Institute for Private Enterprise » China

US Defence & Immigration Policies; US/China Trade; OZ Energy Policy

Des Moore — Sat, 12 Jan 2019 04:57:09 +0000

Where Does US Defence Policy Stand Now

Trump’s sudden announcement that the US intends to “immediately withdraw” troops from Syria (and much reduced troops for Afghanistan) has caused much confusion as to US defence policy and, following the resignation of Mattis as Defence Secretary, Trump has found it difficult to get a replacement. While consistent with his election manifesto, Trump appears to have recognised that he was being too hasty and it appears he has accepted the view of National Security adviser, John Bolton, that the withdrawal be extended over a longer period and that it should first involve the elimination of IS (which Trump initially claimed had been achieved). Even so, policy uncertainty remains.

This has been increased by an address made by US Secretary of State Pompeo in Cairo, who declared the US was committed to “expel every last Iranian boot” from Syria where, in alliance with Russia, Tehran, in its drive for regional hegemony, has been propping up the murderous Assad regime. Without mentioning Mr Obama by name, Mr Pompeo heaped scorn on the former president’s “misguided” thinking on the use of military force and reluctance to call out “radical Islam”. That was a reference to Mr Obama’s preference for the term “violent extremism” when referring to Islamist terrorism and his call for an “opening towards Muslims” that would “transcend stereotypes”.

“Remember: it was here, here in this very city, another American stood before you … he told you that radical terrorism does not stem from ideology. He told you 9/11 led my country to abandon its ideals in the Middle East,” Mr Pompeo said as he argued Mr Obama had misjudged the Arab Spring uprisings. The Obama administration’s Middle East policy, he said, was an example of “what not to do”, whether in striking the nuclear deal or abandoning long-time ally Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s ruler, allowing him to be brought down by an uprising orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood” (see Pompeo on US Middle East Policy).

It is difficult to see how Pompeo’s statements can be reconciled with Trump’s.

Who Will Break the Deadlock on Mexican Wall?

The refusal by Democrat’s House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer to give Trump approval (in the House) for any finance for building the border wall with Mexico poses a challenge to Trump now facing a majority in the House. In return, Trump has refused to approve finance for a large number of federal government employees and has threatened to declare a national emergency which (it appears) would allow him to obtain indirectly finance for the wall. But Trump says he is “not yet” taking such action.

Trump has defended his position not with a tweeter but by making his first formal address from the Oval Office (see Text of Trump’s Address on Border) and has announced that he will not now attend the Davos meeting in Switzerland which purports to give major international leaders an opportunity to expound their international policies.He is also reported as actively promoting his view particularly in the south of US.

The Democrats are using the opportunity to remind people not only of their new majority position in the House but also of the problems which Trump is experiencing on implementing some of the various policies he advocates and the problems created by the partial shut-down of the federal government. However, the Democrats are not reported as addressing the illegal immigrant problem which previous Presidents have acknowledged and, in respect of which, some have supported cross Mexican border measures, albeit not one stretching across the country as Trump promised in his election manifesto.

In an editorial yesterday The Australian points out that “in 2017 the number of undocumented migrants apprehended for crossing into the US was just over 300,000, the lowest number in 46 years. In a year, however, that figure has jumped to 400,000. A Morning Consult/Politico poll shows 42 per cent of Americans believe there is a “crisis” on the border, 12 per cent perceive it as “a problem” and only 12 per cent see nothing amiss; Democratic leaders would be wise not to ignore those numbers” (see Merits in Border Security).

In short, the President of the US is correct in identifying an immigration problem, although he should have started to do that some time ago when he had control of both houses. He did of course attempt early in his Presidency to limit immigrants from seven mainly Muslim countries and there has been an ongoing debate in the US on the extent of controls on immigrants. The increasing immigrant policy problem faced by various countries, including the development of the UK’s English Channel problem (see Migrants Attempting to Cross English Channel), may now attract more support in the US for some tightening of controls.

As Greg Sheridan points out, “it is legitimate for Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi and other Democrats to argue that Trump is proposing a bigger wall than that which they previously supported, or that they have changed their minds. What is not legitimate is to claim that Trump’s proposed wall — refashioned rhetorically now into a barrier, and to be made of steel rather than concrete — is a unique crime against the very essence of humanity and decency. And the wall or barrier or fence that Trump wants to build would certainly help control illegal immigration. So, as ever, there is a good deal of plain common sense in the Trump proposal and it is also what he promised on the election trail … In the next few days Trump will either escalate, by declaring a national emergency and using extraordinary powers — which would be ridiculous but might be effective politically — or capitulate, with some minimal face-saving compromise. In the meantime he has again succeeded in being the trapeze artist from whom no one can avert their eyes” (see Sheridan on Trump’s Wall Explanation).

The Morrison government has made no comment on this matter. Without supporting Trump’s building of the wall, it would be appropriate in circumstances where there is a general public discussion on immigration policy for Australia to indicate support of the US’s attempts to establish an effective regulatory system to control migrants. That is, of course, a potential major election issue here.

US Trade With China

An article published in the Wall St Journal reports that talks on US/China trade have resumed and that this constitutes “a show of Beijing’s seriousness”. At this stage the representatives on each side are not the most senior but the preparedness of China to engage in talks follows an agreement reached between Trump and Xi in December that the US would suspend until March tariff increases on $US200 bn of Chinese imports and thereby give the Chinese time to address what the US regards as unfair trade and economic practices (China became a member of the World Trade Organisation in 2001).

China has an enormous trade surplus with the US, with in 2017 its exports to the US amounting to $506bn and its imports from the US only $130bn (see China’s Large Trade Surplus With US). This appears to confirm that Trump has correctly threatened trade action against China not for protectionist reasons per se but because China is not conforming with WTO rules. Even so, the various aspects discussed in the attached indicate the complexity attached to any unwinding of Chinese restrictions, which extend to investment in China. As a major source for Australian exports, it is important that a satisfactory outcome be achieved.

Energy Policy

In my Commentary of 1 Jan I drew attention to the Morrison government’s decision to carry-over emissions credits obtained under the Kyoto agreements and that this meant that Australia’s emissions reduction target of 26% by 2030, as agreed by Turnbull, will in practice be much less. I also noted that, as a result, the Coalition is an even better position than it was to contrast the adverse economic effects with Labor’s much larger target of a 50% reduction by 2030.

