31 August, 2016

My Feet

My Feet
What an extraordinary topic for our writing teacher to set for homework. My unimaginative mind goes immediately to the literal-ingrown toenails, dry heels, unattractive, functional. But, perhaps it is intended to provoke the mind towards a metaphor?


Our set reading directs us to George Orwell’s views on motives for writing.Orwell suggests sheer egoism, I have plenty of that. Aesthetic enthusiasm, is always present. Historical impulse, certainly.Political impulse, for sure.


Why do I write my blog, venture occasionally into Facebook and sometimes Tweet? Because I like writing and getting my passions expressed and public. Getting it ‘off the chest’. I am attracted by Australian born UK based psychologist Dorothy Rowe’s  thesis, that our psychological make up depends on “how we see the world and how we see our place in that world”.


At heart I am an emotionally driven optimist. We live in a wonderful country in extraordinary technological times. None of this is our doing, we were just lucky to be born where we were and when. (Even with writing, technology impacts. The ease of corrections and rewrites should result in ever better expression and presentation.)


Notwithstanding, (I love that word) all of the world’s horrific trouble spots, we need to remember how free markets and free enterprise has lifted millions out of poverty and disease and the process continues. With that progress comes the ability to correct our environmental misdemeanours and stem population growth. On the other hand,it’s a great pity that we have not learnt to live more peacefully with each other.


If we are to encourage this ongoing social progress and the search for peace, we need to spell out the principles involved (as we see them), as we attempt to influence public opinion by good writing.


We need to make our footprint.


David Boyd
29.08.16

28 August, 2016

Dairy Crisis

I have followed the dairy industry crisis with horror and sympathy for the farmer's who are being asked to refund monies they have been paid, because the processors got it wrong and apparently their contracts allow the processors to recover retrospectively. In other words the farmers carry the price risks for the processors.
One can understand how such a situation arose, given the fact that the processors were (mostly) originally farmer owned co-operatives. I have long been sceptical of the co-operative model where it has so often seemed that there is conflict between how farmer shareholders should be rewarded-by way of dividends or through the commodity price. I have long been attracted to farm gate competition. I also had experience in chairing a flood relief fund for the cotton industry where a major seed supplier was prepared to make a relieving gesture to cotton growers by way of a payment to a representative grower body rather than direct to cotton growers. With the co-operation of growers we developed a formula to distribute the funds, this proved highly successful in rewarding those most affected by floods without criticism from those who missed out.

I developed an idea that as farmers seem to have the sympathy of consumers and the processors and retailers (supermarkets) are seen as villains, there may be a way by which all parties can benefit in public relations terms and economic terms. Furthermore, it would not require any Government involvement. I put the proposal to a number of parties all of whom responded with a significant lack of enthusiasm! The most recent (17th August) advocacy was to Barnaby Joyce the Federal Minister for Agriculture and Water, in the following terms-

Dear Barnaby,
The Four Corners programme on Monday night for once got it pretty right. I wrote the following back in May. I still believe that something along these lines could be done. It would cost the Government nothing. With the supermarkets and processors under so much pressure I believe they would be responsive.
"Dairy Crisis
I have followed the Murray Goulburn/ Fonterra milk issue closely. How extraordinary that the processors would actually pay farmers a price more than they were recovering, with a price volatile commodity and have the ability to recover from the farmers. The processors have effectively left the full price risk with the farmers.

I acknowledge  the significance of the dominant exports. However, I do believe that there is an opportunity for the much criticised Australian supermarkets and the milk processors, to win some really valuable goodwill by offering a brand with a 25c per litre (50c per 2 litre bottle) loading, widely publicised. The loading would be directly payable on some clever formula basis, to dairy farmers. Some years ago a similar thing was done following a flood in the cotton industry with the bulk payments made to a farmer representative industry body who distributed in full to those most impacted, on an agreed formula.

The scheme would be entirely voluntary, with no Government involvement. It is no fault of most farmers, other than the Co-op Directors, that they have been caught in this squeeze. As I assess it, they currently have the sympathy of Australian consumers. But they need to act quickly whilst the issue is topical.

