Funny how things just come together sometimes.
There was my earlier post on the climate change ideology infecting APRA.
Then there was the post by Rafe on the Madness of The University of Melbourne.
Then knock me over with a feather I got emailed from The Mandarin a link to a University of Melbourne issues paper, from the Melbourne Sustainability Society Institute, titled “Australia’s Clean Economy Future: Costs and Benefits“.
The Mandarin for the uninitiated is a news site “made for public sector leaders and executives . . . deliver[ing] the news and analysis that the public sector reads every day.”
The Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (MSSI) “strives to inform and stimulate public conversation about key sustainability questions facing our society.”
And low and behold six pages in I read:
“The global business community is addressing climate-related risks to transition to a low-carbon economy. Clearly, to create a sustainable investment climate is to disclose and manage climate-related financial risks.”
“Climate change threatens the assets and operations of businesses, communities and governments. Most countries have signed the Paris Agreement and are transitioning to low-carbon economies.”
“The global business community is making significant strides to address strategic risks. The wave generated by the Taskforce of Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) is an exemplar.”
“Since then, key bodies such as the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), Australian Securi- ties and Investments Commission (ASIC), Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) and now the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) have confirmed the strategic need and the legal liabilities that require businesses to consider and report their climate-related risks.”
The good old APRA TCFD proposal!
Is it any wonder we are stuffed. Universities, bureaucrats and regulators copying and pasting one another in a Green-Left echo-chamber of mutual adoration and climate fantasy.
As to the paper itself I don’t have the time to go through all the nonsense and perhaps someone with an economics degree would have more fun tearing it to shreds. Needless to say it proposes we be carbon neutral by 2030 because mitigation is cheap $35.5b while business as usual will result in $584.5b in damages.
Naturally all electricity generation will be renewable by 2030 (largely state-owned), prices will be magically $7 per MWH lower (despite being $40+ higher right now), 50% of new car sales will be electric (gee, I wonder who they thought was going to win the election!), EVs will result in health benefits from . . . . drum roll please . . . . . a decrease in petrol pollution saving up to $735m per annum in Victoria alone (who knew we were all so ill from petrol poisoning?), and we will save hundreds of millions in interest payments on government debt because of APRA’s TCFD regulatory excellence. Total BS.
Of course if you want to know how dumb this paper is you just need to consider that the $584.5b is predicated on global temperatures being 4 degrees Celsius higher in 2100 than pre-industrial levels which barely a credible scientist believes is remotely possible.
The damage is mostly losses in agricultural productivity and infrastructure losses from rising seas, fires, floods, wind storms and soil subsidence I kid you not. Apparently, in the next decade a lot of homes are going to be washed out to sea, disappear into sink holes and be blown away.
However, because the $584.5b figure assumes a rise in global average temperature of 4 degrees Celsius by 2100 it also means that global action on climate change has not simply stalled but died and emissions have steadfastly risen.
This actually makes the case that in the absence of aggressive, global, transparent, enforceable mitigation by all nations of the world, Australia should do nothing. However, this papers reasoning is that we should blow another $35.5b in futile mitigation to add to the $584.5b in damages it has forecast because the rest of world isn’t doing anything.
In other words, this paper doesn’t compare apples with apples. That it’s cost benefit analysis compares the benefits of unilateral action to the cost of global inaction says it all.
But hey, The Mandarin love it, The University of Melbourne loves it, APRA loves it.