Pacific islands, might well have implemented the enhanced Pacific policies announced by Morrison, albeit at a lower level (see Warning on Loans to Pacific Islands). But she was dropped as a minister.

Morrison himself seems to have been ill-prepared to handle the views of Fiji President, Bainimarama, on climate change and, in particular, the supposed threat of rises in sea levels.Yet all the Pacific Islands have long used the supposed threat from climate change as a basis for requiring more aid and Morrison should have recognised this. But he appears to have accepted sea levels as a real, almost immediate, threat (see Morrison on Climate Change).

Climate expert Bill Kininmonth points out that “Bob Hawke got a similar serve from the then Fiji PM at a South Pacific Forum meeting back about 1988. As a consequence the Australian government funded the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project, a network of about a dozen automated sea level and meteorological observing stations. The project was managed by the National Tidal Facility at Flinders University. The NTF was incorporated by BoM in the early 2000s. I was on a project review team in the early 200s when it was still in Flinders. There seemed to be excellent technical management of the project”.

An examination of the monthly sea level data (Max, Min and Mean) share shows that, except in one year (1997-98), there is no upwards trend in sea levels according to BOM data.

Was Morrison unaware of this? Did he consult his environment Minister? Did he consult fellow Cabinet colleagues before the visit?

His apparent failure to check on sea levels in the Pacific and Fiji in particular is made more important by an interview conducted about a year ago by the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation with expert oceanographer Nils-Axel Morner. In fact, Morner’s analysis extends beyond the Pacific and he disparages the IPCC as having “always misrepresented the facts on this topic. It exaggerates the risks of a sea level rise enormously. The IPCC relies in particular on questionable computer models rather than field research”. Morner adds that using his research “We were able to prove that the sea level in Fiji from 1550 to about 1700 was about seventy centimeters higher than it is today. Then it sank and was about fifty centimeters lower in the 18th century than it is today. Then it rose to about the current level. In the last 200 years, the level has not changed significantly. For the past 50 to 70 years, it has been stable” (see Nils-Axel Morner Says Sea Levels No Problem).

The failure of almost all political leaders, and of many who write about the supposed threat from climate change, is also illustrated in the article by Bjorn Lomborg published in Weekend Australian. He points out that a major charity, Christian Aid, has released a report, Counting the Cost: A Year of Climate Breakdown, documenting the “huge costs of climate impacts” and saying that the cost of climate change last year was $US85 billion ($118bn). Lomborg says that this claim was “repeated by many newspapers — just as it was designed to — yet it is nonsense”… “But the charity, which receives money from the British and US governments and the European Commission and raised more than £100 million in 2017-18, is scaremongering” (see Lomborg Identifies False Claims on CChange).

In short, activists who support the dangerous warming threat and the need for governments to implement policies to reduce emissions, are costing taxpayers unwarranted expenditure. But, while the meeting of political leaders at Davos this week will doubtless have considerable discussions on CC, they are unlikely to do much about that.

Resignation of Kelly O’Dwyer

Today’s announcement that Kelly O’Dwyer, the Liberal member for Higgins, will not stand again for election is another surprise the more so as it has been a blue ribbon seat. The reported resignation indicates that she had given Morrison advance notice and that “I would particularly like to thank the Prime Minister and Jenny for their personal support in what has been a very difficult decision. I have worked closely with Scott not just as PM but also as Treasurer,” Ms O’Dwyer said. “He is the right person to lead our nation and I will do all that I can, both locally and nationally, to ensure that this continues” (see Is O’Dwyer Quit a Loss to Libs?).

Her appointment was as Minister for Women and for Industrial Relations, but she has not appeared to have made any impression on the latter or its much needed reforms. Indeed, it was a bit surprising that she was given a ministry which has to deal mainly with men, had no obvious experience with the issues, and yet is thought to be a major election issue.

At the press conference announcing the resignation, Morrison is reported as agreeing that “family is so important”, and that he supported Ms O’Dwyer’s choice to leave politics. He said that being able to choose shows “great strength” and said “no one in Parliament has worked harder” on issues that women face. “When asked about Ms O’Dwyer’s replacement, she said there was plenty of talent within the Liberal Party and she hoped it would be another woman. Mr Morrison did not want to speculate on who the candidate might be” but there is much media commentary to the effect that it will “have to be a woman”.

