Thursday, 9 May 2019
Liberal Party election campaign strategy is a bit of a joke
The Liberal Party of Australia as part of its official election campaign uses a forty-two year-old US movie franchise to market its leader Scott Morrison on social media - by crudely photshopping his middle-aged, plump jowled face onto the svelte body of a then 26 year-old actor.
Wednesday, 8 May 2019
The Liberal & Nationals answer to all the water policy mistakes they have made in the past. Full speed ahead to make some more!
In 2006 the
Howard Coalition Government’s then Minister for Water Malcolm Bligh Turnbull attempted an under-the-radar progression of
a proposal to dam and divert water from the Clarence River system into the
Murray Darling Basin. He was sprung and it lost his government the seat of Page
in 2007.
When Tony Abbott was prime minister he was
all gung-ho for damming east coast rivers, but was by then wary of the mood of Clarence
Valley communities.
Despite a
certain coolness on Tony Abbott’s part and Turnbull's silence once he followed Abbott as prime minister, the wannabee water raiders within the Basin have never given up on the idea of destroying the Clarence River in order
to continue lucrative water trading for profit and inappropriate levels of farm irrigation
in the Basin.
This is a mockup of what these raiders would like to see along the Clarence River.
 |
| North Coast Voices, 1 March 2013 |
On 30 April
2019 Scott Morrison and Co announced
the proposed creation of the National
Water Grid which in effect informs communities in the Northern Rivers region that
our wishes, being “political” because we are not their handpicked ‘experts’,
will be ignored when it comes to proposed
large-scale water diversion projects including dams if they are
re-elected on 18 May 2019.
The Daily Examiner, 4 May 2019, p.10:
“Just add water” is the
Nationals’ answer to “unleashing the potential” of regional Australia but it
would come at a cost to areas flush with the precious resource.
Deputy Prime Minister
Michael McCormack announced on Tuesday at the National Press Club that a
returned Coalition government would establish an authority, the National Water
Grid, to manage water policy and infrastructure.
“We know the key to
unlocking the potential of regional Australia is simple – just add water,” he
said.
The announcement of the
National Water Grid has sparked fears the Clarence and Nymboida rivers may be
dammed to irrigate drought-stricken areas of the country – a prospect the
Clarence Valley community has faced before.
The Nationals’ Page
MP, Kevin Hogan, said there were “no plans to dam the Clarence
River”.
“There are proposals in
other drought-affected areas of the country,” he said…..
The planned National
Water Grid would ensure water infrastructure would be based on the best
available science, “not on political agendas”, Mr McCormack said.
It would “provide the
pipeline of all established, current and future water infrastructure projects
and then identify the missing links”.
Mr McCormack said dams
were the answer to “create jobs”, “back agriculture and back farmers”.
“While we are being bold
and building big, we are often stopped at the first hurdle when it comes to
short-sighted state governments that choose politics over practicality, and
indeed science,” he said…..
There's nothing original about Scott Morrison's campaign style - it is pure Donald Trump
Smirking during 'leaders' debate.......
 |
| Scott Morrison (left) and Donald Trump (right) |
Trying to physically intimidate by invading personal space.......
This has everything. Sky after dark got good for the #leadersdebate pic.twitter.com/CqVklg3RJo— Brett Worthington (@BWorthington_) May 3, 2019
 |
| Snapshot of Morrison attempting to bully during Leaders Debate on 3 May 2019 |
The Guardian,11 October 2016
Tuesday, 7 May 2019
People and groups recently banned by Facebook for promoting hate and/or violence
Finally, a
step in the right direction by Facebook
Inc as it addresses
hate speech and incitement to violence while coping with the possibility
of a US$5 billion fine for the social media platform’s privacy issues.
The following
have been banned from Facebook and Instagram:
English Defense League
Knights Templar International
Britain First
British National Party (BNP)
National Front
Louis Farrakhan
Alex Jones
Paul Nehlen
Milo Yiannopoulos
Paul Joseph Watson
Laura Loomer.
Unfortunately
Australia’s Fraser
Anning and Andrew
Wilson are not on this list.
Lobby group giving farmers a bad name
The
Guardian, 2
May 2019:
The Queensland farm
lobby AgForce has deleted more than a decade worth of data from a government
program that aims to improve water quality in the Great Barrier
Reef, in response to state government moves to introduce new reef
protection laws.
Guardian Australia
revealed in June that the state’s auditor general had raised concerns that
agriculture industry groups had refused
to share data from the “best management practices” program due to privacy
concerns.
In recent months,
AgForce and others had campaigned against the imposition of new reef protection
regulations, which set sediment “load limits” in reef catchments and impose new
standards on farmers.
The proposed new laws,
which have been introduced to state parliament, also include a provision to
allow the environment minister to obtain data from agricultural groups……
The Queensland environment
minister, Leeanne Enoch, told the Courier-Mail the decision flushed “so much
work and the taxpayer dollars that have been supporting it out to sea”.
