Institute for Private Enterprise » Dr Alan Finkel

Newspoll; Chief Scientist Finkel

Des Moore — Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:59:05 +0000

Newspoll Show No Improvement But Identifies Turnbull Problem

In yesterday’s Commentary I said that, while an early election as suggested by Terry McCrann would risk the Morrison government being portrayed as a “cut and run” attempt at winning and avoiding outstanding issues, it would have the potential to bring the Liberal party closer together and take advantage of various issues on which Morrison seems actually or potentially head of Shorten, including the now near absence of Turnbull as a policy maker. In particular, an election in March would “lock in” the likely favourable budgetary and economic forecasts in the MYEFO publication (next Monday) and prevent any significant change in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (PEFO) which is made by Treasury before an election.

Today’s Newspoll shows no change in the Coalition’s Two-Party Preferred vote of 45/55 (the third time) but a slight decline in the assessment of Morrison’s own performance (higher are Less Satisfied and lower as Better PM). But the most important part of the poll is that dealing with the role of Turnbull, viz

40% of all voters assess him as DISLOYAL, with 56% of the Coalition doing so;
29% of all voters say he should be EXPELLED from the Liberal Party, with 36% of the Coalition. Interestingly, the highest proportion of those against expulsion was in Labor voters (64%). This might be taken as indicating that Labor wants to have Turnbull around as a Liberal party member.

The Australian’s political editor, Simon Benson, rightly describes Morrison as having a “titanic task” to turn the Coalition’s position around and says that Newspoll has “all but written it off” despite Morrison having delivered a “significant blow” against Shorten last week on border protection and national security. Benson does acknowledge however that the poor standing of the Coalition importantly reflects the disloyalty shown by Turnbull (see Benson on Turnbull. Note that the detail of Newspoll can be seen by clicking the sentence “mobile users click here to see PDF”which occurs after the Newspoll heading).

In previous Commentary I have argued that, since becoming PM in a party room vote, Morrison has been too slow in distancing himself from Turnbull. Now, with the Newspoll showing a majority of the Coalition assessing Turnbull as disloyal, it would be timely to make a statement which, in effect, says that the policies stated by Morrison are what the Coalition is now pursuing and, at the same time, provide a list of them.

This list would need to include as part of energy policy that it will aim to produce a major reduction in electricity prices: an emphasis on such a reduction could be an election winner if properly explained. It would also need to indicate that the idea of legislating to provide authority for directing electricity producers to set prices will be abandoned (if an early election was to be held there would of course be no opportunity to legislate). In addition, part of energy policy would be to indicate that the emissions reduction target set by Turnbull in Paris would be lowered to bring it more into line with what other countries are doing, viz lower than promised in Paris.

Bolt v Finkel

In an unusual step Chief Scientist Finkel, who was appointed by Turnbull, has accused leading journalist Andrew Bolt of wrongly interpreting his view on climate change. This was done by sending letters to various newspapers referring to opinion pieces by Andrew Bolt which they published and which “included a reference to me ‘admitting’ that we “could stop all Australia’s emissions – junk every car, shut every power station, put a cork in every cow – and the effect on the climate would still be ‘virtually nothing’”. Finkel wrote that “those are Andrew Bolt’s words, not mine, and they are a complete misrepresentation of my position. They suggest that we should do nothing to reduce our carbon emissions, a stance I reject, and I wish to correct the record” (see Finkel on Andrew Bolt).

Finkel’s letter includes an acknowledgement he had previously made at a Senate hearing, and which sceptics have frequently used, that the elimination of Australia’s 1.3% of total carbon emissions would have virtually no effect on climate. But in his letter he now adds that he “immediately continued by explaining that doing nothing is not a position that we can responsibly take because emissions reductions is a little bit like voting, in that if everyone took the attitude that their vote does not count and no-one voted, we would not have a democracy. Similarly, if all countries that have comparable carbon emissions took the position that they shouldn’t take action because their contribution to this global problem is insignificant, then nobody would act and the problem would continue to grow in scale”.

Bolt has now responded in an article in today’s Herald Sun and again on Sky News. In regard to Finkel’s statement that he “rejects the notion that we should do nothing to reduce emissions” Bolt says “actually, nowhere have I said or suggested that this was Finkel’s stance, even though it clearly should be. It is my stance. So there is nothing in my article to “correct”.

In regard to Finkel’s addition in the paragraph above, Bolt rightly says “Tosh”. I note that Finkel was not a climatologist: his CV says he is a neurologist, engineer, entrepreneur, philanthropist.

