Rosie
 July 1, 2024 6:57 pm

The teacher was 61 and fell through a skylight. He got up on the roof to retrieve balls.

Not surprisingly, it was newsworthy.

It’s a Catholic school …

It’s a what?!?
m0nster sends his kids to a prahvate school?
Run by the … as he puts it … Rockspiders?

Regulations of WorkSafe and other such institutions are merely following through on rights originated and developed in common law. This is not part of the culture war. Regular people deserve rights too.

So they should throw the book at the Principal and the OH&S Committee then?

True cost of renewables won’t hurt our cities – it’ll punish those we ignore most

Judith Sloan The Australian 2 July, 2024

In 2023, former chief scientist Alan Finkel wrote glowingly about “forests of wind farms carpeting hills and cliffs from sea to sky (and) endless arrays of solar panels disappearing like a mirage into the desert”. For many people, particularly those living in rural and regional areas, this sounded more like a dystopian nightmare than a desirable nirvana. And it still does, as the federal and state governments, aided by self-serving renewable energy investors, seek to override the legitimate rights of landowners and folk living in country areas.

It’s a case of sticks and carrots, with more compulsion than persuasion. There are truncated environmental approvals processes, faux consultations, staged town meetings, ministerial directives. There is talk about obtaining social licence but this is just for show.

Those directly affected by having massive turbines, fields of industrial-scale solar panels and high-voltage transmission lines on their land may be offered an annual annuity for the inconvenience subject to refraining from making any criticism of the installations or renewable energy in general. Affected neighbours may be offered small amounts of compensation, but this is also subject to a gag order. It’s hard to escape the conclusion city folk either don’t know about what has been happening in our regions or don’t care. If similar tactics were imposed on them, there would be an almighty uproar. The fact these imposed renewable energy zones – imposed at the behest of the renewable energy companies themselves – cover largely conservative seats, at federal and state level, is also an important consideration.

Economists have long understood not every private market transaction fully accounts for all the costs and benefits. The difference is referred to external costs and benefits. Of course, in the case of renewable energy investment, it is hardly a case of unfettered private transactions. Investors are given various subsidies, including the ongoing benefits of Renewable Energy Certificates as well as direct subsidies from both state and federal governments. It is an extremely featherbedded industry that would hardly exist absent this favourable treatment.

(The Prime Minister’s constant refrain that renewable energy is the cheapest form of generation is clearly tosh. If this were really the case, unassisted renewable energy would simply drive out all other forms of generation. This is clearly not the case.) The point is that the external costs imposed on rural and regional communities are overwhelmingly ignored when making the case for the expansion of renewable energy. There is no attempt to estimate the size of these external costs. This is the case in the recently released, but highly dubious, Integrated System Plan devised by the Australian Energy Market Operator.

To be sure, there is passing mention of the need to obtain social licence but it’s in the context of foisting wind farms, solar panels and new transmission lines on rural and regional communities irrespective of the preferences of the locals. The “greater good” is to reduce emissions even though the contribution of Australia, let alone any regional area, to lowering global emissions is infinitesimal.

(By the way, the recent AEMO ISP is a terrifying slanted document. It mixes up net present values with today’s capital costs; it treats the costs of all projects, current, committed and anticipated, as sunk; household costs are excluded; its assumptions about the cost of transmission are far too low. The estimated cost of $122bn to achieve net zero has zero credibility. The public should be highly concerned this agency is setting the agenda for our energy future.)

In effect, we simply expect rural and regional communities to take it on the chin, often by pitting neighbour against neighbour. There are multiple stories of communities rend asunder because of the renewable energy caravan coming to town. There is the loss of arable land, the loss of physical amenity, the loss of local flora and fauna, the massive disruption caused during the construction phase. But these issues are dramatically downplayed by the ardent advocates of renewable energy.

A similar story applies to immigration and the failure to account for its external costs, particularly in relation to housing. The proponents of large migrant intakes – and this includes the Labor government and the Coalition, at least in the past – take the view that these external costs can simply be dismissed because the benefits of immigration are so large. Dubious studies are undertaken to assess the net economic benefits of immigration but fail to account for the external costs.

It is ironic that these studies typically show only small positive net economic benefits that are generally only realised after two decades or so. It is clear, however, that the migrants themselves benefit, as do the owners of capital. Think here property developers, big business and educational institutions.

As for the external costs, there is sometimes reference to congestion, pressure on public services, loss of social cohesion and the impact on housing affordability. But it is extremely rare to see any numbers attached to these external costs because they would need to be subtracted from any estimates of the small net benefits.

Just as is the case with renewable energy, the winners from high rates of immigration, particularly the universities, think certain segments of society should simply wear these external costs because of some ill-defined greater good.

Promoting exports is a common rationale as well as bumping up the international rankings of our universities. Bear in mind here that the universities, with their substantial international student enrolments, pay no tax that might otherwise offset some of these external costs.

The link between immigration and the shortage of housing also leads directly to housing policies to which many local residents also object. High-density housing is promoted even if this involves overriding the preferences of those living in the affected areas.