“AgForce often claims that they are true environmentalists but this decision is not the action of a group that wants to protect the environment,” she said.
“AgForce often claims that they are true environmentalists but this decision is not the action of a group that wants to protect the environment,” she said.
The Queensland audit
office last year found that the success of the best management practices
program could not be properly measured because the agricultural groups that
receive government funding would not provide data on whether producers had
actually improved their practices.
“This detailed
information is currently held by the industry groups,” the report said.
“Despite this work being funded by government, the information is not provided
to government due to privacy concerns from the industry.
“These data restrictions mean government does not have full visibility of the progress made and cannot measure the degree of practice change or assess the value achieved from its investment of public funds.
“These data restrictions mean government does not have full visibility of the progress made and cannot measure the degree of practice change or assess the value achieved from its investment of public funds.
“This means that the
reported proportion of lands managed using best management practice systems
could be overstated.”
Monday, 6 May 2019
Climate change policy scare campaign does the rounds again
A scary
headline from 7 West Media and Kerry Stokes**….
Fossil fuel
industry analyst and economist Dr. Brian Fisher has issued another
warning about what he apparently believes is the folly of tackling climate
change……
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
2 May 2019, p.1:
Opposition Leader Bill
Shorten is facing an explosive political row over his climate change policy as
industry warns of rising costs and a new economic study predicts 167,000 fewer
jobs by 2030 under the Labor plan.
Business groups backed
the ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but said they deserved more
detail given they would pay for the scheme, in a rebuke to Labor's claim it was
"impossible" to model the costs of its policy on employers and the
economy.
The new warning from
economist Brian Fisher, which is hotly disputed by Labor and countered by other
experts, marks a dramatic escalation in the political fight over the cost of
taking action on climate change compared to the cost of inaction.
Dr Fisher concluded that
the Labor emissions target would subtract at least 264 billion from gross
national product by 2030 and as much as26 4billion from gross national product by
2030 and as much a s542 billion, depending on the rules for big companies to
buy international carbon permits to meet their targets.
"Negative
consequences for real wages and employment are projected under all scenarios,
with a minimum 3 per cent reduction in real wages and 167,000 less jobs in 2030
compared to what otherwise would have occurred," he concluded.
"Labor's plan
results in a cumulative GNP loss over the period from 2021 to 2030 that is over
three times larger than that occurring under the Coalition policy. Turning to
other results, the wholesale electricity price under Labor's climate policy is
around 20 per cent higher than that resulting from the Coalition policy."
Labor has been bracing
for Dr Fisher's report after weeks of conflicting claims over the cost of its
policies.
But Australian National
University professor Warwick McKibbin cautioned against some of the claims,
telling the Herald two weeks ago that the impact of Labor's proposals would be
a "small fraction" of the economy by 2030.
Professor McKibbin
estimates the Coalition and Labor policies would subtract about 0.4 per cent
from the economy by 2030.
The cumulative value of
economic output has been broadly tipped to be about $30 trillion by 2030, which
means Dr Fisher's worst-case scenario equates to less than 2 per cent of output
over that period.
An earlier version of Dr
Fisher's modelling triggered headlines of a "carbon cut apocalypse"
in March but was questioned by other economists, who said he had assumed very
high costs for renewable energy generation and the cost of reducing emissions.
ANU professor Frank
Jotzo said in March that Dr Fisher's work had used "absurd cost
assumptions" about emissions abatement.
Dr Fisher was the
executive director of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource
Economics for many years and conducted the modelling at his firm, BAEconomics.
He said this was not commissioned or paid for by the government.
While heavily disputed,
Mr Morrison is expected to use the results to mount an escalating campaign
against Mr Shorten ahead of the May 18 poll….
However
Fisher’s original research did not appear to be using Labor’s current climate
policy to produce his ‘results’ and
his
current effort published on 1 May 2019 is still deliberately misleading.
Fisher gets
called out….
Mirage
News, 2 May
2019:
THE CLIMATE COUNCIL is
calling on Brian Fisher to come clean about his links to the fossil fuel
industry, following the release of his “independent” modelling looking at the
cost of Labor’s climate policy.
“Mr Fisher has a history
of working closely with fossil fuel industries. How can his research be
‘independent’?” asked the Climate Council’s Head of Research, Dr Martin Rice.
“Mr Fisher’s work has
been at odds with credible economic literature which shows that strong action
on climate change can be achieved at a modest price, while the costs of
inaction are substantial,” said Dr Rice.
“We should be having a
conversation about the escalating costs of climate change and the very real
economic pain Australia will suffer for failing to act,” said Dr Rice.
“Since the Coalition has
been in government, greenhouse gas emissions have gone up and up and up.
Meanwhile, Australians are on the frontline of worsening extreme weather as the
climate is changing,” he said.
“We urgently need to
reduce our greenhouse gas emissions There’s credible, independent research that
finds Australia can drive down its emissions by more than 45% with minimal
impact on the economy,” he said……
The first
report in a nutshell….