However, there remains much that needs to be done to effect a reduction in electricity prices and the operation of the electricity market. In his analysis of the problems that still exist, climate expert Alan Moran pointed out on January 9 that the latest report by the Energy Regulator, “in line with other official analyses, hugely understated how the electricity market has been undermined by 15 years of government subsidies to the inherently low-quality supply that is wind/solar” (see The Australian Energy Regulator’s Wholesale electricity market performance report).Moran offers a disheartening conclusion as follows:

“Its analytical shortcomings aside, the report’s call for stable policy is a forlorn one. With half a dozen major Commonwealth policy direction changes since 2001 (and many others at the state level) there is zero prospect of policy stability. There never can be such stability when energy policy is inextricably tied to emission reduction policy and the targets for renewable energy vary from zero to 100 per cent”.

If the Morrison government can further moderate its energy policy, it would increase its electoral chances. But as John Roskam said last Friday in an article in the AFR “The Liberals are terrified to talk about industrial relations, they don’t have an energy policy and on questions of values such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion they can’t agree among themselves on a position”. A lot of policy changes are needed.

Government Policies/Advocacies

Des Moore — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:56:06 +0000

Today’s media contains reports which are of serious concern in regard to the capacity of governments and political leaders to operate or propound policies which are in the interests of communities considered as an entity rather than of particular groups. These are briefly described below and, except for two, the attachments.

Morrison Government Policies

I have already expressed some concern that the Morrison/Frydenberg government is portraying itself as too close to the Turnbull regime. This seems to be reflected in statements and policies which are now being made and/or implemented by those two. For a start, it is now reported that, instead of distinguishing his government from Turnbull’s, Morrison has in fact offered Turnbull in New York that some of his travel costs on “government business” could be met (see Turnbull’s Travel Costs Offered by Morrison). This comes on top of his acknowledgement of having frequent contact with Turnbull in NY.

And, although Morrison is attacked front page in the Fairfax press on failures (sic) to implement climate change policies or indeed to take them further (see Fairfax Attacks Morrison for Abandoning NEG), Fairfax overlooks his retention of emissions reductions and increased renewables while continuing, contradiction ally, to claim that power prices will be reduced and that he has appointed a minister to do this. No indication has been given as to what attitude the government takes to the IPCC report to be released on Sunday next and which is already reported to once again be endorsing the dangerous warming theory. This despite it being the umpteenth such report which has made incorrect temperature predictions and failed to attribute to reasons other than CO2 increases which may have caused temperature increases (see attached letter published in The Australian by expert analyst William Kininmonth on CChange).

As to the budget, the Australian’s David Uren notes that while “the Morrison government appears to have decided that budget repair is mission accomplished,

big spending decisions — the $4.6 billion fix for school funding and the $9bn fix for Western Australia’s GST — are unlikely to be offset by savings. There is still a drought package, a small business tax package and a federal election to come” (see Morrison/Frydenberg to Ease Budget Policy?). Yet while both Frydenburg and Morrison have acknowledged that new spending should be offset by savings, they do not give any undertaking of such action. Uren rightly concludes that “there should be a greater buffer against adversity in the budget before we start spending surpluses that are yet to arrive”.

As to the ABC, apart from the appointment of the very pro-ABC Ferguson as acting chair (for which there has been no explanation), Morrison seems happy that the inquiry by the Departmental head will provide a satisfactory basis for possible changes. Yet controversies continue about what actually happened to instigate the sacking of Guthrie and why Ferguson could not have been requested by the Minister for Communications to make obviously-needed changes as a condition of her appointment. In the attached article (ABC Stuck with Greenism) former Chair Maurice Newman identifies many but his reference to the failure to handle complaints (0.5% upheld !), and the rejection of an analysis by expert Meteorologist Bob Fernley-Jones, indicate the need for immediate change (and for there to be a change which would give credibility to the government).

As to foreign policy, the increased foreign activity by a China, now run by a Marxist who has “shuffled” leaders to centralized power in himself, requires much greater expressions of concern by Australia. This applies to inter alia a number of Chinese activities including in the South China sea. Defence Minister Pyne, who addressed a dinner I attended on Wednesday evening, said that Australia will be participating in an official group which will be sailing through the SC sea but did not say whether that group would accept any Chinese restrictions and what it would do if the Chinese acted as it did against a US ship (see Chinese Threaten US Warship).

Morrison’s attempt to explain that Australia has good relations with both the US and China fell short of what our foreign policy requires, which would include endorsement of US policy supporting independent nations and which recognises how important to us the US is militarily. Pyne mentioned that we have increased defence spending since the cut-backs under Labor and said the aim is to lift defence spending to 3% of GDP from the 1.9% aim in 2018-19. But we are small and the planned new subs have not yet been started and will not be ready until 2030.

This situation requires closer support of US defence/foreign policies, including the de-nuclear policies in regard to Iran, which has now attempted a bomb plot in France where the counter-government for Iran is situated (see France Threatened by Iran). The US describes Iran as “the world’s top sponsor of terrorism” and it has conducted terrorist activity in countries distant from itself. Australia should recognise and support the US policy on Iran.

Interpreting the Summit

Des Moore — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 03:04:38 +0000

Some Possible Implications of the Summit

As might be expected with a meeting which lacked definitive agreements, the media (and other commentarists) containmuch speculation today about what has happened and what might now happen. The general reaction seems to be that, while NK has agreed in principle to denuke, that is no different to what his father and grandfather did and it is unlikely that much will be achieved on that side. On the Trump side there are expressions of concern that too much has been conceded unnecessarily.

My letter below, published today in The Australian with some deletions by Ed but restored below in square brackets, takes a more optimistic view under the heading used by Ed – Denuclearisation in Practice Will Demand Finesse

“What is the biggest threat to life on earth? Answer: That the crazy leader of a country with nukes will send a few off to countries he doesn’t like and millions of people will then be killed before he is. [Does this crazy person seem like the present leader of North Korea? Answer: Yes, without doubt.]

What should we do about it? First the leaders of the most important country in the word (the US with its nukes) warns him of the dangers to his country unless he denuclearises. Second, when that doesn’t work, those same leaders tell him there is a better life available for him and his fellow citizens. Third, when that doesn’t work either the current leader of the USA offers to talk to him one-on-one about the benefits from denuclearisation.

After many years of failure, this has now been done. But many don’t like the current US leader and object to what he is offering Mr Crazy, even to meeting him at all. Others would say that the current US leader has shown courage and adopted the only available course short of war.

And, as Prime Minister Turnbull said, isn’t it worth a “red hot go”, all the more so as Trump can withdraw his offer of benefits without any loss except perhaps to his status? [Well, yes and that Trump guy deserves praise.]”

