Environmentalism: too many gravy trains and dangerous hidden agendas

The modern environmental, or ‘green’, movement has shifted from overt care for the environment towards activist and economic damage, self-serving agendas and covert promotion of more sinister agendas, often supported, even driven, by politicians.  But opposition grows by the day as evidence and  common sense start to prevail.   

Scroll down to read the most recent articles; links to previous articles follow.

Adani opposition ignores reality of world’s energy needs from coal and oil

Adani opposition ignores reality of world’s energy needs from coal and oil  By Julian Tomlinson, The Cairns Post, 8 March 2018

LABOR’S war on coal has exposed puzzling paradoxes and a damaging ignorance of reality.

The real travesty, though, is that the Liberal-National Party has failed to go for the jugular and plant a stake in the ground in North Queensland for mining and the cheap energy fossil fuels provide.

Or could provide, if overly strict regulations on new mines and power stations were relaxed.

Nationals senator Matt Canavan has been unashamedly pushing the coal barrow but his Coalition partners have been content to simply slag off on Labor rather than come out with serious pro-coal policies to assure Australia’s energy future, keep power prices at least somewhat affordable and guarantee North Queensland’s and the whole state’s prosperity.

Labor Leader Bill Shorten has ­publicly opposed Adani’s planned coal mine, which not only puts him at odds with the Queensland Labor State Government, but also members of his Cabinet. Prime Minister ­Malcolm Turnbull said he supports Adani but it’s just lip service.

Real support is actions, not words: actions such as following America’s lead and standing up to the climate change alarmist industry.

The absurdity – and hypocrisy – of anti-coal fanaticism is exposed when you simply replace emotion-charged hyperbole with data.

On one hand, anti-coalers scream that taxpayer money shouldn’t go to billionaires to fund private enterprise such as Adani. But taxpayer money is used to subsidise renewable energy projects owned by billionaires.

Finance for Adani would be a loan paid back with interest but renewables subsidies are gone forever. What’s a worse deal for taxpayers?

Billionaire Elon Musk has charmed untold millions in subsidies from governments for his Tesla electric cars … and then launched a rocket using kerosene. Musk is held up as an environmental champion but surely his use of fossil fuel to power his rocket will make governments realise CO2-emitting power isn’t as bad or obsolete as activists try to make out.

Governments around the world have spent an estimated $US1.2 ­trillion on clean energy investment in just the past four years.

But the global supply of energy by renewables is estimated by British Petroleum at 3 or 8 per cent.

The International Energy Agency’s estimates range from about 13 per cent to 25 per cent, and this includes burning wood, rubbish and dung.

To put that in perspective, 1.2 trillion seconds equals about 38,000 years. This is a grievous amount to spend for such a small impact. ­Especially when the effects on world temperatures will be a fraction of 1C and won’t be felt for decades.

The Australian Government estimates it would cost $219b to switch the nation completely to renewables.

And let’s not forget that the North is a cyclone zone, and any solar farms or bat and bird-killing wind turbines close to the coast will be destroyed in the next big blow. From where will we get our energy then?

According to The Australian newspaper, more than $60 billion in renewables subsidies would be paid by 2030, about twice what the car industry received over 15 years and enough to build 10 large nuclear reactors. The figures make it clear that rather than doubling down on the renewables pipe dream, we should be making coal “cool” again.

Let’s roll out the red carpet to miners and frackers. Let’s establish North Queensland as the home of mining prosperity and energy security.

Last year, Aussie coal exports were worth a record $56.5 billion, and Queensland is due to earn $4 billion in coal royalties this year.

Imagine the cash flow if we fully exploited our natural resources?

Nuclear is a dirty word but we have enough uranium in the North to be a world leader in cheap, clean nuclear power production.

Green groups’ refusal to support emissions-free nuclear energy is the clearest evidence that the goal is not simply “saving the planet”, it’s about bashing big oil and coal while forcing poor people to cook and keep warm with choking fires of wood, dung and rubbish, including plastic.

But the biggest losers are consumers, who will be forced to pay exorbitant prices for unreliable, inefficient and expensive renewable energy.

All we need is for someone in politics to wake up and seize the initiative.



Chilling fact is most climate change theories are wrong

Chilling fact is most climate change theories are wrong  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 8 March 2018

 You have to hand it to Peter Hannam, The Sydney Morning Herald’s climate change alarmist-in-chief, for his report last month – “ ‘Really ­extreme’ global weather event leaves scientists aghast”.

Hannam is often the ­canary in the coalmine (er, wind farm) when there is a sense that public belief in man-made global warming is flagging. With Europe in the grip of a much colder winter than predicted and with the ­abnormal chill spreading even to Africa, he did his best to hold the line.

Earlier this year, Climate Council councillor Will Steffen also climbed on board — for The Sydney Morning Herald of course. Extreme cold in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, a record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US and an expansion of the East Antarctic ice sheet coincided with a ­Bureau of Meteorology tweet (later retracted) that January 7 had set a heat record for the ­Sydney Basin. Steffen told us these seemingly unrelated events were in fact linked. “Climate ­disruption” explained both. Whether fire or ice, we’re to blame. No ifs, no buts.

Now a warming Arctic provides the perfect opportunity for Hannam to divert attention from the latest deep freeze. He ominously warns: “Climate scientists are used to seeing the range of weather extremes stretched by global warming, but few episodes appear as remarkable as this week’s unusual heat over the Arctic.”

It’s true, warm air has made its way up to the high Arctic, driving temperatures up to 20C above ­average. But Anthony Watts, who runs a climate change website, puts things into perspective. He observes: “Warm moist air from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans has warmed the Arctic above the 80th parallel. It should be noted, however, that the Arctic Circle actually starts at 66 degrees north, meaning the record heat is over a much narrower area.”

Cato Institute atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue reviewed high Arctic temperature data going back to 1958 and says: “Data before the satellite era … has some problems, so it’s hard to say the current spike is for sure a record.” He says that if the baseline is 1973, when the polar-­orbiting satellites began recording the data, there is not much difference between today’s ice extent and then.

Indeed, we now have satellite confirmation that global air temperatures are back to the same level they were before the 2014-16 super El Nino event and, this January and February, the decline accelerated. Since 2015 satellites also have detected a fall in sea surface temperatures.

Solar expert Piers Corbyn, of British forecasting group Wea­therAction and famous for his successful wagers against the British Met Office forecasts, predicts Earth faces another mini ice age with potentially devastating consequences. He notes: “The frequency of sunspots is expected to rapidly decline … reaching a minimum between the years 2019 and 2020.” Indeed, the present decline in solar activity is faster than at any time in the past 9300 years, suggesting an end to the grand solar maximum.

Critics say while “it might be safe to go with (Corbyn’s) forecast for rain next Tuesday, it would be foolish to gamble the world can just go on burning all the coal and oil we want”. That’s the nub of it. The world has bet the shop on CO2 warming and the “science” must be defended at all costs.

But while spinning unfalsi­fiable “climate disruption” slogans may sway readers of The Sydney Morning Herald and resonate with believers in their centrally heated halls, those in the real world, witnessing hundreds of people dying of the cold and thousands more receiving emergency treatment, will consider they’ve been duped.

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

And, true to label, a Green Climate Fund supported by Australia and 42 mostly developed countries will redistribute $US100 billion ($128bn) annually to poorer nations as reparation for the unspecified environmental harm the West has allegedly caused them.

Big emitters such as China, India and Russia are conspicuously absent.

Policing Australia’s targets and helping to spread confirmatory propaganda is a network of international and local bureaucracies. The world’s academies and meteorological organisations, frequently found to be unreliable and biased, keep the faith alive. They reject debate and starve nonconforming researchers of funds and information. Students are indoctrinated with unproven climate-change theories that an unquestioning media gladly ­reinforces. Meanwhile, the country ingenuously surrenders its competitive advantage by refusing to embrace its rich endowment of affordable baseload energy. This it happily exports while lining the pockets of renewable energy rent-seekers with generous taxpayer subsidies.

Should the world enter a per­iod of global cooling, we should ­expect concerted denial. Too many livelihoods, too many reputations and too much ideology ­depend on the CO2 narrative. Having ceded sovereignty over our economies’ commanding heights to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva, the West (Donald Trump excluded) repeatedly turns to expensive vanity projects to paper over this folly. If the iceman cometh, there can be no quick fix. Yet we know it takes twice as much energy to heat a home than to cool one. So pity the poor and infirm who respected medical journal The Lancet says are 20 times likelier to die from cold than heat.

While even to mention a mini ice age risks scorn and derision, recent research has shown a close correlation between solar activity and climate on Earth. That possibility alone should cause shivers. But it will take time and experience before we accept the global warming movement is really the triumph of ideology over science. Until then we will continue to commit life’s cardinal sin of putting too many eggs into one questionable basket.


Greens show their true colour, red

Greens show their true colour, red  By Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 12 February 2018

Jihadis couldn’t take down Jim Molan in Iraq. Indonesian militants couldn’t knock him off in Timor. But the wee men of the Australian Greens think they’re in with a chance.

It is little wonder they labour under such delusions. The Greens’ grand strategy reads like a Miss Universe cue card: world peace, green dreaming and love sweet love. Scratch the surface and you find nothing but fatal contradictions. For each Greens policy, there is another that cancels it out. In the end, there is nothing left.

The major contribution the Greens make to Australian life is to fragment politics by vulgarising manners and creating a culture hostile to the free world. The ­attack on Senator Molan is a case in point. Greens MP Adam Bandt said last week that if an inquiry into the Iraq war were held, “you would find Jim Molan would probably be up for prosecution … for his role in the atrocities in Fallujah”. It took a threat of legal action for him to apologise. His first effort sounded so insincere he had to try again before the apology was accepted.

