Deloitte: Australia to Lose Trillions Unless We Act on Climate Change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Deloitte, $3.4 trillion and 880,000 jobs lost if we continue business as usual, but $680 billion gained and 250,000 new jobs if we act on climate change. But some of their assumptions about business as usual appear to be unrealistically pessimistic.

Australia will lose more than $3 trillion and 880,000 jobs over 50 years if climate change is not addressed, Deloitte says

By Kathleen Calderwood
Posted 1d ago, updated Yesterday at 6:19am

The Australian economy will lose more than $3 trillion over the next 50 years if climate change is not addressed, according to a new report from Deloitte Access Economics.

The report found the economy could shrink by 6 per cent over the next 50 years and 880,000 jobs could be lost. 

Report author Pradeep Philip, who was a policy director for former prime minister Kevin Rudd, said there was also a lot to be gained if warming was kept below 1.5 degrees and Australia achieved net zero carbon emissions by 2050. 

“If we do act over the next few years then in just 50 years there is a benefit to the economy of $680 billion,” he said. 

“We’ll have an economy 2.6 per cent bigger, generating 250,000 jobs, so this tells us if you are pro-growth and pro-jobs then we need to act on climate change now.

“We know that there are new sectors around renewables, hydrogen, electric vehicles that can be created.”

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-02/australian-economy-lose-$3-trillion-climate-change-inaction/12837244

An example of a pessimistic assumption is the section on Agriculture on page 33 of the report;

What and how we grow

Agricultural damages from variations in crop yields

• The agricultural sector is on the front line of climate change in Australia. Australia’s vast and variable geography means that one part of the country can be suffering from the worst drought in living memory, while other parts are experiencing devastating floods.

• Climate change means rising temperatures, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and differentregional patterns of precipitation.

• For agricultural production, this means fluctuations in growing conditions, water availability and the severity and frequency of extreme weather events; resulting in crop yield volatility and market uncertainty.

When faced with unmitigated climate change, even with adaption, there are limits to what farmers can do. Deloitte Access Economics considers damages to agriculture as variations in crop yields to be a significant impact.

Report available here (p 33)

Setting aside the obvious question of how fragile renewable energy infrastructure is supposed to survive such an uptick in superstorms, lets suspend disbelief and imagine for a moment this dire prediction comes true.

How would Australia adapt to such a future?

Australia has had a plan to substantially increase water availability on the drawing board for almost a century. The latest incarnation, proposed by the CSIRO in 2018, involves building three mega dams in the far north to tap vast tropical river systems which currently dump billions of litres of fresh water into the sea.

The CSIRO proposal is for the dams to irrigate the local area in the tropics, but if climate change made Northern agriculture impossible, that water could instead be shipped south, below the tropical storm belt, to irrigate new farms in Australia’s vast southern desert. This would turn any climate driven uptick in cyclones and severe storms into an agricultural asset, by keeping the tropical zone dams filled with enough water to feed thirsty cold climate farms in the far south.

Or take the report’s claim on lost worker productivity;

How workers work

Heat stress impacts on labour productivity

• As temperatures rise, heat stress on workers surpasses becomes a concern for the health and safety of workers and their ability to perform tasks.

• There is only so much heat stress the body can take.

• Before serious health consequences are reached (heat strain/stroke
or death), at lower levels of heat exposure workers are subject to diminished mental task ability, diminished capacity to work at their former level and are at a higherrisk of accident.

Deloitte Access Economics considers the ‘slowing down’ of workers and their ability to do their jobs results in lower labour productivity.

Report available here (p 31)

Does anyone seriously think that by 2070 anyone will have to work outdoors or even indoors in unpleasant conditions? Or is it more likely robots will do the bulk of unpleasant manual work which is currently performed by humans? Even if humans in 2070 still need to participate in outdoor work, agricultural machines are already being manufactured with air-conditioned cabs. For people who have to work outdoors, you can buy a cold suit which you can fill with ice packs. The only reason these innovations are not more widely used is most people don’t need them. Its easier for most people to drink water and sweat a little, than mess about getting the icepack suit prepared every day before work.