But more comprehensively, Chris Kenny, has an article which gives the best analysis of both Trump and (to a lesser extent) Kim and suggests that the treatment of Trump by the media and other branches of US society (add Australia and other countries) is astray (see Kenny on Trump). This is summed up in the following extract

It is embarrassing to watch, and unhealthy for the players as well as the democracies they serve. Rather than learn anything from the Trump ascendancy they seem determined to teach their nemesis a lesson. But their vitriol can only help Trump, bringing his defiance of the media/political class into sharper focus, highlighting his achievements and ensuring his enemies are stuck in the mire of their disastrous 2016 campaign instead of thinking about how they might do better in 2020. This must be the longest dummy spit in political history.

Kenny argues that Trump has been successful because he “speaks to voters” and is “the exemplar at targeting his audience”, which “makes him a more authentic and honest communicator than other politicians” and this means that his inconsistencies are downplayed. “In other words, even though he sometimes thinks different things at different times and sometimes gets things wrong, Trump says what he thinks. There is no filter. He doesn’t care about the parsing in full carried out by journalists; he tidies up directly with the public”.

I recommend that Kenny’s article be read in full.

This is not to overlook that there are potential problems posed by Trump’s agreement with Kim and these are discussed in Sheridan’s article (see Sheridan on Trump). They include

His “contemptuous and counter-productive disregard for US alliances, his exaggerated need to personalise every issue around whether he is flattered, and his general inability to follow though anything with consistency”. But that Trump has been critical of some in alliance with the US is often justified by their failure to maintain the principles of western beliefs and they have, in fact, benefited from Trump taking back the US’s role as world leader which was lost under Obama. Trump is not the only President to differ with US alliances: Australia has differed with the US in its interpretation of what the west should do in the Vietnam War and the withdrawal from Iraq. Certainly, Trump’s handling of the recent G7 conference might have been done more diplomatically, but his actions contrast with the failure of such conferences in the past to reach any substantive agreement because they judged it best to be ‘diplomatic’;
His agreement with Kim has “been woollier and less specific than the previous (NK) ones”. But the Kim agreement to denuke has only just started and there is no indication that a nuclear (or other) attack on another country (incl SK) will not result in US assistance in some form;
His suspension of US/SK military exercises does not constitute a potential reduction in US help to SK (or other countries in the region).That suspension can be changed overnight and the US troops remain in SK and will reportedly be more active in other ways. It is far too early to see a US withdrawal from Asia;
Trump’s declaration that it is OK for China to remove some of its sanctions against NK contrasts with Trump’s National Security Strategy which identifies China as a strategic rival. Depending on what sanctions are removed this could be of concern, although it may be in response to a prior agreement with China, which appears to have helped pressure Kim to emerge from his shell. In any event Trump has not let China off the hook by his announcement yesterday that the US will put a large volume of China’s exports to the US on tariffs.
Sheridan’s quotation of the critical view by a senior George Bush official (that T doesn’t understand what alliances mean) is a surprise and fails to recognize that Trump has started, or tried to start, a new era in the (smaller) significance of alliances and has started the America First alliance.

Trade between the US and NK was not an issue at the summit, if only because about 75% of NK trade is with China. But NK trade is an issue that relates to Trump’s encouragement to NK to open its economy. More generally, with the new tariffs on imports from China coming on top of the general tariffs on steel and aluminium (with some exemptions), it appears that trade will become an increasingly important issue on Trump’s agenda. I was reminded of this by today’s report that the EU Trade Commissioner is about to visit Australia (see EU Supports Rule Based Order)

I am not up to date with Australia’s trade in agriculture with the EU but some readers of this Commentary will be aware of the Common Agriculture Policy adopted before the EU was formed by the then existing EEC (the monetary union did not start until the 1990s) . The tariffs put on agricultural imports from outside the EU, and the subsidies for EU farmers, stopped or largely reduced our exports to the EU and those exports were only “saved” by the opening up of the Japanese and (later) Chinese markets. The latest report by the EU reports that it is now exporting agri-food products of E138 bn (up 5% on last year), that it has a net trade surplus of E21bn in such products, and that assistance to farmers (ie subsidies) takes about 40 per cent of the EU Budget. Yet the attached report has her denying that European agribusiness policy is protectionist. “It is sensitive for us. I don’t think it’s correct to say we have a protectionist policy here; we reformed our common agricultural policy quite profoundly last year.’’

This is just one of the examples of why Trump is correct in claiming that existing international arrangements have adverse effects on the US (and on Australia). It is bad news that the EU TC has been working with Australia’s Ciobo to attack US trade policy. We should be helping the US where that country can legitimately claim to be unfairly treated.

More on Assessing Summit, ANU Further Exposed

Des Moore — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:23:25 +0000

Assessments of Summit Remain Too Equivocal

In yesterday’s Commentary I suggested that the immediate media responses to the Summit missed two important points – Kim is no long in a closed shell and Trump has not been given adequate praise for bringing him out. The media has improved today but remains too equivocal about the prospects because very little agreed substance has emerged so far. We are left, therefore, with judgements about whether Kim and Trump will do what they say they will –and to what extent. The most readable assessment has been made by Cameron Stewart, who is posted in the US by The Australian and is well-equipped to assess Trump and other US leaders: nobody is equipped to assess Kim, of course. I am using Stewart’s article to draw attention to the main points of concern below (see Stewart on Summit).

De-Nuclearisation under the agreement as is consists simply of a promise, with no details and time scale and no indication of existing nuclear (and other) weapons held by Kim or of possible outside inspectors. This goes no further than the previous “agreement” by Kim’s father and Grandfather with previous US Presidents. Trump says, however, it will begin “very, very quickly”. What if it doesn’t? Presumably Trump would call the whole thing off. He has indicated thus and, while his stature would suffer, he would be unlikely to hold back. He has also indicated publicly that he may have been wrong to trust Kim – “You never know, Right? You never know”.
But if that happened, Kim would be left with none of the favourable promises which Trump has made, such as reduction/removal of sanctions. So it is in his interests to make a start, the more so as he has boasted on NK TV of the potential benefits. The possibility exists here that Kim will argue that he is entitled to have as many Nukes as other “small” countries (such as Israel) and Trump could agree to a debate on how many, etc. So, we could end not with denuclearisation but with a reduction and a proper inspection system. That would be an obvious improvement.
Stoppage of war games between the US and South Korea, which has alarmed some in US congress. Trump has agreed to suspend these but would presumably re-start them if Kim makes no start on denuclearisation. In fact, it appears that Trump has stated that the US will continue training US troops with SK forces. That also means that there will be no removal of US forces from SK at present or in the immediate future.
Removal of sanctions is pictured as for the future but Kim was encouraged to make progress to get rid of them by the specially designed film shown him by Trump near the end of the 4.5 hours meeting and displaying all the “goodies” from becoming a more capitalist economy. While it is possible that China will reduce the sanctions it imposes, the Trump ones may have as much significance.
Critics of Trump say the form of government, and the treatment of NK’s citizens, should make mean that NK should not be the subject of negotiations by the US. But there are many members of the UN with dictatorial governments and poor treatment of citizens, albeit not as bad as NK. Venezuela sounds almost as bad.
There are some immediate benefits to Trump and others, such as the return of POWs still held after the Korean war. And, as mentioned yesterday, if the agreement does proceed to unfold, it could provide a model for a similar agreement with Iran et al.

As Stewart says, “although sceptics may have history on their side, history can change — and there is more cause for optimism this time than in the past. The Trump-Kim summit, the first between a sitting US president and a North Korean leader, was the most public and dramatic thaw in relations with the US in North Korea’s history”. Malcolm Turnbull has also said that Trump deserved credit for giving peace on the Korean peninsula a “red hot go”.

More on Western Civilisation

The Charman of Ramsay Centre, John Howard, has been on 2GB Sydney supporting that body’s objectives and the NSW Premier has also taken to air with Minister Stokes with the latter pointing out “If it’s OK to have fairly commercial arrangements when it comes to the scientific environment, why’s it not OK to have a (relationship with a) centre in humanities?”(see Howard on West).

More significantly, today’s Australian carries a damaging article by a resident scholar, Michael Rubin, at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, which I attended in 1987 (see Rubin on West). He suggests that VC Schmidt’s attempt to lionize the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies is mistaken and the CAIS has made the ANU an “academic laughing stock”. In effect, its leader (and some of its visiting speakers) have dismissed concerns about repression of women in Arab countries and have promulgated ant-western and anti-Semetic policies. While denying any support for Trump, Rubin says “The ANU is sick. The output from its Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies is a symptom. The Ramsay centre could be just the cure the ANU needs”.

Daughter Lisa Performs at Recital Hall, Tuesday June 19

I can truthfully recommend this performance by daughter Lisa with Sonya Lifschitz on Tuesday June 19 at 6.30. The program is attached and its highlight is “the infamous Bach Goldberg Variations afresh, with it’s intricate ingenuity in luminous clarity as this duo team builds a kaleidoscopic tapestry of color, rhythm and touch”.

Energy Policy& China & Israel

Des Moore — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:21:18 +0000

The distribution of this edition of my Commentary has been changed in order to widen it and to correct some who have effectively dropped out over the past couple of years. However some of those added to my distribution list may not now wish to receive it. If so, please return my Commentary and I will drop them off the list.

China has Become Communised

Last night my wife and I attended an AIIA function to hear Rowan Callick speak about China under Xi. His analysis was truly alarming (see Callick on China). It seems that China is now run by the Communist Party even more than it was under Mao. I asked C what influence the military has on policy. He said that the previous military heads had been sacked and were replaced by those who were educated in the Communist line and this applies more or less across the board, including in the media. Just about every important organisation has been “communised”. At universities there are watchers who report on any dissidents and, at a recent discussion attended by students, seven cameras had been installed.

It is hoped that the AIIA will be able to send the text of this address to a wider audience.

Some Implications of NEG

Today’s meeting between Commonwealth and State energy ministers takes place as the independent Climate Study Group (CSG) publishes an analysis by experts which challenges the basis of the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) on which the Turnbull government seeks the States agreement. Astonishingly given the lengthy time since it was first proposed, this meeting is not the “final” meeting: that will take place in August.

The Australian has published the CSG analysis as a half-page advertisement on page 5 (see Climate Change Cycles). Richard Morgan is to be congratulated for forming the CSG, which in its third edition concludes that

“Australia must develop a strategy that promotes reliable, efficient coal power stations including, if competitive, unsubsidised renewable energy which covers the full cost of meeting rated dispatchable generation. Our industries will then have reliable and globally competitive power costs that they require to compete in world markets and at the same time improve living standards”.

The CSG acknowledges that, following a period when global temperatures fell, there has been a gradual increase over the past 150 years but this has occurred “independent of CO2 levels”. It also points out that models based on the burning of fossil fuels have failed in their predictions of even higher temperatures and a graph of Tropical Storms and Hurricanes shows no increase in strength or frequency since 1971 (if anything a decline). Moreover, even if Australia did not stick to its target to reduce emissions by 26% by 2030, any consequential increase in global temperatures would be tiny.

This leads the CSG to draw attention to the astonishingly large increase in government expenditure on measures designed to reduce or replace emissions of CO2. Importantly, it also has a graph showing that since about 2005 Australian electricity prices have about doubled. This is the period when various measures were taken by our governments to reduce emissions and subsidise renewables to replace coal-fired sources. The CSG claims that

“the National Energy Guarantee (NEG), would still leave Australia with power costs much in excess of countries with efficient coal fired power stations. The extent to which any improvements to power costs rely on cross subsidisation from coal fired power stations and/or direct subsidies should be made public. A figure of total subsidies for the NEG of $60 billion by 2030 has been mentioned in media reports”.

This analysis confirms that the Turnbull government should not go ahead with NEG and it should institute a genuinely independent review of any such proposal.

McCrann on NEG

Terry McCrann has more directly attacked the basis of NEG with an article highlighting the deficiencies of using wind and solar power (see McCrann on Renewables). He asks whether we are “completely insane” in having invested in wind-driven capacity of 3400 MW and now paying electricity prices which run to over $100 a MWhour compared with only $20-30 a MW hour before such investment started around 2000. He predicts that Victoria and South Australia will possibly require less electricity in the 2020s as “more and more factories are shuttered as a consequence of crippling power prices”.

Increased Threats to Israel

In February the T-4 airbase near Homs in Syria was used by Iran to send an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) into Israeli territory and was shot down by the Israeli military. The Israel Defence Force revealed last Friday that its investigation concluded the Iranian drone sent from T-4 was carrying explosives and was seemingly deployed to attack an Israeli target.

On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported the T-4 base housed an advanced Iranian air defense system and drone hangar, underscoring Iran’s military expansionism in Syria as Tehran helps to lead Bashar al-Assad’s successful counterinsurgency against the rebels targeting his regime.

The Jerusalem Post has reported that Israel believes that Iranian retaliation could come in the form of direct missile or drone attacks launched from Syria.

Israel has an efficient defence force but will doubtless be looking for US support if necessary. Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly been in communication with Trump about handling the possibility of a serious attack (see Threats to Attack Israel).

Coalition Facing Almost Certain Electoral Defeat

Des Moore — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 23:51:25 +0000

Coalition Still Faces Electoral Defeat

Although the Newspoll published on 5 March showed no change between the Coalition and Labor on a TPP basis (47/53), Turnbull’s Dissatisfaction rate fell from 54 to 57 and is now worse than Shorten’s (56). As to who is a Better Prime Minister, Turnbull’s rate fell from 40 t0 37 while Shorten’s rose from 33 to 35.

There is no doubt that the Joyce affair (which now seems more extensive than portrayed) contributed to his polling deterioration and some have suggested that this may be a one-off. But arguably the deterioration reflected more on Turnbull’s capacity as a leader than the exposure of the affair itself. It is particularly pertinent that the Newspoll took place after an apparently successfully official visit to Trump, with considerable apparently favourable publicity. The Australian’s political editor, Dennis Shanahan, described developments prior to Newspoll (including the outburst by Senator Michaelia Cash) as reflecting

“ a confused and dispirited government. Cash, who is still under pressure and awaiting a federal police investigation into the advance leaking to the media of a police raid on AWU headquarters, is clearly Labor’s next target for destruction. These gulls aren’t settling for one chip. They want the lot and the battered fish to boot.

Labor has the bonus of not only deflecting legitimate criticism but also burying the Coalition’s undoubted achievements with the farces played out before the nation. Turnbull has clearly struck a responsive chord with US President Donald Trump after a rocky start. He is standing firm on Chinese interference, the economy is doing well, the numbers on welfare are falling and job growth is strong.

But there are only three more sitting days for the House of Representatives before the budget in May, three days that are likely to lose more ground for the Coalition, three days that won’t provide time for a reasoned budget explanation, and three days likely to ensure Turnbull faces 30 losing Newspolls in a row, his own definition of leadership failure.

Turnbull holds on to the $4 billion pumped-hydro scheme, Snowy 2.0, as if it were a talisman and hopes it will turn his fortunes. But if the government’s behaviour of late is any guide, he will have to do what Snowy 2.0 is meant to do — push water uphill(see Shanahan on Turnbull)

As to Turnbull’s visit to Trump, the transcript of the press conference held by both togetherconfirms that Turnbull’s visit was a success inasmuchas it covered the main issues of interest to Australia and our bilateral relations with the US (see Press Conference by Trump/Turnbull 24/2, where I have highlighted some particular references). It also indicated that Turnbull regards Trump as someone he now feels comfortable in dealing with –“100 years of mateship” –although no mention is made of climate change policy or tariffs on either side, implying perhaps that Trump did not think Turnbull was an important player in those areas.

In fact, as Terry McCrann suggests, it is doubtful if Turnbull understands that Trump does not operate as President in the way that other Presidents would have (see McCrann on Turnbull). By way of example McCrann points out that

“Trump had said he would take the US out of the Paris accord; Turnbull acted as if that was all just blather and that President Trump would come round to behaving exactly the same as a president Clinton. Maybe he’d even notice Turnbull’s global leadership and recognise the error of his ways. Certainly couldn’t hurt.On the latter Turnbull would have been right; Trump couldn’t give too hoots what Turnbull said or did. For heaven’s sake, has the PM noticed how Trump has blown off all and sundry? Trump has gone ahead and signalled he will stick to offing Paris”.

McCrann gives other examples of “Trump behavior” which should be taken into account in framing Australian policy, viz the TPP trade agreement which two of the biggest traders (the US and China) have not signed but Australia has and Trump’s decisions to impose tariffs on aluminium and steel. The decision by Turnbull (and others) to raise concern about the possibility of a “trade war” involving retaliatory exchanges of tariff increases is legitimate. But fails to take account of the other measures that protect domestic industries and that should in theory be abandoned. These involve much more than tariffs, such as the large subsidies of agricultural production in the European Union which have adverse effects on Australia. Turnbull has not shown any recognition of this component of protectionism.

Trump’s tariffs can thus be seen as adding only another item of fairly limited significance to the overall level of protection and may be justifiable because the main offender (China) is subsidizing its production of steel and aluminium. World Trade Organisation data also shows China has one of the highest average tariff rates on non-agricultural goods (almost double the US’s). Yet protective governments, such as China and the EU, are threatening to “retaliate” and may already have started to do so. If this goes to the WTO for discussion (which is the normal procedure, one of which I briefly attended when it was GATT) it would then open up debate between the three (and others) about relative protective levels. That could result in even higher tariffs or other measures, or it could produce a more efficient outcome. It may be recalled that the Doha round of discussions failed to reach agreement on lowering protection and this does not suggest a good outcome.

But Trump’s initiative may have stirred the pot again and this might even lead to a better outcome on protection generally. Meantime, today’s news reports that a US steel manufacturer has announced the re-employment of 500 workers. Trump’s initiative certainly doesn’t warrant the comments (incl by our RBA governor) that imply that its tantamount to starting a trade war.

As to interpreting climate policy, the article published in today’s The Australian by Maurice Newman refers to a number of expert critics (there are many more) of climate change policies and adds that

“Not feeling duped, are successive Australian governments that have become committed members of a green-left global warming movement promoted by the UN. On dubious scientific grounds they have agreed to accept meaningless, anti-growth, CO2 emission targets that enrich elites and burden the masses” (see Maurice Newman on Climate Theories).

Newman’s article is less important in outlining the views of expert critics than it is by being published by a leading newspaper: media reports which suggest that climate policy is falsely based have improved here and in the US but are still fairly rare. My Commentary series helps and readers may be reminded that I have been summarizing the analytical situation as follows

“ There has been no correlation between increases in emissions and temperatures, with the latter actually falling in the 30 years prior to the late 1970s, the increase in the next 20 or so years reflecting temporary natural influences not usage of fossil fuels, and there then being a much smaller rate of increase in temperatures than in carbon emissions”.

In short, as more historical evidence emerges of changes in temperatures and in CO2 emissions, and as Trump’s policy widens in the US, the stage is being reached where existing climate change policies have less and less credibility as do the governments and ministers who promulgate them. This has been heightened recently by the report by a US Congress Committee that indicates that Russians are using the international communications network to send out messages through Facebook, Twitter et al warning that the US must take more aggressive action to prevent dangerous global warming!

