Skip to content

Climate Alarm Bombs In Elections Down Under

April 2, 2019
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

From GWPF:

 

image

It was utter bunkum; but typical self-delusion by those ideological crusaders determined to do whatever it takes ‘to save the planet’ – at whatever the cost.

‘Climate change is now a more pressing matter for New South Wales voters than hospitals, schools and public transport’ asserted the green-left Sydney Morning Herald in the run-up to NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian’s outstanding victory. And to reinforce the message against carbon emissions, it added that among the top environment concerns was coal. Other media within this inner-city bubble of group-think unreality included SBS which warned pre-election that ‘Climate change will be a vote changer’, while the ABC inevitably listed environment on top, claiming that ‘Voters in dozens of seats appear to be signalling to parties that without a clear plan to address climate change they will be punished at the polling booth’.

But climate change played no role in determining the outcome. The Greens, the Coalition and Labor all of which had climate policies that, to differing degrees, imposed heavy cost burdens on the economy and energy consumers involving job losses in industry, all lost some ground. The Coalition, especially the Nationals, should heed the lesson that the only big election winners were the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party that won three lower house seats despite the New Zealand gun massacre news. And, contrary to the warnings from the left media, the SFF election policy took strong objection to the major parties’ anti-emissions rhetoric.

‘Environment laws should not be aimed at appeasing minority city-based extreme green viewpoints… Affordable and reliable energy is the key to success… Government should not divert large sums of public money into intermittent energy sources; with the increasing saturation of renewable energy comes greater risks to energy reliability that is best provided by large coal-fired generators. We believe that it is logical to construct two new baseload High Efficiency Low Emission (HELE) coal-fired power stations in the Hunter Valley’.

If the Nationals were unhappy before the election with the Liberals’ ‘Labor-lite’ emissions limitation policies (the NSW Liberal target is zero net emissions by 2050 as against Labor’s 100 per cent by then and 50 per cent by 2030) it is unlikely they will wear them after losing seats to the SFF. And the federal Nationals have every reason to be worried about the threat to their regional seats of the SFF energy policy.

The outcome of the coming federal election may depend on whether the Nats’ concerns and pressure for reliable affordable energy (including coal) will have a greater impact on Morrison than the fears of Josh Frydenberg that Kooyong could turn into another climate-dominated Wentworth unless due obeisance is made to the emissions gods. And, unlike the USA, that the government will stick with the Paris Agreement targets, despite their having inconsequential effects on the world’s greenhouse gasses.

Full post

11 Comments
  1. jack broughton permalink
    April 2, 2019 11:55 am

    Great bit of political reporting, he’d be sacked in the UK immediately.
    Loved the sentence “Environment laws should not be aimed at appeasing minority city-based extreme green viewpoints… Affordable and reliable energy is the key to success… ” . Exactly the UK/EU and USA problem.

    Another comment worth looking at is that: “According to the authoritative S&P Platts report, China is adding 1,171 coal-fired power stations to its existing 2,363, Japan is adding 45 to its 90, South Korea another 26 to its 58, the Philippines 60 to its 19, India 446 more to its 589, South Africa 24 to its 79, Turkey 93 to its 56 and even the EU (with some prominent anti-emissions members), is adding 27 to its 468”. Not mentioned in the UK media hype about reducing coal fired projects!

  2. John F. Hultquist permalink
    April 2, 2019 3:02 pm

    ” . . . hospitals, schools and public transport’ asserted the green-left Sydney Morning Herald . . .”

    Utter nonsense.
    Okay, maybe Sydney could benefit from better public transport.
    A major newspaper ought to be able to afford better wordsmiths. Schooling?
    . . . and send the person that wrote that line to have her/his cranium checked for a brain.

  3. Tom O permalink
    April 2, 2019 4:43 pm

    Interesting. How can someone possibly make the comment that climate change had no effect in the election when all the parties campaigning on the issue lost ground? Obviously, climate change DID have an effect – a negative effect. Voters may actually be waking up to the realization that their lifestyles, livelihoods, and even lives are at stake.

  4. markl permalink
    April 2, 2019 4:50 pm

    Despite all the propaganda they aren’t winning minds. I would guess they are actually losing minds as time wears on because of all the failed predictions. Climate alarmism has become the Chicken Little of today’s society. There’s just too much at stake for the average person ….. no matter how science literate they are …. to take giant leaps back in their standard of living for an unproven theory.

  5. Paul H permalink
    April 2, 2019 5:09 pm

    How about this guy, he claims we’re short of Co2. The link is well worth a watch.

    • Gas Geezer permalink
      April 2, 2019 10:25 pm

      Thought provoking ,should be compulsory viewing for politicians,his book Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout has very positive reviews via Amazon.

  6. April 2, 2019 5:56 pm

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

  7. jolan permalink
    April 2, 2019 7:18 pm

    Paul H. Thanks for the link to Dr. Patrick Moore. What a brilliant presentation. I love this little world of ours and it grieves me to realise that one day it all must end, and that we might hasten that end by our proliferate use of coal. Not as you might imagine because of our production of CO2 but quite the opposite, our consumption of a vital scource of CO2, because as Dr. Moore puts it there is a strong chance that we might run out of CO2, the food of life. Dr. Moore advocates the nuclear option to conserve as much as possible our reserves of coal. For emergencies? Can’t quite see how that will work. He also advocates burning of limestone to produce CO2.

  8. Gerry, England permalink
    April 3, 2019 2:00 pm

    Jo Nova has a post about an IPSOS poll showing that only 46% of Australians believe in global warming, which is barely changed, in spite of the deluge of state funded propaganda, from a CSIRO poll in 2015 which had 45.9%. Of course the questions were loaded to what they wanted to get from the poll which is why you will not be surprised at their claim that the vast majority believe by considering those answering it is both natural and human caused – but with no percentage for either – as believers.

  9. David permalink
    April 3, 2019 9:57 pm

    We see reports that over recent years the Earth has greened, observed by satellite observations. This is presumably absorbing much CO2 is it likely that the higher measured atmospheric CO2 level is merely CO2 “in transit” ?

  10. Duker permalink
    April 4, 2019 2:06 am

    It seems some hard realities are getting through…after elections though !

    “The grid instability is being caused by less predictable, intermittent wind and solar power flowing into the network coupled with less reliable coal-fired power stations.”

    https://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/unprecedented-energy-operator-in-daily-fight-to-keep-lights-on-20190403-p51abh.html

    But some arent seeing the clear and present danger
    ‘“The grid is holding up, with more intervention than we want, but these problems aren’t insurmountable.Ms Pearson said.”

    What she means is blackouts for some ,
    The nonsense of more ‘generation is required to lower prices’, when the question isnt asked is ‘why would generators do that’

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: