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.

In my Commentary yesterday I suggested that various aspects of Joyce’s “affair” with staffer Vicki Campion were of public interest and not simply a “private” matter, as Joyce (and some other Coalition Ministers) had suggested. Today’s media has now woken up to the public interest (some journalists apparently knew about the affair some months ago) and have written about it, albeit in mostly soft tones. But Andrew Bolt identifies a number of questions which require answers (see Joyce’s Affair is of Public Interest), viz

WHY was Campion moved out of Joyce’s office last year? Was it, as the ABC reports, after Turnbull’s intervention?

WHY was Campion then hired as social and digital adviser to Nationals minister Matt Canavan — a job created for her? Was that job advertised, and were any other candidates considered for this position, paid for by taxpayers to the tune of up to $191,000?

WHY, after Canavan resigned as a minister, was Campion then hired as a media officer by another Nationals MP, Damian Drum, when he already had one? Why was Drum’s staff allocation increased from six to seven to make room for her, and did Turnbull or his office approve it?

WHY have Freedom of Information requests from journalists asking about Campion’s taxpayer-funded travel expenses been refused?

DID Joyce sack Nationals minister Darren Chester for — as was widely claimed — privately criticising his affair?

WAS Canavan’s surprisingly bad vote in the ballot for deputy Nationals leader in part a payback by Nationals MPs for having sheltered Joyce’s lover?

HOW much was Joyce’s poor performance and judgment last year affected by the affair?

While Joyce got a lot of questions today in Parliament, none of them appeared to relate to the above questions. However, a spokesman for Turnbull told a journalist  that rules forbidding the employment of “family and partners” in a member’s office did not apply to Campion as she was not a “partner” to Joyce at the time she was employed by other ministers! And although  Labor gave Joyce a number of questions, it played down the affair issue and its possible implications.

However, unless satisfactory “explanations” are given, it is difficult to see how Turnbull could have Joyce as a “lame duck” Deputy PM who becomes PM when Turnbull travels overseas, which he is scheduled to do next week and in respect of which Turnbull told Parliament that Joyce will be Acting PM.  The problems which have emerged inside the National Party and which relate to the affair also suggest he will have to relinquish the leadership of the National Party and that of course also applies if he loses his position as Deputy PM. Turnbull, who seems to have known about the situation for some time (but is acting as though he didn’t), may able to retain Joyce as a junior Minister. Whatever, this is a set-back for the Coalition.

Turnbull’s now obvious involvement in the cover up of the affair also means that his leadership gets another black mark. And it appears that yet another may result from his presidency of the meeting over the week-end of the NSW branch of the Liberal Party. Attempts by Tony Abbott to give all members a vote on pre-selections for NSW and federal seats failed when it was decided that only 90 per cent of “ordinary” members should have a vote, with the other 10 per cent coming from state council and state executives (see Pre-selection Votes for NSW Liberal Party). Reports suggest that Turnbull handled the meeting poorly.

Turnbull’s Enemies

Political leaders usually have no difficulty in identifying their enemies. But Turnbull may have more than usual. Bond reports that his refusal to re-appoint Janet Albrechsten to the Museum Board was accompanied by the comment that  ‘Well, I can’t possibly — why would I reappoint her? She is an enemy of mine’(see Turnbull Refuses to Re-Appoint Albrechsten). Albrechsten herself also reports that, back in 2002, Turnbull rang her as a friend to report an insult made by Latham in Parliament (see Albrechsten Story). One minute a friend, the next …

Climate Policy and the Barrier Reef 

Since the end of the summer break there has been no report on the development of the National Energy Guarantee which, we have been told, will provide a more affordable and reliable supply of energy.  I and others such as Alan Moran have previously suggested that the outline exposed so far has many defects. To add to that is the report that Garnaut, who was a key adviser to Labor’s Rudd and Gillard and who wrote two deficient reports arguing the need for government action to reduce carbon emissions, has been advising the Energy Security Board on how best to implement the NEG (see Garnaut Emerges Again). As the ESB is supposed to comprise “experts”, which Turnbull has claimed justifies the NEG, we now have another expert with the same view that we face supposed dangerous global warming unless government action is taken. Meantime, as a warm up, Garnaut is advising Nick Xenophon in the forthcoming South Australian election, where the Liberal party  so far seems to propose very little change in the existing climate/energy policy.

An outrageous development on climate policy is the attempt by the James Cook University in Townsville to gag research scientist Prof Ridd from expressing his view (even to his wife) that “the Great Barrier Reef is in fact in excellent condition. It certainly goes through periods of destruction where huge areas of coral are killed from hurricanes, starfish plagues and coral bleaching. However, it largely regrows within a decade to its former glory. Some parts of the southern reef, for example, have seen a tripling of coral in six years after they were devastated by a particularly severe cyclone”. Ridd, who has been helped financially through the IPA, now has to take legal action to allow him to express his views publicly (see Attempt to Gag Ridd on Barrier Reef). This gagging attempt should produce criticism from the PM – but we need a new one to get such a criticism from that quarter!

Richard Morgan has again managed publication of an advertisement by his Climate Study group, this time to even a half-pager in today’s Australian and titled REALLY DANGEROUS, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, THE NEXT ICE AGE. Readers of this Commentary are familiar with the argument by the group that “ the dangerous global warming threat is …not supported either by failed climate models or evidence from past global climate experience”. But note that it also says that “past levels of CO2 were at least four times the present level without dangerous global warming” and that “the next ice age should be the most serious climate event for humanity to fear.“ Having regard to  all this, it said “there is an urgent need to bring power costs down” (see full ad with title of Ice Age Possible).