IPCC Report

Des Moore — Sun, 14 Oct 2018 07:04:09 +0000

IPCC Report Slammed by Experienced Meteorologist Who Should Be Invited To Australia

My Commentary on Friday 12 October examined the IPCC report and, inter alia, drew attention to the fact that “there have been two periods since the early 20th century when temperatures have been relatively stable despite CO2 concentration levels having increased strongly. This suggests little or no correlation between the two ie prima facie, this means that even though human activity does contribute to CO2 concentrations, they could be having only a minor effect on total temperatures”. I also pointed out that, as only a relatively small proportion of CO2 concentrations appear to stay in the atmosphere, this suggests that other factors are likely to be more causitative contributors to temperature increases. By contrast, the IPCC analysis implies that temperature increases are all due to increases in CO2 concentrations and that this conclusion is science-based.

Today we have received a report from the Daily Mail in London that in a London address a highly regarded meteorology professor and US Academy member, Richard Lindzen, said Australia’s political class has “gone completely bonkers in their response to climate change alarmism and hadn’t taken the time to actually read and understand the science”. He added ‘I can’t imagine what suicidal instincts reside in Australia’s political class.’ ‘In asking me to comment on the Australian response, you are asking the wrong person. You need to speak to someone specializing in abnormal psychology.’

Lindzen presumably refers to the Federal government’s response to the conclusion drawn from the IPCC report that coal use will need to be phased-out by 2050 and that there is a risk the Great Barrier Reef will disappear. Astonishingly, the main response to such possible important changes for Australia by Prime Minister Morrison is only that the report is “not binding” while Environment Minister Price only says it is “not policy prescriptive”. In fact, by drawing on Lindzen the opportunity exists for the Morrison government to take advantage of the serious deficiencies in the IPCC report and modify existing climate change policies including by withdrawing from the non-binding Paris Agreement. Labor’s emphasis on renewables can be dismissed by Lindzen’s conclusion of an “obvious need for something more plausible to ‘sustain’ the renewables bubble.”

The report of Lindzen’s address is short and worth reading in full (see Lindzen Slams IPCC Report). The reporter identifies the following as the main points

Great Barrier Reef is ‘not at risk from climate change’ says professor – as he claims global warming ENDED 20 years ago
Warming of any significance ceased about 20 years ago, renewables a ‘bubble’
Man-made global warming ‘does not appear to be a serious problem’
Landscape will be degraded by rusting wind farms, decaying solar panel arrays
Australia’s Barrier Reef ‘not in any danger’ and recovers from bleaching events

The government should invite Lindzen to Australia to make addresses in capital cities and a presentation to Cabinet.

PS I note that Australia’s Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, who was appointed by Turnbull when PM, is reported as saying that he doesn’t necessarily agree with the phasing out of coal power by 2050 but does agree with the target of reducing emissions by 26 per cent by 2030. In fact he appears to advocate economy wide emissions and the “science” behind the IPCC report. Finkel has no academic background in meteorology and assessments of climate change whereas Lindzen has written more than 200 papers on them.

Turnbull A Gonna & High Cost of Energy Policies.

Des Moore — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 07:02:38 +0000

Turnbull is Finished, But…

Today’s media is replite with analyses which, although not actually saying that Turnbull is finished as PM, leave the reader with little else but to conclude that this is the case. Below is a summary of conclusions by several commentators

John Stone, who has long argued that Turnbull must go (as have I), refers in Spectator Australia for 2 December to the progressive deterioration in polling for the Coalition and Turnbull over the past 16 months. He argues that, for more than 9 months, “voters are no longer listening to Turnbull” and “it’s time for a circuit breaker –in the form of a Liberal leadership change – to be brought on” (see DIS-CON NOTES –No More Shilly-Shallying). Stone says that, while the primary focus in his DIS-CON notes of October was to ensure that Labor is defeated in 2019 rather than to nominate a replacement for Turnbull, he now refers to two developments which support Abbott as the replacement.

First, that while in Weekend Australian of 11-12 November Chris Kenny had acknowledged that some say that “ leadership switching is fatal”, he had also argued that it is more readily supported where it involves re-installing “someone elected in a landslide in 2013 and robbed of a chance at re-election”. Second, Stone argues that the survey process on same-sex marriage adopted by “the Turnbull/Brandis/Pyne coterie” had been “devious” and that there has been a subsequent reneging “on the legislative protections promised by Turnbull against the further attacks on our freedoms that the changed definition of marriage will now inevitably produce”. He added that the three Liberal assistant ministers who had strongly criticised this publicly would not “survive” under Turnbull but would under Abbott.

