Last month Australians, weary of being battered by economy-killing climate policies, elected a new prime minister, one who’s a skeptic when it comes to the climate crisis and who actually thinks coal is a pretty good thing ~ This was a “climate change” election and Australians voted No ~
Australians want the Adani coal mine built and running. They also aren’t willing to vote for climate change action, even in some of the wealthiest inner city seats.
All the badly designed polls supporting “climate action” mislead the pundits. If only they had read skeptical blogs, they’d have known that people can tick the believer box free of charge, but when it costs, climate action always ranks at the bottom, and no one wants to pay for it themselves, not even $10 a month. If people don’t even pay for carbon flight offsets or donate to environmental causes, they certainly won’t consciously vote to lose jobs and spend billions.
Ultimately, even in 2019, more than half of all Australians don’t buy the UN climate scare. It was only 2017 when 60% of Australians said they were OK with dumping Paris if they could cut their electricity bills.
While the Aussie alarmists went into a hyperbolic meltdown over the election results, it appears the average citizen was more than fed up with endless power outages ~
Multiple widespread blackouts over a three-month period in South Australia were caused by the elimination of coal-fired power, 52% reliance on wind turbines, storms, grid instability, and an inability to predict weather conditions or peak power demand. In May 2019, they helped persuade Aussie voters to replace their climate-obsessed government with a conservative coalition that supports fossil fuels.
You’d think American politicians would be paying attention.
The last couple evenings we’ve been entertained by the Democrat presidential debates. Every candidate in the contest embraces the climate change hoax and believes in government-mandated regulations. Yet, as Paul Driessen points out that’s the surest way to shut down middle and blue-collar America ~
(F)actory workers, blue collar families and Middle America better pay very close attention to how climate change scare stories and proposed Green New Deal programs will impact their energy costs and reliability, jobs, living standards, mobility and personal choices. Warning signs abound.
Reflecting heavy dependence on wind and solar power, German and British electricity prices are already three to four times higher than what the vast majority of American households currently pay – and rising. The exorbitant prices have largely shuttered the UK’s aluminum industry and what’s left of its steel industry. Combined with ever-tougher carbon dioxide emission limits, factory operating costs similarly “threaten the very existence” of Germany’s automobile industry, Volkswagen’s CEO laments.
Nearly 350,000 German families have had their electricity cut off because they cannot afford to pay their power bills. German families and businesses had to cope with 172,000 localized blackouts in 2017. The country has banned fracking (hydraulic fracturing) and imports US coal and Russian natural gas.
In Britain more than 3,000 elderly people die every year because they cannot heat their homes properly, exposing them to constant chilly temperatures that make them more likely to contract and succumb to respiratory or heart disease. The situation is likely to get even worse. In stark contrast, abundant natural gas supplies from the fracking revolution have driven prices down in the USA, saving some 11,000 American lives each winter, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study.
Even if there really were a climate crisis, the harsh reality that the Green crusaders always fail to mention is that, no matter what western nations do to offset carbon emissions, the rest of the world will offset those efforts 10-fold with their own carbon ~
China, India and other overseas aluminum, steel and vehicle exporters to the EU and US face no climate-driven energy price or emission obstacles. The Paris Climate Agreement does not obligate them to reduce their fossil fuel use or emissions for decades to come, if ever. Indeed, China’s annual increase in “greenhouse gas” emissions is greater than Australia’s total annual nationwide emissions!
Asia’s total GHG emissions now dwarf the USA’s. So even total, painful, job-killing, economy-shackling elimination of US fossil fuels would do nothing to end the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Let’s hope American voters wise-up the way Australians did and reject the bloviating Democrats – and the GND, for the unnecessary nonsense it is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Related:
Australia’s voters reject environmental fantasies ~
Following the recent uprisings in Venezuela and France, the results of Australia’s May 18th election may have put California lawmakers on notice that California’s working class and blue collar voters may also be ready to express their opinions at the polls […]
Just like Australia, Californian’s working poor are especially hurt by the high cost of fuel and electricity. This demographic is the key constituency of the Democratic Party yet they are being left out in the cold air of disinformation. With the high costs of fuel and electricity and housing, it’s no wonder California continues to suffer the highest percentage of people in poverty, homeless and a welfare crisis that’s so acute it shocks the world.
Renewable Energy Rejection: Australia’s Election Result Demonstrates Demand for Reliable & Affordable Power
Australia’s election result: a reprieve not a recovery ~
Even if (Scott) Morrison’s LNC (Liberal/Naitonal Coalition) is inclined to seek expenditure cutting and deregulatory policies, it will remain constrained in the Parliament and by its own perception that voters oppose rolling back the nation’s costly climate-change policies. Though the government appears to support additional coal-fired electricity generation to offset the unreliability of wind and solar, the fact that such support is necessary in the first place speaks volumes about the sovereign risk imposed by the politics of energy.
