The ASX 200 fell 35 points yesterday, or 0.6%. Clearly, the disastrous Wentworth by-election on the weekend weighed on prices. And with more falls on Wall Street overnight, futures prices suggest another 16-point decline for the Aussie market today.
Barring a miracle for the Libs, it’s likely that Labor will win the next general election. The market is in the process of pricing that reality in.
The major issue, bizarrely, is something that we as a nation have no ability to influence — climate change.
And because Wentworth has told us it’s a major issue, politicians will ensure they throw plenty of (your) money at it. For example, the Financial Review has this today:
‘Liberal moderates concerned at the Coalition’s lack of climate change policy are set to demand Scott Morrison revitalise the ailing direct action policy with a $1 billion injection into the Emissions Reduction Fund.
‘Warning that the climate change lesson from Saturday’s Wentworth byelection rout cannot be ignored, moderates are planning to step up their push for the government to do something concrete towards Australia meeting its 2030 Paris climate change targets, rather than just a passive adherence to the targets that is Mr Morrison’s approach.’
Politicians. Always wanting to ‘do more’…but only with other people’s money.
A few weeks ago, the UN told us that climate change was a major threat to the world. So major, in fact, that the Paris Agreement commits the world’s largest emitter, China, to have their carbon emissions PEAK in 2030.
That’s right. Despite the apparent dire threat to the global economy unless we do something NOW, China’s emissions will continue rising for another 12 years!
Meanwhile, Australia, which accounts for less than 2% of global emissions, has committed to reduce its emissions to 26–28% BELOW 2005 levels by 2030.
China, it is argued, is at a different stage of its economic development. Fair enough. But let’s not forget the Western world shifted its manufacturing operations to China following its admission into the World Trade Organisation in 2001.
Who benefited from that? Global multinationals. They are arbitraging China’s lack of environmental regulations to produce ‘stuff’ for western consumption at a lower cost than it should be.
Climate change may be a long-term threat, but it’s not so big a threat that our global technocratic masters are demanding that China move faster to get their emissions under control. That would damage profits and hurt the wealth of the people who really pull the strings in this world.
Does that sound far-fetched?
Not as far-fetched as the delusion that Australia can do something about climate change by throwing billions of its taxpayers’ money at it.
Time to be realistic about climate change
Having said that, the Libs need to come up with a strategy to placate the climate change warriors. ‘Doing nothing’ is electoral suicide.
They could start with a credible plan to lower emissions over the long-term, while committing to keep electricity prices lower. They could also start by explaining the stitch-up that is the Paris Agreement, and tell the electorate why we will reduce emissions on our own terms.
Australia should never subordinate its sovereignty to an unelected global organisation that serves corporate interests, not the Australian people. It is the job of our elected representatives to ensure Australia isn’t being ‘had’ by global interests.
Instead, we have a slavish and unquestioning obedience to the UN and their directives. Especially from the ‘educated class’. The results from Wentworth on Saturday tell you this.
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting we ignore carbon emissions. I’m just saying we should take the situation into our own hands and ensure that Australia’s productivity and standard of living isn’t adversely affected.
This is a situation where we need to take a bit of short-term pain to ensure long-term gain. But we shouldn’t throw everything at it. The world’s largest emitter certainly isn’t and that’s why its Paris commitment doesn’t subordinate short-term economic growth (read employment and social stability) to longer-term environmental goals.
China will only do what it has to in order to maintain the power of the Communist Party. The only reason it is acting on emissions is because its cities are so badly polluted that its people are dying. It doesn’t want to risk social unrest and so it is moving to contain the problem. If it can do so under the guise of caring about climate change, then all the better.
Is that too cynical?
Champagne socialists would certainly argue it is. But don’t forget, champagne socialists also sang Stalin’s praises before the full extent of his tyranny was revealed to the world.
China, a communist state, does what’s best for China. Australia, apparently a capitalist economy, does the bidding of global technocrats. It’s time we took a leaf out of the communists’ book.
Editor, Crisis & Opportunity