Oh great; we give $21.6 million to Disney, or:

Captain Jack meets the broken window theory

Most of us today are familiar with Bastiat’s broken window theory, where those observing the replacement of a broken pane of glass tend to look on the bright side by thinking of how good it is for the glazier to get the trade.  Bastiat points out though that this ignores the fact that the window owner is left with no gain for his expense, and the cobbler, tailor, or perhaps bookseller who might have benefitted from the trade instead, miss out. 

Keynesian economists though, love broken windows and never cease telling us at the advent of any disaster, just how good all of the resultant repair work will be for the economy.  The Kiwis were said to be the luckiest people in the world after the Christchurch earthquakes: 

Our Treasurer Joe Hockey though, sees no reason to hang around waiting for something bad to happen in order to strip the economy of funds to repair damage.  Joe is ahead of the game to the point where he supports event and project lobby groups in spending on what aint broke.  Krugman is so yesterday.

Instead of spending money on devastation, he wants to piss it away on something fun, like making movies with similar results:

MOVIE giant Disney is being offered a near $22 million treasure chest to bring Johnny Depp’s billion dollar Pirates of the Caribbean franchise to the Gold Coast. 

The Bulletin understands high-level discussions have taken place between US film bosses, Screen Queensland and the Federal Government to bring the lucrative franchise to Warner Bros’ Village Roadshow studios at Oxenford. 

The sweetener being dangled in front of producers of the film, tentatively titled Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, is a one-off payment of $21.6 million. 

The money, originally offered by the Gillard Government to Disney for director David Fincher’s stalled 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea reboot, is at the centre of talks, with hopes the funds can be transferred to the Pirates production, which is expected to begin shooting early next year.  The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance has also met with Disney.

A film industry insider told the Bulletin discussions had progressed well and that the project was desperately needed for the city’s stalling film industry.  “We really need this movie for the Gold Coast and we are hoping things come together,” the source said. … 

… Gold Coast Tourism boss Martin Winter said securing the filming of a major blockbuster would pay dividends for the city. “The most immediate opportunity would be with the set itself becoming an attraction for people to visit, similar to the ship construction on The Spit for the Chronicles of Narnia film,” he said. 

“However, the long-term benefit to the local economy would clearly be the boost to employment numbers and if we reinforce the industry then it can only be a great thing for the Gold Coast.” …

Effectively, there is little difference between the two ideas; the first being that the diversion of funds to disaster reparations is an economic boon, and the second being that a similar diversion towards an unnecessary project does the same.

Both have visible results to show for the expenditure.  In both cases the lost opportunities of non-government activities in the private sector with the money used for those purposes cannot be assessed.

Industry and regional lobbyists can point to the relatively small amount per capita to be used for this project and the benefits that will accrue to little battlers like Disney and Warner Bros’ Village Roadshow, along with extra wealth for the glitter strip.  The things that might have happened instead elsewhere are invisible, because they didn’t occur.

A better solution

The real injustice of this proposal is that money is taken from taxpayers across the country and funneled into the Gold Coast, only benefitting that area.  If making the movie there really needs to happen here, a scheme that will encourage this yet benefit the wider population would be fairer.

A little imagination, (or in this case whimsy) offers a far more equitable solution to the problem of getting it made here while still spreading the benefit to the wider community.

An approach could be made to Disney offering to use $21.6 million for the following benefits to Australian viewers to encourage them to watch it if it is made here:

• First; Every ticket sold will be rewarded by the government with a free large bucket of popcorn, soft drink, and packet of Jaffa’s, (Do they still roll those down the aisle?) to have while watching the show, and:
• Second; Every rental or download will come with a government gift certificate for a family sized McHappy meal, (or the equivalent from Hungry Jacks, KFC, Subway, etc) along with fries, large coke, and whatever.

While this could cop some criticism from the AMA and associated health Nazis, all of the proposed benefits to the Coast would still come to fruition, and fast food joints across the nation would benefit, creating additional regional employment and generating untold wealth everywhere.

Truly, this represents a win win scenario.

Viv Forbes gets some global warming; Al Gore gets duped

Ever since Viv Forbes of Carbon Sense moved out to Rosewood, he has been complaining every winter about needing a bit of that new fangled global warming.