Branded milk products are selling strongly, clearly demonstrating the sympathy factor. The purchase of branded milk helps, but it seems to me that more could be done. "


For what it's worth I pass it on.
Regards,
David

The email did not elicit a reply, however I read in The Weekend Australian yesterday that Coles are now to introduce just such a scheme. If this proves to be correct, and it proves successful, then Woolworths and IPA would surely follow.

I seek no attribution, but would be delighted if such assistance is well supported by consumers. I only see it as a short term palliative and longer term, farmers need to have stronger competitive contracts with processors with the co-operative relationship ethos consigned to the dustbin.

23 August, 2016

Climate Change Debunked

Good stuff-http://principia-scientific.org/new-book-scholar-peels-back-layers-deception-global-warming/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+psintl+%28Principia+Scientific+Intl+-+Current+News%29

Global Warming and Energy

Last Monday fortnight Gail and I were in the audience for  QandA at the ABC's Ultimo studios. The panel included U.K. scientist Brian Cox, Federal Minister for Science Greg Hunt, and newly elected One Nation-Senator Malcolm Roberts. Cox is a former rock band player and could fairly be described as a "showy" celebrity scientist. Roberts sees Global Warming/Climate Change as a fraudulent fad unsupported by empirical facts and with no clear "cause and effect" supporting case. I am inclined to agree with him.

Cox came prepared with a graph which purported to show ever increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (no argument there) with a strong correlation to increasing warming. At one stage he threw this graph and other documents across the table at Roberts, who in spite of pressure including ridicule, bravely 'stuck to his guns'.

I am delighted to discover a thorough analysis of Cox's graph which shows it to be an outdated widely discredited document-see here.

I submitted a question"Does the Panel believe that Australia is right in pursuing a high cost energy policy?" 
Not surprisingly it was not chosen for submission.

Last night we attended a presentation at the Sydney Institute by Finance Minister Mathias Cormann. He was his usual professional self and he made good consistent points on the Coalition's "jobs and growth" theme. Afterwards I raised with him the apparent contradiction between 'jobs and growth' and high energy costs, the direct consequence of pursuing the Government's Renewable Energy Target, putting Australia's businesses at a competitive disadvantage. His only response was "that is our policy". I suggested to him that as Finance Minister he should be very concerned with having a high energy cost policy with very dubious environmental benefits.

I was surprised that the matter was not otherwise raised, as I believe that with ever increasing mechanisation, energy costs will become an even bigger competitive element than labour costs. The US is demonstrating this already.

17 August, 2016

John Constable Joins Global Warming Policy Foundation Academic Advisory Council

The Global Warming alarmists are resorting to ridicule to dismiss the misgivings of those who question the conventional wisdom. They suggest that those who raise legitimate questions are all idiots. Consider the quality of the list below.

JOHN CONSTABLE JOINS GWPF’S ACADEMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL

  • Date: 28/06/16
  • Global Warming Policy Foundation

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is pleased to announce that Dr John Constable has joined the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.

John Constable is a British energy analyst and the GWPF’s energy editor. Amongst his many energy-related publications are The Green Mirage: Why the low carbon economy may be further off than we think (Civitas: London, 2011), Energy Policy and Consumer Hardship (REF: London, 2011), and Shortfall, Rebound, Backfire: Can we rely on energy efficiency to offset climate policy costs? (REF: London, 2012).
The GWPF Academic Advisory Council is composed of scientists, economists and other experts who provide the GWPF with timely scientific, economic and policy advice. It reviews and evaluates new GWPF reports and papers, explores future research projects and makes recommendations on issues related to climate research and policy.
The other members of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council are:
Professor Christopher Essex (Chairman)
Sir Samuel Brittan
Sir Ian Byatt
Professor Vincent Courtillot
Professor Freeman Dyson
Professor David Henderson
Christian Gerondeau
Dr Indur Goklany
Professor William Happer
Professor Terence Kealey
Professor Deepak Lal
Professor Richard Lindzen
Professor Ross McKitrick
Professor Robert Mendelsohn
Professor Ian Plimer
Professor Paul Reiter
Dr Matt Ridley
Sir Alan Rudge
Professor Nir Shaviv
Professor Philip Stott
Professor Henrik Svensmark
Professor Richard Tol
Professor Anastasios Tsonis
Dr David Whitehouse