The other point the report makes is that demand for Australian coal will diminish. Frankly the state of the Australian coal market is not really the Australian taxpayers’ problem. If coal demand drops, investment will shift to more profitable ventures. If a demand for green hydrogen appears, investors will flock to exploit the opportunity. This is how free market capitalism works. There is no need for government intervention, if the investment opportunity is genuine.

Climate reports like Deloitte in my opinion don’t make sense even if you accept their climate predictions at face value. Even if global temperature soars the way they predict, which seems incredibly unlikely given the ongoing lack of soaring temperatures, only the most miserably pessimistic of assumptions, like assuming our descendants all forget how to innovate, can portray climate change as a significant problem.

98 thoughts on “Deloitte: Australia to Lose Trillions Unless We Act on Climate Change

  1. If you start with incorrect assumptions … then you’re not going to get a meaningful result. Delossers has its nose in the trough and wants more.

    • And you Aussies disarmed yourselves….. just sayin’. Gun sales in the US have reached record levels and the FBI has processed 3 MM background checks in the last few months with the majority of these are Black Voters and 40% are women. I guess its their insurance policy.

      • and so has the entire Anglosphere – Canada, New Zealand, the UK. They all disarmed themselves
        such that criminals have all the guns they want and police are only an hour away with their stupid yellow tape after everyone innocent has been murdered.

        … in Australia:

        No automobile factories
        No Oil Refineries – ZERO – they must import every gallon of gas, diesel, aviation fuel
        No nuclear power plants

        • “John Galt III November 3, 2020 at 6:01 am”

          Banning guns in the UK, Aus and NZ was a stupid move because criminals are…criminals…and they will get all the guns they need. Shortly after Howard banned guns in the 90’s, gun related crime dropped quite a bit. But now, gun related crime is just as high as it was. Some with the UK and NZ. Knife crime is very high in the UK now.

          Aus has 4 oil refineries.

          • Woke BP has announced that the Kwinana (Perth) refinery is to close in 2022 when they finish an import terminal. The old Shell (another woke concern) Geelong Vic is on its last legs and will close next year. Ampol has announced that they are considering closing the Brisbane refinery. The Exxon refinery at Altona (Melbourne) has been making a loss. With new environmental coming in and the lockdown in Vic. there are rumors that it will close.
            There are no refineries elsewhere so soon there will be none.

        • John Galt 3
          I hope you are not suggesting that The Police are stopped from investigating real crimes like Twitter comments about Transgender being a bit dodgy as I expect from my vigilante police…and be sent to stop trivial stuff like violence and robberies and dope fiends and other anti social trivia…You people just do not have ethics whatsoever and the sooner the police are given the power to arrest Climate Denier Gangsters and jail them without trial the sooner we become a free and democratic showcase for the World…

    • Actually, start with an agenda, then isolate “by any means necessary”, then pick prime motivator, then craft the incorrect assumptions. This means their far more evil than simple “errors” in modeling. Intentional, well-conceived fear mongering.
      Covid has proven fear can drive hysteria…now they’re just trying to dial in the factor that can be turned sky high to drive hysteria.
      Evil.
      Don’t presume them the luxury of ignorance.

    • ““We’ll have an economy 2.6 per cent bigger, generating 250,000 jobs,”

      In 50 years that only 5,000 jobs a years. Truly pathetic. And a growth rate of 2.6%/50 = 0.052% growth. Even more pathetic. Do they not even look at their own numbers.

      People should figure out that this is actually stagnation and not growth.

      They are also suggesting that all those Australians working outdoors under very hot conditions are mentally incapacitated and impaired. All those years.

      What the idiots do not admit is that summers do not get hotter, just winters get less cold a little bit and voila, you have global warming. It means longer growing seasons and less people killed by cold.

      As we are cooling, with the Sun going into a Grand Solar Minimum, I still expect to have nice warm summers in Maine, just less snow and ice in the winter.

  2. ‘Climate Change’ is a $3 trillion threat to the Australia’s economy but the danger is not coming from the weather, it is coming from ridiculous biased malformed reports like this from Rent Seekers

    • yeah as soon as I saw adivsor to KRudd I started laughing
      geet that advice worked so well
      and could????in 50yrs….
      roflmao funny
      and yes this drivel got immediate ABC media gushing and promotion as exactly whats going to happen

  3. “Australia will lose more than $3 trillion and 880,000 jobs over 50 years if climate change is not addressed, Deloitte says”

    50 years? In 50 years time, if Australia does nothing about China, it will be come a province of China.

