Archive for December, 2023

Democrats remove Trump from Ballot????

December 28, 2023

To understand what is happening you need to read at least some of the two High Court judgements.

Here is a quick run down. We will start with the High Court of Colarado.

Colarado

This High Court says:

  • “More than three months ago, a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated voters… filed a lengthy petition in the…. “Denver District Court”… asking the court to rule that former President Donald J. Trump… may not appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot”

So on the very first page the judgement states that the motion was brought by Republicans.

People who tell us it was a Democrat motion are lying. Not unusual perhaps. But, it is probably good to remember not to trust them in anything they say, as that was pretty easy to discover, and reporters might have to go out of their way to avoid discovering it.

In this Denver District Court case:

  • “The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three [of the 14th Amendment].”

In other words Trump was essentially convicted of insurrection – which is something the MSM also seem to have ignored.

However the District court also found that:

  • “Section Three does not apply to the President”

This District Court decision was appealed both by Trump and by the Republicans and unaffiliated voters to the High Court.

  • “The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various rulings by the district court.”

The High Court found:

  • “The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three.”
  • “Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.”
  • “Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court committed reversible error.”

In other words being President does not exclude you from the 14th Amendment. As well the lower court made a decision about ‘insurrection’.

  • “The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

and

  • “The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.”

In other words, by the legal standards of a civil case, there is no doubt Trump engaged in, or participated in, an insurrection. He appears to have been convicted without penalty which perhaps shows how privileged Trump is.

The Logical conclusion is:

  • “President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified,”

Trump broke the law and the Constitution, which is usually considered to be bad, and perhaps people don’t want to set a precident for Presidents to be known lawbreakers? However, the ultimate decision depends on the US Supreme Court

  • “If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.”

The rest of the document justifies their position, and includes more justification of the point that Trump participated in insurrection.

I personally suspect that the Supreme Court will overturn this decision, despite the High court having apparently demonstrated their arguments well, and argued that the framers of the amendment intended it to apply to the office of President. But the Supreme court could easily argue that it does not matter what the framers intended, all that matters is the words, the lack of words and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the words. This would completly go against their usual originalist interpretations of the Constitution, but it helps save Trump, so who cares?

In short.

  1. The case was not brought by Democrats. In my experience Democrats want Trump on the Ballot as they think Trump is the easiest person for Biden to defeat.
  2. Trump has been convicted of participating in insurrection.
  3. The 14 Ammendment covers the office of President, when the President participates in Insurrection, and forbids him from running for any office including that of President..
  4. Therefore by the law set out in the US Constitution, Trump has disqualified himself from standing for the Presidency. Only Trump did this. No one else disqualified him.

If people break the law, President or not, they should pay the penalty, perhaps particularly if they were president. Indeed, we would expect the “law and order party” to agree with this, but apparently the law is for others.

Of course if, in other cases, Trump does get declared immune from prosecution for all crimes committed while President, then that will affect Biden too, and it will be hard to remove him from the ballot on the grounds of crime, or to prosecute him for crimes…

Michigan

In Michigan, the high court (apparently controlled by Democrats) said:

  • The only legal issue properly before the Court is whether the Court of Claims and the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the Michigan Secretary of State lacks legal authority to remove or withhold former President Donald J. Trump’s name from Michigan’s 2024 presidential primary ballot. I agree with the Court of Appeals that under MCL 168.614a and MCL 168.615a, the Secretary of State must place Trump on the primary ballot “regardless of whether he would be disqualified from holding office”

in other words, it does not matter if Trump has disobeyed the constitution, or could be disqualified from office, as the Michigan Secretary of State cannot stop his name being put on the primary ballot.

The previous court had ruled

  • the relevant statutes require the Secretary of State to place any candidate” who has been identified by the relevant political party “on the presidential primary ballot, and confers no discretion to the Secretary of State to do otherwise, there is no error to correct.”

The big difference between Colarado and Michigan is that the Colarado code insists that Presidential candidates should be qualified, and could rule that Trump is not qualified because of his crimes, but in Michigan, there is no such requirement – anyone can stand for a primary no matter how criminal they are.

