More Madness from The University of Melbourne

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.

Madness!

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to More Madness from The University of Melbourne

  1. stackja

    More OPM will be needed.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    Since the real world temperature hasn’t gone up at all for the last two decades, I can’t see it going up 4 degrees by 2100.

    But let’s just ruin our economy for no reason at all.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    (PS – If any one wants to understand why I said what I said, and to have the above graph explained, which is just this one with a regression line added, please ask.)

  4. This is all true! Two of the 30 gums trees in our back yard are dead. They must be no more than about 10 years old (we’ve only been here since 2011) because they’re only around 100’+ tall. All this due to climate change. When will this stop?

  5. Some History

    Universities have long become Puniversities.

  6. atomics

    These people were lacking a religion so they invented one.

  7. Dr Faustus

    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.

    I think the proposition is that the rest of the world sees Australia committing hara kiri over the next 11 years and says to itself: ‘Well, the Aussies are sitting there looking at their entrails; I suppose we better do the right thing and give disembowlment a lash ourselves‘.

  8. Lee

    I am not a great believer in conspiracy theories, but more and more I am coming around to the belief this all part of a plot by Marxists and socialists to overthrow capitalism.
    A number of leading figures in this whole global warming scam have by their own words flat out admitted it, and some would even be quite happy to see an end to democracy, and the public (i.e. dissenters) having any say in the matter.
    Unfortunately, many who are not Marxists and socialists have fallen for this con.

  9. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    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.

    no no no, it’s 500 billion gazillion infinity dollars and the death of all non human species…

  10. mem

    As I speak if it wasn’t for Qld coal and Tassie hydro there would be blackouts in South Australia,Victoria and NSW. and for any of those that think if you put in more solar and wind it will solve the problem. No it won’t because without sun and wind you could cover the whole of the nation in turbines and panels and it wouldn’t make an iota of a difference. https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#nem-dispatch-overview

  11. one old bruce

    Yes a religion, with features both very 0ld and some unique to Christian civilisation.

    First the gods are angry so we must offer them sacrifice. (The gods are always angry whenever the weather changes – which Mayan priests found convenient to keep themselves in business).

    Then, there was a garden of eden called ‘the environment’ but ‘we’ fell from grace due to our wickedness, and carry the stain of primal guilt (original sin). But those who publicly do penance, self-flagellation and loud prayer to the weather gods are more virtuous and fit to teach the rest of us deplorable sinners. And prophets of doom, repent the end is near!

    You don’t need much else to explain this apart from loss of faith in the supernatural after centuries of scientific debunking and devastating wars. People want some sort of certainty and purpose to their lives, beyond consumption and titillation. Unfortunately they seem to have caught the millenium bug, like a thousand years ago or so, with similar apocalypticism, mad crusades of death and so on.

    And of course add a ballooning bureaucratic class (read Aztec/Mayan priests) – product of recent prosperity after end of the Cold War, only too too happy to enable all this public breast-beating so long as they get their cut.

  12. one old bruce

    Loss of faith was inevitable though. Consider when some of us were young half a century ago, many diseases were little understood. It was still possible to believe in ‘miraculous’ healing. ‘Cancer miraculously disappears!’

    Now we know so much more, and who’d want to go back? I remember mostly men suffering terribly from ulcers for example, carried from their homes bent double with a burst ulcer to an ambulance. We have indeed tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and there’s no way back to innocence/ignorance, thank God (for the lessening of suffering). Still everything has consequences, often unforseen.

    People seem to have this enormous capacity for religious enthusiasm. An energy which finds new modes of expression. That’s very much what this looks like.

  13. Empire 5:5

    Every single risk assessment used by the colluding institutions to price risk is bogus. None will withstand judicial scrutiny to exhaustive appeal level.

    Someone with brass balls and deep pockets could lawfare the thermogeddonists into extinction.

    Gina?

  14. Tel

    … more and more I am coming around to the belief this all part of a plot by Marxists and socialists to overthrow capitalism.

    But they were so careful to keep it a secret that they want to overthrow capitalism … how could you possibly know their intent? Are you a mind reader?!?

  15. billie

    folks, this is not going away and the science doesn’t matter at all, this is our reality and if you are agin it, you’re just not going to get anywhere

    unless you enjoy bangng your head against a brick wall

    I’m not giving up, but there is a time to look at the situation and realise that it is what it is

    I’m going to enjoy what time we have left with high octane fuel and while race cars are still allowed in this world

  16. DaveR

    Total, utter, economic stupidity.

  17. Nob

    The latest thing by leftists is to pontificate on “costs to the economy” “costs to business” as if they ever had a clue.

    Nobody who knows anything is listening to these colossal wasters.

  18. That is where Tim Flannery works. Enough said.

  19. Spall

    OK, I get that business should act rationally and anticipate the opportunities (to tap into govt funds) in a somewhat less carbon-reliant economy, and possible risks of and benefits of climate change. Just as business should anticipate wars, recessions, botched regulation, El Niño events and housing bubbles.

    But what if the real opportunity is investing in the countries that aren’t decarbonising? Where does that fit in the framework?

  20. max

    Leithner Letter No. 237-240
    26 July – 26 October 2019

    A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

    As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday. Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study. ″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life …”

    UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone. Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis … The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years …

    U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
    Associated Press (30 June 1989)

    http://www.chrisleithner.ca/newsletter/index.php

  21. Mark M

    With the global cost of inaction on climate change projected to reach a staggering US$23 trillion a year by the end of the century (equivalent to around five 2008 global financial crises every year), several nations are already ramping up their Paris Agreement commitments ahead of schedule.
    The UK recently announced its intention to be carbon-neutral by 2050.

    Australia is particularly vulnerable to the future financial costs of [global warming], with economic models suggesting losses of A$159 billion a year through the impact of sea level rise and drought-driven collapses in agricultural productivity. The cost for each household has been put at about A$14,000.

    https://theconversation.com/sydney-declares-a-climate-emergency-what-does-that-mean-in-practice-119387

  22. Rohan

    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)

    I think I said this on another thread, but in an email from an energy broker stated that the current cost of contracted power is $140 per MWh (generation) leading into 2020.

    There is zero chance it will be $7 cheaper than $80 per MWh ever again.

  23. I_am_not_a_robot

    What with the GND, US states and local councils here declaring a ‘climate emergency’, May’s legacy zero-emissions legislation they are on a roll they think they finally have the wind in their sails.
    Anyone declaring that a temperature rise of ~1C above the coldest period in the past 8,000-10,000 years (LIA) is an ’emergency’ requires psychiatric assessment.

  24. steve

    When it all goes splat ( and it will ) in a grid-down situation, most of the useless inner city Lefties who have invented greenist/PC rubbish and implemented it, will die off first, as they have no practical clue on basic sanitation, bushcraft or medical stuff.

    As such, all we have to do is wait, then once the coast is clear, we reboot the grid and deal with anyone who tries to mess with it, with requisite methods. At that point, all options are on the table.

  25. Rob MW

    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.

    Tax eaters with no obligation to common sense or consequences.

  26. nb

    I can’t find Rafe’s post Madness of The University of Melbourne.
    Is it still available?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.