Morrison has missed an opportunity to say that he would select the most important person available and there is in fact a need for a revised Ministry.

Election Campaign Start? No Comprehensive Coalition Policy; Cabinet Re-Shuffle Needed; Mistakes Made By Climate Warmists; Others Have Walls

Des Moore — Thu, 17 Jan 2019 03:59:31 +0000

Unofficial Election Campaign Starts – But Slowly

While Morrison says he will not attempt an early election, the New Year is seeing the re- emergence of debate on issues such as border controls. It is pointed out that, while “Labor softened its asylum-seeker policy at its national conference last month by formally endorsing doctor-ordered medical evacuations off Manus Island and Nauru, it remains committed to boat turnbacks when safe to do so, offshore processing and regional resettlement.” But Morrison claims “they will abolish temporary protections visas and last year voted to end offshore processing as we know it in the parliament. And they had no clue what they had done’’ (see Dispute over OZ Border Policy).

However, the most “issues-attention” has been given by Treasurer Frydenberg and Home Affairs Minister Dutton and there is no sign yet of a more comprehensive presentation of Coalition policies even though Turnbull has gone and he seems to receive less media coverage. The decision by Morrison to make the present official visit to Vanuatu and Fiji is obviously driven mainly by the increasing attention being given by the Chinese to Pacific Islands. But the development of a comprehensive Coalition policy seems more important and the Foreign Affairs Minister should be able to handle the Pacific Islands. True, a more knowledgeable/presentable person than Payne could be useful (she was initially appointed by Morrison after Bishop resigned). Indeed, it would be desirable to have a major re-shuffle of Cabinet before the election, including the re-appointment of Abbott and Abetz.

An important election issue has emerged from the revelation in an OECD report that Australia relies on revenue from company taxes for 16 per cent of budget revenue, which is the highest share in the advanced world and compares with an advanced nation average of 9 per cent. As David Uren points out, “the failure of the Turnbull government to break the Senate gridlock last year to legislate a phased reduction in the company tax rate for big businesses to 25 per cent has left Australia among a group of 18 nations with a standard company tax rate of at least 30 per cent, nearly all of them developing nations” (see Australia Has High Company Tax Rate).

Another important election issue is, of course, energy policy and the promise to reduce electricity prices. I drew attention in the 12 January Commentary to Alan Moran’s analysis showing there is scope to start doing this by effecting a reduction in government subsidies. Recent evidence of statements by warmists which have been shown to be badly wrong could also be used as a basis for justifying the moderation of Australia’s policy.

These include a survey by the UK’s The Global Warming Policy Foundation, started by a former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, from 1983-89. The incorrect warmist sayings are summarized below for each month of 2018:

January 2018: Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: Study. PARIS (AFP) – Earth’s surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday (Jan 17) which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions. A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet’s temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.

February: ‘Sinking’ Pacific nation Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, new research reveals. The Pacific nation of Tuvalu — long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels — is actually growing in size, new research shows. A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery. It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

March: BBC forced to retract false claim about hurricanes. You may recall the above report by the BBC, which described how bad last year’s Atlantic hurricane season was, before commenting at the end: “A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5.” I fired off a complaint, which at first they did their best to dodge. After my refusal to accept their reply, they have now been forced to back down

April: Corals can withstand another 100-250 Years of climate change, new study. Heat-tolerant genes may spread through coral populations fast enough to give the marine creatures a tool to survive another 100-250 years of warming in our oceans.

May: Climate change causes beaches to grow by 3,660 square kilometers. Since 1984 humans have gushed forth 64% of our entire emissions from fossil fuels. (Fully 282,000 megatons of deplorable carbon “pollution”.) During this time, satellite images show that 24% of our beaches shrank, while 28% grew. Thus we can say that thanks to the carbon apocalypse there are 3,660 sq kms more global beaches now than there were thirty years ago.

June: Antarctica not losing ice, NASA researcher finds. NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally says his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.