    • Very True about China Patrick.

      And what the report didn’t say is that with additional CO2 in the atmosphere, coupled with longer growing seasons and increased productivity created by a slightly warmer climate vice colder, over $10T in additional GDP will be created, along with over 3,000,000 new jobs due to not wasting trillions of the taxpayer’s dollars to fix something that doesn’t need to be fixed.

  4. Et tu Deloitte?

    “Over our 175-year history, we have built a reputation for impactful delivery across audit and assurance, consulting, financial advisory, risk advisory, tax, and technology services.”

    What else would you expect from that radical hotbed of sandal wearing marxists?

    • And the UK still trades on our reputation of being Great Britain, despite the clowns who have been in charge since Thatcher.

      “Past performance is no guarantee of future results”

        • At least Graeme doesn’t continually make mindles,s meaningless, provably-wrong statements ALL the time.

        • Charles Higley November 3, 2020 at 2:11 pm does a pretty good analysis of the numbers in the report, which, like CO2 in the atmosphere, is completely meaningless. Added to that Rudd got involved, so making the report irrelevant. But good sound bites in the MSM though.

    • Don’t be too hard on Loydo. He has a point. We must take people at their word. Here’s an additional quote to support you Loydo:
      “In today’s regulatory environment, it’s virtually impossible to violate rules.”
      — Bernard Madoff

  5. Smoke and Mirrors.

    ““If we do act over the next few years then in just 50 years there is a benefit to the economy of $680 billion,” he said. ”

    IN JUST 50 years! So more like $13.6 billion a year then?

    A quick search tells me that the GDP of Oz is $1.89 trillion.

    Colour me apathy.

  6. “who was a policy director for former prime minister Kevin Rudd”

    LOL….. Enough said,

    Take this with a grain of salt. !!

  7. “if the investment opportunity is genuine.”

    I guess that is the $64,000 question, in that if the playing field is level, then that is a fair assumption. But if something else similar (solar/wind) is subsidized, how does a genuine investment opportunity stay alive financially if someone else gets a massive subsidy or preferential treatment of some type. Think a full supply hydro dam spilling water because solar and wind have priority access to the grid in meddled political PPA contracts. So the dam supplying base load has to dump water that could have been used to generate renewable hydro to enable the intermittent green renewables.

  8. How can anyone read that complete and utter tosh and not burst out laughing !!

    even griff or loy must think this guy has lost his noodles !!

      • WOW !! so actually think Pradeep Philip has something rational to say.

        No accounting for that brain-hosing of your , is there griff.

        No ability for rational thought whatsoever.

  9. If Australia keeps going on this road to ruin embracing these crack pot renewable energy ideas and thinking that they can have an expanding economy without a cheap, reliable and abundant energy system. It has been shown that any good employer of the people needs a reliable and cheap source of power to drive a competitive industry in the world economy. If you get rid of all of your fossil fuel powered electrical generation plants and replace it with renewables that make the cost of power uneconomical to manufacture anything. So the 880,000 job losses will be a drop in the bucket when all of the industries depart Australia for greener pastures.

    Most of the radical Green polices are nothing but a poison pill to the economy to destroy the capitalist system and make massive welfare states depending on the government for hand outs for everything.

    Read a good book by the author John Ringo ” The Road to Damascus” it out lines the exact way in which this undermining of a successful society is done to create a socialist state. The undermining of the education system to brainwash the children. The ruining of the economy by massive regulation and interference in the working of industrial and agriculture sectors. Massive unemployment due to the economy been burdened with overbearing social programs. Disarming the population to ensure there could be No push back. Setting aside large swaths of air-able productive land for “Nature” reserves. Allowing for the influx of large amounts of untrained and uneducated “Refugees” to put an extra burden on the already overloaded welfare systems to bolster the left leaning voter base.

    What is becoming apparent to a lot of people in Australia, New Zealand and Canada is that their left leaning governments are pushing the same play book agenda. It reeks of UN Agenda 21 and the globalists push for a remaking of the worlds governments into massive welfare states run by un-elected bureaucrats of the new world order. The corruption stink in Canada from the left leaning Trudeau government during its rein of error is becoming to much to bear for most Canadians now. Hardly a week goes by without another Liberal scandal been unearthed. Time to stop these initiatives and ignore garbage advice coming from biased organizations like the one that generated this propaganda hit piece.