In Australia I have received a message on climate policy which names our Environment Minister as “Frightenberg”, presumably implying that he is frightened that his credibility may be diminished if he doesn’t sticks to a policy that is politically popular. Yet one of the reasons for the poor polling of the two major parties is their unequivocal endorsement of the dangerous warming thesis and their refusal to recognize that, even if the whole Paris Agreement is met (which it certainly won’t be), it would have a miniscule effect on temperatures. While there has been no independent government review of the climate policy, the average citizen in Australia is becoming more and more skeptical about it.

Trump at Davos & Australian Comments on US Defense Strategy Statement

Des Moore — Sat, 27 Jan 2018 22:16:43 +0000

Trump at Davos

What with the likely winners of both the women’s and men’s Australian tennis being Swiss and the address by Trump at Davos, the Swiss are in the News. Once again Trump found a phrase which helped rebut the criticism of his “America First” statement by adding “but not America alone” and, with China in mind, emphasising the need for “fair” trade as well as “free” . Separately, it is reported that Trump approved increased duties affecting about $US10bn of imports but it is not clear whether this was “justified” on a fair trade assertion. An article in The Economist, republished in yesterday’s The Australian, says that the actions were “broadly in line with the steer from the US International Trade Commission” and were weaker than sought.

There will doubtless be media criticism of his use of Davos to again attack the media itself (the boos he received when doing so are unusual at the more official-type Davos). But judging by the BBC report on his reception (see BBC on Trump at Davos), his decision to attend (and his meeting with May confirming that he will make a visit to the UK and will have tea with the Queen) will not have adversely affected his image. According to the BBC report “ mention his name in the bustling foyer of the Congress Centre, and the reaction is surprisingly benign.Many attendees shrug indifferently, rather than launch into an angry rant”. Of course, because of its small size, “protesters” were not allowed in Davos but there was ample opportunity for critics at the Forum. I have seen no comments on Mother Nature’s climate decision to present attendants with what seemed on TV to be large amounts of snow!

US Policies on Defence and Iran

In earlier Commentary I have referred to policy statements by US Foreign Secretary Tillerson and US Defense Secretary Mattis and suggested that their capacity to make such statements seems to reflect Trump’s recent (unannounced) decision to extend a much greater delegation on relevant policies than Obama allowed.

An interesting development is that Tillerson has now persuaded the three European countries who signed up Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran to identify possible problems and how they might be dealt with. On 27 January Tillerson is reported as saying that “The working groups… are looking at the scope of what to address in the Iran deal, as well as how to engage Tehran on possible fixes to those issues”. “What we have agreed to do is work with our European counterparts, the E3 most particularly, and ultimately the [European Union], to identify what areas we believe have to be addressed and a mechanism by which we can address those.” (see Tillerson on Iran Nuclear Deal).

On 20 January Defense Secretary Mattis published a new Defense Strategy indicating that “Though we will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists that we’re engaged in today, the great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of US national security,” Mattis said in his opening statements at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.The new strategy is “fit for our time,” Mattis said. “Though he identified a number of threats to the US like North Korea, Iran, ISIS, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda, the NDS was focused more on China and Russia. “We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia are from each other. Nations that do seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models,” Mattis said.In the document itself, China and Russia are both mentioned by name in the introduction” (see Mattis Statement on US Defence Strategy Jan 2018).

The text of this important 11 page statement is in the attached. It implies that the US aims to restore a defence policy which will extend more widely and effectively in geographic terms. Of course, it is one thing to attempt an upgrading of defence policy, but quite another to find the money to effect the upgrading of equipment et al. It is reported that Trump proposes to ask Congress for an increase of 7 per cent in defence in 2019 and is likely to find that difficult to obtain (see Trump Proposes Big Increase In Defence Spending).

An important aspect of the new Defense Strategy is the emphasis on alliances. The following extract (see page 10) indicates the broadness of the approach adopted by Mattis.

“Enduring coalitions and long-term security partnerships, underpinned by our bedrock alliances and reinforced by our allies’ own webs of security relationships, remain a priority:

Expand Indo-Pacific alliances and partnerships. A free and open Indo-Pacific region provides prosperity and security for all. We will strengthen our alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific to a networked security architecture capable of deterring aggression, maintaining stability, and ensuring free access to common domains. With key countries in the region, we will bring together bilateral and multilateral security relationships to preserve the free and open international system.
Fortify the Trans-Atlantic NATO Alliance. A strong and free Europe, bound by shared principles of democracy, national sovereignty, and commitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is vital to our security. The alliance will deter Russian adventurism, defeat terrorists who seek to murder innocents, and address the arc of instability building on NATO’s periphery. At the same time, NATO must adapt to remain relevant and fit for our time—in purpose, capability, and responsive decision-making. We expect European allies to fulfill their commitments to increase defense and modernization spending to bolster the alliance in the face of our shared security concerns.
Form enduring coalitions in the Middle East. We will foster a stable and secure Middle East that denies safe havens for terrorists, is not dominated by any power hostile to the United States, and that contributes to stable global energy markets and secure trade routes. We will develop enduring coalitions to consolidate gains we have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, to support the lasting defeat of terrorists as we sever their sources of strength and counterbalance Iran.
Sustain advantages in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. derives immense benefit from a stable, peaceful hemisphere that reduces security threats to the homeland. Supporting the U.S. interagency lead, the Department will deepen its relations with regional countries that contribute military capabilities to shared regional and global security challenges”.

Yesterday the Australian Minister for Defence, Senator Payne, acknowledged the importance of the Mattis statement made a week ago but neither she nor Turnbull appear to have made any statement. In the report below The Australian’s National Security Editor, Paul Maley, suggested that “We look like strategic amateurs”. I would not be surprised if Payne has yet to meet Mattis. We await an announcement that out pitful defence spending will be increased from below 2 per cent of GDP to reach that size by 2021.

Iran & US Sanctions Policy, Climate in 2017

Des Moore — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:56:31 +0000

Iranian’s Judiciary Head Sanctioned

It appears that the protests in Iran have virtually ceased following deaths and many arrests by the Revolutionary Guard. However, according to a Reuters report Supreme Leader Khamenei still felt it necessary to make a public statement that “citizens had a right to air legitimate concerns, a rare concession by a leader who usually voices clear support for security crackdowns.These concerns must be addressed. We must listen, we must hear. We must provide answers within our means”, Mr Khamenei was quoted as saying, hinting that not only the government of Rouhani, but his own clerical leadership must also respond”. “I’m not saying that they must follow up. I am also responsible. All ofus must follow up” (see Khamenie Statement 10 Jan).

