Australia's faunal extinction crisis:

AEF Submission to Senate Environment and Communications References Committee Inquiry into Faunal Extinction


1. Recognise that there is no species eradication crisis in Australia;

2. Protect existing property rights to the maximum extent possible and fully compensate landholders for regulatory imposts to promote biodiversity conservation;

3. Provide for equivalent biodiversity conservation offsets when regulating the clearing of land for economic development;

4. Remove any legal impediments to innovation in biodiversity conservation on privately owned land;

5. Minimise the use of 'command and control' regulation;

6. Cease incurring needless expenditure and limitations on private land-holders to address this matter. Where any limitations of land use are sought, owners should be fully compensated from the public purse;

7. Remove the impediments to markets for biodiversity conservation, including by paying landholders for specified conservation outcomes and allowing biodiversity conservation obligations to be traded;

8. Recognise that the cost effective means of addressing the residual species eradications that are deemed likely is to do so directly by devising measures to eradicate feral predators; 

9. Consider measures that will encourage the development of “exclosures” that eliminate feral species and prevent their reinfestation;

10. Review blanket bans on exports of certain species and instead consider mechanisms including ownership vesting to allow their harvesting. Remove the legal impediments to the commercial exploitation of Australian wildlife, including its ownership, use, domestic exchange, and exportation   Read here

The Bitter Fruit of a Bad Green Marriage

Quadrant Online, 10 September 2018

Comments from Josh Frydenberg and Mark Butler  show that neither the Liberals nor ALP understand – or, perhaps more accurately, admit to understanding how carbon policies are destroying the economy. Both promote variations on a theme: subsidies to renewables and penalties on coal, which together  have brought uncompetitive prices. Mr Butler even repeats the shibboleth that without the National Energy Guarantee and its thinly disguised carbon tax, electricity prices, as per the latest model’s fabrication, will cost consumers $550 per year.

Mainstream Australian politicians are responding to a dominant scientific paradigm that says reductions in carbon dioxide emissions will save the world. The science is settled and all that. Only a quarter of these emissions result from electricity production, so it’s not as if the sector’s transformation to renewables could ever be a solution in itself to the planet’s alleged peril. Yet these measures are widely represented by politicians and lobbyists alike as key. Abatement policies remain in place notwithstanding the trivial effect that Australian reductions might have, especially when the developing world is taking no action and the US has withdrawn from Paris. ..... Read more

Victorian Government contracts for renewable energy supplies

Catallaxy Files, 13 September 2018

Victoria has announced fifteen-year contract for wind and solar capacity amounting to 650 megawatts (the giant Loy Yang is 2,200 MW but renewables only provide about one third as much electricity per MW of capacity).  The price is said to be under $60 per MWH, while the state government also garners the subsidies paid by consumers under the Commonwealth’s renewable scheme.  The Commonwealth subsidies forward prices are running at about $20 per MWh.

In negotiating auctions, the Victorian government agreed to a poison pill clause that would prevent a Coalition successor unwinding the contracts without severe penalty.  If the contracts were as good as the government and its gushing media supporters maintain this would not be necessary.

If some of the forecasts paid for by the different proponents of renewable energy subsidies were to be realised the contracts have some superficial attraction. Two sets of future scenarios (by Jacobs) saw prices in the $70-90 per MWh range over the next decade (last year’s Victorian prices averaged $90 per MWH).  Less beneficial as regards the contracts themselves would the fantasy land forecasts of ACiL (under $50 per MWh for most of the 2020s) or Frontier (which saw prices dipping below $50 per MWh before rising to $70 plus later in the decade). ..... Read more

Modelling, Schmodelling - how to rationalise policies that would destroy the economy

In a reprise of the feeding of the 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes, the Energy Security Board has offered salvation for the Australian economy with the National Energy Guarantee (NEG).

A cunning scheme has been developed by the alphabet soup of acronymic agencies charged by the government to prepare a plan to regulate the electricity market. The objectives are to gradually remove the lowest cost (coal) generators, thereby reducing emissions, while lowering prices and raising reliability.  All at the same time!

Modelling commissioned by the quangos responsible for devising the policy forecasts great price reductions from what is a new version of the government regulatory interventions that have caused such distress over recent years.  The earlier modelling outputs projected similar bonanzas from the regulations their sponsors supported. No modeller picked the 2015-17 doubling of prices in the wake of the subsidies to renewable energy - and that's because the models assume the losses forced on (coal) generators from the subsidies to wind/solar will be carried indefinitely. 