      • Amazing what a plentiful supply of RELIABLE carbon based fuels, and the will to use it, can do, isn’t it, loy !

        Do you think any of that would have happened with fossil fuels !

        • Interesting chart. More interesting is if you look at the time line and overlay the use of energy in the same time line it goes without saying that fossil fuels have increased the economy of the world. In the 1500’s most people heated their homes with wood. in the 1800’s coal started to be mined and used by the majority of the developing population. Tesla and Westinghouse brought AC power to the world for commercial use in the late 1800’s. In the 1900’s the switch to oil and natural gas started to replace coal and wood for many of the energy needs. Internal combustion engines replaced the horse for source of power. So would we be in the same place WITHOUT fossil fuels.

          So saying that here is another chart from that report showing the access to electricity and the relation to GDP as it was reported in 2016.
          https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/access-to-electricity-vs-gdp-per-capita

      • “Loydo November 3, 2020 at 12:26 am”

        From the link in the link in your graph about GDP over 2 millennia.

        “Data earlier than 1990 is backwards extended from the World Bank observation for 1990 based on the growth rates implied by Maddison data. The Maddison data is published here: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

        Did you read it Loydo?

  10. “fluctuations in growing conditions, water availability and the severity and frequency of extreme weather events”

    We’ll all be rooned!

    That’s basically the Australian climate since at least the start of European settlement.

  11. I qualified as an Accountant with Deloitte, Plender & Griffiths in London in the early Seventies. The loss of Plender & Griffiths appears to have fried the remainder of the Deloitte brains. Who wastes their valuable time putting this rubbish together. You do realise that you will never get this time back.

  12. The reality is that the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control . There is no action that mankind can take that will change this. We just do not have the power so all efforts in this area are wasted efforts.

      • You know you have ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for your mind-numbed mantra regurgitation, don’t you griff.

        1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

        2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

        You can produce an answer any time you feel you can back it up with evidence

        STILL waiting ! like…FOR-EVAH !!!

        • Climate Change is caused by butterflies flapping their wings. Perhaps you should buy Griff a butterfly net so he can chase after butterflies to fight Climate Change.

      • No. Not by ‘CO2’ , human or otherwise.

        In fact there may well be no cause at all. The whole concept of causality is a bit moot when you look at a complex non-linear system with many feedback paths. It may well be the cause of itself. I.e. once set in motion it will exhibit chaotic pseudo-periodical changes. Which would be as much a disappointment to those who believe in ‘cycles’ as to those who believe in ‘anthropogenic global warming’.

        And a disaster for the armchair ‘scientists’ here, putting forward theory after theory as to the causes of everything, that may not in the end have an (external) cause at all.

      • Look at the chart that Al Gore presented in his first movie showing temperature and CO2 vs time for the past 650,000 years. Al Gore claimed the this data shows that CO2 regulates temperature but if one looks at the data in higher temporal resolution one will find that CO2 level follows temperature and not the other way around. This happens because warmer oceans cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler oceans. Al Gore also included in his plot today’s CO2 level which over the past 650,000 years seems to be abnormally high The proximate cause of this is mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. But according to Al Gore’s chart this great increase in CO2 has not affected global temperatures. So what Al Gore’s chart really shows is that CO2 seems to have no effect on global temperature.

        Over many hundreds of millions of years atmospheric CO2 has been decreasing as it is being stored in the form of carbonate rocks and fossil fuels. During the last ice age CO2 levels became dangerously low in terms of what plant life requires. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels is returning CO2 to a much safer level for plant life. We should be thankful that we do not need to start freeing CO2 from carbonate rock in order to preserve life on this planet.

        AGW is a conjecture that depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect provided for by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse is not what keeps a real greenhouse warm. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is entirely a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. So too on Earth where instead of glass there is gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere. As derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the surface of the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is what has been derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. Additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or any where else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction as well.

        But for those that still believe in a radiant greenhouse effect, initial radiametric calculations came up with a value of the climate sensitivity of CO2 not counting feedback effects of 1.2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. A research group from England examined temperature and CO2 data from 1850 to today and determined that if all the warming were caused by an increase in CO2 that the the climate sensitivity of CO2 including feedbacks could not possible be more than 1.2 degrees C. A researcher from Japan pointed out that the initial radiametric calculations failed to include the fact that a doubling of CO2 would cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect and decreases the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20. So we end up with a climate sensitivity of CO2 of less than .06 degrees C which is trivial and too small to measure.

        Then there is the issue of H2O feedback. According to the AGW conjecture, CO2 warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming because H2O is, molecule per molecule, a stronger IR absorber than is CO2. This additional warming causes still more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming and so forth. But what this H2O feedback fails to include is the fact that besides being the primary so called greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere, by the heat of vaporization, moving heat energy from the earth’s surface to where clouds form and radiate the heat energy to space The overall cooling effect of CO2 is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. The net cooling effect of H2O hence must act as a negative, stabilizing feedback that reduces and warming that the CO2 might provide. So instead of amplifying CO2 warming by a nominal factor of 3. H2O feedback reduces CO2 warming by a nominal factor of 3, reducing the climate sensitivity of CO2 from .06 to .02 degrees C which is trivial and too small to measure so it is effectively zero. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate system for at least the last past 500k years, enough for life to evolve because we are here.

        If CO2 really effected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. The IPCC does not really know what the climate sensitivity of CO2 rally is and they have been unable to measure it. It is as if the climate sensitivity of CO2 was zero and hence there is nothing to measure. Apparently the IPCC continues to maintain without evidence that CO2 creates a climate problem so as to justify their funding. It is all politics and not science.

  13. Pradeep Philip has made a fool of himself and Deloitte.

    Anyone who makes the outlandish, groundless, scaremongering claims that he, as author of Deloitte Access Economics latest Report, ‘A new Choice’, exposes the fact that he does not understand even the basics of how electromagnetic radiation and greenhouse gasses operate in the real world.

    If he did he would he would realise the complete ridiculousness of such claims as it would quickly become obvious that the whole basis for them is grossly, fundamentally flawed.

    It is a complex area but to simplify it right down to the basic elements in a few words;-

    The Sun, being very hot, emits high energy electromagnetic radiation (EMR) at very short wavelengths. ~ 99.9% of our energy comes from the Sun.
    The Earth, being much cooler, emits much lower energy EMR in the Infra-red (IR) spectrum.
    Energy received must ~ equal energy lost or the Earth would heat up or cool down.

    Greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere play a very important part in regulating the energy emitted from the Earth.

    Each gas is tested in a laboratory, in isolation from other gasses, to determine its individual specific activity areas.
    Each greenhouse gas (GHG) will become active at one or more IR frequencies, but will be inactive at other frequencies. An analogy would be plucking a string on a musical instrument which results in a distinct sound wavelength ‘note’.
    In the actual atmosphere these results will be variably influenced and modified by its interaction with the other GHG’s present. (Nothing is simple)
    When a photon of IR radiation hits a GHG at the right specific wavelength, it excites it and it starts to vibrate (in a number of possible ways).
    It will then rapidly re-emit the photon at the same wavelength in a direction dependant on the orientation of the GHG molecule at the time.
    The vast majority of air molecules are not greenhouse gas molecules and so when impacted by a photon, if they are not already saturated, it will be absorbed, or partially absorbed, warming it.
    This process slows. But does not stop, the loss of IR radiation to space.

    There is no dispute that water vapour (H2O) is far and away the most important GHG.

    It is excited and operates over a very wide range of IR frequencies
    It is also by far the most abundant greenhouse gas.
    Yet the IPCC and adherents generally ignore it and its effect.

    Carbon dioxide CO2 is the next most important, but relatively minor, greenhouse gas, however,

    It effectively only operates at a spike entered on 14.9um
    Water vapour is also partially active at this spectrum, limiting, depending on its saturating effect, further warming of the atmosphere by CO2.

    There are a wide band of frequencies centred around the peak emission area where all GHG’s effectively have little or no effect, a radiation ‘window’ exists here, allowing heat radiation to freely escape to space.

    The IPCC are happy to let people believe that all the increase in atmospheric CO2 is a result of mankind burning fossil fuels, but is this actually the case?