To repeat: nothing can be done about lawbreakers or constutional violators standing for a presidential primary.

  • the Secretary of State is not legally required to confirm the eligibility of potential presidential primary candidates. She lacks the legal authority to remove a legally ineligible candidate from the ballot once their name has been put forward by a political party in compliance with the statutes governing primary elections.

This may mean that State law overrides the Constitution

As far as I understand, the judgement suggests in an endnote, that people could appeal to stop Trump being on a Presidential ballot, once Trump becomes the nominee. That is a different matter.

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

UN Production Gap Report

December 17, 2023

One of the most important documents for a long time, was released just before the current COP. I’ve only just seen it. It:

finds that governments plan to produce around  110% more fossil fuels in 2030  than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 69% more than would be consistent with 2°C.

ibid.

This means that:

Taken together, government plans and projections would lead to an increase in global coal production until 2030, and in global oil and gas production until at least 2050.

Summary of Key Findings emphasis added

In other words despite 151 national governments pledging to achieve net-zero emissions, by 2050, governments and fossil fuel companies are working together to produce more fossil fuels, and hence more emissions. OR they are simply ignoring the emissions problem, and hoping it will go away.

As is well known the International Energy Agency has argued that if we wish to stay under 1.5°C all there can be no development of new oil and gas fields after 2021.

Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway, and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required. 

IEA Net Zero by 2050

It appears from the UN report that not one country has committed to cutting coal, oil or gas production to be consistent with a 1.5C target, and with this level of production, we are locked into a more than 2°C temperature rise.

This is despite the latest forecasts that coal, oil, and gas demand will peak this decade.

Indeed this action can be seen as an attempt to undermine the prediction and keep countries addicted to using fossil fuels and increasing fossil fuel company profits.

Whatever anyone says, Carbon Capture and Storage cannot deal with this excess of emissions. It cannot deal with even a small fraction of what we already produce. So the chance of it succesfully dealing with this excess is microscopic.

Again, if we needed to know, this shows the dominant power in the world, and that it does not care what happens to people, as long as it makes its profits.

Even the excuse that coal is being phased out faster than oil and gas is useless, because:

“We find that many governments are promoting fossil gas as an essential ‘transition’ fuel but with no apparent plans to transition away from it later”

 Ploy Achakulwisut quoted in Governments plan to produce double the fossil fuels in 2030 than the 1.5°C warming limit allows

UN Secretary-General António Guterres says:

Governments are literally doubling down on fossil fuel production; that spells double trouble for people and planet… We cannot address climate catastrophe without tackling its root cause: fossil fuel dependence. COP28 must send a clear signal that the fossil fuel age is out of gas — that its end is inevitable. We need credible commitments to ramp up renewables, phase out fossil fuels, and boost energy efficiency, while ensuring a just, equitable transition

Governments plan to produce double the fossil fuels in 2030 than the 1.5°C warming limit allows

However, if Governments have previously promised to cut emissions but are really supporting fossil fuel companies in increasing emissions, why would anyone trust them to really change, as opposed to saying they will change, at the COP?

These are graphs of the problem, showing the differenc between planned production and needed reduction:

Just before the COP28 meeting in the UAE, it was revealed that Adnoc, the UAE’s state oil company was going to use the conference “to jointly evaluate international LNG [liquefied natural gas] opportunities” in Mozambique, Canada and Australia, and that it planned to discuss fossil fuel deals with 13 other nations including Columbia, Germany and Egypt. The documents suggest that Adnoc would argue that “there is no conflict between the sustainable development of any country’s natural resources and its commitment to climate change.”

The president of COP28, Dr Sultan al-Jaber, is the head of Adnoc. In 2022, under his leadership, Adnoc announced they would invest $US150 billion to “accelerate” the growth of oil and gas development. “Adnoc’s ‘overshoot’ of the IEA net zero scenario is…. 6.8 BBOE [billion barrels of oil equivalent], the third largest worldwide.” [The Link in the Guardian article to the accelerated growth announcement, no longer works, but see the ABC].