Underlining the fragility of modelling, the “Guarantee” or emissions intensity carbon tax at the heart of it was estimated to result in a 2030 price of $115 per MWh by Jacobs in 2016, $52 by Frontier in 2017, $68 by Jacobs in 2017.  The latest modelling by ACIL Allen estimates the 2030 price to be $48 per MWh.

The rationale for the NEG is that it provides certainty on top of the supposed lower costs of wind/solar and as a result borrowing costs are lower and these get passed on in lower prices.  There are several problems with this

  • There is no way that the NEG will not be changed by a different government, even the same government if it sees a reason to do so.
  • Minister Frydenberg, in yet another leaked document, has signalled that the 10 year guarantee can be five years, undercutting the NEG’s supposed certainty.
  • The data underlying the ACIL Allen forecasts is inconsistent with the certainty driven by the NEG: all the new generation is rooftop solar which, if the ACCC report is to be accepted, will see the subsidies removed from 2021; there is no new fossil fuel generation and AGL is assumed to maintain its price-boosting decision to withdraw the Liddell power station from the market rather than sell it to a rival.

The ostensible rationale behind this new intervention is the reduction of greenhouse gases, (the reliability provisions are unnecessary as retailers will pay insurance, “firming contracts”, without regulatory direction). Even as a greenhouse abatement , the NEG, on its own numbers fails.  The model shows only a trivial reduction in emissions without the NEG because the costs of wind/solar are assumed to be cheap but not so much so that they can survive without the RET/carbon tax subsidies.

The farce is that this plan has nothing to do with climate change, its ostensible justification.  There is no provision for emission obligations to be sold overseas to accredited (ahem!) sources and very limited, if any, possibility of firms acquitting their requirements by paying other sectors to do so more cheaply. The plan is concocted to pursue a 30 year dream under which renewable energy, always on the cusp of commerciality, displaces all that archaic and politically incorrect energy derived from fossil fuels and uranium. 

See more at

Energy: Addicted to Waffle and Disaster Alan Moran

Like dogs with a taste for worrying sheep, politicians' destructive meddling with our energy regime appears to be a compulsion. As Australia's debacle grows ever more ruinously absurd and an election approaches, has it not occurred to them that betraying the flock invites summary justice?

Over the past year, we have seen the misnamed report into “energy security” by Chief Scientist Finkel, the ACCC’s report (“restoring electricity affordability”) — and now a new annual report by market operator AEMO.  These are in addition to a couple of dozen reviews into specific market-machinery matters and the regular reports from Code administrator AEMC, price and informational regulator AER, and AEMO. 

All these outputs derive from resources poured into government management of a sector to provide reports produced by people who are not participants in the actual supply and use of electricity.  Ostensibly, the reports are trying to undo the mistakes made by the predecessors of those currently in the regulatory chairs and their political masters, mistakes that have needlessly doubled the cost and reduced the reliability of electricity.  The market meddling, mainly the subsidising of renewables, has robbed Australia of its natural position as the home of the world’s cheapest power into the most expensive.

The latest AEMO report follows the now well-trodden path to disaster. See here for more

National Energy Guarantee Submission


Government policies, largely involving renewable subsidies, have caused Australian electricity costs and prices to escalate and to become among the highest in the world.  The NEG shifts the basis of the deleterious subsidy regime to become an emissions intensity scheme or carbon tax. 

Though ostensibly responsive to the Paris Agreement, the NEG is actually an industry policy proposal designed further to shift Australia to an “inevitable transition to a clean energy future”. 

On the basis of harmful and cripplingly expensive subsidies, renewables have much increased their market share.  But their on-going need for subsidies, as well as undermining the industry as a whole and increasing prices, indicates an on-going lack of commercial competitiveness. 

The NEG’s claim to bring about policy certainty is not credible:

  • The Paris Agreement is dysfunctional, applies to at best 20 per cent of global emissions and will inevitably collapse.
  • The political forces within Australia have vastly different aspirations for renewable energy and coal.

The NEG will not promote reliability since the absence of this is a consequence of the many interventions it seeks to pursue by alternative means.  In attempting to proceed along this well-trodden path many billions of dollars will be wasted and prices to households and businesses will remain cripplingly high.

