… you could dance to the rock and roll station….
In a Velvet Underground mood today. Nothing to do with the subject of this post though.
While waiting for the iTwat to kick in on the car stereo this morning, I caught a snippet of a Radio Moscow ABC programme on farming in Tasmania. There’s been an increase in dairy farming due to some irrigation work that’s been going on for a while.
One of the statements got my attention before the sounds of Eddy Current Suppression Ring (brilliant recent discovery, by the way) kicked in. It was around security of water supply; the farmer was quoting Tasmanian Irrigation (which seems to be deficient of a noun if you ask me; “authority” or “department” perhaps) that they have 95% security of supply and that Tasmanian Irrigation department has planned for the scenario that CSIRO describes as “Ultra Dry”. No, that’s not a shite beer.
It all sounds very commendable, frankly. Even this fan of small government can see the benefit of having a single controlling body overseeing the careful husbandry of the water supply. The free market is brilliant at finding the most efficient and innovative solution to most problems and with the right regulatory framework perhaps a free market solution to water supply would similarly be of benefit but this is Australia we are talking about here, not some Ayn Rand utopia. This is the country that has a government department to regulate the overtime rates for people who make your morning coffee.
So, I’m not about to go slamming the farmers, Tasmanian Irrigation or even the ABC reporter today. Who or what am I going to rant at?
Climate Bollocks, of course.
One of the commenters to this organ (no, not Bardon; he seems to have disappeared following the fairly robust assertion that I am a Zionist in the original meaning of the word and Hamas is pulling a bloody and immoral propaganda con-trick on much of the world), Daveinthepeople’srepublicofBalmain, often argues that even if the global warming communists were incorrect about the catastrophic nature of the warming that hasn’t happened since Hong Kong was British, we would have a cleaner environment and we would have paid for what was in effect an insurance policy.
Does that stack up though, is it just a little insurance premium that we’re stumping up?
My thought process goes like this; the farmer needs a guaranteed source of water to underpin his business model, the costs of which inform the price at which he must sell his milk. The government body regulates this water supply, determining how much and when he can draw his allocated megalitres. Their charges are set to factor in future costs, including those required to ensure the sustainability of the supply. The future plans and costs are set by applying scenarios provided by CSIRO. CSIRO are predicting the possibility of an “ultra dry” spell due to climate change.
Now here’s where it matters less where one sits on the catastrophic global warming through to big conspiracy by the people who used to read Mao’s Little Red Book at university continuum and more about what your view is on the nature of human behaviour when someone has invested personally into an hypothesis that isn’t being corroborated by the facts.
Consider for a moment, a group of staffers at CSIRO who are unconsciously more than a little concerned that the IPCC’s very own data sets are showing no global warming since the late 90’s. Let’s go frivolously strawman fallacy 4 da lolz, as the kids say.
(Phone rings) CSIRO Climate Helpline, how can I be of assistance?
Tassy In-bred: Yeah, hi there, it’s Bob here from Tasmanian Irrigation (whispers) department. I need to work out whether or not I need to build more dams over the next 10 years or so. What do you reckon the climate is going to do, get warmer, colder or stay roughly the same?
CSIRO Oh, definitely warmer. Absolutely.
TIB Ok, that’s a shame because those dams are bloody expensive and we drown a load of land when we build ‘em. Are you absolutely certain?
CSIRO Dead certain mate. Erm…. Bet your mortgage on it. (Sotto voce) I know I have.
So the dam or some similarly expensive irrigation project gets built. The costs for which are fed through to the farmer’s input costs which he then passes on to the consumer or is paid for from debt taken out on behalf of the Tasmanian public. The consumer has to pay 2 cents more on a litre if they want to buy Australian milk.
It’s just 2 cents, right? Not much to pay for an insurance policy.
But consider the amplification effect. Chez TNA gets through 3 or 4 litres of milk a week, so that’s five dollars extra a year. Still not much for an insurance policy. But there’s 15 million households in Australia so that’s maybe $40m a year in additional costs for milk.
All due to a somewhat overstated scenario for climate change.
And that’s just milk. Amplify that across every product and service where an overstated scenario has been acted upon. Billions of dollars of malinvestment and a significant increase in the cost of living of anyone who is unable to live without the luxuries of, say, food or accommodation or transport.
Of course, all of the above was a fabricated scenario with no basis of truth whatsoever.
Which is also what could be cruelly said of the warmist’s predictions of global warming;
it was all riiiiiight.
Don’t forget to come out for a Denier Bier with us at the Lord Nelson on September 5th from 6pm……