“The UAE team did not deny using COP28 meetings for business talks, and said ‘private meetings are private’.”

The UAE also prepared talking points on commercial opportunities for its state renewable energy company, Masdar, ahead of meetings with 20 countries, including the UK, United States, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Brazil, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kenya.

ibid

The UAE also failed to report its oil industry’s emissions of methane to the UN for almost a decade.

This can be seen as part of the fossil fuel company’s campaign to keep new fields opening and implies that it is rountine to put business before attempts to lower emissions.

While we are at it, the World Meterological Organisation released a preliminary finding that:

confirms that 2023 is set to be the warmest year on record. Data until the end of October shows that the year was about 1.40 degrees Celsius (with a margin of uncertainty of ±0.12°C )above the pre-industrial 1850-1900 baseline….. The past nine years, 2015 to 2023, were the warmest on record…. Greenhouse gas levels are record high. Global temperatures are record high. Sea level rise is record high. Antarctic sea ice is record low. 

2023 shatters climate records, with major impacts

My guess after seeing this result, is that we are going to sail over 1.5 degrees in a very short time, which means that cut backs in fossil fuel production, use and emissions have to start immediately. If we want a safeish planet. There is no later.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Australian Community Energy Report

December 15, 2023

A group of us have just finished a community energy survey and report. We also wrote a small article for Pearls and Irritations which I reproduce here with a few modifications.

 Jonathan Paul Marshall, Kristy Walters, Adrian Ford and Eleanor BuckleyDec 15, 2023

With UNCOP a disaster, Community Energy is the way forward

About a month ago, the UN 2023 Production Gap Report revealed that Governments around the world, are helping to expand the fossil fuel industry so as to “produce  110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 69% more than would be consistent with 2°C”.

As well, many of those watching the recent COP28, are probably thinking that governments and businesses cannot (or will not) solve the problem of emissions and climate change by themselves. Even when trying, and not freeloading on others for ‘justice reasons’ (“We produce less than 1% of the world’s emissions so its not fair to ask us to do anything” as the Australian Government has argued in the past), they face the difficulties of corporations taking land from local people, paying some people but not others and creating new inequalities, disrupting local social relations, despoiling established environmental aesthetic, or use, values, and so on.

There has to be a way forward, that does not involve repeating the overtly failure-generating actions that have been made for the last 30, or so years of official climate response.

Community Renewable Energy

The Community Power Agency and researchers from UTS and Melbourne University suggest that one way around this problem is to encourage Community Renewable Energy (CRE), as CRE projects can be sensitive to local concerns, can allocate money fairly and appropriately, can look after the land, reduce ecological destruction. and don’t involve freeloading on anyone. CRE projects can potentially link and distribute energy from RE farms and private rooftops, and develop political self-reliance and competency. Furthermore, they can keep money spent on energy in the local area, to develop new industries or support established ones. Critically, as climate change increases, CRE offers a more resilient energy system, less vulnerable to grid disruptions and supply challenges.

Community energy involves energy controlled, produced and possibly funded by a community organisation.

More formally, CRE occurs when community members are involved in energy projects through at least two of the following functions:

• As funders (be they owners, lenders or donors);
• As decision-makers (especially with respect to design. installation and delivery), and/or;
• As recipients of the benefits of local energy production (financial, social, environmental or others).

Community energy was not feasible with fossil fuels, because large continuing investment is required in both plant and fuel. However, renewable energy (particularly solar) can be cheap and modular. This enables it to be built at a rate which reflects the money available, and it does not require the costs of continual refueling as does fossil fuel or nuclear energy. This allows groups to undertake (and grow) smaller, economically feasible CRE projects. Indeed some local groups, like CEFE in the Bega region, are providing CRE one community rooftop at a time. Nation-wide local enthusiasm for renewables is also shown by the large take up of rooftop solar in Australia which is now approaching the levels of levels of coal burning energy. [1] [2]

We should perhaps also add that corporate renewables face the problem that Renewable Energy is basically free once the technology is installed, and that as a profit source it is not that great, precisely because the company does not have to sell a fuel source. The more RE is avaiable the cheaper and less profitable it becomes. This is a problem recognised by the International Renewable Energy Agency(IRENA)

The more renewable energy enters the system, the lower its remuneration becomes, reducing prospects for cost recovery and paralysing new investments, even when renewable energy is completely cost competitive

IRENA , World Energy Transitions Outlook: 1.5°C Pathway, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi 2021: 163)

This is considerably less problematic for CRE, where pricing can be decided by the community itself.

