Institute for Private Enterprise » Donald Trump

How to Solve the Dangerous Warming Threat

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

How to Solve The Dangerous Warming Threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coalition Must Take Now Risks with Policies & leaders

Des Moore — Tue, 12 Mar 2019 07:32:43 +0000

Time to Take Risks

In yesterday’s Commentary I argued that, given the latest Newspoll (and for policy reasons too), the Coalition should “change courses” asap. I also sent a letter to OZ (unpublished) advocating the cancellation of Turnbull’s membership of the Liberal Party. My advocacies are based on my perspective that, although risky, the Coalition needs to take risks now if it is to have any chance of winning the election and that an improved set of policies would in any event provide a better starting point in Opposition to a Labor government.

It was encouraging to receive a number of responses in basic agreement with this approach. And in his article yesterday’s Herald Sun (see Bolt on Abbott as Possible Leader), and again in his presentation last night on Sky News, Andrew Bolt rejected the idea of a new leader who is “a near-unknown that no one hates” because “such risk-aversion rarely ends well”. Instead, he suggests that Abbott would be best and that “helping him will mean that the Liberals after the election will again be overwhelmingly conservative, given how many of the Left are resigning or likely to lose”.

Of course, in principle nobody wants yet another change in leadership. But while Morrison has tried hard, the polling and such limited policy changes as he has offered, are clearly insufficient to swing voters. This is particularly the case with the policy that will be most important in the period prior to the election – energy. Yet Morrison has just rejected the idea of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and has ignored the adverse economic effects from the retention of the Coalition’s target to reduce emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030. Except for possible initial “voluntary” falls, the promised lower electricity prices would only occur if dictated by Federal Energy Minister Taylor.

However, in today’s Herald Sun, Terry McCrann points out, first, that while “the government’s proposed 26-28 per cent cuts are anything but timid, (they) are among the biggest cuts proposed by any country anywhere in the world”. And, second, that Labor’s proposed cuts in emissions of 45 per cent are equivalent to 55 per cent in per capita terms, which would be “entirely and exactly pointless. Those cuts can’t and won’t move the ‘Earth’s temperature’ even by one-ten-thousandth of a degree” (see Labor’s 45% Emissions Cuts Equal 55% per Cap: McCrann).

This analysis could provide a basis for a leader of the Coalition to at least moderate its emissions target and tell voters that Labor’s energy policy would cause much greater economic damage than the Coalition’s. Abbott as a leader would be well placed to convey that to voters if the Liberal’s were prepared to take that risk.

Monetary Policy

These days not many observers of the politico/eco scene take a close interest in monetary policy and many look to central banks to just keep them as low as possible without considering possible adverse economic effects. But it is important to recognise that “low” interest rates may have such adverse effects, including over a period of time. On 11 March I had a letter published in the AFR pointing out that the household saving ratio fell from 10% in 2008-09 to just over 5% today and this has been reflected in an increase in household debt and may account for “an increased tendency to reduce spending rates on consumption and housing. One possible explanation is that monetary policy allowed interest rates at relatively low levels for too long, resulting in higher borrowings and excessive debt levels” (see letter as published below).

In short, the recent slow-down in economic growth may be partly reflecting a pause in spending as household debt reaches levels which consumers and small businesses judge to be too high in present “risky” political conditions. Almost coincidentally, it was reported that RBA experts found that, ”all else being equal, a 1 per cent drop in interest rates would, over the long run, boost house prices by 17 per cent. The cash rate has been slashed from 4.75 per cent throughout most of 2011 to its current record-low level of 1.5 per cent as the central bank attempted to offset the end of the mining boom and encourage activity in the housing and consumption sector” (see RBA Analysis Suggests “Low” Interest Rates Stimulate Housing Construction).

In other words, the RBA may have allowed interest rates to go down too far or to go too low for too long, resulting, first, in excessive house prices and debt and, second, that this may have contributed to the current slow-down in GDP. If this is correct it may mean that, contrary to some analysts, there should not be any further reduction in interest rates – unless of course an unlikely recession occurs.