The only sensible policy approach is for the government to unwind all subsidies and to call for tenders for new despatchable electricity generation on the basis of long term contracts. 

All these issues aside the NEG is seriously remiss, even within its own framework because it:

  • Does not reduce emissions at least cost.
  • Discriminates in favour of some electricity customers and suppliers in favour of others.

Read submission here


Property Rights Can Help Save Biodiversity

The US Property and Environmental Research Centre has shown how assigning property rights to protected species helped turn a hazardous landfill into a conservation bank that provides valuable habitat for endangered species. 

The US Endangered Species Act often makes developers offset the impacts of a development on endangered species. Historically such offsets have generally involved the enhancement and conservation of nearby habitat but these mitigations have proven to be time-consuming, expensive, and do not guarantee success.

Entrepreneurs have come up with a potentially better approach. They create a for-profit conservation bank to take over a developer's liability to mitigate specific biodiversity impacts. The conservation bank then purchases land to be conserved and managed to benefit of the species in question.  The bank ensures that this benefit is sustained over the long term by incorporating a conservation easement into the land title and setting up an endowment to pay for habitat maintenance and monitoring.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service issues credits to conservation banks for conservation or restoration of specific habitats. The banks can sell the credits to developers who thereby avoid having to do the conservation work themselves. For several years this model has helped mitigate biodiversity impacts associated with wetlands and creeks.  


Wetlands Research Associates (WRA) — a leading developer of conservation banks — has further developed the biodiversity conservation model with its redevelopment of Ridge Top Ranch in northern California—see the photo above.  The 301-hectare cattle property is now valued at A$24 million largely because of its wildlife credits. Prior to redevelopment, it was a net liability due to its proximity to a hazardous waste dump.  

The wildlife credits flowed from the introduction of an endangered frog species and habitat protection for a species of butterfly at Ridge Top Ranch, which WRA had identified as commercial opportunities prior to redevelopment.

Tony Abbott to Give Lecture, Melbourne, 3 July 2018


The Hon. Tony Abbott—the former Prime Minister and current Member of the House of Representatives—will give the second Bob Carter Commemorative Lecture.

The Lecture will be held at CQ Functions in the  Melbourne CBD, on Tuesday, 3 July 2018, starting at 5:30pm.

The AEF established the lecture series to commemorate the life and work of Bob Carter, an AEF Director and its Scientific Adviser at the time of his death in 2016.  

Our Events page has more details. Bookings should be made through Eventbrite [link here].

Australians Suffer, Big Emitters Get Free Pass on GHGs

The Australian 3 April 2018, Alan Moran

Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg’s tour de force at the National Press Club  and his opinion piece  yesterday show a man on top of his brief and using it to smite the ALP and the Greens as well as those on his own side promoting direct investment to counter the continued damage being done by renewable energy subsidies.

Renewable subsidies have caused a doubling of wholesale prices by forcing the premature closure of coal generators. Requiring electricity retailers to buy wind and solar energy, soon to be 23 per cent of supply on the way to 40 per cent, gives them a subsidy of $80 per megawatt hour on top of the market price of $85/MWh. That market price was $40/MWh before renewables forced the closure of key power stations such as Victoria’s Hazelwood and the Northern in South Australia.

The minister cited data showing that renewable subsidies were costing electricity consumers $60 a year but, on top of that, by raising all wholesale prices, they had increased the burden by another $300 a year. And the burden on businesses is far greater since firms’ wholesale component of electricity costs is much higher than that of households. Frydenberg’s message is that we must advance cautiously towards a renewable energy future, the certainty of which he endorses on grounds of increased cost competitiveness of renewables and public and diplomatic pressures to abandon coal. With respect to the supposed inevitable march to renewables competitiveness, proclaimed but unfulfilled for 35 years, he allows himself a touch of scepticism when he says: “It has always struck me as paradoxical that the first to say renewables are cost competitive are often the loudest to call for another round of subsidies.”

The bedrock of future policy is the 2015 Paris Agreement, under which nations agreed to take action on their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a large share of which come from electricity generation.