Apparently the Bureau of Meteorology has listened to him and decided to do something about it by revising and adjusting the records to make it warmer.  He reports:

We live at Rosevale, just over the hills from the Amberley air base. We have just been subjected to retrospective global warming by the keepers of the Amberley temperature record - Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology. 

Until 2012, our official temperature records showed we had been in a cooling trend since records started in 1941. In 2012, BOM “adjusted” the original records and, lo, now we are suffering a global warming trend. 

More here: 

I’ve been telling him for years that he needs to keep up the complaints; a squeaky wheel gets the most grease.  Now he can turn down that electric blanket.

Gore duped

Clive Palmer, founder of the Palmer United Party, caused a fair bit of consternation among the Liberals and the population at large by announcing that he would be releasing his policy on carbon tax repeal with Al Gore at a press conference. (Aussies love parties with someone’s name attached to them, something believed to have been imported from the Peronists in Argentina.)

PUP went into the election with a policy of repealing the carbon tax, but Palmer’s policies change pretty much on whim.  Clive turned up at parliament house for a week in his own Rolls Royce and other expensive cars claiming to be saving taxpayers money.  The following week, he was in a chauffeur driven commonwealth car, which he claimed, was because of his duty to keep Australians employed.

There was good reason to think that the presence of Gore during the announcement meant that Palmer had had another change of heart and would oppose abolition of the tax.

Instead we witnessed the bizarre spectacle of the world’s greatest climate frantic and advocate of punishing energy consumers, Al Gore standing beside a mining billionaire who was announcing that his party would be voting to abolish the carbon tax. 

The question on everybody’s lips is, did he sell out or was he rolled?

Gore charges quite substantial appearance fees and his presence may have cost Clive a pretty penny.  His Chinese partners should keep an eye on those accounts that he can access for $250,000 withdrawals.

The answer is probably neither, rather the two of them got together to do a dirty deal whereby Clive was given an indulgence on axing the carbon tax, which costs him $6 million per year on his nickel refinery alone, as well as blocking Abbott’s idiotic Alternative action plan, in exchange for retaining the renewable energy target and the Bob Brown Bank or Clean Energy Finance Corporation, both of which benefit Gore. 

The CEFC is there to help finance crony capitalists and rent seekers in the green energy field to milk the RET by building costly wind and solar farms which survive by selling expensive and unreliable energy at a higher price to consumers under a mandated arrangement from the government.

Andrew Bolt reports:

Gore is a co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management, which manages and advises on green investments of the kind Gore’s climate scaremongering helps whip up. 

Among the businesses it “participates” in is Australia’s $1 trillion Investor Group on Climate Change, which comprises Goldman Sachs and many of our bigger super funds.  Those funds invest big in renewable energy and are scared the Government will soon slash or scrap the Renewable Energy Target, which forces electricity suppliers to use more expensive wind and solar power. 

IGCC has protested that “changes to the RET scheme could undermine the value returns on investments made to date” and “we do not favour any changes”.

This entire arrangement is an agreement between two carpet baggers, one selling green investments on the pretext of a scare campaign that he has championed, and another who is in the position to benefit from the repeal of a tax that if Gore was even moderately honest, he would do everything possible to retain.

The press conference says a lot about both parties, none of it complimentary.

Palmer, libertarianism, you’ve got to be kidding

Cartoon: By Pope 

It would be difficult to come up with a word that causes more confusion as to its meaning than libertarian.  To actual libertarians it’s relatively simple; a belief in fiscal conservatism, social tolerance, individual freedom, and limited government.

Among outsiders it varies from a reasonable understanding of the above, to right wing fanatics, hopeless utopians, selfish pricks, right through to the left wing journalistic interpretation; a suitable alternative to the adjectival use of the F word in polite society.

Peter Van Onselen of The Australian though, appears particularly confused on the issue when referring to the politics of Clive Palmer: 

… Equally, Tony Abbott must contend with the newly formed PUP, which primarily challenges the conservative side of politics. 

Clive Palmer is an odd mix of conservatism, libertarianism, social liberalism (witness his advocacy for onshore asylum-seeker processing) and self-interest. 

Nevertheless, there should be little doubt that his supporters hail more from the Right than the Left, and with that Palmer becomes Abbott’s problem, not Bill Shorten’s. PUP picked up a senator last weekend, which takes its Senate total to three, four if you include the deal done with motoring enthusiast Ricky Muir. …

There isn’t much to be confused about in Clive’s positions if you consider his origins and history.