Interestingly, the US Federal Reserve has made four increases in interest rates whereas our RBA Head, Phillip Lowe, after threatening increases, has backed off. Of course, it would not be a good time politically for Lowe to increase rates even if he felt the inclination: from that viewpoint better to stay at present rates. Note that the head of the US Fed, Jerome Powell, has been under pressure from Trump to “keep rates low” with a view to help maintaining the strong growth in the US. But in what has been described as an “unusual” interview in public, Powell has asserted his independence (see Fed Chair Makes Unusual Interview). Lowe would be well advised to make his independence clear when he reports RBA monthly meetings to Treasurer Frydenberg.

Rate Cut Wrong in an Era of High Debt
(Letter by Des Moore published in AFR, 11 March 2019)

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

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

Unofficial Election Campaign Starts – But Slowly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Wall Policy

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

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

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

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.

“Far Right” Views Assessed; France Crisis

Des Moore — Wed, 09 Jan 2019 11:50:31 +0000

Senator Anning Stirs the Migrant Pot But Morrison Misses Opportunity

It is not clear whether or not Senator Anning’s attendance at a small St Kilda protest rally was intended to stir public discussion and comments from Morrison and Shorten. But this has happened and some points made in my Commentary on Monday have also been reflected in that discussion. Importantly, The Australian has published a number of letters (see OZ Letters on “Far-Right”), including my own as what is sometimes called the lead letter, viz

Not just extreme Right who have migrant concerns

The Australian, Letters, 12:00AM January 9, 2019 (Ed deleted bits in square brackets)

Your coverage of the [small]protest rally on St Kilda beach attended by Queensland senator Fraser Anning draws attention to his unverified relationship with Vietnamese traders who had been disrupted by youths of African origin [and] who had also caused disruption at the very same beach (”Anning not with us: Vietnamese”, 8/1). [Anning acquired his Senate seat through the back door and is no longer a member of a party. And while he is claiming his expenses, it seems that is legitimate]

[True,] Anning is said to have a “far Right” view but his expressed concern about immigrants having Islamic characteristics or having African origin may not be confined to those with a “far Right” view. As indicated by the recent debate on immigration, most Australians recognise there is limited absorption capacity both in terms of numbers and characteristics which extend beyond our Euro-Judeo culture.

The UK is attempting to stop illegal immigration across the English channel from many who see it as an El Dorado. And while France is still officially welcoming migrants, surveys reveal a majority of the French population want immigration halted or regulated drastically. That President Macron’s polling has fallen to only 18 per cent, and that changes are favoured to the hundreds of no-go zones under the control of imams and Muslim gangs, indicates the importance of having an acceptable population mix from immigrants.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

My main intention was to refer to the possible implications of one of Anning’s reported observations at the rally (“I would not bring any more Muslims or Sudanese in the country. I would put a ban on that. And if any of them committed a crime, I would be shipping them home to where they came from”). As is evident from the heading made by The Australian to its main published letters the key point is that it is “Not just extreme Right who have migrant concerns”.

My letter, and Monday’s Commentary, sought to draw attention to other countries which have “migrant concerns”, notably France now led by President Macron with polling of only 18 percent and a “far-right” Marie le Pen hot on his trail. The latest report on the French crisis indicates that the French PM has taken over from Macron the handling of the “yellow vesters” and some arrests are being made (see French PM To Respond To Vesters). But it appears that France has become ungovernable unless imprisonment action is taken against violent groups, who might even include some in the Antifa movement whose members here took part in our St Kilda rally (see PS below). Other European countries have migrant concerns as indeed does the United States, with Trump about to make a major statement in support of constructing a wall to help control migrants entering from Mexico.

But most remarkable is the failure of Morrison to use the public discussion/debate on Anning and the rally to recognise that Australia itself has “migrant concerns”. In Monday’s Commentary of 7 January I noted that both Morrison and Shorten deemed it necessary to criticise Anning’s attendance at the rally and quoted Morrison as saying that “Australians are not anti-migrant nor racist. Genuine concerns held by fair minded Australians about immigration levels, border protection or law and order should not be used as a cover or be hijacked to push hateful and ugly racist agendas.”“As I did yesterday, I’ll always be prepared to call out extremism in all its forms.”