In Australia’s case this entails a cut in emissions by 26 per cent by 2030. However, the Paris Agreement places no obligations on developing countries, responsible for 55 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, US President Donald Trump has disavowed the agreement and is promoting a US fossil fuel energy resurgence. The US is another 15 per cent of global emissions, meaning disciplines are on less than 30 per cent of the total. If Trump’s policies reinvigorate the US, others will adopt his low-cost energy approach. Two other major emitters, Canada and Japan, showed no compunction about reneging on the Kyoto Agreement, the forerunner of Paris, once the going got tough.

Australia achieved its Kyoto target not by curtailing fossil fuel use but by putting a stop to land clearance (without compensating farmers). The government’s proposed way forward is the national energy guarantee, which it says is “not a new tax, subsidy or emission trading scheme”.

While the details of the NEG have not yet been devised, it has two components. The first is a mechanism by which the greenhouse gas emissions for electricity will be specified. Suppliers will be allocated targets. Unless renewable energy suddenly becomes cost-competitive, this will force the market to provide growing payments for renewable energy to foster its increased supply. This component is, in short, a cost-enhancing subsidy from coal and gas generators to renewable generators — an emissions trading scheme.

Superimposed on this is another mechanism that will force the non-dispatchable electricity sources (wind and solar) to have back-up supply. Frydenberg has previously estimated the cost of this at $16/MWh. For the most part, this provision is unnecessary since the risk management departments of retailers already insist their wholesale purchasers buy such insurance against non-delivery by wind and solar.

The issue of supply security and price is uppermost in the battleground over the proposed closure of AGL’s Liddell power station in NSW’s Hunter Valley and the calls from some Coalition MPs for direct investment in new coal-fired generators.

The government is resisting such calls but is leaning heavily on AGL to keep Liddell open. The firm’s claims that its alternative investments will be superior just do not pass the credibility test. AGL has said it needs policy certainty. Prominent ALP spokesman Nicholas Reece made it clear on Wednesday night that a Shorten government would not permit Liddell’s closure before 2025.

The long-term answer to restoring to Australia the world’s lowest cost electricity price is to abandon all subsidies, ensure profits of long-lived assets are not undermined by future subsidies to their competitors and to prevent demonstrators sabotaging new developments. But with a 20-year history of government meddling in the electricity industry, how do we get there from here?

Alan Moran, author of Climate Change: Treaties and Policies in the Trump Era, is with Regulation Economics.

Courts Refuse to Protect Private Property Rights

Last week, the Federal Court confirmed that property rights in Australia are held at the whim of governments.  The Court was hearing an appeal in the Peter Spencer case.

This is an issue I covered on several previous occasions, for example hereherehere and here.

In a nutshell, Peter Spencer was a NSW farmer whose land was devalued from a worth of $9 million to $2 million by the regulatory actions of the NSW government which progressively reduced what he might do on the land.  In the end, the NSW government offered to buy his land for the $2 million – its devalued worth stemming from its regulatory actions – but Mr Spencer rejected this.  The government’s actions were unquestionably “takings” of Mr Spencer’s property rights.  But, according to the original judgement, he was due no compensation and the offer by the NSW government was therefore generous!

The whole case has far reaching ramifications.  Many of those 19th Century jurists discussing the establishment of the Australian Constitution were of the view that property rights were so enshrined in the common law that no explicit provisions, akin to the US Bill of Rights, were necessary to attest to this.  Provisions against uncompensated takings of property are not in state law but the Commonwealth constitution had Article 51 (XXIII) saying the Commonwealth could not take property without offering “just terms” to its owners.

Mr Spencer’s strategy was to seek compensation from the Commonwealth on the grounds that the actions by the NSW Government were taken at the behest of the Commonwealth, which sought to prevent land clearing in order to suppress the emissions of greenhouse gases.  This allowed Australia to meet the terms of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (which was ratified with Kevin Rudd in 2007 but which the Coalition Government had signed and were seeking to meet).

Under the Kyoto Protocol Australia agreed to limit its emissions of greenhouse gas to an eight per cent increase by 2012.  Land clearing restrictions reduced Australian emissions by 110 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (about a fifth of total emissions), without which Australian emissions in 2012 would have seen a 21 per cent increase.

Some other governments (notably Japan and Canada) failed to meet their own commitments and gained some international opprobrium as a result.  The Canadian government had been urged to follow the Australian example of preventing land clearing to meet its obligations but determined that such measures would be unconscionable.

In seeking to use the Commonwealth Constitution as a route to “just terms” compensation, Mr Spencer presented evidence showing that Premiers Beattie and Carr had proudly proclaiming how their actions in preventing land clearances had enabled the meeting of the Kyoto commitments.  He also maintained that Dr David Kemp, as the Commonwealth Environment Minister, withheld money from NSW until it became more aggressive in stopping the land clearing that was essential if the Kyoto commitments were to be met.  Dr Kemp acknowledged he had communicated such matters to the NSW Government.

The original federal court decision which was upheld by the appeals court was that the takings by the NSW government were not related to the Commonwealth’s wishes and the judge noted that such (uncompensated) takings had been underway since at least 1972.

While the case is not major of itself, it applies widely across Australia and Barnaby Joyce suggested that the expropriation of farmers for the carbon sequestration alone had cost them $200 billion. This figure (which was not contested in the Parliament) was arrived at by comparing land values where regulation prevented productive use, to values of land that was unaffected.

So there we have it.  Although benefitting in accolades from the domestic and international community for meeting its Kyoto commitments, the Commonwealth was found not to have been sufficiently collusive with the property seizures of a state government for it to be held liable for compensation.

But the wider issue is the apparent untrammelled right of state governments to seize private property through regulatory measures without compensation.  A fundamental role of the government to protect private property rights has been seen since John Locke as  crucial to modern civilisation.

Nobody, until the onset of socialist parties, would have envisaged that democratic constitutions would have allowed the governments themselves to have been the instigators of property theft.  Now the highest courts of law justify it.

Deregulate Energy Market & Return to Coal: Alan Moran, The Australian, 22 Feb 2018

The catastrophic outcome of government energy market interventions is palpably clear. As the latest new regulatory body, the Energy Security Board, diplomatically puts it: “Fifteen years of climate policy instability … (have) left our energy system vulnerable to escalating prices while being both less reliable and secure.”

Australia has seen electricity prices double since 2015 and the once reliable supply is now suspect. From enjoying the world’s lowest cost electricity a decade ago, Australia now has among the most expensive.

The main cause has been subsidies and regulatory favours to renewable energy — chiefly wind — that have forced the closure of reliable coal-fired generators, particularly Northern in South Australia and Hazelwood in Victoria. Without these subsidies, costing about $5 billion a year, there would be no wind or solar.

Not only are customers and taxpayers slugged with the subsidy costs but the outcome also has been to raise prices and reduce reliability. A new Australian coal plant would produce electricity at about $50 a megawatt hour. A new wind farm can produce electricity, at best, at $110/MWh and its present subsidy is about $85/MWh. Solar is about twice the cost of wind Fundamentally, the cost disadvantage of wind and solar stems from their low “energy density”. To get the equivalent energy from a standard 500MW coal generation unit requires 300 wind generators or 900,000 solar panels, and storage or back-up capacity is required to offset the inherent unreliability of energy sources dependent on the vagaries of the weather.

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg put the cost of this at $16/MWh, an optimistic estimate even with the government’s 23.5 per cent renewable target. Wind farm entrepreneur Simon Holmes a Court recently argued on this page that the world is abandoning coal for electricity generation.

Australia’s booming coal exports testify to the ludicrous nature of such statements. In fact, according to Greenpeace’s data, China has 300,000MW of new coal plant under way, increasing its capacity by a third; Japan has 20,000MW, which also would raise capacity by a third; while India has plans for an additional 148,000MW, adding 65 per cent to its capacity. Australian coal generating capacity is about 25,000MW. The US has no new coal generators planned. This is partly a legacy of Barack Obama, who declared his policies would bankrupt any new coal generators, and partly because of the US boom in gas and oil production. Due to fracking, a technology largely banned in Australia, the US has gas at less than half the Australian price, making it cheaper than coal for new electricity generation.

Holmes a Court was correct in drawing attention to the costly failures of “carbon capture and storage”, the global propaganda arm for which is largely financed by the Australian government, and of high-energy, low-emissions coal power stations. These technologies reduce carbon dioxide emissions but involve add-on costs.

The Minerals Council of Australia, anxious to retain the support of BHP, has promoted low emission technologies. For internal reasons, BHP supports renewables and opposes coal generation in Australia notwithstanding its dependence on international coal sales and cheap energy generally. The firm’s promotion of renewable energy confronted the reality of this with high fuel costs for its Olympic Dam mine in wind-dependent South Australia. It also took a $137 million hit from the 2016 wind-induced collapse of SA’s power system.

Many firms support renewable policies out of self-interest. Revenue from subsidies is itself valuable and, in addition, coal generators, as Origin Energy’s half-year results last week showed, are earning huge profits from the doubled wholesale price. Others are conscripted to support renewables for PR reasons, as part of what German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann has called a “spiral of silence”, where a loud and confident group is perceived to be majority opinion, leading others to acquiesce in much of its message.

The ESB has been tasked with creating an electricity market blueprint that marries lower carbon dioxide emissions with lower costs and greater reliability. This is an impossible task and would require massive new regulatory interventions. The ESB’s proposals envisage creating a market combining emissions and energy in which every retailer and generator would need to participate. They would add new dimensions of complexity to electricity supply, bringing a further proliferation of administrative resources within the bureaucracy and the industry.

Envisaging such further controls as bringing improved efficiency represents a triumph of hope over experience. We can restore our latent competitiveness in cheap energy only by abandoning all the intrusions and distortions that are in place. Donald Trump has achieved success from such an approach and we may have to await full recognition of this before our politicians adopt similar deregulatory policies.

The South Australian election has temporarily benched the political struggle over water use in the Murray-Darling.

That region, responsible for over 35 per cent of Australia’s agricultural output, has become a political football with farmers facing pressure from greens and green academics. In 1995, around 11,000 of the system’s 32,000 gigalitres were allocated to farmers (about 2,500 gigalitres is for drinking water) when state governments agreed to issue no more irrigation licences.

Green activists then orchestrated hysterical claims focussing on the state of the river. “Our continent is falling apart”, said the catastropharian Tim Flannery-led “Wentworth Group of concerned scientists”. Other bloodcurdling assertions claimed, “salt is destroying the rivers and land like a cancer”, and that animals and plants were facing extinction.

None of this was true – land salinity, for example, affects only 0.4 per cent of Australia, almost all of it due to natural salt outcrops. And, a century of Murray-Darling dam building and the accompanying management has replaced the irregular, salt infused waterway that the explorer like Charles Sturt found in the 1820s, with today’s continuously flowing river.

In addition to being driven by green fictions, the Murray-Darling water policy also seeks to ensure freshwater in the lakes at the Murray mouth. Ironically, that water allocation actually modifies nature by feeding lakes would be naturally salt water some of the time – and at a cost of some $7.5 billion!

Green activists and their academic supporters have continuously raised the ante on the amount of water they want to take from farmers to remedy concocted environmental ills. In 2002 they sought 1,500 gigalitres of irrigators’ water (14 per cent of the total) and the Howard Government settled for 450 gigalitres.

The millennial drought brought now disproven claims that rainfall was diminishing. Water for irrigators was reduced by 2,750 (25 per cent of the previous allocation) in 2012. Current discussions are whether to make this 2,300 or to continue strangling the food bowl by raising it to 3,400 gigalitres. Meanwhile the green activists are already preparing the ground for taking back 7,000 gigalitres, almost two thirds of irrigators’ water.

Unsurprisingly, the reduced availability of water has contributed to a rise in its price – after adjusting for inflation it now sells for 2-4 times what it did 20 years ago.

Attracted by such high values and by government funded buyouts, many farmers have, understandably, been complicit by selling water rights for unproductive uses to the detriment of agriculture generally.

Water is crucial to all agriculture and irrigation is the only way its steady availability can be ensured in much of Australia, the world’s driest continent. If 20 or 40 per cent of water is taken from Murray Darling irrigators, their production potential in Australia’s most important agricultural province will be close to 20 or 40 per cent lower.

This is especially significant since politicians often trumpet the great agricultural opportunities presented by booming Asian economies. But they fail to make the connection between supplying these markets and the regulations they impose preventing farmers from providing that supply.

Regulations are throttling the Murray Darling region. The rest of Australia which supplies goods and services to the area faces consequent losses but most politicians are either asleep at the wheel or part of the problem. A

JCU Trying to Gag Debate over GBR Science


Prof. Peter Ridd—a marine scientist whose research focusses on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and an AEF Director—is literally fighting for his professional life trying to improve the quality of GBR research, to which the Australian taxpayer contributes over $100 million per year. 

For some time Prof. Ridd has been publicly and repeatedly critical of the quality of much of this research and has championed practical ways to improve it.  In mid-2016 James Cook University (JCU) in Townsville—his employer—conducted a formal investigation, found him guilty of 'not acting in a collegial manner'—even though he did not name those whose work he had criticised—and gave him a formal censure for 'academic misconduct'.

Prof. Ridd was cautioned he would be sacked if he did not desist.  He is not prepared to do so, however, because he knows just how critical vigorous debate is to rigorous science. 

In an interview with Alan Jones on Sky News on 1 August 2017, he warned, "We can no longer trust the scientific organisations, like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, even things like the ARC [Australian Research Council] Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies."

"The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame because we really need to be able to trust our scientific institutions and the fact is I do not think that we can any more."

In the wake of this interview, JCU launched a second investigation for academic misconduct, found Prof. Ridd guilty once more, and issued him with a 'final censure'.   

None of Prof. Ridd's criticisms are in the least surprising to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the replication crisis convulsing science around the world. That crisis has been  precipitated by the routine failure of scientists to replicate results that have been published in peer-reviewd journals. It has been extensively reported by leading media outlets, acknowledged by editors of leading scientific journals—including Nature and The Lancet—and confirmed by a survey of over 1,500 scientists in all the major disciplines.            

JCU could have acted like a real university and facilitated a debate on the issues raised by Prof. Ridd. Instead JCU is trying to gag him. It has instructed him to remain silent, not only about his scientific criticisms, but also about the JCU disciplinary processes, how they have been conducted, and the official censures that JCU has issued to him.

Prof. Ridd has launched a legal action against JCU in the Federal Court to protect his ability to speak out about these issues. As he will need something like $120,000 to fund the case, he has launched an appeal for donations at GoFundMe [has an embedded hyperlink to the appeal].  Any surplus will be donated to the AEF Bob Carter Memorial Fund.

We invite AEF supporters—and everyone who values rigorous science, academic freedom and freedom of speech—to contribute. 

For more background on the case, Prof. Ridd has created a dedicated website [has an embedded hyperlink to].

Finkel Reforms to Governance of Electricity Market

Among the many counter-productive recommendations the Finkel report offered was an increase in the electricity market’s “governance”.  This is a demand for even more of the political tinkering which, in the space of just 15 years, transformed the Australian electricity industry from the cheapest in the world to one of the dearest. Distortionary subsidies to renewable energy, which have also undermined reliability, are paramount in this.  

Finkel decided that renewables are inevitable (which is why Malcolm Turnbull appointed him) and commissioned economic research to demonstrate that this is so. By torturing the data the modelling managed to show prices would be lower if we replace low cost coal generated electricity by high cost wind and solar!  

See more from this piece by ALAN MORAN in Quadrant

AEF Petitions US: Withdraw from Paris Agreement

AEF joined 41 other think tanks who joined together in a letter to Donald Trump urging him to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Change Treaty.  The letter's lead sponsor was Myron Ebell from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who headed up the President's transition team on the environment.  All institutions other than AEF are US based.

The text of the letter suggests the following alternatives to President Trump.  

First, you could submit the Paris Climate Treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent with a recommendation that the treaty not be ratified. Submitting the treaty to the Senate would return us to and restore the proper constitutional method for treaty-making and require a future administration to go through proper procedures if it were to attempt to rejoin the treaty.

Second, you could withdraw from the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This action would also achieve your commitment to “stop all payments of the United States tax dollars to UN global warming programs,” including the Green Climate Fund, which is a part of the UNFCCC.

Third, you could announce your intention to withdraw the U. S. from the Paris Climate Treaty according to the four-year schedule specified in the treaty and continue the process of repealing the regulations that the previous administration submitted as part of its NDC. This option is the least preferable because it runs the risk of legitimizing the Obama administration’s false claim that the treaty is merely an executive agreement.

The undersigned organizations believe that withdrawing completely from Paris is a key part of your plan to protect U.S. energy producers and manufacturers from regulatory warfare not just for the next four years but also for decades to come. We will strongly support your decision to keep your campaign commitment to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty. READ LETTER


Submission to 2017 Review of Climate Change Policies

Pursuit of policies designed to suppress emissions of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” is severely harming the Australian economy with no compensatory environmental benefits.  We address this in the context of energy, land clearing and forestry.  

