Here's my summary of what's made headlines overnight, with news President Donald Trump has announced the US will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. He’s stuck to his guns, saying the landmark agreement is harming the economy.
It could take the US - the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases - nearly four years to complete its withdrawal. This essentially means a final decision will be up to American voters in the next election.
The New South Wales Government is introducing new measures to level the playing field between first-home buyers and property investors. From next month it’ll broaden the criteria for stamp duty exemptions, enabling first-home buyers to save up to around A$25,000. At the same time, it’ll hiked its stamp duty surcharge for investors and removed some concessions available to those who buy off the plan.
On the supply side, the government will give local councils interest rate subsidies for borrowing for eligible projects. It’ll also spend an additional A$3 billion on infrastructure to boost housing supply.
London-based investors in Australia's banks are fretting a number of changes in housing market policies could create a sharp property market correction. ANZ chief executive Shayne Elliott says investors are also worried high household debt have lifted housing market risk. The Aussie banks rely on foreign investors to fund the A$400 billion gap between domestic deposits and overall lending to the economy.
China's factory activity has contracted for the first time in 11 months. The Caixin Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) shows output and new orders slowed, while companies shed jobs in May.
In spite of this, China’s central bank has guided the yuan to its biggest one-day jump in five months. This is the latest sign authorities are trying to bolster the currency in the wake of Moody’s downgrading China's credit rating.
Contrary to China, manufacturing activity in the likes of India, Japan and Europe were strong in May. In fact, Eurozone manufacturing employment rose at a record pace according to HIS Markit. The boost was mainly driven by stronger expansion in Germany, where the rate of increase was the fastest in over six years.
Manufacturing activity also grew in the US in May, with the overall economy growing for the 96th consecutive month according to ISM. Backing this up, ADP data shows private payrolls added 253,000 jobs in May.
Markets will be paying close attention to whether the non-farm payrolls report out overnight gives the Federal Reserve the ammunition it needs to hike interest rates in the US.
In New York, the UST 10yr yield has inched up to 2.22%.
The US crude benchmark oil price remains at US$48 a barrel, while the Brent benchmark is at US$50.
The gold price slid back a little to US$1,266/oz.
The New Zealand dollar remains strong at 70.6 USc. It's continued to strengthen to 95.7 AU¢ and has dropped back a touch to 63.0 euro cents. The TWI-5 index is at 75.1.
If you want to catch up with all the changes yesterday, we have an update here.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
95 Comments
Oh Australia (and New Zealand)....why did you have to blow such massive bubbles!?!
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/06/10-years-economic-blunders-com…
Blame it all on China?
China’s PMI’s were uniformly disappointing with respect to what Moody’s was on about last week. Chinese authorities expended great effort and resources to get the economy moving forward again after several years of “dollar”-driven deceleration. There was a massive “stimulus” spending program where State-owned FAI expenditures of about 2% of GDP were elicited to make up for Private FAI that at one point last year was actually contracting. In addition, the PBOC has pushed the limits of de-dollarizing China all in the attempt at rectifying monetary contraction that it thought handled (with traditional cuts) in 2015.
With that background, a sluggish improvement in 2017 over 2016 is actually no improvement at all. I know that I keep writing the same thing over and over (and over and over), but until it stops being true that’s all I can put down. With the cyclical nature of any upswing combined with so much “stimulus”, lackluster is truly disappointing especially more than a year past the most recent trough. I believe that more than anything was the driving message of Moody’s downgrade.
The more time passes, the less it looks like there is any plausible pathway to regain 2011-type economic momentum let alone pre-crisis growth rates. That’s a problem for a country stuffed with credit, most of which was initiated on the premise that China’s “miracle” was only temporarily delayed by a Great “Recession”; a permanent state of low and uneven growth is an entirely more risky situation.
That is what the PMI’s are suggesting for May 2017, just as they have for years. Since 2012, the aftermath of the “dollar” events in 2011, there is only the intermittent exchange of signs; low growth gives way to shallow contraction and then back again. China’s “official” manufacturing PMI, the NBS version, seems to have up to now stalled out at the point right around where it did in 2014. Read more
"If you do not already have your dough parked offshore then do it. If you are long Aussie equity, get long bonds instead. If you are long property then visit your priest.
Australia is about to decouple completely from the global reflation. Get your money out."
Oh dear.
Oh dear the poor, misunderstood, horribly maligned banking investors are worried that their easy money might be under threat!
I like the look of what the Aussies are doing. It makes some sense whilst not kicking all the legs out from under the market. Trouble is the investor and banking reaction may create effects that make the situation a lot worse.
Laughable. It's the ecoloon Paris agreementeers that want to go back to 1965. A factoid often quietly overlooked by the MSM. Unless you have figured out a way to get by with a fraction of todays agriculture, energy and industry?
“To hit the Paris climate goals without geoengineering, the world has to do three broad (and incredibly ambitious) things:
1) Global CO2 emissions from energy and industry have to fall in half each decade. That is, in the 2020s, the world cuts emissions in half. Then we do it again in the 2030s. Then we do it again in the 2040s. They dub this a “carbon law.”
2) Net emissions from land use — i.e., from agriculture and deforestation — have to fall steadily to zero by 2050. This would need to happen even as the world population grows and we’re feeding ever more people.
3) Technologies to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere have to start scaling up massively, until we’re artificially pulling 5 gigatons of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere by 2050 — nearly double what all the world’s trees and soils already do.”
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/23/15028480/roadmap-pa...
It could happen. There is a (literally) quiet revolution going on in battery storage technology.
If we don't at least try, then we are screwing the environment for future generations.
Try test driving an electric vehicle one day; no emissions, no noise, faster acceleration, more reliable, far more efficient and far cheaper to run.
Great if storage tech does happen. Meanwhile get some perspective. It was was warming naturally at 0.16 degrees per decade 1910-1945 with 1/7 of industry today. The satellite era is running at 0.11/degrees per decade. So if we follow Paris we bring industry and energy CO2 emission back to 1945 levels for a paltry 0.17 degrees by 2100. It's margin of error stuff given the natural pre WW2 interglacial warming.
Inter glacial warming - get used to it.
"Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. "
At last a politician who actually keeps a campaign promise. Come 2100 it is going to be the US portion of 0.17 degrees warmer. I hope the children will be ok. And spare a thought for those on the chicken little gravy train missing out.
“In a best-case, overly optimistic scenario it will cut global temperatures by just 0.17°C (0.3°F) by 2100.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2015/12/07/whats-the-price-ta…
Don't see a small rise as any great issue - we still have a way to go to reach medieval warm period temperatures around 1300. Warmer, wetter, higher CO2 makes for more food production needed to feed the ever expanding world population in itself a far greater threat to the planet than a 0.0001 part change in a minor warming atmospheric gas.
I think a large part of the concern for even moderate rises in temperature and wetness, are the associated rises in sea level. It wouldn't take much of a rise in sea levels for a lot of prime western world real estate to be under water. New York is at particular risk.
Interestingly, even in very high sea levels rises, New Zealand will be much less damaged than many other countries.
My view is that a lot of the northern hemisphere warming is driven by particulates ie pollution of which there is no doubt will cause melting vs the lack of warming in the Antarctic which argues for anthropogenic warming - but not predominantly CO2
A good reason to get rid of coal longer term all the while remembering when the poor of India have no choices - coal is the cheapest 24 hr electricity option for many years to come
JB. Google "Global Dimming", it's believed that pollution/smog is COOLING the planet by reflecting the sun. When all the planes stopped flying over USA (9/11) for 3 days, the medium temps over 5000 recording sites in USA showed a temp increase of just over 1C. It dropped back when the planes were back flying. In other words, if we stop polluting & stopped planes, globally temps may rise dramatically. The problem of course is that smog particles break down within weeks, were as CO2 takes like 100yrs or so. Flightradar24.com will give you an idea of what 60% of the worlds airborne planes looks like.
Sea level rises? What a joke.
1. Do this experiment at home. Get a glass. Put some ice cubes in it, then fill with water. Draw a line around the glass where the water is. Wait until the ice cubes melt then look at the water level.
2. Take a look at the Aral sea, the Ganges, etc... The water is disappearing due to irrigation, farming, and overpopulation. Same thing happening in the South Island rivers. Point being - we are removing far more water from the system than will ever be put back in.
3. Freemantle has the oldest tidal gauge in the world, over the last 100 years the data showed a sea level rise - however once properly examined - it was proven that it was coastal subsidence that caused the changes.
4. Kaikoura ring a bell? 7m extra of coastline in a few minutes.
Yes Maldives are going under, but islands comes and go all the time. We claim humans are great adapters, so adapt and move.
