US is more bark than bite - the greater menace are environmental rules and mandates
 By now friend and foe across the Western World's political spectrum have come to regard US President Donald Trump's first hair-raising salvos were ranging shots having concussion but little shrapnel.
In Napoleonic artillery terms, the initial scattered shots, threats to take over the Panama Canal, Greenland and Canada, plus the raft of tariffs on imports from US allies served to gauge reactions, a provide indications of strengths and weaknesses in coming trade talks.
Whether Trump could have anticipated Hong Kong's Hutchison-Whampoa selling its Panamanian container terminals to BlackRock-MSC, is hard to say. Before 2014, when Beijing took direct control of Hong Kong, having Hutch run the Panama terminals was perfectly acceptable. But not after when Hutchison was under the thumb of Beijing.
Trump's threats - and remember that is only what they were back then - Volkswagen announced that was planning to move the production of Porsche and Audi electric vehicles (EVs) to the United States due to tariffs.
Smaller firms too, like salmon are swimming to home-shore, a move attributed to the threat of US tariffs. These firms include Insulet Corporation, a biotechnology company moved the production of its flagship product, the Omnipod from China to Massachusetts.
There is also Element Electronics, a consumer electronics manufacturer, reshored production from China to South Carolina and Michigan as well as Steve Madden, a shoe brand cut its Chinese production in half to avoid tariffs.
These companies have taken significant steps to relocate their manufacturing operations back to the US in response to tariff threats.
The idea of making Canada the 51st state together with tariffs was a golden gift to Canada's Deep State powerhouse, the woke-ish Liberal Party of Canada. Ten years of odious government under authoritarian Justin Trudeau, the Liberals were in the toilet pre-tariff. But because the Liberals have blessed linguistic cleansing in Quebec and work to Frenchify the rest of Canada, Canadian Unity has their traditional policy and strong suit.
The opposition Conservative Party until the tariffs and 51st state rhetoric stirred up what little patriotism Canadians have, which is muted and only surfaces at international hockey games or when there is a territorial threat.
The appointed prime minister, Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of England, a central banker, who is one of the leaders of the climate international change lobby, and seeking to ban any escape from transitioning away from fossil fuels. He was expected to call an election soon.
Similar leftist policies govern the UK and Australia. Under the UK's 2011 Fixed-term Parliaments Act, elections are set five years apart, though there are ways for the Prime Minister to call an election before then, or an election can be triggered by a successful no-confidence vote. In any case, under the rules, the UK election can be held no later that November 12, 2029.
An Australian election was expected to be held May 17 this year. As for the current election prospects, woke-ish Prime Minister Anthony Albanese leads Peter Dutton, the small C conservative leader of the Liberal-National Coalition official opposition, but the chance of a minority government is increasing.
Both major parties have recorded slight increases in their primary votes, with the Coalition leading Labor 39 per cent to 32 per cent. However, on a two-party-preferred basis, the Coalition is leading Labor 51 per cent to 49 per cent, which suggests that neither party may have enough MPs to form a majority government.
As far as the transport world goes, the political issue that matters most is the environment, and the cost of efforts to mitigate the harm done. It is hugely costly with little prospect of actually cooling global warming in the next 20 or 30 years,
So how worried should we be? What is the worst that could happen if climate change, which means global warming, is allowed to go unchallenged.
This was the question put to the AI bot, Co-pilot. To which it replied:
"Rising Sea Levels: As global temperatures increase, polar ice caps and glaciers melt, causing sea levels to rise. This can lead to the flooding of coastal communities, loss of habitat, and displacement of millions of people.
"Extreme Weather Events: Higher temperatures can result in more frequent and severe weather events, such as hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts, and heavy rainfall. These events can cause significant damage to infrastructure, agriculture, and human lives.
"Loss of Biodiversity: Many species are unable to adapt quickly enough to the changing climate, leading to a loss of biodiversity. This can disrupt ecosystems and the services they provide, such as pollination, water purification and carbon sequestration.
"Food and Water Scarcity: Climate change can affect crop yields and water availability, leading to food and water shortages. This can exacerbate hunger and malnutrition, particularly in vulnerable regions.
"Health Risks: Rising temperatures and changing weather patterns can increase the spread of diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever. Additionally, extreme heat can cause heat-related illnesses and deaths.
"Economic Impact: The costs associated with addressing the damage caused by climate change, such as rebuilding infrastructure and providing disaster relief, can strain economies and increase poverty," said the AI bot.
Taken in total, "the worst impacts we 'could' face", says the AI bot, don't sound very scary, even if you took out the qualifying "could" and exchanged it for "likely" or even "probable. All are conditions we have lived with equanimity in the recent past. What's more even with the "could" qualifier removed, some of the supposedly scarifying outcomes are of questionable validity or inconsequential compared to our other concerns.
Qualified scientists, not on the government payroll or recipient of grants do question western bureaucratic assessment of the climate risk. Widespread fears of worldwide catastrophic environmental outcomes did not start in earnest until the Club or Rome's "Limits of Growth" report in 1972, which predicted we would return to a horse drawn world by the year 2000 after we ran out of oil.
While pollution remains a problem it is nowhere near catastrophic - not nearly like it was in the good old days of the early 20th and 19th centuries.
Predictions of economic collapse also failed to materialise and only threatens the Commonweal when environmentally-minded governments and bureaucracies are in power to retard oil and gas exploration. The efficacy of the western bureaucracies' current net-zero carbon craze is highly questionable. Carbon dioxide is said to do more good than harm, increases being responsible for the greening of arid lands worldwide.
Perhaps it is time to debate these issues openly and fairly. And return rational risk assessment to the prominence it once enjoyed. |