July: National Geographic admits they were wrong about notorious starving polar bear-climate claims. The narrative behind the viral photo of a polar bear starving, reportedly thanks to climate change, has been called into question by the National Geographic photographer who took it in the first place.

August: New study shows declining risk and increasing resilience to extreme weather in France. This risk factor for French residents of cities stricken by a disaster has been falling with every passing decade.

September: Coral bleaching is a natural event that has gone on for centuries, new study. Coral bleaching has been a regular feature of the Great Barrier Reef for the past 400 years, with evidence of repeated mass events dating back to well before European settlement and the start of the industrial revolution.

October: Climate predictions could be wrong in UK and Europe. Current climate change predictions in the UK and parts of Europe may be inaccurate, a study conducted by researchers from the University of Lincoln, UK, and the University of Liège, Belgium, suggests.

November: Number and intensity of US hurricanes have remained constant since 1900. There’s been “no trend” in the number and intensity of hurricanes hitting the continental U.S. and the normalized damages caused by such storms over the past 117 years, according to a new study.

December: Alarmist sea level rise scenarios unlikely, says climate scientist Judith Curry. A catastrophic rise in sea levels is unlikely this century, with recent experience falling within the range of natural variability over the past several thousand years, according to a report on peer-reviewed studies by US climate scientist Judith Curry.

Today’s Australian also runs an article by climate expert Emeritus Professor Ian Plimer disparaging the claim still often made that 97 per cent of scientists conclude that humans are causing global warming. Plimer asks “Is that really true? No. It is a zombie statistic. In the scientific circles I mix in, there is an overwhelming scepticism about human-induced climate change. Many of my colleagues claim that the mantra of human-induced global warming is the biggest scientific fraud of all time and future generations will pay dearly” (see Plimer Disparages 97% Consensus on Global Warming).

There are many other examples of errors, in some cases deliberately made by “scientists” including for reasons not actually scientific, which could be used as a basis for reducing the emissions target set in Paris by Malcolm Turnbull when PM, but who had no scientific expertise on the causes of climate change.

Another important development in this context is the establishment by climate expert Viv Forbes of a Saltbush Club to conduct a national campaign to support Australia’s immediate withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. Along with many others I have joined this club, which has now issued a press release pointing out, inter alia, that “Australia will suffer badly from the destructive energy policies being promoted in the UN’s war on cheap, reliable hydro-carbon fuels such as oil, diesel, gas and coal and the backbone industries that rely on them – mining and smelting, farming, fishing, forestry, processing and manufacturing” (see EXIT PARIS AGREEMENT- Break the Climate Chains Now).

Unfortunately, Morrison has already said that Australia must stick with the Paris Agreement even though it is not binding. He has probably been heavily influenced in making this decision by advice from his department, which includes staff who are strong believers in the dangerous global warming thesis. But, one way or another, he needs in the Coalition’s interests to over-rule such advice.

US Wall Policy

In the Commentary of 12 January I argued that “the President of the US is correct in identifying an immigration problem” arising in part from the absence of adequate control on the border with Mexico and noted that Greg Sheridan took a similar view. Subsequently, Trump has “declared he will never back down from his border wall to protect Americans, paving the way for a prolonged deadlock over what is already the longest government shutdown”. This view was strengthened somewhat by “a Washington Post-ABC News poll which shows that while a majority oppose the wall, support for it has grown over the past 12 months, from 34 per cent to 42 per cent” (see Trump on Walls).

It may also be strengthened by a survey published by Breitbart showing that government agencies and prominent individuals make use of walls. The survey shows extensive photos of such walls including those constructed by Hungary, Israel and Bulgaria (on the border with Turkey) as protection against illegal migrants. The survey covers a number of prominent US politicians (including Hilary Clinton) who have opposed the funding of the Mexican wall but who have themselves used protective walls in the US (see photo of Hungary’s Border Wall).

No doubt the controversy over the wall and the partial shut-down in Washington will continue. The latest development is an attempt by Speaker Pelosi to alter the State of Union address by Trump scheduled for 29 January. It appears that her reasons for alteration are rejected even by Democrat-leaning media (see Pelosi Tries to Postpone State of Union Address).