The Australian also published today the  average wholesale energy prices in each state and it shows that Victorian and South Australian “have more than doubled since this time last year, as experts warn that blackouts and supply issues are likely to increase as state governments chase ­aggressive ­renewable energy ­targets”(see Vic/SA Energy Prices Double). The basic reason for this doubling is the reduced usage of cheaper coal-fired power (including the premature closure of a number of generators) and the substitution of usage of the more expensive and less reliable wind and solar power. What is emerging is that the larger that wind and solar are used as power “fuels” the more that some form of additional back up is required (adding to expenditure) and/or the more that higher prices will be required when electricity is in short supply because there is no wind or sun.  In this regard, note the view expressed by a former US Energy Secretary under Obama (and Nobel Prize Winner) that batteries are too expensive to be a major source (see Batteries as Source of Electricity).

The recent heat wave on 18/19 January illustrates what can happen when a “short supply” problem develops in circumstances where a significant “fuel” supply is normally provided by wind/solar. An analysis of electricity prices for those two days by Dr Tom Quirk and Paul Miskelly (see Analysis of Electricity Prices for 18/19 Jan Heat Wave) shows that the price of electricity in each of Victoria and S Australia jumped in the afternoon of each day and they calculate the total extra cost as being some $400 million.  There were no reports of blackouts. In short, when a significant supply normally comes from wind/solar, the “back-up” will have to include an increase in prices charged to consumers.

When a similar situation arose on 28/29 January reports of blackouts also emerged in each of the two  States but have been denied in Victoria as being due to “shortages of supply”. The explanation (sic) in Victoria by Premier Andrews is that  “there were distribution and localised network problems in individual neighbourhoods”, whatever that means (see Andrews on Electricity Prices Jan 29). Andrews also suggested that the distributors may have to pay compensation as they are responsible for supply.That is what is normally called “passing the buck”.

The bottom line is that the states of Victoria and SA are now so reliant on wind/solar as “fuel” that, when heat wave conditions occur, they are exposed to additional costs on top of the additional costs that renewables incur anyway. Energy Minister Frydenberg goes along with Andrews in accepting  that “the weekend power outages were the result of distribution rather than supply issues”, but without explaining what “distribution” exactly means in this context. He is right, though,  in “calling upon the Andrews government to drop its reckless state-based renewable energy targets and mindless bans on gas”. One might have hoped  here that Frydenberg would also take the lead by, at a minimum, reducing the Federal government’s “reckless” renewable and emissions targets.

Warming Up for Resumption of Parliament

Parliament resumes on 5 February but there already signs of leaks which seem to be directed at alleviating any further decrease in polling for Turnbull that might occur at next Monday’s Newspoll and thus increase support for Abbott (see Warming Up for Next Parliament). Somebody leaked to the ABC an item for consideration by the expenditure review committee established by the Abbott government in 2014. One of the options for consideration by the committee (but rejected for consideration by Cabinet) was the possibility of preventing anyone under 30 from accessing income support. The ABC dutifully gave this a run in last night’s 7.30 report but it didn’t seem to do more than draw attention to the fact that Abbott remains a candidate for PM.

Strangely, Turnbull judged it necessary to comment today on another leak to the ABC, this time about the performance of  Scott Morrison when he was immigration minister in the Abbott government and when as PM Abbott played a leading role in establishing the border protection policy. Turnbull said the Coalition made no apologies for sending the clearest message to people smugglers, which he in fact he did shortly after he became PM.

My Commentary on 7 August suggested that the Newspoll on that day (a Coalition’s TPP of 47/53) mainly reflected the policies adopted by Turnbull since he became leader of the Coalition and that, unless there is a change in policies, there could be a further deterioration in its polling. I attached an article by Chris Kenny explaining why most of Turnbull’s policies were inconsistent with supposed Coalition objectives.

The past week has focussed mainly on same-sex marriage and has left uncertainty about whether it is legal to obtain in three month’s time the electorate’s view through an ABS survey and, if so, whether the voluntary voting will produce a sufficient proportion of voters to be able to say that the outcome is meaningful. Prominent public policy expert, Barry Maley, has argued in The Australian that the testing of public opinion on issues which have constitutional significance should be through a referendum, as has been used in regard to the republic issue. The apparent confusion on SS about how best to test the electorate’s view has left many asking why so much time had to be spent on that issue and a significant proportion may decide to not even complete the survey.

An article by The Australian’s Political Editor, Dennis Shanahan, concludes that  “There are still pitfalls ahead for the government and Turnbull on same-sex marriage — the High Court for starters — but for the first time in a year of meandering and divisions, there is a path forward, no matter what the result of the plebiscite, and another chance, perhaps a last chance, for the ­Coalition to draw back disaffected supporters and get back to the winners’ circle” (see Coalition Sits at the Last Chance Saloon). Some readers will recall the US cowboy movies which one watched in earlier times and whose outcome depended on who had the quickest draw. I do not think of Turnbull having a quick (let alone accurate) draw! His declaration on SS that “I’m a strong leader” carried no bullets.

