As I pointed out in my previous post, republished here, the Australian government is using all its abundant intelligence resources to argue that Trump will not follow up on his strictures regarding the global warming scam. Julie Bishop is unfortunately proving herself to be simply a vacuous fashionista in saying that the US will stick to the Paris Agreement because “like Australia” it can easily meet its goals.
Wishful thinking invariably is proven false and Trump is poised to sign executive orders to shrink the role climate change plays in decisions ranging from appliance standards to pipeline approvals in addition to those relieving coal plants from Obama’s measures blocking coal leasing and throttling greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump is also to dismantle the EPA’s fuel economy measures that impacted particularly adversely on domestic US manufacturers’ car offerings which tend to be larger than imports.
And we have had the ludicrous sally of our green wet PM into the battery saga where he is tweeted his one-on-one discussions with Elon Musk, a political entrepreneur who has pocketed $5 billion in subsidies from US citizens and is now seeking to roast the hapless South Australians. A paper by Quirk and Miskelly estimates the cost in Tesla batteries alone of providing the same reliability for wind/solar that is achieved with fossil fuels would be $180 billion, twice the state’s annual income. And though cheaper solutions might be available at one third of this price, the power itself remains three times that of its fossil fuel alternative.
The nation must surely have a death wish. Half sensible politicians like Matt Canavan, Josh Frydenberg and Mathias Cormann retreat to the rationalisation that we have made a policy and we cannot simply change it week by week. So we keep with the present policy, the economic destruction of which is so palpably obvious that the PM is now promising an expansion of the Snowy four years into the future (what is wrong with dusting off the Tas Hydro schemes killed by ALP green fervour in the Hawke ascendency?)
The present policy will bring a further 50 per cent expansion of the economy-busting renewables, a further deterioration of our international competitiveness and the departure of those industries (involving energy intensity) that are ideally suited to our asset base. The schadenfreude from seeing it has backfired on one of its main instigators, BHP, offers scant solace.
Will nobody rid us of this troublesome priest?