Terry McCrann says that “PM and Treasurer were playing desperate ‘two minutes-to-midnight’ politics in calling the RC that they, sensibly, didn’t want and which we, the country and bank customers, most certainly do not need. But we have an awful — and that word is used deliberately — lot of politics coming up over the next month. By Christmas, we could even be on the way to an early new year election and the near certainty of a Labor government and a PM Shorten with a much tougher anti-bank agenda. If the government loses the Bennelong by-election next month to Labor’s ‘celebrity’ candidate, former NSW premier Kristina Keneally, and the unknown Coalition rebel carries out his threat to quit, the Prime Minister’s position would become completely untenable”.
David Crowe almost has two bob each way but notes that “the cabinet decision to launch a royal commission into banks captures the government’s shocking dilemma in a single moment. It admits defeat against more than a year of sharp politics from the Opposition Leader. It concedes the power of a handful of Nationals to beat the leadership (not just Turnbull) into submission. It responds to the Coalition’s failure to hold a majority in parliament, which is in turn the result of a weak performance at last year’s election”.
Dennis Shanahan says that “while the Turnbull government offers “financial certainty” as a justification for the (RC) backflip, the basic reason is it has lost its parliamentary majority, lost the faith of Nationals MPs and senators, lost the ability to persuade angry backbenchers not to cross the floor, lost prime ministerial authority and lost the politics to Bill Shorten. The minority Turnbull government has suffered a humiliating parliamentary loss while the House of Representatives was suspended to avoid such a loss”.
Andrew Bolt had yesterday advised his readers to “look at the disastrous polls. Look now at government MPs trembling at the shock of the Queensland state election, where One Nation won more than 20 per cent in the seats it contested, stripping the Coalition of votes and victory. It’s over and some Coalition MPs are openly challenging Turnbull’s authority as leader”. But Bolt also advised Abbott not to try to replace Turnbull because “it’s not worth it, Tony. You’d lose. You wouldn’t save the Liberals — no one can — and you’d be blamed for failing. I saw how being sacked as prime minister nearly killed you and, as a mate, I’d hate to see them finish the job and dance on your ashes”.

All this suggests that at next week’s Party Room meeting Turnbull will be confronted with a motion of no confidence. But who will move it? There is as yet no indication that anyone wishes to take over the job of restoring the Liberal Party’s polling – and Turnbull has created such a disastrous situation (one which, underneath, he may even have wanted) that this would be understandable. But given that Abbott decided to stay in Parliament after he lost to Turnbull, he almost has a responsibility to try.

Of course, it cannot be assumed that such an opportunity will arise. Turnbull might move to prevent it by calling an election before next week and the GG would find it difficult to reject such a move.

Energy Policy

I have argued in previous Commentaries that federal (and state) decisions are being made on electricity policy without adequate analysis of the economic costs and are being justified wrongly. That has particularly applied to the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) scheme, which Turnbull rushed out on the argument that it reflected the view of “experts” as a way of fulfilling Australia’s (voluntary) commitment on reducing carbon emissions. The body specially created to recommend the regulatory arrangements, the Energy Security Board (ESB), is chaired by Kerry Schott and indications were given that details would be soon published by the ESB. But judging by her recent AFR letter this now appears likely to take some time (see ESB’s Schott Says Neg Needs more Work). Note in particular her comment that

“Finally, the work of the board in the near future must focus on two things. First, exactly how the National Energy Guarantee will work and how compliance in the market will be monitored and rewarded. This is not about modelling any number of different scenarios but rather about the market design of the Guarantee”.

This appears to confirm that Turnbull’s announcement of NEG was not based on any detailed and careful analysis.

Today, we also have a report (not yet studied by me) that the cost of the increasing renewable usage in the states is a major cause of the increase in electricity prices. This seems to differ from what has been said by both Federal and State Ministers and by claims that subsidies to new renewable projects can be stopped because they are not needed. (Such claims seem, however, to be rejected by investors in such projects).

If the Coalition elects a new leader, a top priority should be to change existing federal energy policies and fully explain the false justifications. That will be difficult given what has already been said. If however an election ensues, we can expect the new Labor government to go further down the same track as Turnbull and his Chief Scientist: indeed quite a bit further.

Qld Election and COAG Meeting Negatives for Turnbull

Des Moore — Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:23:10 +0000

Qld Election Result A Negative For Turnbull

Although as this is written more than 30% of votes still need to be counted, it now looks almost certain that Labor will be returned and may even have a majority of seats. As the ABC election expert Green says,even if Premier Palaszczuk “falls a seat short, she doesn’t have to do any deals. She can leave it to the Parliament to vote her out, because it would be unlikely that all the crossbench would vote against them at once. “It is a fixed-term Parliament — the Government can’t just resign and walk out of office and leave someone else to form government — they can’t do that, so somebody will form government. “So it is very hard to see how anyone other than Annastacia Palaszczuk can form government in the new Parliament. “They have a certain 46, and they only need one more vote and at the moment we are giving them another two seats on a prediction.” (see Labor to Win in Qld Election). Note the failure of One Nation while the Katter party may get two seats.

While Turnbull “explained” that the election primarily involved State issues, the reality is that it is another negative for him and increases the possibility of a loss of confidence vote against his government. In a separate report Nationals MP Christensen blamed Malcolm Turnbull for the Liberal National Party’s poor result in regional Queensland and the rise of One Nation. Christensen who has threatened to cross the floor to help establish an inquiry into the banks, said he was “sorry” the LNP had let down Queenslanders who deserted them. He put “a lot” of the blame on the leadership and policy direction of the Turnbull government. “To Queenslanders who voted One Nation, I’m sorry we in the LNP let you down,” Mr Christensen tweeted this morning. “We need to listen more, work harder, stand up more for conservative values and regional Queensland do better to win your trust and vote.“A lot of that rests with the Turnbull government, its leadership and policy direction.”

Energy Policy

In my Commentary last Friday I drew attention to various reports and analyses which suggested major deficiencies in the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) scheme and that no agreement had been reached with the States at the 24 November COAG meeting on its implementation. I have now obtained a copy of the following relevant documents and attach copies of them:

The Modelling Report of NEG dated 20 November requires further examination. But it was presumably provided to the meeting of the COAG Energy Council on 24 November with the aim of obtaining the agreement of the States to use it as the basis of electricity policy. In mid-October Turnbull and Frydenberg said that more detailed modelling of the savings would be presented to that already scheduled COAG meeting.

Yet the Executive Summary of the Modelling Report says that “the COAG Energy Council is being asked to consider approving further work by the ESB on the design of the Guarantee. If there is agreement to this further work the ESB would anticipate undertaking a thorough and comprehensive consultation process with a wide range of industry, consumer and government stakeholders. This process would allow all interested parties to engage in the detailed design of all elements of the policy. It is anticipated that the ESB would be able to provide a preliminary design approach to Ministers for consideration at the COAG Energy Council meeting scheduled for April 2018 and then a final design recommendation including required legislative and rule changes for approval in July. It is envisaged that this work would be in conjunction with the work being done by the ESB and the COAG Energy Council to implement the recommendations from the Finkel Review”.

Along with the other two documents, this confirms that there is a long way to go before there will be any agreement on NEG as the basis of energy policy. This of course relates to a policy based on that developed by the Chief Scientist, whose basic approach is mistakenly governed by the dangerous warming thesis.

This is another example of the problem faced by Turnbull in developing and presenting coherent policies.

The New Energy Policy Has No Substance

Des Moore — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 21:13:53 +0000

Assessing NEG

In Wednesday’s Commentary I suggested that the explanation given by an “expert” as to how Turnbull’s NEG would work, and how NEG would save $110-115 pa in costs, was incomprehensible. This expert (John Pierce) was making the explanation at Turnbull’s request to a press conference whose attendants included Frydenberg and board members of the recently established Economic Security Board (ESB), and whose role appears to be to ensure the provision of reliable power and the achievement of the emissions reduction target of 26-28% by 2030 (the text of the press conference is now attached to Wednesday’s Commentary on my web and is a “must read”). My guess is that the two ministers put together a group of “experts” as members of the ESB who are sympathetic to the need for government intervention to reduce carbon emissions.

It should be noted that, after being head of the NSW Treasury for 12 years, Pierce was appointed by the (first) Rudd government as head of the Commonwealth Department of Resources in March 2009 but when that government ceased in June 2010, he became chairman of the Australian Energy Market Commission. He is reported in today’s Age as being the architect of NEG and as saying “We are not pricing carbon. What we are pricing is reliability; what we are pricing is the ability for the mechanism to be dispatched” (see Age Article Explains NEG). Some expert! I would be pleased if any recipients of this Commentary can explain what that means.

But this is not the only question posed by the article. Apart from quoting the absurd statement by Turnbull about physical trading (therefore no price is involved!), note in particular the article says that “Frydenberg sent the states a draft copy of a letter he wrote to Energy Security Board chair Kerry Schott on Thursday afternoon to request her input on more detailed modelling to confirm the claimed $115 household energy saving from the proposed policy” ie as I have previously reported, there is no sound basis to the estimate of the savings as announced. Interestingly, Rod Sims of ACCC seems to have been dropped as an expert for the moment.

I have also previously referred to the views of leading economic journalist (David Uren), who described the claimed savings under NEG as “pure fantasy”, and those of another leading journalist (Terry McCrann), who described the press conference as “an exercise in pointlessness”. A real expert on analyses of claims about global warming, Alan Moran, has also published a damning commentary on Quadrant Online (see Moran on Turnbull & His NEG). He refers to Turnbull’s claims that

“The National Energy Guarantee will lower electricity prices, make the system more reliable, encourage the right investment and reduce emissions without subsidies, taxes or trading schemes. It is truly technology-neutral, offering a future for investment in whatever technology the market needs – solar, wind, coal, gas, batteries or pumped storage.Unlike previous approaches, we are not picking winners, we are levelling the playing field. Coal, gas, hydro and biomass will be rewarded for their dispatchability while wind, solar and hydro will be recognised as lower emissions technologies but will no longer be subsidized”.

And justifiably concludes that “None of this is true”.