The pejorative term NIMBY is used to undermine the legitimate property rights of homeowners who have purchased property along with an implicit assurance that the nature of the precinct is largely retained. Increasingly, state governments are wont to override the planning responsibilities of local governments in order to promote the type of housing that can cope with a rapidly growing population caused mainly by immigration.

In some instances, state governments have insisted that high-rise apartments are built without any carparking, leading to an explosion of cars being parked on local streets. This is another example of an external cost being imposed on residents who previously enjoyed relatively uncrowded streets.

The big picture here is that optimal government policies always require an assessment of the full costs and benefits including external costs. Increasingly, however, single-minded policies have been guided by a paternalistic view of the paths to the greater good – via promotion of renewable energy, high migrant intakes, high-density housing – with nary a thought for those adversely affected.

Indeed, in some cases, those folk hurt by the policies are denigrated in the name of ramming through bad policies. It’s only when the losers opt to fight back is there a chance of more balanced policy. The revolts we are seeing in some regional and rural areas about the placement of intrusive renewable energy installations and transmission lines may be just the beginning. Politicians may need to take heed.

Dr Jill takes knitting the kangaroo stateside. The worst magazine shoot since getting the architect’s photographers in the day your company suffers a data breach.

Mike O’Connor in the Courier Mail:

Politicians rejoice in the addiction of the masses to their smartphones and social media’s constant stream of mindless trivia which is slowly reducing the consistency of the national cerebrum to that of porridge.

What happened yesterday is quickly forgotten, the appetite for temporary and immediate sensory stimulation which does not require even the faintest flicker of intelligence insatiable.

I settled in with a glass of vin ordinaire a few days back to watch a television news bulletin. The first five minutes featured video footage of a warehouse fire in which nobody was injured, followed by several minutes of dashcam footage of a two-vehicle collision in which nobody was injured. The latter was replayed several times for the benefit of those who might have dozed off or gone to the kitchen to get more potato chips. Ten minutes into the bulletin and there was still nothing that could remotely be considered as news, but hey – great vision!

Those fortunate few who, in spite of the best efforts of most mass media to destroy their intellects, might recall that a few years ago we went through something called Covid-19.

Civil liberties were trashed, there were draconian lockdown proclamations, government by imperial decree, borders arbitrarily closed, livelihoods destroyed and untold emotional distress inflicted on innocent citizens – surely you must remember.

At least 3561 Queenslanders remember, which is the number of people who recently petitioned state parliament to release the advice chief health officer by Dr John Gerrard and his predecessor Dr Jeannette Young, she of the pearl necklace, provided to then premier Annastacia Palaszczuk that led to the vaccination mandates and movement restrictions.

The petition called on the parliament to direct Premier Steven Miles to release “medical advice used to enforce the Covid-19 mandates that would discriminate people on the basis of their Covid-19 vaccination status, isolate our most vulnerable from their families and force Queenslanders to have Covid-19 vaccinations that appear to have increasingly alarming safety and efficacy statistics”.

This is advice that the premier repeatedly declared, hand on heart, was that upon which she based decisions such as forcing Queensland residents to live in their cars on the Tweed Heads side of the NSW border, refusing permission for grieving families to visit dying relatives and declaring Queensland hospitals were only for Queenslanders. Ah, those were the days!

Given the lengthy time frame over which these restrictions were imposed and the countless media briefings attended by the premier and a sombre faced Dr Young declaring variously that she was “worried,” “very worried” or on one memorable occasion which set this columnist’s heart aflutter, “very, very worried”, you might reasonably think that there would be a mountain of material lying about which related to the advice given to the government.

Apparently not, for according to Health Minister Shannon Fentiman, no such documentation exists. Really?

“Queensland’s chief health officer issued public health directions to manage the spread of Covid-19 throughout the community, including requirements for Covid-19 vaccination. In making these public health directions the chief health officer relied on advice from a variety of sources.

“Specifically, the chief health officer met daily with doctors, epidemiologists, infectious diseases specialists and public health experts about Covid-19 and the extraordinary and emergency measures necessary to protect public health,” she said.

In spite of all these meetings and advice from all these experts, it seems that nobody ever thought to write anything down. How extraordinary.

How wonderful it must be to be blessed with a memory that does not require you to keep a record of the input which was received, according to Minister Fentiman, from “a variety of sources”.

You might also think that sitting up there in vice-regal splendour at 168 Fernberg Rd, Paddington, Dr Young, richly rewarded by the premier for her tireless efforts with the governorship of our fair state, might be able to produce a record of her frank and fearless advice. Alas, not a squeak so far from the big white house on the hill.

You might also wonder why, if the government was only following the medical advice which seems to have magically disappeared, it felt the need to spend $500,000 on polling to assess how its actions were affecting its popularity and whether rather than acting on medical advice, Palaszczuk’s actions were driven purely and simply by political considerations with scant regard for the cost in human suffering.

The truth is out there somewhere, but will it ever surface?

Like the call for transparency will ever be heard. FMD

Rosie
 July 2, 2024 11:17 am

“Stabbing at Sydney University. 14-year old boy arrested”
Unless he’s a child prodigy I’m guessing not a university student.

In islam he is a prodigy.