    Buried deep in the IPCC AR5 Technical Report they show that burning fossil fuels only accounts for 3.8% and ‘Land Use Change’ an additional .5%, giving a total of 4.3% for mankind’s entire contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels.

    Even more important for the agricultural industry is the claim that agricultural emissions, primarily methane from livestock, are the second highest emitters after fossil energy use.
    This is even more bizarre and unconscionable as their calculations do not take account of the clearly recognised full carbon cycle that operates.

    They only calculate livestock emissions of methane.
    Methane rapidly breaks down into CO2 and H2O etc., in the atmosphere.
    They ignore the capture of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, by the plants the livestock ate, an essential component part to complete the carbon cycle.
    If they did, livestock would almost certainly at least be ‘carbon neutral’.

    Nor do they take into account the enormous and vital benefits of increased atmospheric CO2.

    This is too large a topic to elaborate here, but it means higher yields and growth rates for plants and all the animals and biota that depend on them. All life depends on carbon dioxide as the current comprehensive, beneficial, greening of the world as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase, testifies.

    It is time that a little positive reality was introduced into this debate.

  14. Since the 1960’s, Australia’s crop yields and total livestock and agricultural crop productionincreased 5 fold, and, if anything, annual rainfall has increased:

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/water/rain/australia/rainfall-aust-trend-1900-2020.gif

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.PRD.CROP.XD?locations=AU

    All this incredible increase of production is due to the availability of cheap fossil fueles, cheap petrochemical fertilizers and improved irrigation/technology…

    The absurd notion that by Australia: tripling electrical costs, destroying their coal and mining industries, destroying their agricultural and livestock industries, etc, will somehow increase their GDP, is well, insane and completely devoid from reality.

    There is something seriously wrong with Leftists’ understanding of economics and reality in general..

      • You mean NORMAL WEATHER VARIABILITY, don’t you griff. !

        That fantastic growth has happened despite all of Australia’s NATURAL weather variability.

      • Griff-san:

        ECS is actually a trivial amount most likely between 0.6~1.2C, which would be a net benefit, and also higher CO2 levels increases crop yields by 30% per doubling, and makes plants more drought resistant..

        So, yes, the earth will actually benefit from higher CO2 levels, moreover, for the past 250 million years, earth’s average CO2 level was around 1,000ppm.

      • The love of field and coppice,
        Of green and shaded lanes,
        Of ordered woods and gardens
        Is running in your veins.
        Strong love of grey-blue distance,
        Brown streams and soft, dim skies –
        I know but cannot share it,
        My love is otherwise.

        I love a sunburnt country,
        A land of sweeping plains,
        Of ragged mountain ranges,
        Of droughts and flooding rains.
        I love her far horizons,
        I love her jewel-sea,
        Her beauty and her terror –
        The wide brown land for me!

        The stark white ring-barked forests,
        All tragic to the moon,
        The sapphire-misted mountains,
        The hot gold hush of noon,
        Green tangle of the brushes
        Where lithe lianas coil,
        And orchids deck the tree-tops,
        And ferns the warm dark soil.

        Core of my heart, my country!
        Her pitiless blue sky,
        When, sick at heart, around us
        We see the cattle die –
        But then the grey clouds gather,
        And we can bless again
        The drumming of an army,
        The steady soaking rain.

        Core of my heart, my country!
        Land of the rainbow gold,
        For flood and fire and famine
        She pays us back threefold.
        Over the thirsty paddocks,
        Watch, after many days,
        The filmy veil of greenness
        That thickens as we gaze.

        An opal-hearted country,
        A wilful, lavish land –
        All you who have not loved her,
        You will not understand –
        Though earth holds many splendours,
        Wherever I may die,
        I know to what brown country
        My homing thoughts will fly.

        Dorothea McKellar 1908

      • Hey, look, Grift with his fifth post of bullshit tripe.

        Progressive lefties really believe in Goebbels’ principal of repetition – pretty much over all other methods.

  15. “… Most particularly in hosting renewable energy infrastructure but also the opportunity to be paid for sequestering carbon in trees and in soil, …” said farmer Charlie Prell.
    Well he would say that:
    “… some lucky landowners in Australia are receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual rental payments from wind farm developers, and the truly lucky ones, may even be eligible to receive millions …”.
    https://ldcinfrastructure.com.au/wind-energy-lease-explained/
    Rent-seeking on stilts.