Clive is an old-fashioned rump National Party dropout conservative and crony capitalist, who has created a populist party based on telling every audience what it wants to hear.  There is nothing whatsoever that is libertarian in Clive.

PUP lists five policies on it’s website: 

(1)          That his party officials may not be lobbyists;

(2)          Abolishing the carbon tax.  Libertarians would give this one a tick;

(3)          A nebulous statement on refugees that says nothing substantive;

(4)          A bizarre statement on ‘creating mineral wealth’, and;

(5)          A feel-good statement on wealth flowing back to where it’s created.

In the case of (4) and (5) he reveals his statist, big government agenda.

In the case of ‘creating mineral wealth’, he wants to utilise the minerals of Qld and WA, but wants to send them to the southern states, far from their origins and process them there. Apart from increasing transport costs to get them there, typically, he then expects incentives from big government to do it,

Libertarians tended to support the Lang Hancock concept of a privately funded railway from WA to Central Queensland, with processing plants and ports on either end, with Qld coal going west and WA minerals going east.

In the case of created wealth, a libertarian would favour not taking it out in the first place, rather than Palmer’s idea of taking it to Canberra, churning it through the bureaucracy, then sending what is left back to where it came from.

For the patient with time on their hands, PUP also has a huge quantity of press releases from the party for perusal.  It’s actually fun to go through and find out how many are contradictory.  This is probably the result of a knee-jerk desire to get something, anything, out there in relation to any piece of information in the hope of sounding good, or at least concerned in relation to it without really thinking it right through.

Van Onselen is probably a little justified in being confused; Palmer does that to people.  There is however, no excuse for observing an odd position or two that may gain the approval of some libertarians and assuming that this qualifies as part of that philosophy.  A broken clock gets the time right twice a day.

Libertarianism is a consistent philosophy of liberty and as result all policy positions are consistent with that condition.  If this is not the case, then the person or party is not libertarian.

Antony Green seeing libertarians everywhere

Like Frank N. Furter of Rocky Horror fame, Antony Green, the ABCs election guru, is not backward in his desire to show us his favorite obsession.  In Frank’s case, it was making a man with blond hair and a tan, in Antony’s it is minor parties.

The rise of minor parties has driven him to distraction to the point where he rails against them at every opportunity, real or contrived.  One of his serious bugbears is the success that some of them have had since they started sticking together and preferencing each other ahead of the majors in elections.

The thing that really gets right up his nose though, especially since the 2013 election of LDP senator elect, David Leyonhjelm is libertarians in general and the LDP in particular.  During the cold war the Liberal and National Parties saw reds under the beds, Antony is seeing libertarians every where, tens of thousands of them, running rampant across the entire political landscape that he knew and loved, like a plague of rabbits:

It appears there is a growth industry in libertarian parties. One of the consequences of the Senate's registered ticket vote system is that it is possible for multiple parties to occupy the same area of the political spectrum without hurting their chances of election. 

In every other electoral system in the world, the current batch of libertarian political parties would be cutting their own political throats by running against each other, but ticket voting allows multiple parties to swap preferences with impunity, having first expanded their pool of first preference votes by standing multiple parties. 

At the 2013 election, the Liberal Democrats, as well as the advantage of a name that could be confused with the Liberal Party, and the advantage of the first column on the NSW ballot paper, also boosted their chances with other parties feeding them preferences. …

What bastards!  Can you imagine the Libs, Labor, Greens, or Nationals being so unprincipled as to attempt to maximize their vote?

Not likely; they would be too couth and cultured to do such a thing other of course, than granting themselves an unlimited pit of taxpayer dollars via the electoral funding scheme that hands them funds in the tens of millions.  In addition to this, they have a mutual grooming relationship with big business, (You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours) that brings even more in via corporate sponsorship.

Antony is looking at single-issue parties and assuming that those who are based on wanting their cause liberalised are libertarian.  This is a common error, also made by ‘glass half full’ libertarians who see any party or person holding a policy that they agree with as a sign of them being libertarian.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Most of the single issue parties tend to be quite authoritarian but feel that the government has gone too far in relation to their particular cause. Rather than questioning whether the government has a place in it at all, or in any of the other causes SIPs represent, they accept unlimited government authority as a fact of life and only want changes to what their own problem is.

