A review and commentary on topical matters concerning the science, economics, and governance associated with climate change developments.

By Alan Moran,

2  June, 2016

Developments in scientific observations

The latest el Niño, which has created record temperatures and brought joy to the doomster warmistas, is finally subsiding.  Ocean temperatures are back to normal

And the Mephiststophelian portends of drying continents are countered by the most expansive research to date which has shown negligible change in precipitation over the past century.

Multilateral policy developments

The UN climate change caravan moves from Paris to Bonn, next stop Marrakech.  According to the UN script the Bonn meeting saw countries push ahead with, “a suite of positive outcomes”; these are said to have implemented stronger climate action and constructed the global climate regime “rule book” in order to guarantee the treaty’s fairness, transparency and balance between nations. However, the Paris accord’s agreed green “adaptation and mitigation” (i.e. funding bribes to mendicant states) of $100 billion per annum by 2020 is no closer to being achieved than balanced government budgets.  For 2016 the goal is $2.5 billion, which is described as ambitious.

China and India, the largest and third largest emitters, are merely paying lip service to any mitigation but the EU leadership remains committed.  And, although Hillary Clinton has declared she misspoke in saying “We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business", she still proposes to cripple the US economy with a 50 per cent renewables program.

But there is a big red spider in the works.  One report has Donald Trump intending at a minimum to “renegotiate” Paris.  Another report has him declaring climate change a "con job" and a "hoax", perhaps even a Chinese plot "to make US manufacturing non-competitive".  And he's said he would totally unleash US fossil fuel production and stop all payments to the UN $100 billion a year fund. 

Overall, according to the German-South African-UN financed Renewables 2016, new investment in renewables (excluding large scale hydro) in 2015 was $286 billion.  This surpassed the previous peak of $279 billion in 2011.  Wind and solar comprised 5 per cent of electricity generation in 2015.

European doubts

Danish consensual homogeneity is legendary. In 2012, 95 per cent of MPs voted to get 50 per cent renewables by 2020 and in 2015 Denmark generated the equivalent of 42 per cent of its energy usage as well as having created a successful turbine export industry. But with 66 per cent of the electricity bill comprising taxes, the government has reversed course having decided that renewables are too expensive.

Poland is among other countries that are also finding they are running up to the limits of cost acceptability for renewable energy. Germany has joined the doubters. It is now producing so much subsidised wind and solar that it must export surplus coal-generated electricity which it overproduces from plants necessary to be kept operating to ensure reliable electricity supply. Subsidies to renewables comprise 52 per cent of German electricity bills. It now plans to limit costs by auctioning rights for new solar facilities rather than allow the subsidy to all. One mooted solution, a European supergrid, might cost €400 billion and would only postpone the crisis.  

At long last, there is a revolt of UK MPs against the carbon emission measures that are destroying the nation’s industry. So far only 15 MPs have signed on to oppose price-boosting renewable regulations, while a rival group of MPs are urging firmer and more comprehensive measures to give greater confidence to investors (or more subsidies to their funders).

France however, under a socialist government, remains solidly on the upward slope of the learning curve. Energy Minister, Segolene Royale is to press on with a CO2 tax that is at least 30 euros per tonne .

Australian policy peregrinations

The climate debate has flickered throughout the current 75 day election campaign. Australia’s Direct Action abatement subsidy scheme was introduced by the coalition government in 2014. The scheme operates by reverse auction, funding projects voluntarily proposed by the private sector. Because the government cannot know true project counterfactuals, the lowest auction bids are, according to this analysis, often likely to be non-additional “anyway” projects.

My own view is that the two major parties have broadly equivalent carbon tax impositions up to 2030 (when costs are over $10 billion a year plus) but Labor also has uncosted land expropriation (using planning laws) and the Liberals claim they will achieve the goals more cheaply via their Direct Action plan. I offered some uncomplimentary comments on politicians’ understanding of the costs of their carbon abatement bromides in an article in The Australian. 

The current government has also set up a baseline emissions ceilings for large firms based on their 2009-2014 peaks.  Aside from more red tape, the requirement will have little immediate effect but could be readily tightened by a radical government and converted into an emissions trading taxation scheme, an intent that is denied by the government.

Laid on with a trowel

It had to happen but why did it take so long before climate change was claimed to cause rape and kidnapping?

Ever wondered if we are overpaying business chiefs?  Shell's CEO has a blinding insight: if we move to zero use of fossil fuels too early “it could mean the end of the company."