I don't deny climate change is happening in some form. But thinking we are going to see mutant Kevin Costners sailing around in Waterworld is just plain crazy.
The limit to your ineptitude still has not been found, huh?
"1. Do this experiment at home. Get a glass. Put some ice cubes in it, then fill with water. Draw a line around the glass where the water is. Wait until the ice cubes melt then look at the water level."
You have never heard of thermal expansion, before?
Do you want an experiment so as you can prove this, at home?
Well aware, but as pointed out we as a planet are taking more water out the system than putting in. We will eventually need that water to not be frozen at the poles.
Man made climate change is a minor, minor, component of our destruction of the planet. The ecosystem isn't currently suffering due to CO2 and temperatures.
We are deforesting, stripping, consuming, and killing everything at a far faster rate than a few CO2 emissions ever will. At this rate, by the time the temp goes up 1c we will have no forests, fish, drinking water, or mega-fauna (outside of those that are farmed).
But fine - you keep worring about CO2.
As a final point - sea levels (if they do rise) will be at a very gradual rate - we are not going to see 20FT increases overnight. We claim humans are smart and adaptable - so adapt, is it really hard to move back a block or two from the coast - don't expect a few sea walls, and other engineering fantasies to stop Mother Nature.
Ah, the good old you provide evidence, but I don't have to provide any counter evidence other than making a statement post.
I am not saying thermal expansion is irrelevant. I am saying his post is.
So I ask you, can you please explain in your view, how his post encourages rational, open debate?
He provides no counter argument to any of my points, no views of his own. Nothing other than a question about whether I have I heard of thermal expansion. Which I could have answered with a simple "yes" - wow enlightening.
My lack of evidence for a fundamental principle of thermodynamics?
And a very key element of you debating that sea level rise won't occur because ice takes up a greater volume than water at a given equilibrium temperature?
C'mon. Entertain us. It's Friday.
Being categorically wrong has never stopped you from arguing, before..
Nor you it should be noted.
That was but one element of my post. But hey get hung up on that one bit. Bleat on about it until Kingdom Come, then crow you were right when temperatures rise after we have felled the last tree, eaten the last fish, and spilled the last of the fresh water.
I bet being right never felt so good.
Ice floating in the oceans (like ice cubes in a glass) is not going to cause sea levels to rise, BUT ice on land masses such as Greenland & Antarctica will cause sea levels to rise as it melts and pours into the oceans. (Try leaving a few bags of ice on ya kitchen bench for the day & observe what happens). Ice melt on Greenland appears to also be causing that land mass to uplift and could be the cause of a huge rise in earthquakes on the artic fault in recent years. Scientists now believe that sea level rise & the movement of water from the poles towards the equator could affect the earths tectonic plates (and earhquakes) from changes in weight distribution. We are living in interesting times, and the talk over the whole of this thread highlights the problems that humanity has created for itself.
Yes I know this - and it was addressed in other posts
As for this:
"Scientists now believe that sea level rise & the movement of water from the poles towards the equator could affect the earths tectonic plates (and earhquakes) from changes in weight distribution."
I find it quite amusing you allude to this. Many have been saying for years that the moons effect on tides and the ocean could cause earthquakes (using the very same theory as above). Yet scientists have consistently rebuked the idea as lunacy.
My main belief - which seems to have been lost in all the arguments is that we will strike far more severe and catastrophic issues before global warming is a real threat.
My post was clearly lacking in detail, after all it is a comment in a comments section not a thesis.
So I will expand a bit.
Point 2 - use of water. We are using far more than is produced (I know this is not technically correct as it is a distribution issue) but I am hoping you understand what I mean. Lakes, rivers, and underground aquifers are all drying up.
Thermal expansion will indeed hit the ocean, but it is countered by the following.
1. Expansion of the oceans leads to a larger surface area.
2. A larger surface area, and a warmer temperature leads to more oceanic evaporation.
3. This creates more rain.
4. Rain falls on land, flows into streams, rivers, and lakes.
5. Humans use (misuse) said water therefore it does not flow back into the Ocean.
6. Result = no discernible change in sea level. (obviously I don't have actual stats - no one does)
Now in terms of continental ice - we are seeing glaciers all over NZ disappear. But interestingly the flow of water expected from them is not occurring. Mainly due to human use along the way. Argentina is also seeing similar results, and as mentioned in my original post the Ganges (Which is fed my melt from the Himalayan Glaciers).
As for Antarctica, we are talking centuries before it experience a complete melt, and if it does, yes sea levels will rise - but it will take time, and we are able to adapt. It has been rain forest before, and will be again - regardless of human interaction.
Noncents is actually relatively right you guys.
Do the maths, if you have an ice cube floating in a glass of water and it melts the volume will be the same.
Why? Ice is less dense than water (which is why it floats) and of course using Archimedes Principle you can calculate how much of the ice is above the water line (5th form Physics...remember!). So if all the sea ice in the world melted instantly right now there would be no rise in sea level.
Also given almost all continental land masses are sinking, it is no surprise historical data shows sea level rises. Uplift happens only intermittently (in general) during earthquakes. As we saw in Kaikoura 2m of uplift in seconds.
If all land ice melted, yes there might be a problem (sea levels during the ice age were much different). But the world is constantly changing, what were sea beds are now mountain tops, and in reality solar cycles probably have more impact on our climate than anything else.
Trump is right to dump a dud deal that pays billions to the third world so the third world can keep increasing pollution. Everyone else has been scammed by the lying Clinton (and Gore) media train...
Relevant XKCD:
"Actual" facts. We don't have actual facts - unless you know of some scientist that went back in time with a thermometer.
What we do have is hypothesis, estimates, and calculations based on limited information.
Not saying they are wrong (or right) but lets not claim accuracy where it cannot exist.
The real problem is - Donald Trump isn't a politician!
That's why he's being attacked left, right ( his own party) and centre. "Real" politicians are apoplectic that DT might just show them up for what they have become - worthless to the needs and aspirations of the majority of their people- and as such, aren't needed. Unemployment for politicians beckons, if he prevails.....
None of them are politicians - they're cabals and mafia - they're only in it to privatise the gains and socialize the loses - all of them. Only a few actually give a toss about US citizens apart from where their vote lies.
The difference with Trump is he doesn't hide behind political non-speak, jargon and obfuscation to keep peopleon side . He is so narcissistic, he's the honest "Don" and believes people will like him for it. Obviously their are many Merkins' who do.
I'm sure if he said " I'm going to take all of your money, give you some magic beans and we'll all get wealthy together. It will be fabulous." people would still vote for him.
I am with Donald Trump on this issue .
I regard myself as reasonably well read , and have seen no conclusive evidence of long term global warming that could not be attributed to anything other than long term cyclical changes .
I do concede that we are consuming the planet to death through the use of coal and oil , but there is evidence that this is changing through modern technology
America has stringent environmental laws , you cant pollute without consequence , and the whole thing needs to be balanced with America's ability to retain some of its manufacturing capacity .
China is simply being opportunist , I have seen the pollution in China ........... its horrific , and have never seen anything like it in my trips to the USA
This nonsense of Carbon Taxes is also a load of BS , and is just another cost to be borne ultimately by the end user , in other words you and me , and its annoying because my personal carbon footprint is extremely low .
Rastus - This seems to be a new rule for the modern leader. If I acknowledge a problem, I might have to take responsibility for it. Therefore I will ignore as many problems as possible. Smile and wave...
The challenge is, is that we can only do that for so long before many of these problems catch us out. You can almost feel the pressure building and see it in the faces of people...
I reckon Boatman used to read books in shorts and a t-shirt, but for some reason now finds it more comfortable to read in his underwear only during the summer months. But still during his years of intensive research and reading, he can't find any evidence that global warming is in fact real.
Yeah, it's getting to the point where it's just...odd to claim to be well-educated on an issue while also maintaining climate change isn't real and anthropogenic.
Many of the younger generation who actually do look into the issue simply dispair at the antics of the oldies.
Yes, who do they think they are? Questioning everything, exploring alternate explanations and theories, pushing research toward unordained conclusions - it's just so unscientific.
Not to worry, I feel the continuing and concerted campaign of personal denigration will work in the end so keep up the good work brothers.
#trust_the_priesthood
#humiliate_free_thinking
I absolutely understand.
Flat-earthers say the same things. They're the ones questioning, being skeptics etc. They're the ones not falling for Big Science. They're the ones accusing round-earthers of being "sheeple" and trusting the priesthood.
The strongest parallel for climate change denial is basically anti-vaxxers. Similar attitude to the scientific consensus around the effects of medicine as to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
So it seems, yeah. Unfortunately. Just keep pushing hashtags.
Myself, I was once your typical right-leaning fellow who - as per the demographic - thought climate change was rubbish. But then I started reading up on it. Changing your mind on such a major issue is not a fast process...and I should perhaps be more understanding of people where I once was.
When US Oil production peaked early 70s, Nixon did four things more or less simultaneously
- introduced EPA .. new envt laws for local manufacturing
- open dialogue with china to kickstart manufacturing there
- abandoned Gold standard so that US could print its way to nirvana
- convinced the Saudis to create petro dollar so that US$ was king....
Result; clean america, polluted China.
As for evidence modern tech is reducing Oil & coal dependence ... where is it?
https://climateequilibrium.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/world-energy-con…
I am waiting for the NZD / AUD to hit over 0.72 / 0.76 in the short run, so that I can get a good deal on putting my savings into a stash overseas.
Treasury predicts unemployment at 4.3% and economic growth at over 3%. Our country runs on foreign investments. Since China is locked up and we have warning bells going off for an inevitable crash, those estimates seem as ridiculous as Steven Joyce claim that the Nats have always run an "investment-friendly" government.
Ex-RBA Governor Stevens makes comments on housing investment policy in Australia, generally applicable here too (http://www.afr.com/real-estate/exrba-boss-glenn-stevens-takes-a-shot-at…):
He said Australia's rental stock was in the hands of individuals rather than corporate investors at least in part because of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions.
"Individuals are prepared to accept very low rental yields because of the tax concessions. Institutional investors are unlikely to find those yields attractive. It would be a bad mistake to offer them a separate round of tax concessions or subsidies in order to secure their involvement. It would be better to lessen the generosity of the concessions to individuals."
[...]
Mr Stevens also expressed concerns about state government subsidies to investors. He called for research on how many home owners grants go to those buying investment properties and questioned why NSW wanted to subsidise that investment strategy.
I think I can answer that last part: because if the ponzi stops, then the pain starts.
It's a tough choice.
Should I believe scientists the world over who are able to explain and provide evidence of global warming and mankind's contribution to a problem that seems to be getting worse.
Or should I believe Donald Trump and commentators on interest that global warming is all BS because...well I'm not sure why.
And let's not forget, that in the Trump camp of understanding the world, are also the peeps who believe the planet is only 6000 years old and the increasing numbers of flat-earthists. What a thoroughly cutting edge group of informed free thinkers they really are ;-)
Im wondering what alternative are you suggesting Trump sign up to? Meaningless commitments are still meaningless.
Because if you want to start an actual GREEN movement (as oppose to our current Green party thinking which boils down to all becoming gaming programmers powered by solar panels) you need to campaign on a shrinking economy . ie ever lower energy burn ... which means
- increasing layoffs, redundancies, unemployment
- lower living standards for all
- higher costs
- supply chain issues
- food and water issues - particularly in high population areas
- eventually electrical grid problems
And capitalism or a debt based economy doesn't do shrinking - that's the other kicker.
I don't understand.
Why do you need to shrink the economy?
Do you not think that, for example, moving to different energy sources and away from traditional ones (e.g. coal) would provide new jobs? Would coal jobs all vanish but nothing replace them that is based around the alternative?
The issue with moving towards more intensive technology is the lack of skilled workforce. Having worked in multiple developed markets, the problem is not lack of training but a sheer lack of will to work harder towards a tougher tertiary degree.
We have a dis balanced skill market in the West, pushing up costs for running unconventional industries.
Also, conventional industries like coal-fired power plants provide more unskilled jobs than a wind farm does, which means the lower sections of the society fail to derive income benefits from these industries.
So because coal jobs have existed they should always exist because those people are too dumb to do anything else? Hasn't coal been in steady decline for a long time.
Tin mines used to be all the rage in the UK. Employed huge swathes of people. They don't exist anymore.
I'm struggling to understand if the issues being raised are that you don't believe in global warming, you don't agree with how it should be fixed or you think we can't/shouldn't move away from traditional energy means for some reason?
Underneath all the debt facade played by the money men, the real economy actually trucks along on energy & resources... a dollar is just an energy token (its a call on the energy thats available). If you print loads of dollars (like we have) without increasing the net energy supporting it, you are just devaluing the "energy buying power" of all dollars.
Otherwise we could just "give" everyone a million dollars and solve poverty!
A switch to far lower density energy sources means you have to shrink the (real) pie.. the net energy available is way lower.
Let's debate this:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cyc…
Instead of attacking me , maybe you should read what the US is required to do ito the Paris Accord and then compare what China and India are expected to do .
Everyone is overlooking the real reasons for Trump's withdrawal , the US is expected to embark on radical changes with immediate effect , changes that will cost American jobs and cost the American taxpayer .
In terms of the Paris accord , China does not have to even start its work until 2030 , in other words it does NOTHING about its environment until 2030 .
India on the other hand can actually INCREASE its carbon emmissions for the next 2 decades before its expected to comply
No the pollies are just virtue signalling to look caring to their voters. They know it is non binding and non enforcable so there is no cost to signing. Thus the runaway global warming scare is tailor made for politicians and hangers on. They rely on the voters not doing their homework.
Agreed.
Rather than reading the media and various pundits views regarding the Paris Agreement, I decided to read through the actual agreement, and then went forward and read through a few of the various countries targets, their declared NDC (Nationally Determined Contributions). First of all, the basic agreement is a version of liars poker, without any enforcement capability (Nicaraguas principal reason for its principled withdrawal from the agreement). Instead of withdrawing from the PA, Trump could have instead followed the path of many countries via having a nice target without making any serious strides towards meeting these targets other than via increasing efficiency of energy utilization, which happens naturally as energy costs increase...
Each country puts forward its own goals definitions. I was quite amused at Chinas goals, which put forward a carbon per GDP value for initial targets, of which it is already close to meeting at present. Note the per GDP element, which has been increasing at a 7 to 10% rate in the last decade. China plans to reach peak absolute carbon emissions around 2030 before any plans to decrease carbon emissions. The target in 2030 for China is to have only 80% of primary energy consumption to be from fossil fuels. Ummm... China is the largest source of carbon on the planet at present...
I do like the goals set forward in the US NDC, as well as the NZ NDC. The longer term goals in the US NDC may be a bit on the challenging side, but the agreement states that one should be making challenging goals.
Sadly, in my opinion the Paris Agreement is kabuki theatre, and will have little affect on carbon emissions on this planet, whether or not US is a signatory to the agreement.
Read for yourself: http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php
and for the various countries NDCs: http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/Pages/All.aspx
The concept of objective journalism in the news media is damned near extinct as a profession (present website excluded... :) ). It is fashionable to hate Trump, which I very much understand, and have zero issues with as I consider him to be a buffoon. What I do not like is the media blitz of subjective attack instead of objective reporting. At this point, I disbelieve virtually anything that I see in the media without independent corroboration. My distrust of the media has increased remarkably in the last year because of the clear subjective treatment of all things Trumpian, despite my strong dislike of Trump.
The lack of clothes on the Paris Agreement emperor should have been exposed a couple of years ago. This lack of enforcement or for that matter external tracking isn't anything difficult to discover. Why the utter uselessness of the agreement has not been a serious topic of discussion amongst the people that believe in climate change mystifies me. The complete Paris Agreement is a document of only 16 pages, it isn't that hard to read through and comprehend.
Couldn't agree more - the Paris Agreement is a ruse of a very cynical sort. An attempt to "manufacture consent" from the masses who think something needs to be done. And a bit of the legacy of the way Obama tried to leave a legacy - whilst really doing nothing to improve the lot of the constituency that is the Democrats in the US.
It's even more of a deception from those countries who signed up to Kyoto - and then quit after round one because they realised you can't meet targets whist trying to grow you econmy and hence your ecological footprint. (NZ and Canada come to mind).
Trump is an egotistical idiot, but at least he keeps his promises (objectionable as they might be)!!!!!!
PS, Question: " Why the utter uselessness of the agreement has not been a serious topic of discussion amongst the people that believe in climate change mystifies me."
My answer: Because all those bureaucrats and do-gooders who spent a fortune in energy attending all those meetings and claiming to be the champions of 'saving the world' - cannot be honest about what they did not achieve while adding to the carbon account.
Karl has some rather strong opinions... I read him because he makes me think even if I may disagree with his conclusions at times (sometimes strongly). He is most definitely a perma-bear, so be cautious about his economic analysis.
At least he has made his screeds a bit more "family friendly" now. A decade ago about every fourth word was unprintable in polite society... although I did learn some rather amusing phrases. :)
Climate change alarmism is an extremely lucrative industry. All in all, there have been over $32.5 billion of federal government grants that have funded climate change research from 1989-2009, far more than any research funded by the oil industry. National Review reports:
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.