The CPA Survey

The CPA report involves the largest survey of Community energy organisations ever undertaken in Australia. The nation-wide survey suggests that there is considerable enthusiasm for CRE (over 142 groups, with 55 responses to the survey). Ninety four percent of responses suggested that people considered climate change to be a prime motivator for action. So CRE is, even now, enabling people to act on climate without waiting for governments or business.

However, CRE is being held back largely because of:

• A high dependency on volunteers who may experience burnout or frustration;
• Difficulties raising funds;
• Regulations and support designed for corporately provided power;
• Confusion over the help available, with insufficient organisational and expert support, and;
• Over the last few years, difficulties with Covid and climate conditions.

Despite these difficulties, the sector has grown significantly in recent years. Thirty of the fifty five responding groups were established after 2015. Groups self-reported over 44,000 supporters of various depth of connection, and were involved in 750 projects. They reported raising over $80 million dollars and producing 19,000 MWh of clean energy. Sixty four percent of groups reported being organised as incorporated associations.

While CRE is producing a small amount of Australia’s needs, this level of activity strongly suggests that with help, favourable regulation and clarity, more areas could self-supply, particularly in rural and regional Australia, where the costs of maintaining the grid is considerable.

Recommendations

In brief, the report recommends that:

• Governments set aside funding for community energy and capacity building hubs;
• Governments talk to community energy organisations, to find out the regulatory and other problems that they face;
• The Federal government establishes a nationally based Community Energy Collaboration Network to support community energy groups, and centralise information. At the moment, despite the best efforts of some organisations, helpful information is dispersed and hard to find;
• State governments set community energy targets;
• State governments help to establish a reasonable feed-in tariff, or other arrangement (such as P2P trading), whereby community energy does not lose all its profit to the grid, or town supplier.

Community Renewable Energy provides considerable hope for towns in Australia to participate in the energy transition, without waiting for others to act. It is also likely to increase community resilience, as it should enable communities to function when the grid has collapsed due to climate change provoked weather conditions.

It clearly is already possible to act now, but action would be even better and more common, if CRE received the recognition and support it deserves

Jonathan Paul Marshall

Jonathan Paul Marshall is a lecturer at the University of Technology in Sydney, researching the problems of energy transition. He has previously done research into transitions away from coal, and the effects of information technology.
https://uts.academia.edu/jonmarshall https://solvingenergyproblems.com/

KRISTY WALTERS

Kristy Walters became heavily involved in the Australian Student Environment Network from 2005 to 2011 organising around climate change and food co-ops. From 2008 she was involved in creating Six Degrees, the coal and climate collective of Friends of the Earth Brisbane. In 2017 she started with Solar Citizens as the NSW Community Organiser where she worked on engaging and training our supporters to become more active in campaigns. Walters is also an executive director of the Community Power Agency, and the chairperson of the Haystacks Solar Garden Cooperative.

ADRIAN FORD

Dr Adrian Ford is an Honorary Fellow in the School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at The University of Melbourne and is affiliated with Melbourne Climate Futures. Adrian’s research interests include community renewable energy groups and projects, and the political economy of sustainable energy transitions. He completed his PhD in sustainable energy transitions at the University of Melbourne in 2020.

ELEANOR BUCKLEY

Eleanor Buckley is a media and communications professional, specialising in environmental research. Previously she has worked in communications roles at the University of New South Wales in climate justice research and the University of Oxford in energy research. Currently, she works with Community Power Agency, working towards improving outcomes for communities in the shift to clean energy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »