The march of the woke inspired destruction of the free-market economy continues apace. The additional baggage it is being required to carry is evident from articles and views from the past couple of day’s media.
The Business Council of Australia continues to call for additional costs to be imposed on the firms it is supposed to represent. Its CEO Jennifer Westacott wants to make domestic violence leave a right. The sixty something says her mother was abused so why should not employers be required compensate women for being assaulted by their husbands/lovers?!
Australia’s two biggest fish farmers, Huon and Tassal, have paid ransoms for endorsement of WWF and RSPCA to declare their production processes to be ecologically friendly. But WWF must be dissatisfied with the Danegeld and now spuriously claims that the firms’ fish farming is poisoning the waters. Moral: never trust the integrity of green activist agencies!
But decarbonisation pressures in the lead-up to the November Glasgow meeting remain the strongest threats, notwithstanding the latest IPCC report failing to show a climate crisis.
To deflect a unilateral EU carbon tax on shipping, the New Daily reports that the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and Intercargo have jointly proposed a levy based on mandatory contributions for each tonne of CO2 emitted.
New impetus to the assault on hydrocarbons is provided by the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal, The Lancet and over 200 other medical journals. They claim that current efforts aren’t enough to address health problems resulting from rising global temperatures caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They call for “fundamental changes in how our societies and economies are organized and how we live” to limit future global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The AFR, as part of its unceasing campaign to impose decarbonisation costs on Australia (sometimes its refrain is that the outcome will be cost reducing) has an article by ESG hucksters, Cameron Hume, that wants us to be positive about the forced change. It notes that “the oil majors are those most exposed to the risks posed by climate change. Some may prosper by transitioning away from oil and gas to become broader energy companies.” That sort of simplistic thinking once caused Exxon to invest in nuclear power. It did not go well.
Warming to the theme, the AFR has a piece about all the best firms (54 per cent of the S&P/ASX 100) adopting Net Zero emissions policies, “as research points to a quickening pace in global warming”. It opines that nothing will be lost as, “A survey of Australian companies in April found 40 per cent of businesses anticipated modest or significant value creation from sustainability programs.” Jennifer Hewitt rounds off the day’s campaign by concluding that pressure to adopt stronger ESG approaches, especially on hydrocarbons is only going one way.
And in what has been depicted as a re-positioning, The Australian editorial today says, “It is now clear that demands for climate action are being actively policed by major financial funds and institutions. And it is likely that trade sanctions soon may be applied to nations that do not take action considered sufficient by the EU and possibly the US. Australia must think clearly about how it intends to respond.” I addressed some of these points in an article published by The Spectator.
At least Environment Minister Sussan Ley, not previously noted for taking strong positions, rejects Judge Bromberg’s absurd, economy crippling woke threats that she and business firms will breach “duty of care” to future generations if coal developments are approved.
That’s just one lonely straw in a wind of despair! But remember, only 12 months ago the Paris Climate treaty was dying with the rapidly deindustrialising EU its only serious champion.