Nor has that been the case with airline security. It is a puzzle as the why counter-terrorist action had not been tightened some time ago and had left much too open the opportunity for Islamist activity. While police caught the men involved in attempting to develop a “simple” mechanism to blow up a plane, reports indicate that baggage handlers (for example) were subject to only limited security. They also indicated that our security on domestic terminals is slacker than that applied in the US.  This potential threat must be remedied asap.

The week also saw a meeting on 9 August by Turnbull and Frydenberg with big electricity retailers and an indication by Turnbull that retailers would be required to tell customers when their rates are about to change. Just why such a meeting took place is a puzzle given that we already have an Australian Competition & Consumer Commission that should check whether there is adequate competition amongst retailers.  Ironically,  soon after the meeting we learnt that big electricity retailer AGL had been able to use the government controlled pricing sector to achieve a 14 per cent increase in profit. How come that as a customer of AGL I was advised a day before it announced its profit surge that I had been “mistakenly” receiving additional discounts on my bill and that these would be “corrected” on 17 August?  I sent a letter to The Australian about this and matters related to energy policy (see Reducing Costs of Living) but it was not published.

Energy Policies

In its editorial of 9 August The Australian said that energy policy is pre-eminent among the important policy challenges facing the Turnbull  government. It also suggested an important change to climate policy by giving lower priorities to emissions reduction imperatives and by giving public recognition to the very minor role Australia plays in determining total world emissions of CO2.  The Australian has also drawn attention on its front page to inadequacies recently acknowledged by the Bureau of Meteorology in past temperature records and confirmed by expert independent meteorologists, Jennifer Mahorasy and Lance Pidgeon.  An analysis published in the IPA’s recent Climate Change: The Facts 2017 by physicist Dr Tom Quirk also indicates that the rate of increase in Australia’s temperature over the last century (about 0.3 per cent) has been much less than the official figures, indeed so much so that continuation of the Turnbull government’s emissions reduction policy could not be justified.

The Weekend Australian carries further articles by reputable authors which reinforce such a conclusion (see above last three articles):

• Judith Sloan says “Let’s face it: energy policy is a farce in this country. It makes other countries look like paragons of common sense. The US is swimming in cheap shale gas and has reduced its emissions without any intrusive government dictates, aside from some loony and ineffective measures by some of the states. Germany is building a large brown-coal-fired electricity power plant and has deferred the withdrawal of brown coal to a later date. Denmark has gone cold on wind power, having recently cancelled a large offshore project. Britain is building a new nuclear power plant. By contrast, Australia seems hellbent on sending all our energy-intensive industry broke as well as imposing ever higher energy bills on households. There has to be a better way”;
• Chris Kenny draws attention to the disastrous results in Ontario Province Canada since the adoption there of a policy “to drive out coal in favour of renewable” … “the doubling of Ontario’s electricity prices in a decade is attributed to many factors, including upgrading of nuclear plants and transmission networks, but the main factor has been renewable subsidies and shutting down coal” … “the impact of rising prices is being felt not just by domestic consumers but by manufacturing industries … where manufacturing jobs have fallen 20 per cent in Toronto across the decade”. Kenny compares the climate policies adopted in Ontario with those adopted in South Australia “We are determined to make Adelaide a showcase city for low-carbon and clean technologies, to attract investment, drive innovation and create new jobs,” Premier Weatherill said two years ago. “Yet manufacturing jobs have declined in both places and SA’s jobless rate tops the nation”. Kenny argues that “The Prime Minister needs to take national energy policy on a radically different track that prioritises affordability and security over green gestures. The alternative would be that ‘things are going to slide, slide in all directions’”.

Today’s Australian reports that “Mr Turnbull today addressed the South Australian Liberal Party ahead of a state election in March, where energy will be a hot-button issue. He told the annual meeting that the plan was based on ideology and idiocy. “You really have in South Australia, of course, been subjected to an experiment by (Premier) Jay Weatherill. People really should conduct these experiments, as dangerous as that, privately somewhere in expert company rather than inflicting it on an entire state,” the prime minister said. Mr Turnbull said Labor’s approach to energy was a combination of ideology and politics, compared to the Liberal focus on economic and engineering. ‘But on reflection, I think I’ve been too kind to them. It’s actually ideology and idiocy in equal measures,’ he added”.

That Turnbull has stepped up his commentary on climate policy is of interest. The problem is that he has basically similar policies. The main difference is the extent of emissions reductions and increased usage of renewable. Until he reduces those targets he will be subject to a similar critique.

• Henry Ergas mainly discusses the poor analysis used in construction of the National Broadband Network but also points out that “now that renewable generators have pocketed $15bn in subsidies, let them stand on their own two feet. And while we’re at it, let’s ensure those generators pay the full costs they impose on the network, including in terms of backup generation, rather than hoisting them on to consumers. Moreover, that requirement should not just apply to new ­sources of renewable generation, as the Finkel report argues, but to existing ones, too: if they can’t afford those costs, we are better off if they shut down”. Also, “we need to abandon the illusion that constraints can be ignored and happiness purchased with wishes. Until we do, the destruction wreaked on energy and telecommunications will be merely a teaser for the disasters that lie ahead”

The recent upsurge in critiques of existing energy/environmental policies suggests that the current review of climate change policy, presumably being undertaken in the Environment Department, should now be brought forward and should include the views of recognised independent experts. It should recommend options for reducing targets.

Today Andrew Bolt has made a scathing attack on Turnbull and has extended that to the Liberal Party itself for allowing Turnbull to get away with it. He suggests that, even if Abbott replaced Turnbull, the left that now exists of that party is so strong that he would be unable to repair it. Genuine supporters of liberalism would therefore have to decide where they would vote at the next election. I suspect a goodly number have already decided.

Of course, personally Turnbull probably wouldn’t mind if he became Opposition Leader as he would still be in Parliament (because as indicated by recent experience nobody would challenge him) and he would still get publicity on his views as each issue came up for debate. As Bolt reminded us a week or so ago, he (Turnbull) has told some that he really wanted to lead Labor but concluded that as a business man he wouldn’t be accepted by Labor (Incidentally, when I drew attention in a Commentary to this reference by Bolt, a federal Liberal Party MP emailed me to say that it was nonsense. But I have access to a document which contains carefully compiled references to various statements by Turnbull, made over considerable years, criticising liberalism and the Liberal party. It would be impossible for any rational person to conclude that he supported a party which supports liberalism as it is commonly used).

The move to the left is reflected in the Turnbull government’s recent decisions on more government involvement in such topical areas as climate and education policy and, as a result, adding to government spending. Clearly, Turnbull likes being involved in the public debates over the various issues involved and the resultant exposure he receives in the media. One almost forms the impression that he doesn’t much care which way the debate ends: the important thing is that he is involved!

Note that today’s Bolt article (see Bolt on Turnbull & Liberal Party) alsosays that the successor to Triggs at the Human Rights Commission is a left wing academic and that Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop has “appointed an advisory committee including former Labor MP Jennie George to figure ways to force Australian bosses to submit to United Nations rules to ‘remedy human rights abuses’. He (Bolt) has missed the report that the proposed new federal executive director of the Liberal Party is reported to be one of Turnbull’s “mates” (the report also says that he worked for Abbott). If Turnbull succeeds in securing such appointments, and in expanding the role of government (and the federal side in particular), Australia will have a quasi Labor party and a Unionist one, plus a series of small parties such as exist today, but no Liberal Party except in name.

Shanahan on Bolt

The Australian’s Political Editor, Dennis Shanahan, is highly critical of Turnbull’s handling of education policy, arguing that “he has part of the Coalition support base up in arms against it”, that there was  “a lack of initial consultation and a proper appreciation of the place of the low-fee Catholic schools in Australian society”, and that this has “led to this diabolic solution that costs more and doesn’t satisfy the main protagonist” (see Shanahan on Bad Turnbull Strategy). Sounds like there should be a review of the leadership!

Energy Policy

The debate, if one can call it a genuine one, on energy policy continues and has reached the US, where the leading sceptic-type organisation (The Science and Environmental Policy Project or SEPP) has referred to the Finkel Blueprint’s advocacy of target 42% renewable by 2030 and concluded that

“Apparently, the expert panel doesn’t understand the nature of the grid, even after the grid failure in South Australia causing South Australia to go black. The grid is an energized system serving all those on it. Like a central nervous system, if a major component goes down, it all goes down.

Many of those involved in climate and energy are resembling the theoreticians and academics on the flying island Laputa in Johnathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels where one person in the grand academy of Lagado was engaged in extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers. Unless there is a major technology breakthrough in the generation of electricity or in its storage, a grid based on wind and solar will fail, unless bureaucrats can control when the wind blows and the sun shines”(see SEPP 22 June 2017).

The editor of SEPP is an expert in climate analyses and was one of the advisers on environmental policy to Trump when he became President. This edition of SEPP (a weekly version is normally issued) also contains other critical references to Finkel from expert climatologists (see SEPP June 17 2017, which is wrongly dated by me). Note in particular the one headed Finkel report destroys baseload coal power economics.

Of course, as noted in SEPP, Finkel claims to have consulted widely, including with the IEA. That organisation recently changed its leadership and its relatively open position on global warming. Finkel is also reported in today’s media as continuing to support the CET (which includes the 42% renewable by 2030) as the best outcome for energy policy.

By allowing such claims to continue, Turnbull risks Australia being compared with Laputa Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels.

Interestingly, I have also received a message from John McClean, once an official adviser to the IPCC. Included in his advice to me is that, even if Turnbull’s  Snowy Mountain project gets going, there may well be difficulties on some days to get enough electricity to bring back the initial water flow from the dam where it started. He also supports the need for an inquiry.

Also here is Terry McCrann’s column, which includes the important segment immediately below warning of the dangers if existing policies are allowed to continue.

“SLIDING TOWARDS PRECIPICE

AUSTRALIA is sliding, seemingly inexorably and at an accelerating pace, towards the electricity generation precipice. We are now facing the almost certain prospect that we are going to enter an extended period, running into years if not decades, of chronic power shortage.

We face blackouts next summer across the three south-eastern states, Victoria, NSW and South Australia. Indeed, it’s possible — but, hopefully, at this stage unlikely — they could come as soon as this winter. But if not then, or either by a miracle, next summer, they are all but certain after that.

At a functional level, averting the risk, the certainty, is easy. We just have to keep Victoria’s Hazelwood coal-fired power station open. On a day when it’s hot both in NSW, so air conditioners are whirring, and also in SA, when wind turbines are generally not, Hazelwood has been the only thing that has already avoided blackouts in both those states.

What exactly do supposedly sane people think is going to happen the next time’s there a similar combination of weather? Yes, weather, not “climate”. To say nothing of the most fundamental responsibility of leadership?

Yes, it makes basic sense to — eventually — close Hazelwood. And indeed, other coal-fired stations. Not because they are supposedly “dirty”, defined by the amount of CO2 they emit — nothing like most of the coal-fired stations in India and China which really are dirty, pumping out dirty bits of grit.

Why don’t we, incidentally, identify the “dirtiest” Australian, similarly defined by how much CO2 that “dirtiest” of 25 million “dirty” Australians, exhales each day? But close them because they really have reached the end of their lives. And close them, in an orderly way, where replacement base-load stations have been built.

Malcolm Turnbull’s scheme to pump water uphill is as mad as Jay Weatherill’s plan to build a big battery. Both might keep the lights on for a few minutes. Then we go black”.

Energy Muddle is the result of political ineptitude (Letter published in The Australian,19 March 2017. Bracketed bits were omitted by Ed)

Prime Minister Turnbull says he has received a guarantee from gas producers that sufficient gas will be available in future to prevent blackouts and that, under his leadership, the Snowy Mountains scheme will increase production by 50 per cent. But many see these initiatives as mainly designed to lift his and the Coalition’s polling rather than solving the energy crisis the PM says we face.

There is no energy crisis. The crisis is that our political leaders, federal and state, have adopted policies that are resulting in reduced usage of coal-powered energy, reduced investment in gas production for local use, and increased resort to renewable sources which are now discovered to have limits [to their use]. Yet we have numerous scientists [both here and overseas] who reject or highly qualify the thesis that fossil fuels should not be used and who support the use of fracking and conventional drilling for gas.

Australia has plentiful supplies of coal and gas: a change in policies would prevent any energy problems. One would be to reduce the renewable target (it has previously been reduced) to existing usage levels, which are now about half the 23.5 per cent target. That should be accompanied by commissioning a report from representatives of the many thousands of scientists who reject or qualify the dangerous warming thesis. A likely outcome would be a major change in energy policy.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

It is also worth drawing attention to one of Australia’s political leaders who has swallowed the fishing line dangled by the group of scientists who accept the dangerous warming thesis unless emissions of CO2 are stopped. I am referring here to SA Premier Weatherill. Questioned by the ABC and The  Australian, he responded “I know that’s inconvenient for The Australian and I know that they’re wanting to continue their jihad against renewable energy but all of the evidence is to the contrary,”. Yet, as the article indicates, experts have advised that the use of renewable should be limited and one has suggested to no more than 20 per cent (the usage in SA is over 40 per cent).

Of course, Weatherill is not our only political leader who has swallowed the fishing line. Turnbull has attacked the extent to which some state leaders have used renewable sources. But until he acts to reduce the federal renewable target of 23.5% for electricity he is participating in Terry McCrann’s slide towards the precipice and what goes with that.

Andrew Bolt has started the “break” by writing that “many Turnbull supporters … now accept he’s finished” (see below). Bolt also outlines why Bishop would not be a suitable replacement. He lists eight reasons against her appointment as leader and lumps both Turnbull and her together as “Disloyal, few real convictions, too Left, too inarticulate and too flash to fight or talk to battlers” – and “ if you can’t tell the difference without a skirt, why swap?”.

Bolt also runs an article offering four examples as to why Australians should be frightened about statements reportedly made by four citizens viz the head of a NSW public school with mainly Muslim pupils apparently covering up jihadist-like  statements by pupils, the NSW Minister for Education apparently allowing a protocol on males not needing to shake hands with females, the outlandishly biased support of aspects of Islam by the ABC, and the failure of journalists to correct statements by Shorten on the treatment of Aborigines. Such developments by people in public positions are indeed frightening.

Meantime, the independent energy market regulator (Australian Energy Market Operator) has  made a damning submission to a review being undertaken of Queensland’s renewable energy target of 50% by 2030. It apparently says that lower usage of coal fired power could make the electricity network more susceptible to outages and would have a large impact on the operational aspects of the network, including security and stability. This appears to confirm its earlier conclusion on the causes of the SAus blackouts, which the SA government still attributes mainly to the weather or mismanagement by AEMO. This is an important on-going issue which the Turnbull government seems unable to deal with in a meaningful way.

We are in a period when there is an increased need to check reports and interpretations of political policies and announcements appearing in the media and even those made by supposedly independent government agencies. This applies particularly to policies on climate change, where there exists a divergence of opinion about dangerous warming unless governments reduce/eliminate emissions of CO2.

That divergence continues even after Trump has announced major appointees on US environmental policy who do not accept the dangerous warming thesis and seem set to reverse Obama’s policies. However, despite this apparently major impending policy change by a major emitter, we experienced surprisingly quiet editorial treatment in The Australian on climate change immediately prior to 15 December. I also failed in that period  to have published three letters in The Australian suggesting the need to review Australia’s policy.

It is difficult to say whether this apparent change in regard to climate change had anything to do with Andrew Bolt’s disclosure of an apparent supportive arrangement secured by Turnbull with The Australian’s Paul Kelly, who  Bolt had described as a “Turnbull man”. However, Kelly’s article of 14 December argued that there has been a “tearing apart of the political centre” on both the left and right and that Turnbull is running the centre line (see Kelly on Political Centre). I differed and succeeded on this occasion in having the letter below published in The Australian. Note that it refers to “our now dated policy on climate change”.