But immigration policy is not simply “calling out extremism in all its forms”. While there is no media statement for 6 January on Morrison’s media releases web, it appears that he has missed the opportunity to make a general statement along the lines that, as I say in my letter, “most Australians recognise there is limited absorption capacity both in terms of numbers and characteristics which extend beyond our Euro-Judeo culture”. Some such observation would likely put the Coalition ahead of Labor on an important policy issue.

I note that the letter published by The Australian from a Mr Jeremy Browne refers to the Antifa movement being at the St Kilda rally. That movement has US origins but is described in Wikepedia as “a conglomeration of left wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist groups in the United States. The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action. They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right. Conflicts are both online and in real life. They tend to be anti-capitalist and they are predominantly far-left and militant left, which includes anarchists, communists and socialists. Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than through electoral means”. It seems likely that it was people belonging to this movement who ensured that the rally was not a peaceful one.

Hollywood Bias Exposed; Trump Sticks to Troop Withrawal; Romney’s Vew

Des Moore — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 02:50:54 +0000

Media/Film Bias Continues Apace

It is widely accepted that, through its films and those acting in them, Hollywood favourably portrays the left and criticises the right. Because it has established this position over the years, most viewers/readers take account of this bias when commenting on a film and simply say no more than “well just as one expected”. But occasionally the bias is so bad that an observer feels forced to draw attention to it.

That is the case with the film “Vice”, which has just appeared and has received five stars from some film critics. But while The Australian’s Foreign Editor, Greg Sheridan, acknowledges that the film is “superbly made, indeed brilliant”, he portrays it as “profoundly dishonest in its treatment of Dick Cheney, George W. Bush’s vice-president.” Indeed, he rightly points out that “it has a wider cultural significance, for it demonstrates one reason it is so difficult for conservatives to prevail in Western societies. The Left has colonised and politicised much of elite and even popular arts production and uses them to project political messages. Vice is a supreme propaganda film, using all manner of sly tricks to dehumanise its villains. It is full of specific falsehoods. More generally, the innuendo and the physical mockery of its designated villains makes it manipulative and dishonourable”.

Sheridan’s comments, which are worth reading in full (see Hollywood on Cheney), reflect my own now rather hazy recollection of what happened under Bush as President and Cheney as his Vice P. I note in particular Sheridan’s comment that “Far from Bush and Cheney lying about the intelligence, they reported the same intelligence as the Clinton administration had. I confirmed this with many senior Clinton figures who had all believed Saddam had WMDs”.

Sheridan reference to the film’s “wider cultural significance” is also important. Such a well-made, five star film will be widely seen and its bias will be more accepted as fact than might otherwise be the case. One of the bias objects in “Vice” might be to pose the question of whether the Trump administration is “as poor as” the Bush one seems to be portrayed in the film. I don’t know when the film was made but the latest Pew survey published on October 1 in the US summarises the result as “Trump gets lower ratings than his predecessors in recent midterm years – Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton – for being trustworthy, empathetic and well-informed. However, Trump fares comparatively well in public perceptions of his ability to get things done” (See Pew Rating on Trump).

The extent of the opposition to Trump in the US might have influenced the way the film makers presented Bush/ Cheney in “Vice”. My own perspective is that, although as Pew says “Trump Gets Negative Ratings for Many Personal Traits”, his policy decisions have made an important positive contribution to the way the US has been seen domestically and rescued it from the negative perspective which developed under Obama both domestically and here in Australia.

Trump’s Negative Perspective on Syria

In my 24 December Commentary I said that Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from Syria was sending “the wrong signal to Islamic extremists, and to those with Islamic beliefs in other countries”. An editorial in today’s Australian rightly argues that”Mr Trump failed to take into account the historical perspective of what has and has not worked in the battle against Islamist terrorism since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001”.