Some treat the concerns of other SIPs with the same contempt and disdain that ruling classes have traditionally held for their downtrodden minorities in the past.  Few of them did the LDP any favors and most of them preferenced as part of the minor party coalition which the LDP were not part of, and away from us in strange and counter productive ways:

Shooters and Fishers; at elimination their votes went to HEMP, which has no policy on guns. Considering their leftist inclinations, they are probably opposed.  When Hemp was eliminated, SFP preferences played a large part in electing PUP which is definitely anti- firearms.

Sex ; their votes went to ALP.  Labor has no history of support for Eros Foundation (neither do we, but we have libertarian outlook which addresses most of their concerns)

Voluntary Euthanasia; went to HEMP which has no policy on VE.  We support it directly.

Wikileaks; votes went to HEMP after the Greens which has no policy on government transparency.  Assange claims to be a libertarian.  

Motoring Enthusiasts; votes went to Shooters then PUP.  Libertarian, ORP have directly supportive policys.

Fishing and Lifestyle; votes went to the Liberals, then to the Greens ahead of the LDP.

If Green were to take his job seriously, he would do a bit of basic research and discover what the term ’libertarian’ means, and do a proper analysis of the nature of the parties that he assumes fall into that category. After that he would issue an apology for his stuff-up.

Queensland business calls for sun to be regulated

The lack of daylight saving in Queensland is something the south tends to find amusing, with lots of jokes about the extra sunshine fading the curtains and so forth.  The Goss Labor government introduced it way back, but was persuaded to hold a referendum on the issue in which it was soundly defeated.

Now the push is on, mainly from business and tourism to reintroduce it.

Daylight saving is a product of the rather quaint belief in the southern states that their governments have the power to regulate the time the sun rises and sets.  Witness the advertisement from Travel Victoria: 

"If you're planning to get the first rays of the morning sun on Queensland's Gold Coast, you'll need to ensure you're up at the unearthly hour of 4.47am on December 21,'' mocks Travel Victoria's website. "However, you can almost forget that evening BBQ in the sun, with darkness falling from 6.42pm.”

This assumes that, were the government up here to be as progressive as the Victorian one, the sun would rise an hour later as ordered at a much more convenient time for their people to shit the bed and get up and have breakfast.  It also ignores the fact that with the extra heat of our summers, most Queenslanders have the sense to wait till the sun goes down to have their barbeques under lights, (yes, we have electricity up here) in the cool of the evening.

The real problem for Qld business is not that the sun rises and sets too late, it is regulation of trading hours; something that they in the main have demanded.  You can’t after all allow that prick in competition with you start at an hour more conducive to trading with southern companies, nor have him put on a smaller skeleton staff to take orders after the regulated trading hours, in case he gets the drop on you.  Many businesses tend to regard a level playing field as one where all trade when, how, and where the government allows them.

Were trading hours to be deregulated, companies could chose their own hours according to need, pressure in infrastructure would be relieved with peak hours being extended, and the public could use their free will to make choices.

One thing that hasn’t changed over the years, Is the arrogance of those living in the more populous South East.  In a poll accompanying the report, more than 35% of those living there believe the whole state should be subjected to daylight saving even though it means an 8:30PM sunset for the West.  During the previous poll in 1992, there was an offer made to allow the SE corner to have daylight saving but for the rest to stay on Eastern Standard Time.  Businesses in Brisbane and the Gold Coast insisted that such a scheme would cause chaos and be unworkable.

After the referendum defeated DS time, they suddenly had a change of heart on that, but too late.  The reason they objected to the rest of Qld having EST was the possibility that businesses outside the SE corner might gain an advantage over them by being in the same time zone, whereas the South would have been an hour different.

The SE corner wants its cake and eat it too, but the rest of us should be obligated to provide it courtesy of big government.

Palmer greasing the wheels of Qld government

After a series of disagreements with state premier Campbell Newman last year Clive Palmer quit the LNP and went his own way.  After a series of escalations since then, Clive formed his own party and contested the federal election, winning two senate spots and a possible third, and may yet have won a seat for himself.

Clive was one of the LNP’s major donors in the past, sparking claims to him owning the party.  Curiously though, despite having his own party in competition to them, he has turned up on their donors list: 

… The latest report from the Electoral Commission of Queensland on political party funding shows the LNP enjoyed some hefty contributions from the agricultural sector, oil and gas companies and property groups. 

Interestingly, almost hidden among the names is one Professor Clive Palmer, who made more than $40,000 in donations in June. 