  16. Chris Richardson (boss of DAE) is on the payroll of the carbon mafia. DAE’s solution to our partial demise is a ‘price on carbon’ surprise surprise! No they don’t suggest taking action against the major emitters. In fact the opposite is desired. DAE are a very special firm in the pay of very special interests.

  17. ‘ One part of the country can be suffering from …drought, the other from ….floods. ‘

    No mention that still other parts are not suffering from anything at all. It seems you have to be an accounting idiot to be assigned to climate reports.

  18. Eric, good posting of another alarmist report with comments. However, it caused a bit of a fright for me, since Australia is a good producer of wine, so I checked the map. Looks like a major wine producing zone is across the middle of New South Wales, which means there’s a long way to retreat in a polar direction if the global climate heats up and requires this. So, no panic, everything normal, and who in the hell thinks Australia can control global climate, even by totally crippling their economy?

    • Ron, Mudgee is in the middle of the wine producing region of Central NSW. Such a beautiful part of the world, well kept towns rich in history. Picture perfect scenery of rolling hills and distant mountains. Grazing animals, grapes, crops and orchards. A tourist magnet destination, so lovely.

      I wouldn’t bother coming here Ron, Matt Kean has declared this region the centre of the Central West Renewable Energy Zone. There are already millions of solar panels and a multitude of wind turbines lined up in row after row for kilometres, leading into and surrounding some of NSW’s towns that are steeped in history. Tales of Ned Kelly and other bushrangers, who rode on horseback through the diggings and shanty towns of the prospectors and goldminers in bygone days. Echo’s of poems by Henry Lawson who lived nearby for a time. There is a museum in his honour and an annual festival to celebrate his life. The streets shut down for the weekend and parades are held in his honour, his poems read in the local pubs. There is a photographic museum with haunting images of the Gold Rush era, sepia representations of people long dead who walked these streets.

      It is all being trashed and disrespected. It will lose its magic and special charm. All for the greater good they say. Totalitarianism.

      • Matt Kean! How come a greenie a is minister in a supposedly conservative government. His latest brain*art is introducing a carbon tax.

        • If it wasn’t so sad it would be hilarious. Kean actually calls himself a moderate. This will make you laugh, two of his ‘advisors are Adam Bandt, yes that’s right, the leader of the Greens. And the other is Zali Steggall. She calls herself an independent, turns out she only ever voted for thr Greens.

          Australians thought they were voting for conservatives, turns out that droves of them are Greens who have infiltrated conservative government. It’s pretty widespread, they would never have been voted in under the Greens banner.

  19. Translation of Deloitte’s BS: we are salivating at the prospects of juicy consultancy contracts on the back of this CAGW sc@m.

  20. 1) I don’t trust any report put out by Climate Doomsayers

    2) Forecasting out 50 years means your margin of error extrapolates outwards to cover the entire graph. As Petterson says, there will be no way to see it our efforts had any effect (ie it’s not falsifiable)

    3) Climate Doomsayers have a horrible record predicting what will happen in 5 years, much less the next 50 years.

    /file under “studies show…”

  21. Headline should be “Deloitte to Lose Billions Unless We Act on Climate Change”. Deloitte needs Governments & businesses to waste more money on consultants & expensive projects to keep Deloitte pen pushes busy doing virtually nothing.

  22. Meanwhile Kevin07 types think more of shutting up dissenting voices than they do about climate change-

    “The petition has surpassed the country’s biggest e-petition to parliament – the 2019 petition to declare a state of climate emergency, which gained 404,538 signatories and was presented to parliament.”

    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/kevin-rudd-petition-seeking-royal-commission-into-murdoch-media-nears-500-000-signatures/ar-BB1aE0I9

    Did you get in early with the petition before Huge Grant and Co griff?

  23. It used to be “Deloitte and Touche”: now swap the T and the D. And this nonsense at a time when actual industrial productivity is increasing by double digits annually.

  24. Deloitte used to be primarily a public accounting firm. Doesn’t look like they even bothered to follow standard practice for financial projections, which are very much separated from reality if you’re being ethical. There’s not enough information about their projections to judge for yourself and there’s no warnings that these are not to be relied on except for speculative purposes.