PM has done little to bring us smaller government

(Letter published in The Australian, 15 Dec 2016. Bits in square brackets deleted by Ed)

It is surprising that, after asserting there has been a “the tearing apart of the political centre” in 2016, [experienced journalist] Paul Kelly then has to ask “where is the centre ground now” (14/12). He rightly concludes that in Australia neither Malcolm Turnbull nor Bill Shorten are convincing. But [surely] their attitudes and policies provide the clue[?

First, at a time when unions are much less relevant [in Australian society], Shorten’s centre supports an increased role for the union movement. Second, at a time when the Coalition says it supports a smaller role for government, Turnbull’s centre has failed to do anything of substance to reduce that role[, let alone convey the benefits of such policies. Yet Kelly fails to address either of these major deficiencies].

The reality of 2016 is that the political centre has shifted towards support for a smaller role for government [both] domestically and internationally. It maybe that the election in America of Donald Trump occurred with the use of impolite language. But there can be little doubt that his election is sending the 2016 message.

Yet the Turnbull government has failed to recognise the implications for existing policies of getting spending  down so that company tax can be cut, and of our now dated policy on climate change which is deterring business investment and reducing our competitiveness.

There is no threat to us all from an “erosion of the political centre”: what Kelly and others should recognise is its shift.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Climate Change Policy & Renewable Fuel Usage

On Friday 16 December important developments also emerged both from the draft report by the Australian Energy Market Commission ( the national electricity regulator) on power system security when renewable sources are used as a major source of fuel and from the editorial in The Australian .

According the AEMC report, renewable power sources cannot cope with rapid or large changes in frequency and, if these occur (when for example the wind stops), they can cause the disconnection of generation, potentially leading to cascading failures and ultimately a “black system”, as happened in South Australia. By contrast, spinning generators, motors and other devices synchronised to the frequency of the electricity system have in the past naturally provided the inertia necessary to allow the system to cope with uncontrolled changes in frequency. But technologies such as wind or solar have no or low ­inertia and have limited ability to dampen rapid changes in frequency.

The AEMC indicates that it is working on five rule changes that address immediate concerns on emergency protection in relation to SA’s current frequency issues as well as new mechanisms to allow security to be maintained across the entire NEM. “This review puts an umbrella over many issues being raised by stakeholders in relation to the power system’s ability to keep the lights on while maintaining its frequency at a constant level,” AEMC chairman Jim Pierce said. “The review will consider both policy mechanisms that are in place now, and analyse how many of the feasible emissions reduction policies may impact the future power system.”  The review, which will deliver its final report in June next year, focused on the ability to maintain control over power system frequency after a major event such as the loss of a large generator, load or a transmission line (see AEMC on Usage of Renewables).

It appears that this AEMC report means that renewables should not be used as a major fuel source for electricity, and that South Australia will have to take special measures (such as installing additional back-ups from gas), until new rules are devised, assuming that is feasible. Obviously, other states which have renewable targets should halt any further usage. More generally, Turnbull’s attack on such states for “excessive resort” to renewable, and his attack also on Shorten’s “excessive” target, will now be supported by the report. But at the same time he faces a problem in that, first, his government has set a renewables target of 23 per cent by 2020 and, second, the achievement of the emissions reduction target of 26-28 per cent by 2030 will require increased resort to renewables.  In a word, Australia’s climate change policy is in a chaotic state.

Relevant here is The Australian’s editorial on 16 Dec (see below), which points out that “it is important to understand that issues of energy cost and supply are dilemmas that we have created. These are not problems of supply or demand, of scarcity or distance, but of policy. The nation needs to weigh its priorities and take the necessary action”. The editorial also says that Australia needs to reclaim its natural advantage of low energy cost ie use of coal.

It seems clear that, even if it is not politically possible to immediately effect a major change in existing climate change policy, there needs to be a review which includes not only the Chief Scientist but climate experts who do not accept the dangerous warming thesis.

Yesterday’s The Australian detailed the bias we all know already exists at the ABC: in this instance our reference point is a TV presentation by ABC Four Corners, apparently approved by editorial director Sunderland (and with no reference to the almost invisible “new” CEO Guthrie). This presentation obviously grossly distorted the behaviour of the Nauruan community and the standard of government facilities in Nauru and, hence, its unsuitability to accommodate “refugees” trying to come to Australia. The ABC (and its sister SBS) are well known supporters of the refugee cause.

Today’s The Age, which adopts a similar view, reports that the ABC’s director of news  has “hit back” by claiming that it told the “important story” of more than 100 children living on Nauru by “relying on remote interviews and the testimonies of staff” because, it claimed, Nauru routinely refuses access to journalists and charges prohibitive fees for media visas. Sunderland is reported as saying “we don’t launch inquiries into excellent pieces of journalism”! Such comments are of course typical of the ABC’s handling of issues on which it holds fixed views, such as global warming. A letter published in today’s The Australian argues for cuts to funding for the ABC.

ABC News has also been publicising views that the use of wind power was not the cause of the SA black out. Yesterday’s 41 page update on the blackout by the experts running the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) does include a statement that “the most well known characteristic of wind power, variation of output with wind strength (often termed ‘intermittency’), was not a material factor in the events of 28 September”. But AEMO also acknowledges that the system was supposed to accommodate wind speeds of up to 120 km/hour, which does not appear to have been exceeded. Indeed, according to Graham Lloyd in today’s The Australian,  the Bureau of Meteorology told a Senate committee earlier this week that the storm was a “pretty standard southern low-pressure system” and he also drew attention to AEMO’s report that damage to transmission towers occurred after the blackout. While references are also being made to the settings of wind farms which automatically turn them off or reduce their energy contribution when the wind is excessive, and there are reports of adjustments now being made to those settings, this suggests at a minimum that the system was not properly tested beforehand. It also suggests that security of electricity is uncertain when the wind is high unless there are sizeable back-ups from coal and/or gas fired generators.