Of course Mr Palmer reportedly quit the party in 2012 after a falling out with Premier Campbell Newman, and formed the Palmer United Party, which found much success at the federal poll. 

The Queensland Labor Party received $4.7 million in gifts and donations with a large percentage coming from unions while the state's Greens pocketed just $168,000 most of that from private benefactors. 

There was $160,000 for the Katter Party courtesy of seven pharmacy groups and $70,000 from the Sporting Shooters of Australia.

The LNP, especially the Nationals part, were notorious for a ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’ approach to commercial approvals in the past so its possible that Clive doesn’t want too many obstacles put in the way of his future ventures.

The hefty contributions from the agricultural sector, oil and gas companies make interesting reading.  The agricultural sector has been battling against the unfettered access to their private property by the mining, oil, and gas sectors, which explains their interest.  Those sectors want better access to the land of the former.  Someone is going top get the rough end of the pineapple there.

It is not known why Bob Katter gets such large donations from big pharma.  It is possible though that Bob's preference swap with Labor gave them the idea that Bob and his party were on something, a lot of it and they decided to give some of the proceeds back.

Indonesian clerics rort our abattoirs

A powerful body of Indonesian clerics is essentially holding Australian abattoirs to ransom over the certification of meat as Halal and suitable for export to that country: 

QUEENSLAND abattoirs are being slugged thousands of dollars a month through a religious levy on meat exports so powerful Muslim clerics in Jakarta can raise money for Islamic schools and mosques.   The Halal certification fees can cost some meat processors up to $27,000 a month.

The Indonesian Council of Ulama (MUI), the top Islamic body which orders fatwa religious rulings, has even banned a Brisbane business from operating - because it was not charging Queensland abattoirs enough to give the religious tick-off to export meat. 

The scandal has stopped most of Queensland's Halal meat exports to Indonesia, as angry abattoir operators boycott the more expensive Halal certifiers endorsed by the MUI.Australian companies that certify meat as Halal, or legal under Islamic law, must be accredited with Indonesia's MUI - which approves just one certifier per state or territory. 

The MUI has suspended Brisbane based Australian Halal Food Services (AHFS) for engaging in "unfair competition'' that could "weaken (the) Halal certification movement". Certifiers must donate a share of their revenue to mosques and Islamic schools. 

AHFS - which refused to comment on Saturday - sponsors the As-Salaam Institute of Islamic Studies, based in Eight Mile Plains. It has also spent funds repairing and maintaining mosques in Rochedale and Rockhampton. … 

… But MUI chairman Amidhan Shaberah said AHFS had been suspended for trying to work interstate, as well as Queensland. He said setting minimum fees and restricting one certifier to work in each state was "part of our control''. "We have to standardise the charge to avoid any unfair competition between certifiers,'' he told The Sunday Mail during an interview in Jakarta.

This has nothing to do with the backlash from the live export ban, an ill conceived and misbegotten act of the Labor government in a knee-jerk reaction to a TV show.  While this act destroyed Australia’s reputation as a reliable supplier and crippled the northern cattle industry, damaging the rest in the process, this is the separate issue of processed meat exports.

Such high fees leave abattoirs with only three options:

• First, to stay out of that particular market, as they appear to be doing;
• Second, Charge more to all consumers including those with no religious fetishes, or charging the Halal market for the entire additional cost which could make the product too expensive and leave the company open to claims of religious discrimination under the Human Rights Act which was written and enacted by people with little or no commercial experience; and
• Third (which is most likely), pay less to struggling producers for their livestock.

Where a product has to be produced under special requirements and is not visually different to the normal one, a certification system is necessary.  Such systems though, can be abused. 

The usual form of abuse is for an industry to use it to make it impossible for new competitors to enter. In cases where government runs the certification, industry lobbyists push hard for conditions to ‘protect consumers’ which have the same effect while leaving those already established to hog the lot.

In this case it is being used to extort money from meat processors by monopolizing the certification with the stated aim of preventing competition.  

Back to the old car subsidy merry go round

Cartoon: by Bill Leak

American taxpayers will be pleased that they are not the only ones propping up General Motors with subsidies.  Last year the Gillard government, (that’s the one two back from the present) offered $275 million of our money to keep them in production.

This is a fairly regular event for Australian governments, resulting in promises to stay in production for a few more years then requests for more.