That this is a similar statement to that made earlier by the elected President Rouhani might mean some form of agreement at the top to moderate governance in Iran.

It is interesting that the head of Israeli’s Mossad, Yossi Cohen, saw it appropriate to respond to Khamenie’s remarks and his accusation that the disruption in Iran is partly caused by Israel. Cohen argues that it is mainly due to a failed economic policy and adds that he “would be happy to see a meaningful revolution”.

Needless to say, if a revolution succeeded in establishing some form of democracy and ridded the existing dominant role of Islamic extremism, it could have major welcome effects in the Middle East.

Following Khameni’s remarks, Trump has announced that the US would “certify” the nuclear deal made between Iran and the US/Six European countries under Obama (a regular certification is required so as to provide an opportunity for the US/Six to check that Iran has in fact stopped the development of nuclear weapons). However, Trump qualified his certification by saying he was giving Europe and the US “a last chance” to fix “terrible flaws” in the agreement. At the same time, the US announced new sanctions, including on Iran’s head of judiciary on the ground that he was responsible for the deaths and arrests of protesters. A separate report states that the new sanctions extend to 14 Iranian officials and companies and businessmen from Iran, China and Malaysia, freezing any assets they have in the U.S. and banning Americans from doing business with them.

The Iranian foreign ministry responded by describing the sanction against the judiciary head as ” hostile action” and as having “crossed all red lines of conduct in the international community and is a violation of international law and will surely be answered by a serious reaction of the Islamic Republic.” It accused Trump of “continuing to take hostile measures against the Iranian people and repeating the threats that have failed many times” (see Iran Nuclear Deal Certified Again But Sanctions Imposed Against Judiciary Head).

As previously commented, the Turnbull government has expressed no sympathy for the Iranian protesters seeking the removal of the dictatorship run by extremist Islamists and has offered no support for the policy adopted by our US ally, let alone for the many Iranians who have left their country. Under Trump, the US has taken a close interest in developments Iran and it is in Australia’s interests to do so too.

Climate and Energy Policies

In my Commentary last Friday I drew attention to serious questions about the basis of Australia’s carbon reduction policies and to the misleading report on Australian climate in 2017 by the BOM, whose representative (but not head) included an unjustifiable prediction that “the odds [now] favour warmer-than-average temperatures more often than in the past”. I included Richard Morgan’s advertisement in the Herald Sun titled The Next Ice Age, which points out that “model failures demonstrate the underlying theory and assumptions used are not supported by the results”.

As to incidents in global climate in 2017, the CEO of London’s Global Warming Foundation, Benny Peiser, and respected climate analyst Matt Ridley, had an article published in the Wall St Journal pointing out that, while “the past year was filled with bad weather news”, “it has become routine for the media, politicians and activists to link “ such bad local news with climate change. However, they rightly say that “by looking at the world as a whole, and at long-term trends (climate) rather than at short-term events (weather), we can better test the claims that 2017 was an unusual weather year and that weather is getting more extreme as the world warms”. Their thesis is that “Bad Weather Is No Reason for Climate Alarm” and they say that although “on average the globe suffers some 325 catastrophic natural disasters a year, last year (through November) they were down to around 250 and “a third fewer people were killed by climate-related hazards” (see Peiser & Ridley Assess Climate in 2017).

Peiser &Ridley also quote other aspects relevant to an authoritative assessment of climate developments taking account of 2017 incidents:

While temperatures have risen since 1990 at between 0.121 and 0.198 degrees Celsius per decade, that is at a third to two-thirds of the rate projected by the IPCC.
Globally the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index—which measures the combined intensity and duration of these storms—is currently running 20% below its long-term average. In fact, the index for 2017 was less than half of normal cyclone activity for the Southern Hemisphere.
Although more than 9,000 wildfires burned some 1.4 million acres across California, the number of wildfires in California has actually been declining for 40 years. The global area burned by wildfires has also declined in recent decades.
As for drought, a comprehensive database published in 2014 in the journal Nature found that the proportion of the world suffering from abnormally low rainfall has slightly declined since the 1980s.
The number of major floods in natural rivers across Europe and North America has not increased in 80 years. Globally, too, floods have decreased in recent years.

Hence, while short-term weather fluctuations and extreme events rightly catch the headlines,P&R correctly say “they don’t capture the reality of the planet’s climate. Over the past several decades, the world has been getting slowly warmer, slightly wetter and less icy. It has also been no stormier, no more flood-prone and a touch less drought-prone. And sea level continues to creep slowly upward”. In short, 2017 provided no indication that we are threatened by dangerous warming.

Response to Abbott & US Repeal of Obama’s Clean Power Plan

Des Moore — Wed, 11 Oct 2017 22:10:14 +0000

A New World?

As expected, the London address by Abbott has led to many critiques, including some that attempt to present his analysis as ridiculous partly be being selective in quotes. I respond to some of these critiques below. Suffice to say here is that the response so far by Turnbull and Frydenberg is basically limited to saying “well he didn’t say that when he was PM” (see Frydeneberg’s Critique of Abbott). Turnbull has refused to comment on Abbott’s address but has rejected any withdrawal from the Paris agreement (see Turnbull to Stick to Paris) But the responses by some backbenchers indicate that Abbott has stirred the possum –and on more than one tree. He has also reinforced (without actually saying it) the problems with Turnbull. In The Australian, Simon Benson points out that the government led by Turnbull has created a policy vacuum and “when the government does finally dump the CET, Abbott will doubtless be there congratulating them for finally listening to him” (see Benson on Turnbull).

Meantime, Scott Pruitt, the head of the US EPA, has signed a measure repealing the Clean Power Plan announced by his predecessor in accordance with instructions by Obama (see US EPA to Repeal Clean Power Plan).This repeal would have been ticked by Trump. In effect, the repeal supports the basis of the proposals in Abbott’s speech, which still seeks to have reductions in emissions but subject to limits and to a freeze of the subsidies for renewable. If implemented, the EPA repeal is more important than that speech because it would reverse the finding under the previous EPA head that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health – an astonishing finding that the Supreme Court ruled as acceptable because it was made by “experts” ie by EPA bureaucrats. Now that it has “new experts”, the US EPA would now have the power and the potential to set a new standard, at least in the US, that says the usage of fossil fuels is unlikely to be harmful. That would have international implications, possibly leading to a “new world” on assessing global warming. There will doubtless be legal challenges whose outcomes cannot be predicted. But there would seem to be a reasonable chance of success.