But possibly sensing that the apparent welcome from various quarters is not as strong as it seems, Turnbull is reported as indicating that he is prepared to do a deal with Labor (see Turnbull Could Do A Deal With Labor). It is possible that he sees himself a joint leader of both parties! But are the members of the Coalition prepared to contemplate an agreement with Labor on an energy policy which includes the economically damaging 26-28% emissions reduction target to 2030 and a continued subsidisation of renewable to 2020? If Turnbull guaranteed he would not change that in negotiations with Shorten would that be accepted as likely?

As Stone points out in an article in the latest Spectator (see Spectator Australia Article), the Coalition’s polling under Turnbull is actually worse than the latest TPP of 46/54. For example, for the last 15 Newspolls its primary vote has been “at a catastrophic 37 per cent or less” (cf 41.8 per cent at the 2016 election). “As things stand, Turnbull politically is a dead man walking, politically speaking” and as more analysts realise the unworkability of NEG, the Coalition’s polling can only deteriorate further.

More Responses on Abbott

Des Moore — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:33:57 +0000

Praise for Abbott’s Address from US Scientist

This morning I received a message on Tony Abbott’s London address from the President of The Science and Environmental Policy Project, Ken Haapala, in the US. It was brief but important because Ken is a scientist and an expert on climate change whose weekly messages report on the latest developments in analysing climate changes, including those theses which he judges to be “off the planet”. This message to me was a response to the full text of Abbott’s address which I sent him as an attachment to my Commentary on Tuesday 10 Oct and which I suggested to him is important “both politically and “scientifically”. Haapala’s message to me was

“ Thank you Des, When I read it, I thought Daring To Doubt was one of the best talks given by a politician in decades. Your comments are most appropriate. Ken H”.

This exchange came almost immediately after the head of the US EPA, Scott Pruit, announced that the Clean Power Plan initiated by Obama is to be repealed. Contrary to my Commentary yesterday, it appears that the CPP had not come into operation because the US Supreme Court had ruled that the Obama Administration had “pushed the bounds of their authority so far that the Supreme Court issued a stay – the first in history – to prevent the so-called ‘Clean Power Plan’ from taking effect. Any replacement rule that the Trump Administration proposes will be done carefully and properly within the confines of the law.” (for further detail see Obama’s Clean Power Plan Gone. Blacking added).

Judging by reports emanating from Canberra, Turnbull’s Clean Energy Target (CET) will also go!

Further Domestic Responses to Abbott

The initial media reporting of the response to Abbott by Business Leaders gave the impression that they wanted a CET because such a policy it would provide “certainty” in business planning. Because of the inherent lack of certainty about the policy decisions of the political parties (not to mention the science) this was always unrealistic and it remains so. However, contrary to the assessment by The Australian’s David Crowe (see BCA Response to Abbott), and having regard to the likelihood that the CET will be much different to that proposed by Finkel, the CEO of the BCA leaves the issue open when she is reported as saying that “the government should outline its new policy, with or without a clean energy target, before revisiting the target” but adding that “coal should be part of our energy mix”. Crowe has also wrongly implied that Abbott’s proposed lower emissions reduction target would not be accepted by BCA President Grant King: he is reported elsewhere as having a more open mind on energy policy.

Probably the most important media response is by Terry McCrann, not because he repeats his now long standing criticism of the dangerous global warming thesis but because he gives Abbott a big tick (see McCrann on Abbott). His opening remarks say it all viz “TONY Abbott’s speech in London was a seminal event. It finally, if belatedly, drew a line in the sand between energy sanity and insanity and invited politicians, business leaders and indeed voters to join him on the side of sanity”. Of course, there are still many not “on the side of sanity” and The Age has recruited John Hewson to argue for Turnbull to tackle Abbott. That might be judged as a bad political strategy as well as reflecting Hewson’s failure to acknowledge defects in GW.

It may be premature to suggest that, notwithstanding his poor earlier decision-making, with the London address Abbott has re- established himself as having the potential to lead Australia up a reformist path. But there’s also a need to recall that some politicians have had a successful second try.

Abbott’s London Address & Turnbull Back-Track

Des Moore — Tue, 10 Oct 2017 07:15:44 +0000

Environment Policy Week

My Commentary yesterday accurately predicted that the scheduled AFR Energy Summit and Abbott’s address in London would spark active discussion on energy policy, which necessarily involves environmental policy too. The address at the AFR Summit by Environment Minister Frydenberg indicates that the Turnbull government seems to have made a start at determining what its policy will be, although even after the many statements that “it’s coming” it seems it will not be finalised until the end of the year.

This continues the uncertainty which has existed since the Finkel report was commissioned by Turnbull (through COAG) in October 2016 and published in June this year. Now, it seems, the Finkel recommendation for a Clean Energy Target may not be accepted as the subsidisation of renewable (and a renewable target?) may cease. That is (potentially) good news, but what about the other elements in the policy, such as reducing the emissions target announced in Paris?

This reminds one of Turnbull’s earlier ducking around on tax policy. The decision not to announce a comprehensive policy before the end of the year adds weight to the need for the Liberal Party to replace Turnbull as leader if it is to give itself any chance in the election. Further delay would likely see more voter support for the Bernardi Australian Conservatives and One Nation.

Abbott’s London Address

The widely foreshadowed address by Tony Abbott to a sceptical Think-Tank in London received what might be described as a “mixed” reception viz no mention in the Fairfax Press and some in News Limited, including commentary by Andrew Bolt (but only published digitally last evening) and the publication by The Australian of an edited version and an editorial. The lunchtime news by the ABC quoted Shorten’s comment that Turnbull is too weak to rebut Abbott.

I have not attached The Australian’s edited version of Abbott because the full text is well worth reading in full and is made available here. Here I simply draw attention to some of the more important points in the full text which have long been known within sceptical circles but which have generally been ignored or downplayed in official political and bureaucratic circles and in many academic ones. Now we have a leading Australian politician setting out in public many of the “overlooked” points which should be seriously considered and taken into account when determining energy policy.

”Palaeontology indicates that over millions of years there have been warmer periods and cooler periods that don’t correlate with carbon dioxide concentrations”;
”Prudence and respect for the planet would suggest taking care not lightly to increase carbon dioxide emissions; but the evidence suggests that other factors … are at least as important for climate change as this trace gas … Certainly, no big change has accompanied the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the past century from roughly 300 to roughly 400 parts per million or from 0.03 to 0.04 per cent”;
”Contrary to the breathless assertions that climate change is behind every weather event, in Australia, the floods are not bigger, the bushfires are not worse, the droughts are not deeper or longer, and the cyclones are not more severe than they were in the 1800s… More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen despite frequent reports from climate alarmists that this is imminent”;
”It may be that … the world might start to warm rapidly but so far reality has stubbornly refused to conform to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s computer modelling. Even the high-priests of climate change now seem to concede that there was a pause in warming between the 1990s and 2014”… unadjusted data suggests that the 1930s were actually the warmest decade in the United States and that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed”;
”The growing evidence that records have been adjusted, that the impact of urban heat islands has been downplayed, and that data sets have been slanted in order to fit the theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming does not make it false; but it should produce much caution about basing drastic action upon it”;
” …higher concentrations of carbon dioxide … are actually greening the planet and helping to lift agricultural yields…a gradual lift in global temperatures… might even be beneficial…it’s climate change policy that’s doing harm; climate change itself is probably doing good; or at least, more good than harm”;
”In the medium term, there must be – first – no subsidies, none, for new intermittent power (and a freeze on the RET should be no problem if renewables are as economic as the boosters claim); second, given the nervousness of private investors, there must be a government-built coal-fired power station to overcome political risk; third, the gas bans must go; and fourth, the ban on nuclear power must go too in case a dry country ever needs base load power with zero emissions.
”The government is now suggesting that there might not be a new Clean Energy Target after all. There must not be – and we still need to deal with what’s yet to come under the existing target.
”That’s the reality no one has wanted to face for a long time: that we couldn’t reduce emissions without also hurting the economy; that’s the inconvenient truth that can now no longer be avoided”
”The only rational choice is to put … Australia’s standard of living first; to get emissions down but only as far as we can without putting prices up. After two decades’ experience of the very modest reality of climate change but the increasingly dire consequences of the policy to deal with it, anything else would be a dereliction of duty as well as a political death wish”.

Properly handled, the adoption of the foregoing and other perceptive statements by Abbott provide a potentially election winning agenda.

Newspoll Shows Coalition Stuck on Low Rating

Des Moore — Mon, 09 Oct 2017 04:40:24 +0000

Quarterly Newspoll Offers No Coalition Improvement

The (normally) two weekly Newspoll on 25 September showed the Coalition’s TPP had fallen by 1 percentage point to 46/54. Today’s Newspoll is a quarterly one that shows the TPP at 47/53 but this is the same as the previous two quarterly ones and, while Turnbull’s performance improved from 33 to 35 “satisfied”, Shorten’s “satisfied” also improved (from 32 to 34). Turnbull’s rating as PM fell fractionally to 43 (from 44) while Shorten’s stayed at 32.

Although it is not clear whether there will be another two weekly Newspoll next week before Parliament resumes, it is possible that if held it will show an improvement from the 46/54 on 25 September. However, as discussed below, the handling of policy issues by Turnbull since then does not suggest any such improvement. The Australian’s political correspondent draws attention to the Coalition’s TPP improvement in the Five Capital Cities (from 46/54 to 47/53) but suggests that this may be offset by the drop outside those cities (from 48/52 to 46/54). Such a drop might reflect the difficulty of distinguishing between Turnbull and Joyce on policy issues.

Common sense suggests that a Coalition led by Turnbull will lose the next election.