The reality seems to be that, while even the “experts” don’t know why the blackout occurred, there is a problem with the usage of renewables. It is significant that the AEMO update repeats its earlier statement that “A detailed report including reliable recommendations for action can be expected to take up to six months considering the complexities of the matters involved”. If there were no inherent problem, AEMO would surely have said so. Bear in mind too that public comments by any observer need to be read in light of their possible views about global warming and possible legal claims being made against those directly involved in advising and operating the SA system, including the government itself. However, as to the latter, the Premier and one of his ministers are overseas escorting a large number of business representatives to meetings in Paris and London designed to attract investment and trade.

Meantime, The Australian has also editorialised (before the release of the AEMO Update)  on some of the implications of the target set for renewables by the statement made by Queensland’s Energy Minister Bailey (see Editorial on Qld Renewables) on its target of 50 per cent for renewables by 2030. This has been followed by the warning from Stanwell Corporation, which is government owned and which provides 40 per cent of the state’s coal fired generation, that a cost-benefit analysis needs to be made about the adoption of such a target, all the more so as Bailey said there would be no shut downs of coal/gas fired generators. The claim by Bailey that security of electricity supply will be maintained suggests he has learned nothing from the blackout in South Australia, where even the energy minister there warned some time ago that the state’s use of 40 per cent of renewables exposes the state to a recurrence of blackouts. Analyses by other experts caution against any extensive use of intermittent energy sources where a group of generators is operated at synchronous speed. A limit of 25 percent may be optimal.

Paris Agreement

Last week-end my attention was drawn to an Inquiry being held on the Paris Agreement by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties at Parliament House. I decided to make a submission to the Inquiry by forwarding to the Committee the  presentation I made to a meeting of the Australian Institute of International Affairs on 14 April 2016 on Dangerous Global Warming –Fact or Fiction? The Limits of the Paris Accord. I noted that the presentation I made had been well received and that it was relevant because it questions the usefulness of the Paris Agreement and, as such, is directly relevant to the Inquiry. I drew attention to the following points:

1. It includes an analysis by physicist Dr Tom Quirk of the pledges made by the various participants in the agreement. These alone suggest that CO2 emissions are likely to increase by over 20 per cent by 2030 and that the pledges do not take account of emissions from forest and peat fires, which have been producing emissions as much as half of all fossil fuels burned;
2. It indicates that all pledges are voluntary and that there is no supervision of the accuracy of progress reports on emission reductions. A change of government could result in a modification or even a recant on a pledge. This suggests that Australia should not be a leader in reducing emissions;
3. It concludes that, for a variety of reasons given in the text, there are fundamental faults in the statistical and scientific analyses used to justify the need for early and comprehensive mitigatory action by governments. It also indicates that, contrary to some claims, there is no scientific consensus that temperatures will rise to dangerous levels unless mitigatory action is taken by governments. Many scientists both here and overseas themselves reject this view ;
4. Accordingly, the agreement should not be ratified as a treaty by Australia and the best policy for governments and individuals is to adapt to changes in climate and welcome the additions to CO2 which have been beneficial to humans over the past century.

I  added that since my presentation to the AIIA in April there has developed a recognition that it may not be desirable to continue with the policies now utilised by various countries and involving the substitution of the use of renewables  of wind and solar for the use of fossil fuels to provide energy. If this becomes confirmed, it may require reductions in the targets set by governments to reduce emissions of CO2.

Latest Temperatures

Following the publication of temperature figures for September, climate analyst Dr Ken Stewart has updated the graphs he compiles from satellite measurements since 1979, from which he calculates the trend for 100 years ie what would happen over the 100 years after June 1995 if the same temperatures were repeated since that date. The trend figures vary from country to country and as between the different areas of the world. For Australia the trend calculation of the figures since June 1995 show no increase. This despite a substantial increase in CO2 emissions.

Part 1 – South Australian Blackout

It is now more than two weeks since the South Australian blackout on 28 Sept and yet the South Australian government has said nothing about the possible need to change its existing policy of relying on wind power to supply 40 per cent of the energy for electricity. Indeed, in terms of official news releases it took five days before on Oct 4 Premier Weatherill made even a formal acknowledgement of the blackout However, he did then announce an “independent” review led by former Police Commissioner Burns on October 4. My inquiry to the Premier’s office about whether submissions could be made has still not been answered.

Then, on 11 October Energy Minister Koutsantonis was reported in The Australian as warning that the state faced the potential of more blackouts because of its energy mix of more than 40 per cent renewables. He acknowledged that “the problem we have is that when wind comes on, it pushes gas generation out…it’s clean energy and reliable, but can’t be dispatched all the time”. One would have thought that some change in policy might have been made or sought to prevent such an occurrence or at least reduce the possibility of a blackout.