It also suggests that Trump has “not understood the implications for the West and Israel of recent moves that have highlighted the way Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at best a very uncertain NATO ally, is now working in lock-step over Syria’s future with Vladimir Putin, Iran and the Assad regime, with each seeking to consolidate their gains in Syria” (see Trump on Syria). It is encouraging to have such points made in a leading editorial.

The importance of continuing to draw attention to Islamic terrorist activity, and the need to respond to it, is reflected in the latest reporting of the stabbing by a “Muslim terrorist of two civilians and a police officer at a train station in Manchester. He shouted ‘Allahu akbar’ and other pro-Islam sentiments upon his arrest but the authorities have arrested him under the ‘Mental Health Act’. Thankfully they are using the counter-terror unit to investigate, but probably only because witnessed heard him shouting those Islamic sayings. Had he not uttered those sentiments, the British authorities might very well have ignored the need to investigate it as a terror attack and preferred to deal with it as a ‘mental health’ issue (see Terrorism Again in Manchester).

A detailed report of the recent murder of two Scandinavian students while hiking in the Atlas Mountains in Morocco is particularly interesting. The author, Bill Muehlenberg (an expert on Islam who is known to me), says “the horrific deaths (including decapitation) were videotaped by the Islamists and images of it were sent to parents of one of the girls. But as has now become the norm, much of the mainstream media in the West has put its own spin on the story. Thus we are once again left to get the actual facts from the alternative media. And there are several issues here which need to be addressed. The main one has to do with the nature of Islam. There is nothing unusual about these murders for the devout Muslim. It is all covered in, and approved by, the main Islamic religious texts. Beheading the infidel is simply par for the course. I document this here in some detail: billmuehlenberg.com/2014/08/27/beheading-and-islam/” (see Morocco, Muslims, Murder and Media Mischief).

Since Trump made the announced withdrawal, and the resignation of some military advisers, there have been reports that he is backtracking. However, it appears that all that he is saying is that the time of the withdrawal is not yet determined.

Romney Attacks Trump Too

The former presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who has now become a senator, has also attacked Trump “on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions this month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office” (see New Senator Romney Attacks Trump’s Character). In the attachment,Michelle Moons, who is a White House Correspondent for Breitbart News, reports that “Romney acknowledged that Trump had enacted “policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years.” He praised aligning “U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors,” deregulation, cracking down on China’s “unfair” trade practices, criminal justice reform, and appointments of conservative judges.

But he went on to assail Trump’s character: “With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.”

But Romney’s assail may need to be assessed against the “gaffes” he made during his presidential campaign (see Romney’s Gaffes).

CChange Silly Season; Shorten’s Danger Promises; Immigration Policies Changing

Des Moore — Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:09:37 +0000

Silly Season Arrives Early on “Dangers” From Fossil Fuels

Yesterday’s meeting of COAG confirm that discussions of energy policy between federal and state minister have reached the point when people do or say things that are not sensible or serious ie the silly season has arrived (it appears that the only area of agreement was in regard to retail reliability!). The Liberal Energy Minister in NSW, Don Harwin, who somehow acquired a BEc(Hons), advised COAG to aim for zero carbon emissions by 2050 even though his website says “coal will remain a vital source of energy”. To put it mildly, these two propositions conflict and Harwin was not even allowed to put a motion to the meeting.

True, Harwin did rightly say “climate change is a scientific fact”. But nothing was said on what causes climate changes to happen. Since the year 2000, temporary increases aside, global temperatures have been relatively stable despite the strong increase in carbon emissions staying in the atmosphere. Temperatures also remained stable in the post WW2 period to the late 1970s in the face of increasing emissions. The implies there is no substantive scientific correlation between increases in carbon emissions and temperatures.

In reality, the danger threat (sic) from usage of fossil fuels has lost credibility and policies aimed at reducing emissions should be re-examined . Australian governments should not continue policies to reduce emissions unless climate scientists can explain the periods of relative price stability in the face of increasing emissions.