Responses to Abbott

As noted above, the response by government ministers is largely limited to drawing attention to what Abbott said and did when he was PM, including his signing of the Paris agreement. But that of course does not rule out a change in thinking and policy, the more so as Paris is voluntary and allows countries not only to reduce its emissions reduction targets but to withdraw without penalty. I have previously suggested that Australia might reduce its target from a 26-28 per cent reduction by 2030 to around the same target as South Korea and Russia (about 10 per cent). Such an approach is basically similar to that recommended by two highly respected economic reformers, Professors Banks and Hilmer, who provided advice in the past of which a considerable proportion was accepted –and worked (see Banks & Hilmer on Cutting Emissions Policy). Such a move would come at a time when there are reports that emissions reductions are running below targets and, of course, when the US has announced the repeal of its CPP. It would also recognise Abbott’s point that China and India are building or planning more than 800 new coal-fired power stations ie continuing to emit at significant rates.

This makes nonsense of the argument that, because of the agreed reductions in emissions, the Paris agreement will help meet the major objective of keeping global temperature increases below 2C. Abbott has stated that temperatures here in Australia “have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed”. This claim should have been better explained but it is clearly based on the now widespread evidence that temperatures have been incorrectly recorded by the BOM and that part of the increase is due to the impact of urban heat islands ie not “real” increases in temperatures. There is also evidence of mis-recording in overseas countries. Abbott also correctly points out that “over millions of years there have been warmer periods and cooler periods that don’t correlate with carbon dioxide concentrations”. As readers of my Commentaries will be aware, this similarly applies to what has happened over the past century.

The government ministers also say that their decisions are based on advice from experts. But it is already clear that the Chief Scientist’s report will not be implemented and that the report itself did not take account of the views of experts who are sceptics (none are mentioned in the references). As they are now saying that “the policy” will be announced by the end of the year, there is an opportunity to obtain such advice from the considerable number of sceptical experts. That would seem to be a minimal requirement. Beyond this, Abbott rightly draws attention to the absurd claims that the science is settled and that “no big change has accompanied the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the past century”.

There are still many, possibly a majority, who believe in the dangerous warming thesis and the need for governments to install emissions reductions policies. The action being taken in the US, together with the courageous and well justified address by Abbott, will help change these beliefs and hopefully the policies adopted by governments

Energy Policy is Getting Nowhere at All

Des Moore — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:11:21 +0000

More Revelations of Official False Warming and Falsely Based Policies

Today’s Australian runs a front page story saying that “Australian households are paying 60 per cent more for their power than those in the US and double their Canadian counterparts”. But while Minister Frydenberg acknowledges that our power cost is “still too high”, he claims that most of the price hike occurred under Labor and that the Turnbull government is “taking unprecedented action to reduce pressure on …household bills “(see “Electricity Bills”). Short of subsidising electricity it is difficult however to envisage significant falls. Frydenberg has dug himself so deeply in the Turnbull camp that is difficult to see how he can get out. Readers of my Commentaries will be aware of the widespread scepticism about the various policy changes first being considered by Turnbull and then dropped or put on one side. As to falls in electricity bills, Frydenberg’s attempt to shift the blame on to Labor seemingly overlooks the recent large increases imposed by my retail supplier AGL and doubtless other similarly large retailers too.

The solution is to first replace Turnbull with a Coalition member who recognises the greatly increased uncertainty that now surrounds the supposed “science” of dangerous global warming and can adjust policies accordingly. Contrary to media commentary, a new Coalition government could fairly quickly transform the current “investment uncertainty” problem under Turnbull. It could announce that it would no longer have policies which deter expansions in coal-fired generators and, while it would therefore also no longer have a stated voluntary objective of 26-28 per cent lower emissions by 2030,it would provide tax incentives when lower emissions are obtained from improved efficiency.

A new Australian policy could be “we lower emissions by lifting efficiency” (as China and others are already doing) and would be accompanied by a withdrawal from the Paris agreement. It would remind voters that the two big emitters, China and India, have not agreed to effect reductions through policies which deliberately deter usage of coal before 2030 (in fact the opposite) but they do encourage improvements in efficiency.

Today’s Australian contains a half page ad by The Climate Study Group which, in effect, supports a new climate policy. It has employed a climate expert to outline falsely based claims or failures to explain events that run counter to the global warming theory. It does so partly by reminding us that, while there is no record in the past of dangerous global warming which cost many human lives, there have been ice ages which did so. Hence “the next ice age should be the most serious climate event for humanity” (see “The Next Ice Age”). Yet there has been no official modelling or developments of official policies designed to cope with possible large falls in temperature.

Other specifics in the advertisement refer to the cooling from 1940 to 1976 despite CO2 levels continuing to rise; and the fact that, while higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere have had a diminishing effect on temperatures, models predicting higher temps have done so by (falsely) assuming the greater CO levels will have a multiplier effect. Yet the failure of models to justify emissions reductions policies has so far been overlooked. The Turnbull government should subject these models to careful review as part of the current review of the Finkel proposals for higher targets of emissions and renewable.

Another related aspect which has been overlooked is the false claims about temperature changes. Over the past ten years or so the modeling of future temperature increases has been shown to be highly inaccurate. Yet these modeled temperature increases have been used to support the policies which have been adopted to reduce emissions of CO2 and, so it is argued, reduce the threat of dangerous global warming. The failure to accurately predict temperatures suggests that at the least the policies should be modified if not abandoned altogether until more accurate modeling is developed. The false basis on which temperatures have been predicted is examined in the this False Temperature Measurements Used.

This provides a good example of the failure of modeling to recognize the uncertainty in temperature prediction. It outlines the evidence given by Professor John Christy from the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) on the 29 March 2017 to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology. Christy is best known for his development with Roy Spencer of the measurement of temperatures by satellites, which has provided an important check on the measurement of land surface temperatures. In his testimony Christy showed that over the period from 1977 to 2015 the average of the predicted temperatures was an increase of about one degree C whereas the average of the satellite measurements shows an increase of only about 0.4C (this includes the natural influences from the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). The graph in the attachment shows vividly the differences between predicted and satellite temps.

The attachment also shows the marked difference between the land surface measurement of the ocean surface temperature and the satellite measurement. It suggests that the higher temperatures from the land surface measurement may reflect the urban heating effect, which does not reflect climate influences as such.

Summing up, the foregoing suggests that there are a number of reasons why existing policies should be changed so as to either eliminate or at least sharply cut back policies which aim to reduce emissions and which Finkel is unlikely to have taken into account in framing his report. There should be a review of those policies by independent sources asap.