In the case of energy, measures taken to suppress carbon dioxide emissions have been centred on regulations to promote renewable electricity supply (especially wind and solar).  These have, over the past 15 years, transformed Australia from having one of the world’s cheapest electricity supplies to one of the most expensive.  This takes a direct toll on household bills.  But far more damaging is its indirect costs in undermining what once comprised the key national comparative advantage of cheap energy inputs.  Policies forcing higher energy costs destroyed cost advantages across manufacturing, mining and agriculture to the great detriment of living standards .... READ MORE

Submission: Impact of Climate Change on Marine Fisheries & Biodiversity

Australia’s fishing industry has greatly underperformed both in the catch of wild fish and in aquaculture. Australia could easily accommodate a tenfold expansion of aquaculture, currently worth $1 billion a year. It is prevented from doing so by the regulatory intrusions.
It is barely conceivable that human induced climate change, if it is taking place, could have an effect on fish numbers in the oceans – fish swim and plants also migrate in response to changing conditions. If there were to be any net effect of climate change it would be a shift in the locations of different species.  Read more

Review:“The Anthropocene Equation” by Gaffney & Steffen 

This paper claims to represent the disruption of the climate system by humans in the form of a mathematical equation and then warns that the climate could reach a totally new dangerous equilibrium point very different from any climate that the earth has ever experienced in the past. The authors claim to prove that all non-human effects on the “earth system” add to zero, i.e there are presently no natural fluctuations in climate. It is concluded that human induced changes in the biosphere could be discernible on earth for millions of years. 

To an audience that does not understand mathematics, the equation
     𝑑𝐸 𝑑𝑇 = 𝑓(𝐻) 
(where  H = f(P, C, T) , T = f (En, K, Pe) and A, G and I tend to zero)  may give an impression of sophistication and precision, however it is effectively meaningless and not useful in any way. 

Where maths is used to model natural or manmade systems the variables in the equations must represent some measurable quantity which will have a tangible unit of measurement. Physicists, for example, will measure mass in kilograms, and energy in Joules and the production of energy is given by the equation E = mc2 where c is the speed of light (measured in meters per second). Engineers and economists will use maths in a similar way and variables will always represent real measurable quantities. 

By contrast the single equation in this paper uses undefinable and unmeasurable variables which are combined in a completely unspecified manner to produce an equation that predicts nothing and has no conceivable possibility for validation. All of the variables represent nebulous ideas such as “political economy” “Technosphere” and “Knowledge” , given the symbols Pe , T and K respectively, that may look impressive enough to convince an unwitting journalist that this is real mathematics. Unlike E = mc2, which can be checked by measurement and has survived the test of time, the “anthropogenic equation” cannot be checked because none of the variables are measurable. It thus uses pseudo-mathematics to produce pseudo-science. It is as meaningless as the answer to “life the universe and everything” which according to The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is 42. 
Prof Peter Ridd
Physics Department
James Cook University

Loon in...Turn on...Black out

Finkel has no answers to resolving his task of decarbonisation, energy security and low cost electricity, and he won't find them on his foreshadowed trip to Denmark and Ireland.

There is only one solution. We must unwind the subsidies and regulatory interventions that have created the problems. Governments spend or impose regulatory costs like the renewable subsidies that amount to about $5 billion a year.  These are poisoning the economy as well as costing each household $500 per year.  We need politicians to announce that all subsidies to energy will be removed immediately and that there will no longer be any favouring of particular power sources. Only then will we see the supply system convalescing and recovering so that it once again provides the cheapest electricity in the world and all that entails for living standards. Read more

Submission on Preliminary Report of Finkel Inquiry

The Independent Inquiry into Future Security of the National Electricity Market (the Finkel Inquiry) issued its Preliminary Report in December 2016.  The Preliminary Report has:

  •  inaccurately assessed the Australian electricity market;
  •  misunderstood the nexus between global and national climate change politics and electricity markets;
  •  failed fully to recognise the costs being imposed on the market as a result of increasing levels of  renewable energy and other greenhouse gas abatement policies; and  
  •  offered guidance that is inappropriate for the market’s future development.    

The report canvassed different options, but of the seven themes identified as showing a future path, only one of these ”Prices have risen substantially in the past five years” can be said unambiguously to be true.  Most of the others are palpably false and even the one correct theme is not necessarily a guide to the future unless the policies that have been pursued over the past 16 years continue to be kept in place.  READ MORE