Utopia, you are standing in it!

Posted by Sara M. Butler, 26 November 2021.

A felon’s right to claim sanctuary upon sacred ground for a period of forty days is hardly a new subject for this blog (see previous blogs by McSheffrey, Butler, Kesselring, and McSheffrey). Nor is the tension that sometimes existed between sheriffs keen to catch a criminal and the church’s dogged persistence that sanctuary must be respected. When violations of sanctuary by royal officials did occur, we usually hear about the consequences from the secular side of things. The close rolls offer up numerous instances of felons restored to sanctuary at the request of the king, presumably after complaints issued from the church in question. For example, royal correspondence to the sheriffs of London in September of 1337 ordered them to restore Andrew of Sutton immediately to the church of All Hallows, Haywharf in London…

By Paul Homewood

The climate doomsday machine makes much more noise about warming-induced melting of Greenland’s ice sheet than Antarctica’s, even though the Greenland sheet holds only about 10% as much ice. That’s because the smaller Greenland ice sheet is melting at a faster rate and contributes more to sea level rise. But the melt rate is no faster today than it was 90 years ago and appears to have slowed over the last few years.

Full story here.

Below is the key graph, with Ralph’s comments:

I was tempted to head-up this belated MPS post “Je ne regrette rien”, as that – I regret nothing (about last year’s monetary policy) – was what Orr told yesterday’s press conference as he was getting rattled towards the end. He should regret quite a bit – notably the $5.7 billion of taxpayer losses on the LSAP, and the ongoing huge risks (neither were points he was willing to engage on, whether in the MPS, in the press conference, or at FEC this morning – indeed he actively played distraction). But that isn’t really where I want to focus my thoughts on the Monetary Policy Statement.

I thought the MPC should have raised the OCR by 50 points. The MPC disagreed, and moved by only 25 points. That is their choice of course, but – once again – I was struck by just how lacking and inadequate the supporting…

After a long wait, the Federal government has released the text of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 which is about to be introduced into the Parliament. There has been no general Federal law dealing with detrimental treatment of Australians on the basis of their religious faith and activities, and this is a welcome development, implementing a recommendation of the Ruddock Review which reported in 2018.

The government previously released two “Exposure Drafts” of the Bill (see some comments on those in previous posts, here, and here.) Having promised prior to the last election that he would advance this law, Prime Minister Morrison will now introduce it into the House of Representatives. If passed by the House, the Bill will then need to approved by the Senate, where it seems likely to be referred to (yet another) committee before being voted on there, probably sometime in the New Year.

Yesterday, in the Herald ($), I challenged Climate Change Minister James Shaw to explain how his Emissions Reduction Plan lowers emissions.

In this post, I want to head off what he is going to say. His lines are, frankly, not right. So let’s get that on the table and go through the argument before he says it.

Shaw’s plan is vast. It covers every sector of the economy. The government could regulator, tax or subsidise anything or everything in the name of reducing emissions.

Shaw’s plan is not going to reduce emissions.* The government has already placed a sinking lid on emissions with the ETS. It is widely accepted that cap-and-trade schemes neutralise other emissions policies. If the cap determines total emissions, policies under the cap do not.

This neutralising effect of an emissions cap is called “the waterbed effect”.

Here is how a cap-and-trade scheme…