As Judith Sloan points out, “one of the troubles with Harwin (and his Victorian counterpart, Lily D’Ambrosio) is their combined understanding of the energy market is measured in nanowatts; in other words, neither has a clue”. And “ Why would Harwin be worried about 2050 when NSW households have been hit with a rise of nearly $400 in their annual electricity bills over the past two years? Low-income households in NSW are now paying more than 10 per cent of their disposable incomes just to keep the lights on. It was surely ironic that in the same week as the conference, the wholesale price of electricity in the National Energy Market was soaring well above $100 a megawatt hour. Yet Harwin is more concerned about what’s going to happen in 31 years’ time” (see Sloan on Harwin)

As I have previously suggested, if Morrison moderated Australia’s emissions reduction targets in order to start reducing prices naturally, that would be a potential election winner in circumstances where Shorten’s target of a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030 would increase them.

Labor Policies Have Dangers

In an article today, Andrew Bolt argues that at Labor’s National Conference Shorten made promises which would be better NOT kept if he gains office. One is climate change which I deal with above. Bolt adds that “few realise those cuts don’t apply just to coal-fired power stations, but also to cars, trucks, planes, farms, factories, mines and even cattle and pigs, huge sources of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. That is crazy. Doing this, as the Chief Scientist admits, will make virtually no difference to the temperature” (see Bolt on Promises NOT to Keep).

Bolt’s other three “danger promises” by Shorten are a wind back in negative gearing on investment properties as house prices fall; a change in the constitution to create another parliament, an advisory one just for Aborigines, to advise the real parliament meant to represent us all; and increases in refugee immigrants and in grants to the UN to help resettle refugees in the region.

Shorten also said Labor would continue to support the turning the turning back of the boats and offshore detention. But the policy supported in the House’s last day of sitting to fast-track the transfer of asylum seekers to the mainland if assessed by two doctors (and with no ministerial intervention except on security grounds) has the potential to further increase migrants as “asylum seekers”. The national conference showed there is considerable pressure from Labor’s left wing to liberalise the admission of so-called refugees.

Immigration Policies Changing Overseas

Relevant here is the increased resistance to admitting refugees into European countries. Immigration policy is a major issue in the popular protests in France, where there is said to be between 200,000 and 400,000 illegal immigrants in a population of 67 million, which already includes an estimated 5.7 million people born in another country (see French Immigration Policy). In Belgium the Prime Minister has been forced to resign over a dispute on immigration policy (see Belgian PM Resigns on Immigration) and the protest movement across Europe includes an anti-migration component. In the US the Trump government, in conjunction with Mexico, has pledged $5.7 billion “toward development in Central America and Mexico, as part of a plan to strengthen economic growth in the region and curb illegal immigration” (see U.S. Aid to Mexico). In short, it seems that an increased resistance overseas to allowing refugees has developed, which has implications for Australia’s policy too.

CChange Conference; Judith Curry on Predictions of CChange

Des Moore — Sun, 16 Dec 2018 04:15:29 +0000

Climate Change Conference & Judith Curry’s Analysis of Sea Levels

It was great to discover at last Wednesday’s Christmas drinks at Treasury (in Canberra) a number of “oldies” who said they were enjoying my Commentary and in particular the scepticism about the dangerous warming nonsense. While I resigned from Treasury in 1987 I later hoped that, with the danger thesis becoming more widely reflected in government policy both here and overseas, Treasury would publish analyses as John Stone and others had done on various controversial economic subjects during my time there. In fact, I edited a couple including one on the New International Economic Order(NIEO), which had an aim similar to one adopted by believers in the dangerous warming theme viz “save” developing countries by providing squillions of aid which would allow them to substitute costly fuel sources for cheaper fossil fuels.

But such a published Treasury analysis post 1987 was apparently regarded as too “difficult” politically, particularly in circumstances where, after his defeat of Tony Abbott, Turnbull as PM regarded climate change action as one of his main policy objectives. Now that Turnbull has been defeated his successor Scott Morrison has not made it clear what his policy is, although he appears to retain Turnbull’s Paris agreement of reducing emissions by 26-28% by 2030 even though this agreement is non-binding. By stark contrast Opposition Leader Shorten endorses a target of 50% emissions reduction by the same date.