The Greens often campaign against patriotism. They turn on their fellow countrymen to defend Islamist causes. Molan served as chief of operations in Iraq during the second battle for Fallujah. A few months before, Time magazine published an in-depth article on the “new jihad” in the region. The jihadi insurgency was led by fundamentalists keen to capitalise on regional instability. Michael Ware revealed their plan to transform Iraq into “a training ground for young jihadists who will form the next wave of recruits for al-Qa’ida and like-minded groups”. Almost all of the jihadi groups claimed inspiration from the chief of al-Qa’ida in Iraq, Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi. After he was killed by a coalition strike in 2006, Zarqawi’s men formed Islamic State.

It would be quite reasonable to form the view that the Greens have an unproductive attachment to Islamism, especially the Sunni variety. But give them some credit for consistency. They contend the 2004 battle to stop jihadis in Iraq constitutes a war crime and they protested against Western troops trying to stop Islamic State genocide in Iraq a decade later.

The problem isn’t that Molan went too far in Fallujah. The problem is that the West didn’t go far enough. The only solution to genocidal jihad is scorched earth.

When the Greens aren’t backing jihad abroad, they’re waving it ashore. Their immigration plan ­includes empowering refugees given adverse security assessments by ASIO to challenge the findings. Last year, the government reported that 500 refugees from Iraq and Syria were denied entry after the Five Eyes intelligence alliance warned their names were on international security lists. Dozens had adverse national security assessments.

When not defending the rights of terrorists against the welfare of free world citizens, the Greens are busy contradicting themselves. There is perhaps no more contradictory policy than pushing big ­immigration via porous borders while complaining about resource scarcity. If what the Greens say is true and Australia is running down its supply of natural resources, then promoting population growth by increasing the immigration intake is self-defeating.

The Australian Greens form part of the international alliance, Global Greens. Its charter opens with the odd idea that we are “citizens of the planet” — as though the planet were a nation state. The Global Greens believe “the environment ignores borders between countries”. The environment is not a human being. It can neither ignore nor recognise ­nation state borders. But the Global Greens want a world without borders. At the same time, they claim to support “participatory democracy” in which “all citizens have the right to express their views”.

A world without borders — the global government envisioned by greens parties — would destroy liberal democracy. The free world constitutes a minority of states and a relatively small percentage of the world’s population. In the global political system envisioned by greens parties, most votes would be cast by members of Islamist and communist states. Totalitarianism would spread its tentacles across the globe.

Despite the totalitarian threat, European greens tried to introduce a system for transnational members of parliament in next year’s European elections. The vote for transnational lists was defeated 368 to 274 last week.

In the context of a global parliament, it would make sense for politicians to appeal to Islamists and communists/socialists, given they would constitute most voters. Such a political system is not possible unless nation states cease to exist. Liberal democratic nations pose a significant problem for supranationalists because they demonstrate the nation state system can generate prosperity, security and stability for its citizens.

Greens parties protest against national security in favour of “a comprehensive concept of global security”. The Global Greens’ world security requires “a global security system capable of the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts”. But who would direct the leviathan? The greens nominate the “United Nations as the global organisation of conflict management”.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres could be amenable to the idea. As president of Socialist International, Guterres proposed a global government governed by a UN parliamentary assembly.

The Australian Labor Party quit Socialist International for a more moderate European alliance. But greens parties have taken up the red flag to promote a global revolution that would devastate freedom and concentrate power in a world of tyranny without borders.


Links to previous articles


About Peter Senior

I'm a very experienced and pragmatic management consultant. I've reviewed and led the restructuring of many organisations - large and small corporations and Government Departments, much of the time as President of the New Zealand Institute of Management Consultants. Before that I was General Manager of a major NZ newspaper; earlier, an analyst for IBM UK. I gained an honours degree in engineering at London University, and studied management at Cambridge University. This wide range of experience has left me frustrated: I continue to see too many examples of really bad management. Sometimes small easily fixed issues; sometimes fundamental faults; and sometimes really tricky problems. Mostly these issues can be fixed using a mixture of common sense, 'management 101' and applying lessons from years of management experience. Unfortunately, all too often, politics, bureaucracy and daft government regulations get in the way; internal factors such as poor culture and out-of-date strategies are often evident. So what's gone wrong, and why, and most importantly, how to fix 'it'? I hope there are like-minded people 'out there' who will share their thoughts enabling 'us' to improve some significant management failures that affect the general public. If you just accept bad management, you don't have the right to complain! If you'd like to share thoughts on any aspects of management, send me an email to petersenior42@gmail.com . My latest project has the interim title 'You’ve been conned. Much of what you were taught and read is largely irrelevant, misleading or plain wrong – this is the REAL story of life: past, present and our possible future.' The working paper so far comprises 105 pages, many listing references and interim conclusions. The main problem is finding sufficient credible evidence, and realising the more Iearn, the more I realise I don't know!
This entry was posted in Environmental battles. Bookmark the permalink.