Climate
Council, 20 March
2019:
What’s the story?
Fossil fuel industry
consultant Brian Fisher has released so-called “independent” modelling looking
at the economic cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but his research is
deeply flawed.
Who is Brian Fisher?
Brian Fisher is the
fossil fuel industry’s go-to consultant. The industry has paid for much of
Fisher’s so-called ‘research’.
Is the modelling
credible?
No. Fisher’s report
fails to consider the economic benefits for Australia from investing in
renewable energy and new technologies as well as failing to quantify the costs
of not acting to prevent climate change.
Several of his findings
are implausible. For example, his findings on electricity prices are contrary
to a range of detailed Australian studies showing more renewable energy means
lower wholesale electricity prices.
This is a distraction.
The Federal Government
has a poor record on climate change and is running a scare campaign to distract
from this. Since the Liberal National Party has been in government, pollution
has gone up, electricity and gas prices have gone up and extreme weather events
have worsened.
An
explanation of how economic modelling is used….
The
Guardian, 21
February 2019:
Whenever Australia
starts to have a serious conversation about addressing climate change,
headlines appear in newspapers of an economic apocalypse. This happened again
in the Australian this week based
on work by a long-standing economic modeller of climate policy, Brian
Fisher.
So, what do economic
modelling exercises tell us of the impact of reducing Australia’s contribution
to global warming, and more importantly, what do they not? Should we cower in
fear of action or embrace the inevitable change and manage the human and
economic costs of transition?
Firstly, economic
modelling results are not predictions. They are based on hypothetical future
worlds. Economists try to capture the dynamics of economic systems in their
models to understand the relative impact of different policy options. This
means they are always wrong because economists can’t predict the future.
Economic
modellers are not the crystal ball gazers we read about in fantasy books……
This does not mean the
economic models are not useful, it just means they should be used to test the
relative impact of different policy options and not be presented as predictions
of the future. They have a long history of overestimating the costs of
environmental regulations because people and markets can innovate faster than
they often expect.
Secondly, the way
economic modelling results are presented is very important. Industry groups in
particular like to attach themselves to particular results and scream that
thousands of jobs will be lost, or wages will be slashed. This is designed to
scare people into not acting on climate change by making them feel insecure in
their lives. The headlines
in the Australian did
just this.
It is also dishonest
because they also don’t clearly put the results in the context of the broader
change in the economy. (David Gruen, one of Australia’s top economic officials
gave a great speech about
this in 2008 to illustrate how long this silliness has been going on.)
To illustrate my point,
the economic impacts Fischer has projected for different emissions targets are
in the same ballpark of those projected for work commissioned
by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade a few years ago. This work also
presented results in a similar way to the Australian. However, what is also
showed is that the economy, jobs, income, etc continued to grow regardless. We
keep getting richer and have more jobs, we just do so at a slightly slower
rate.
Thirdly, because
Australia exports a lot of coal and other emissions-intensive products to other
countries, what they do matters an awful lot to the Australian economy. As
other nations reduce emissions, demand for these products falls regardless of
what we do. It has been established for some time that a significant part of
the economic impacts of climate change on Australia comes from things we can’t
control and this is generally presented in the results (see here for
an example). While he does not report this, Brian Fisher knows this because he
spearheaded economic analysis in the 1990s that was targeted at convincing
Japan, one of our major coal markets, it would be too costly for them to reduce
emissions.
Lastly, whenever these
headlines are blasted across the papers one point is always lost: these results
don’t include the cost of climate change itself. This summer, we have again
seen a glimmer of what climate change will mean for Australia. Recent economic
analysis indicates the benefits of limiting global warming far outweigh the
cost of doing so, in one case by 70-1 (a good summary is here).
(Again, this is something Fisher has considered in the past as he once said it
would be cheaper to move people from the Pacific and put them in condos on the
Gold Coast than act on climate change.)
So, as we head into another
cycle of climate change politics in Canberra, beware the economic doomsayers
and the threats from industry groups that credible action will be a “wrecking
ball” to the economy. To be glib, no one said saving the Earth would be free.
Acting on climate change will have costs but the costs of not acting will be
far, far larger. Better that we come together and manage a fair and effective
transition than continuing to delay and pay a much, much greater bill later…..
Dr Fisher feels the heat....
Dr Fisher feels the heat....
Fisher now accuses the Morrison Government of sitting on a second report modelling cost to the mining and resources sector of climate action, which was commissioned
in the lead up to the federal election campaign and, which the Department of
Industry, Innovation and Science confirms it has received.
Fisher appears to believe that this report to which he was a contributor will buttress his claims and silence his critics.
However, to date Morrison and Co have not released this report so two possiblities exist: (i) the report's conclusions tend to support Labor climate action policy or (ii) the report's conclusions are based on such flawed assumptions that it will be easily unpicked by genuinely independent experts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