Our main hope for change has been that some prominent world leaders and/or scientists would pour cold water on the danger theme and that this would lead to a reduction in emissions targets. A start has been made with the presidents of Czechoslovakia (Vaclav Havel) and the USA (Trump) rejecting the thesis and an increasing number of scientists exposing the flaws. Trump has indicated the US will formally withdraw from the Paris Agreement made in 2015.

Reports of the climate change conference being held in Poland (due to have finished but still going last night as the 24^th COP) suggest the US attitude has reduced support for action. This reduced support is reflected in

A reduction in world leaders attending. In fact, media reports on the conference do not quote any world leader. With Turnbull gone, the Australian rep is newly appointed Environment Minister Melissa Price and few other countries seem to have sent their leaders. Most noticeable is the absence of French President Macron who boasted of France as a leader of climate change action by imposing a fuel tax and has now had to withdraw it because of yellow-vest protests across France. While these protests are not only being made in support of sceptics of the warming thesis, they send a message to leaders that it would be unwise to adopt the Macron approach of initiating specific policies to reduce usage of fossil fuels. It appears that big producers of fossil fuels, mainly Russia and Saudi Arabia, have supported the US during the conference;
A pro-fossil fuel event was held at the conference by the Trump administration and, according to ABC news, the only non-American panellist at the event was Australia’s Ambassador for the Environment, Patrick Suckling. “Fossil fuels are projected to be a source of energy for a significant time to come,” Mr Suckling said (see ABC on CChange Conference);
The refusal of some countries to include in the communiqué a “welcome” to the last special (sic) IPCC report and instead to make that simply a “note” of the report. However, one report says the communiqué will not include any reference to that report (see BBC on CChange Conference 15/12);
UN chief Antonio Guterres warning that a failure to reach a satisfactory conclusion would be “suicidal,” a point reportedly echoed by small island states fearing for their existence as rising sea levels render their homes uninhabitable.

While Guterres will doubtless attempt to wind up the conference with a communiqué saying that a “consensus” was reached on the need to reduce emissions, any such consensus is unlikely to have the post-conference political support its predecessors felt they had. Also, it will be less difficult politically to justify changes in policies which involve less aggressive action to reduce emissions and provide a longer time frame for continued use of fossil fuels, as Australia’s Ambassador for the Environment implies .

Such possible changes in Australian policy are supported by The Australian’s decision to publish an article on sea levels by US climate scientist Judith Sloan. She assesses estimates of “the maximum possible global sea level rise by the end of the 21st century range from 1.6m to 3m, and even higher, ” as “extreme values of sea level rise … regarded as extremely unlikely or even impossible. Nevertheless, they are driving policies and local adaptation plans”. She also argues that

“climate model predictions consider only human-caused warming and neglect changes in natural climate processes, such as variations in the sun’s output, volcanic eruptions and long-term changes to ocean circulations. These natural processes are expected to have a cooling effect in the 21st century” (see Judith Curry: Alarmist Sea Level Predictions Not Likely to Occur).

Curry’s analyses are of particular importance because she has changed sides. As pointed out in my letter published by The Australian, “after careful research, she became a sceptic and her analysis has been recognised as suitable for publication after peer review” (see CChange Letters 13/12). Other letters published also support Curry and her implicit support for an energy policy which is not based on predictions “regarded as extremely unlikely or even impossible”.

The conclusion in my letter is that “If the Morrison government were to recognise this it could justify lowering Australia’s target for reducing emissions and adopt a policy based on reducing electricity prices”. That would be a potential winner for next year’s election.

US Wins at G20; Morrison Meets Trump; Germany Fails To Successfully Employ Renewables; Stone on Immigration

Des Moore — Sun, 02 Dec 2018 06:05:20 +0000

US Wins at G20 and Morrison Performs Well

Although there has been a “final statement” by leaders attending the meeting of the G20 in Argentina, the text does not seem available on the web and nor does the communique. However, some media are reporting on what was agreed. The outcome on trade was expected to reveal something on the what has been described as a dispute between the US and China (but which has implications for all trading nations). It appears that the US did succeed at G20 in obtaining agreement that the present arrangements need to be changed. The words reported as being used in the communiqué are as follows

“International trade and investment are important engines of growth, productivity, innovation, job creation and development,” the communique says. “We recognise the contribution that the multilateral trading system has made to that end. The system is currently falling short of its objectives and there is room for improvement.”(see G20 Meeting According to the Guardian)

The US also appears to have successfully downplayed the notion that globalised agreements on policy issues are the way to go.According to the Guardian report, in particular “speaking off the record, a senior US official told reporters the US “specifically preserved and explained our position for why we’re withdrawing from the job-killing Paris agreement”. The official claimed to have seen signs of “the coalition fraying” among some signatories to the Paris deal, “like Turkey, like Saudi Arabia, like Russia”. Separately, it is reported that all except the US agreed on retaining Paris, although some only agreed reluctantly (the next IPCC meeting starts in Poland tomorrow). Note also the downplaying of the role of the IMF.

Historically, international meetings such as the G20 (which started with meetings every six months but these are now only yearly) have in practice had little effect on policy decisions made by individual countries, particularly by the US. Under Trump’s Presidency the US will be even more “nationalist” in its influence (particularly through his White House adviser, John Bolton) and, even with the establishment of China as a more influential nation internationally, there is no sign of “globalisation” of policies.

However, the meetings do provide an opportunity for smaller countries such as Australia to meet with the larger countries and let their leaders know of any bilateral support or opposition. Morrison took advantage of this in his 25 minute meeting with Trump, which occurred because Trump cancelled his sideline meeting with Putin because of Russia’s attack on the Ukraine navy. While it appears that Morrison failed to use the opportunity to explain why Turnbull ceased to be PM, he seems to have indicated support for the US on trade and on its policy on Iran and terrorism generally. According to Weekend Australian, “the Trump administration views Mr Morrison as a hardliner on border protection and has looked favourably on the Prime Minister’s pushback against Iran and his review considering shifting Australia’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem”.

Trump certainly gave Morrison a big tick (see Morrison’s Meeting with Trump) and he should now use that to his advantage in Parliament and in enunciating Liberal policies. But as The Australian’s political editor points out, he can’t do it all himself. Rather, “Morrison needs to broaden that argument into a strategy based on policies that have been worked through with his colleagues and give his fractured followers something to focus on apart from each other” (see Shanahan on Morrison). As I argued in my Commentary last Thursday, Morrison needs to indicate that Turnbull’s (losing) policies have been changed and, in particular, his energy policy must ensure that electricity prices will fall substantially not through the so-called big stick approach but through a competitive market.

Energy Policy

On Energy Policy, there are recent developments which reinforce the views of skeptics on policies reducing CO2 emissions. These include

An assessment by a German analyst that “More and more people are about to realize, that supplying the world with stable energy from sun and wind only, will be impossible. Germany took on the challenge to show the world how to build a society based on green energy. They have now hit the wall. Germany has not reduced CO2 emissions over the last 10 years despite huge investments in green energy production capacity” (see Interesting Comment on Renewable Energy);
An assessment by a local physicist of the composition of C02 suggests that not only are ocean sources and plant sources independent but only some 27% of fossil fuel emissions remain in the atmosphere;
An analysis by Swedish sea level expert Nils-Axel Morner indicates that, contrary to IPCC reports, the rate of increase in sea levels has not increased.
Increased analysis showing mistakes in official temperature measurements which falsely show a faster increase in temperatures and a failure to acknowledge that the cause of increases is importantly due the natural causes.

The Morrison government could reduce the sympathetic beliefs by sections of the public, including last week’s street rallies by 10 year old children, that temperature and other weather changes are due mainly to human-caused production of fossil fuels. That would require a publication of a comprehensive report authored mainly by skeptics and should help the government justify the modification of existing targets of emissions and renewable.

Stone on Immigration

I have previously drawn attention to arguments advanced by Stone for a substantive reduction in immigration rates and for not signing up to the UN playing a role in advising on immigration policy. He has now published an article in Spectator complimenting Morrison on the government’s decision that Australia will join the US, Israel, Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Croatia, Hungary and Bulgaria in refusing to sign the UN’s ‘Global Compact on Migration’. At the same time he asks why the UN proposal to provide advice on refugees has been signed by Australia and why Morrison’s announcement to consider a reduction of only 30,000 from the immigration target of 190,000 (see Stone on Immigration). He points out that “Australia not only has a large and exceptionally costly refugee and other humanitarian resettlement program, but also makes contributions to countries (e.g., Jordan) where refugees are encamped, and in many cases to their countries of origin (most notably, Afghanistan)”.

Trump Succeeds in US Elections

Des Moore — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 12:28:02 +0000

Trump’s Senate Win Allows Continued Pursuit of Many Objectives

For Republicans the US mid-term elections provide a forecast increase in Senate seats to 52/48 (from 51/49) and a forecast reduction in House seats to 197/235 (from 241/194). All 435 seats in House were up for election but only 35 of the 100 Senate seats were. If the forecast loss by Republicans of 44 seats occurs in the House, that would be the smallest mid-term loss under a post war President except for Reagan’s loss of only 26 seats in 1982 ie a mid-term loss of House seats is “normal”.

The Republican win in the Senate (which one forecast puts at 56/44) should allow Trump to more readily change appointments, to prevent the threatened impeachment and to prevent the passage of leftish legislation by the Democrats. It should also allow Trump to continue to use his executive powers to pursue his more aggressive “foreign policy” than Obama, including in regard to his withdrawal from the Paris accord on the environment. However it will make difficult his proposed domestic “reforms” and make opposition more difficult in regard to proposed Democrat “reforms”, such as in health.

As might be expected, there are many reactions to the elections. But today’s editorial in The Australian seems to summarize it well, viz “While Mr Trump has lost control of the house, Republicans have bolstered their control of the Senate. Judged against the mid-term outcomes for Mr Obama and Mr Clinton, that shows he is travelling much better with voters after his first two years in office than many in the media have been prepared to concede. This is a remarkable achievement given the controversy and upheaval that constantly surrounds him, and the attacks directed at him” (see Oz Says Senate Win Important).

Sheridan actually describes this as a “very good” result for Trump and his drawing of attention to Nancy Pelosi as the leader of the Democrats for the next two years suggests that this party will continue to present its policies with limited effect. Interestingly too is that the important initiative of Trump to adopt a “fair trade” policy with China appears to have attracted little criticism. Reports suggest that this policy was little debated during the elections (see Sheridan on US Elections).

Energy Policy

While much attention has been paid to the US elections, our PM has been touring north Queensland, answering questions about his government’s policies at various functions, and providing differing slants on policies such as foreign aid. This is apparently to include the establishment of a new $2 billion infrastructure “bank” to fund projects in the region. But his justifications for such initiatives remain poor and there is still no major policy announcement. Also, there was a missed opportunity to use the dreadful treatment of a Christian woman in Pakistan to draw attention to the extent of intolerance in some Islamic countries (see Bolt Supports Asylum for Bibi).

The still confused presentation on energy policy continued in an article by Minister Taylor (see Energy Minister “Explains” Policy). In a letter published by The Australian , expert geologist Geoff Derrick points out that the minister “has done nothing to dissuade the public that he remains a shill for the renewable industry” (see OZ Letters 8/11).

Meanwhile, in the US attempts in two states to increase the usage of renewable have been defeated in polls. The opposition by “Arizonans for Affordable Electricity “said Arizonans support solar power and renewable technology, but not at the expense of an affordable, reliable energy supply. Arizonans prefer to choose our own energy future rather than have it dictated to us by out-of-state special interests.” (see Tom Steyers et al). In Washington state voters voted on initiative 1631 to introduce a carbon tax. It required 50% of voters to approve the ballot, but it failed 55% to 45%.