Some Recent Coalition Policy Issues

While it looks as though the SS plebiscite will allow Turnbull to claim it supportive of his Yes view, the polling of it so far suggests the final count may produce less than expected Yes’s (possibly less than 60%). The handling of it by Turnbull also left a negative impression arising from his failure to announce before the pleb started what legislative protection would be provided for religious views expressed by No voters if it is passed. The full page critical media advertisement on this by former PM John Howard (who about ten years ago urged Turnbull not to resign) also points to a strengthening in the so-called conservative view amongst Coalition supporters.

True, Turnbull would have benefitted Coalition polling by securing the unanimous agreement of state leaders to improve national security by inter alia boosting the facial recognition technology data base (see COAG Meeting on National Security). Turnbull told the Premiers that

“by agreeing to bring this together into the one database, into a means of operating together in real-time, it will enable our police, our security services to give an even better level of protection by being able to identify persons of concern, people who are suspected of terrorist offences or terrorist plots in real-time. It is a very important 21st century tool”.

But whether holding a full scale COAG meeting in Canberra was necessary is moot (one commentator described it as possible the quickest COAG meeting ever). Following the Las Vegas killings the environment was already conducive to increasing the power of the central government to limit such outbursts by crazed citizens or terrorists. Note however that, while gun control was not discussed at the meeting, Opposition leader Shorten claimed that estimates by law enforcement experts indicate “there are up to 600,000 illegal guns on our streets. This is just far too many. And research has shown there are more guns in Australia now than prior to Port Arthur. We need more action to get guns off our streets and throw gun runners in prison for life.” Fortunately, Australians are much less inclined to have “shoot-outs” than Americans, whose loss of large numbers during the civil war still influence thinking there about the need for guns.

Energy Policy & The Missing Text of Agreement on Gas

Turnbull’s continued failure to announce any coherent Energy Policy would also have contributed to poor polling.

True, an agreement was concluded with three exporters of gas that they would provide sufficient gas to the domestic market to prevent a shortfall in estimated demand in 2018 and Turnbull isued a press release after that meeting (see Heads of Agreement 3 October 2017). However, the so-called agreement provides nothing more than a vague commitment and contains no detail about possible prices or quantities, which are of course related to each other. My attempts to obtain the text of the agreement have failed and I have been told that no text will be released.

This missing text seems passing strange particularly as Turnbull says in the press release that the “commitments are vitally important to ensure Australian jobs and to ensure Australians have affordable and reliable energy and including electricity – gas being a more important fuel than ever in the generation of electricity”. It also leaves unanswered the question as to what effect the agreement is likely to have on prices. According to a report in The Australian, the commitment is to provide “reasonably priced gas”but it appears that prices “remain well above historic levels” (see OZ on Gas Agreement).

It is likely that when Parliament resumes on16 October the Opposition will seek more details of the agreement and further argue that its policy of imposing a system of export controls should be adopted. But such a policy would fail to recognise that the “shortage” of gas arises importantly from the reduced supply of power from coal-fired generators as these generators are closed because of Australia’s policy of reducing emissions of CO2. About ten of such generators have now closed, and a report in today’s Australian suggest there is a danger that a large generator in NSW is under closure threat.

Yesterday Turnbull accused the Victoria of contributing to the gas shortage because of that state’s restrictions on investments in gas (there is a total ban on fracking), to which Premier Andrews responded by claiming that existing gas investments in Victoria have an ample supply for Victoria (see Turnbull on Gas and Andrew’s on Vic’s Gas Supply). There seems no doubt, however, that the states’ restrictions on gas investments are reducing supply and as a result are keeping prices higher than they otherwise would be. Yet Turnbull is again refusing to seriously consider reducing grants to states that are holding back investments in gas.

An Environment Week Ahead?

The foregoing indicates that whether involving energy policy generally or just gas policy the energy issue will continue to be widely debated over the this week. Contributors to that debate will be the AFR’s National Energy Summit in Sydney (which will involve Frydenberg, Shorten, Weatherill, Finkel and AGL’s CEO) and the address given by Tony Abbott in London to the sceptic UK Think-Tank started by former UK Treasurer Nigel Lawson. Yesterday’s AFR editorial (see AFR on Costs of Regulations of Emissions) identified some of the failures of past policies by arguing that

“What is depressingly clear however is that carbon war politics has got in the way of rationality every time. Those wars intensified when Australia under Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and the Greens chose the wrong role to play in the global decarbonisation drama. A carbon-dependent economy with only a small carbon-emitting population could not lead the way with the world’s highest carbon tax without inflicting a lot of cost on itself for very little global return. And it meant ignoring Australia’s natural comparative advantage as an exporter of clean gas and relatively clean coal to much bigger emitters than ourselves, like China and India” (my emphasis).

But the editorial failed to advocate that, “rationally”, there needs to be a marked reduction, preferably elimination, in the target for reducing emissions of CO2 as well as in the target for increasing the usage of renewable, which are now being recognised as both unreliable and expensive once account is taken of the back-ups that are required because of their unreliability. I have no knowledge what Abbott will say in London tonight (UK time), and I recognise that he has made some poor decisions in the past. But he seems to be one of few leading politicians prepared to acknowledge past mistakes and to move on. He may be Australia’s only hope now of saving us from the looming disastrous energy policy.

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.

Our Power Bills

Des Moore — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 11:10:57 +0000

Is Turnbull Capable of Determining an Energy Policy?

Today’s Australian says that the Renewable Energy Target (RET) of 23.5% by 2020 will not be changed as part of what is described as Turnbull’s overhaul of energy policy (see Renewable Energy Target). That target was reduced by Abbott when he was PM and the recent National Party Conference voted to “repudiate the central finding of the Finkel review for a clean energy target and eliminate subsidies for renewable to maximise the difference with Labor over surging power bills”, and hence to reject the Finkel proposed clean energy target of 42% of renewable energy by 2030. However, it appears that the halt to increasing the RET mainly reflects the mounting cost of the subsidies, which ran to a remarkable $2 billion just last year and which may already have reached the point where a continuation of the scheme would exceed the RET target without any new investment. There is a reference in today’s report to the likelihood of allowing more subsidies to those whose projects have not been completed. In other words the taxpayer is handing out money to a badly constructed scheme, not to mention the bad decision to have one at all before properly reviewing the basic need for it.

The National Party Conference vote also refers to “surging power bills”. That has led Shorten to claim that during the time the Coalition has been in office (since 2013) the average cost of electricity to households in Sydney has increased by $1000. However, while Energy Consumers Australia (which is part of the Environment Department) is reported as saying Turnbull is correct in claiming Shorten is wrong, the latest web Update of Energy Consumers does not extend beyond January 2017 and would exclude the very sharp recent increases. My AGL electricity bill for September (which arrived two days ago) is 40 per cent higher than it was a year ago when calculated on a daily basis. That is an increase of $360 per quarter or about $1440 a year if continued. Further, contrary to Turnbull’s recent announcement that electricity retailers have agreed to be more explanatory, AGL offered no justification.

Separately, the ACCC head is reported as classifying AGL as a monopoly but being over-ruled by the Competition Tribunal. There is a strong case for Turnbull to insist on another inquiry (AGL’s share price has risen). Reports of a survey also indicate that very few believe policies which are current or promised by each major party will lead to lower prices. Indeed, even if AGL’s Liddell generator is bribed to continue beyond 2022 (AGL has said publicly that it wouldn’t), each party promises to further reduce the use of coal-fired generators and prices must increase further. Turnbull’s attempt to devise an energy policy by appointing Finkel as Chief Scientist and commissioning him to report on that policy even though he has no background in climate policy, is to put it mildly a policy in total disarray.

Andrew Bolt rightly says that Turnbull “can win the next election just by fighting Labor’s global-warming crusaders on electricity prices. In fact, he and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg have banked on it. But Turnbull is wrong: the way he and Frydenberg are fighting — timidly and erratically — is backfiring” (see Bolt on Turnbull). Turnbull and his advisers have made so many bad decisions on energy policy that he is adding to his polling problem.

Iran and North Korea

The testing by NK of missiles capable of carrying a nuclear weapon (or worse) has been subjected to enormous public attention and questioning in the media, with the latest missile this morning landing in the Japan sea and being accompanied by a statement from an NK authority to the effect that Japan should be sunk too. This will add to the case for a pre-emptive response.

But what has been neglected has been the threat from Iran. The attached article by an Israeli policy analyst at Melbourne-based AIJAC draws attention to several aspects of the mounting threat from there, including the report that Iran may have obtained 19 advanced ballistic missiles from NK, its hosting of the head of Iran’s Parliament (sic), and its policy of establishing greater influence regionally, including in Iraq/Syria (see AIJAC on Iran/NK Threat) The author concludes that “If there is one lesson from North Korea, it is that failure to act now to halt Tehran’s progress will have serious repercussions later.Iran’s hegemonic ambitions and destructive activities already extend well beyond its borders. Adding nuclear weapons to the mix will set up a dangerous future for what is already the world’s most fragile and unstable region”.

Shann On Improved Econ Outlook

Ed Shann, who is one of Australia’s best economic analyst, writes in today’s Herald Sun that “China is booming again” and that the world economy looks healthier than for some time. This assessment is encouraging and contrasts with other rather gloomy ones (see Shann on China/World Outlook).

EU & Australia Free Trade Agreement?

I was amused to read yesterday that, in responding to the possible adverse effects from Brexit, the President of the EU said the EU should strike new trade deals and “we are asking that we open up negotiations with Australia and New Zealand”. This after many years of discriminating against imports from Australia!