    Now they are a consulting advocate trading on their former reputation as an objective measurer.

  25. Literally not worth the paper it’s printed on. NO ‘expert’ has ever correctly predicted anything 50 years into the future, ever. Just more climate propaganda.

    Trump should ban all papers citing ‘predictions’ further ahead than 10 or 20 years. At a stroke 97% of long-term scare papers would vanish.

  26. When accountants assume too much, bad things happen to them. Think Arthur Andersen’s experience with Enron and Worldcom.

  27. Show me any report from Deloitte in 2019 or earlier that mentioned risks and costs of an extended global pandemic. You can’t; it wasn’t on anyone’s radar, not even the various national and international public health agencies, and certainly not the big auditing firms. Show me any corporate annual report from 2019 that even mentions business risks of such an event. Nada, not even the most heavily hit travel/tourism/convention/hospitality industries. Now count the bankruptcies already announced or anticipated in those sectors, plus retail chains and shopping malls. Bit of a gap between what happened and what everyone expected, what?

    Everyone in the business of forecasting and quantifying risks completely missed what has just bitten most of the world in the ass, and from less than a year out. And we’re supposed to believe these same people can look 50 years into the future and make credible recommendations for current policy?

    Not I.

  28. Deloitte is just paying the “stay in business” tax here with corporate virtue signals. Don’t take it seriously. Watch China punish the Aussies with trade messages if you want to step back towards reality.

  29. Emission don’t drive atmospheric CO2 or the climate, so nothing they do can change the climate so it’s all a waste of time by political do-gooders doing dumb things.

    Monies used for emissions mitigation will be wasted: all pain no gain. The sun controls the climate not emissions.

  30. So what happens when you base a prediction on incomplete/inaccurate modeling based on incomplete/inaccurate modeling based on an unproven hypothesis?
    Highly precise bullshit perhaps?

  31. “Does anyone seriously think that by 2070 anyone will have to work outdoors or even indoors in unpleasant conditions?”

    Not a new problem at all:

    Noel Coward “Mad Dogs and Englishmen”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMlyT_Sb7sg

    In tropical climes there are certain times of day
    When all the citizens retire to take their clothes off and perspire.
    It’s one of those rules that the greatest fools obey,
    Because the sun is far too sultry & one must avoid its ultra violet rays.
    The natives grieve when the white men leave their huts,
    because they’re obviously, definitely nuts.

    Mad dogs & Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
    The Japanese don’t care to.
    The Chinese wouldn’t dare to.
    Hindus and Argentines sleep firmly from twelve to one,
    But Englishmen detest a siesta.
    In the Philippines they have lovely screens to protect you from the glare.
    In the Malay states there are hats like plates which the Britishers won’t wear.
    At twelve noon the natives swoon, and no further work is done,
    But mad dogs & Englishmen go out in the midday sun.

    Such a surprise for the eastern eyes to see,
    That though the English are effete,
    they’re quite impervious to heat.
    When the white man rides every native hides in glee.
    Because the simple creatures hope
    He will impale his solar topee on a tree.

    It seems such a shame when the English claim the Earth,
    That they give rise to such hilarity and mirth.
    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo, he, he, he, he, hm, hm, hm, hm, hm.

    Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
    The toughest Burmese bandit can never understand it.
    In Rangoon the heat of noon is just what the natives shun,
    They put their scotch or rye down and lie down.
    In a jungle town where the sun beats down to the rage of man and beast,
    The English garb of the English sahib merely gets a bit more creased.
    In Bangkok at twleve’o’clock they foam at the mouth and run,
    But mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.

    Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
    The smallest Malay rabbit deplores this foolish habit.
    In Hong Kong they strike a gong
    And fire off a noonday gun
    To reprimand each inmate who’s in late.
    In the mangrove swamps where the python romps there is peace from twelve to two,
    Even caribous lie around and snooze, for there’s nothing else to do.
    In Bengal, to move at all is seldom if ever done.
    But mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun!

    • I went to Spain about 50 years ago. Madrid closed down at noon and did not reopen until 4. If it really as hot as the warmunists say it will be, we will live like the Madrileños did back then. And our lives will be a little mellower.

Comments are closed.