Now the company is threatening to shut shop unless the new Abbott government sticks to that commitment: 

... Mr Macfarlane insisted today the federal Coalition government was doing "all we can" for Holden and plans to visit its plant in Adelaide at the beginning of next month amid reports it could close after Christmas. 

But Victoria and South Australia are deeply concerned that the closure of Holden would potentially imperil both governments at next year’s general elections. 

Victorian Premier Denis Napthine yesterday failed to endorse the federal Coalition's election strategy on the car industry, instead backing a united approach to the sector's future at a state, federal and industry level. … 

… There has been a long-running debate in the Coalition about the incentives, with many arguing the subsidies should be cut or abolished altogether. 

Mr Macfarlane said there were bigger issues facing the sector than the Coalition's policy of removing $500 million in car industry funding. 

"I know money is important but ... we've put a lot of money into that industry," Mr Macfarlane told ABC Radio. 

"If everyone wants to be flexible, I'll be flexible (but) I haven't got a pocket full of money.

The South Australian Labor premier, Jay Weatherill seems to have an odd view of partnerships claiming that Holden need to know whether they have a commonwealth partner and a state one.  This must be one of those collectivist models where the company gets what it can out of selling its product and government’s part of the deal is supplying the rest off the backs of taxpayers.

In the real world partners expect a dividend, not a bill.

Wind Power Sucks Subsidies Instead of Turning Turbines

Media Statement by Viv Forbes

Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition. http://carbon-sense.com/

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on the Australian federal government and the opposition to abolish all renewable energy targets, certificates and subsidies.

The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that it was time for those who worship wind turbines to pay their full cost, and not force other electricity consumers and tax payers to pay for a costly, unreliable and obsolete method of generating electricity.

 “Wind power has been around since Don Quixote and it belongs in an industrial museum not in a modern economy.

 “For too much of the time, the wind just sucks subsidies when it should be turning turbines.

 “The 20% renewable energy target is unachievable without perpetual government mandates and subsidies and should be abolished.”

Quote: 


Green worshippers tell us “The wind is free.” But wind power is not free. All natural energy resources such as coal, wind and sun appear “free” – no one has to incur costs to create them. But turning a “free” resource into usable electricity costs money for collecting, generating and distributing that energy. To consumers and taxpayers, the real cost of wind power is very high, no matter how well it is hidden by politicians.

Cartoon Credit: Steve Hunter 

Reproduction by permission of the author.

Wind power is not reliable. No one can make the wind blow when the energy is needed – in fact, wind farms produce, on average, less than 30% of their nameplate capacity, often at times of low demand and low electricity prices. Not one conventional power plant has been replaced by wind – the old reliables stay there, incurring maintenance costs, because they are still needed as backup for the many times when there is zero wind power. In cold still weather, wind turbines actually consume power from the grid to keep them from freezing up – they are better at harvesting subsidies than harvesting wind. This unpredictable waxing and waning of the wind also increases the chances of sudden brownouts and surges on electricity networks.

Wind power harms the environment. Because of the large area of land needed to collect low-density wind energy, wind power requires more land-clearing, needs more transmission lines, kills more wildlife, lights more bushfires and uglifies more landscape per unit of electricity than conventional power. And the sub-sonic whine of the turbines drives neighbours batty and devalues local properties.

Like hydro-power, wind power is limited, with few suitable sites. And every wind turbine slows the wind, thus reducing the wind energy available to any downwind turbines. It is “renewable” but it is not unlimited.

Wind power is justified by claims that it reduces emissions and thus reduces global warming. However, when all the steel, concrete, construction, roads, transmission lines, backup, maintenance, replacement and rehabilitation are taken into account, wind power contributes nothing to reducing emissions or changing global climate.

However wind turbines DO change the local weather. Wind is the major component of weather. Winds bring moisture to the inland, dilute and clear pollution from the cities, and change air temperatures everywhere. Wind towers rob the wind of its energy, affecting local wind speeds and changing local weather patterns, and the more there are, the greater the effect.

Wind power is an expensive, intermittent and limited energy source that degrades the environment, kills birds, but does nothing to improve global climate.

There should be no special subsidies, tax breaks, market mandates or regulations for any energy technology – all should compete on an equal basis and all consumers should be free to choose their supplier.

Wind energy should be paid for by those who want it, not by captive taxpayers or electricity consumers.