On Wednesday 12 Oct it was reported that the SA government had revoked the emergency control order of the energy market by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). This apparently exposes purchasers of electricity to prices determined in the spot market (AEMO appears to have set prices).  Koutsantonis was reported as complaining that the government had “very few levers it can pull because the previous Liberal government sold our power assets to monopolies and the electric market is operated by national agencies”. This development prompted me to send the letter which The Australian published today  suggesting that the existing structure of the energy market is such that it should remain under emergency control with AEMO (see below).

Meantime, while all this was happening the Premier acted to confirm his Green inclinations. This involved taking his family on a few days walking tour of the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail. He officially announced this in a news release on his return (he explained that the expenditure of $5.8 mn on the trail was an election commitment of the government’s nature-based tourism strategy).

Blackout could recur (Letter published in The Australian, 14 Oct 2016. Phrases in square brackets deleted by Ed)

It is premature for the South Australian government to revoke the emergency control of its energy market given to the Australian Energy Market Operator (“Power fears as emergency order ends” 12/10).

Energy Minister Koutsantonis blaming the opposition for selling the State’s power assets skates over the real problem caused by the government’s decision to expand the use of wind power to supply 40 per cent of energy.

That decision appears to have been made for political reasons [and there has been no indication that the government undertook a careful analysis of the risks involved, particularly the lack of sufficient back-up supply from generators fuelled by coal or gas in circumstances where the wind supply is intermittent.]

[Expert] analysis [emphasises that as fundamental and also] cautions against any extensive use of windpower in circumstances where a group of generators is operated at synchronous speed. In that situation the loss of  a few generators because of either excessive or small  wind can disrupt the whole system and that may be what happened in SA. It is possible also that it could happen again{, which seems to have been acknowledged by the Minister. Until that is determined a skilled operator should continue to control the energy market and the government must review its 40 per cent policy].

Des Moore, South Yarra Vic

What Value in Renewable Energy?

Part 2 – Queensland

The Queensland Government is apparently determined not to be left out of developing the Green strategy of using renewable energies. Qld Energy Minister Mark Bailey released on 12 October (see Qld Renewable Energy Press Release) a draft report by an independent Panel which outlines possible ways of reaching the 50 per cent target by 2030 and which will undertake a second round of community consultations before delivering its Final Report to Government by the end of the year. The draft report claims that the target can be met “while maintaining electricity security and reliability over the next 14 years”.

This presumably reflects the Minister’s statement in the press release that “coal and gas-fired generation are expected to continue to play a significant role in Queensland to 2030 under a 50 per cent target” and, as reported in the attached article in the AFR, that there will be no closures of such generators (see AFR on Qld Renewables Policy). This would be consistent with the need to have back-ups for generators constructed to use renewables when the supply of such renewables is not available because of low or excessive wind or no sun during the night/clouds. But it would of course mean a considerable doubling up of production capacity and a resultant substantial addition to capital costs.  Note that the map of projects shown in the AFR article includes a substantial number using solar power.

There is no recognition in the statement of either the problem of having no supply of energy available when using renewables or the resultant need for back-ups using coal or gas.

What Value in Renewable Energy?

Part 3 – Turnbull’s View

The claim by Turnbull that the Labor States have excessive renewable energy targets raises the question of where to draw the line. Turnbull has indicated that he supports the use of renewables but has given no indication of where the balance should be struck between RETs and fossil fuels or indeed whether the use of fossil fuels should be recognised as appropriate at all. This exposes him to being attacked for not saying what he really stands for. Andrew Bolt argues “Yes, Turnbull will be criticised by the Left, but better to be attacked for what you are for rather than for what you are against. Turnbull today is in the Land of No. Time to find the Land of Yes” (see attached Bolt on Turnbull). Butperhaps it is more a matter of being caught between Yes and No.

ASIO Annual Report

A brief report in today’s Australian says that ASIO Chief Duncan Lewis has indicated in his annual report that “ASIO cannot provide complete assurance that all terrorist attacks or high harm espionage activities affecting Australia and Australians will be identified and prevented” (see ASIO Concerned About Extremist Threat). In what seems something of a retraction of his earlier statement when Turnbull became PM, Lewis refers to the danger coming from “a small number of individuals in Australia who remain committed to anti-Western, violent and extremist Sunni Islamist ideology”. He had earlier denied any connection with religion, as indeed had Turnbull at that time.

This follows a speech made by Turnbull to Parliament on 10 Oct rejecting any banning or limiting of Muslim immigrants and arguing that “As leaders our job is to explain the facts, reassure citizens and ensure that everything we do is calculated to keep Australians safe.” (see Banning Muslims).  The AFR article reporting the speech indicated that Mr Turnbull noted that terrorists wanted the wider Australia community to turn against Muslims. “Their message to Australian Muslims is ‘you are not wanted here, you will never be accepted here, you cannot be Australian.’,” he said. The most effective weapon against this is inclusion. “An inclusive nation is a safer nation. It enables our security agencies to better protect us. It enables them to secure the support and assistance of the Muslim communities without which they cannot keep us safe,” he said. “Australia’s migrant story tells us that if we keep learning from each other, opening our doors, our hearts and our minds, harmony will win out.”

The article also refers to an ANU study that shows 71 per cent of Australians are concerned or very concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism in Australia and 56 per cent want more done to prevent an attack. This suggests that Turnbull needs to do much more than support inclusion.With Muslims in particular it is not sufficient to say that “Australia’s migrant story tells us that if we keep learning from each other, opening our doors, our hearts and our minds, harmony will win out”(see full text of speech as Turnbull on Racial Tolerance & No Banning of Muslims).