From CFACT

By David Wojick 

New evidence says that offshore wind sonar surveys may have committed hundreds of thousands of violations of the MMPA, each potentially subject to tens of thousands of dollars in fines. The potential penalty total is in the billions. Moreover these incredible violations appear to be deliberate.

These astonishingly bad findings flow from research by the Save the Right Whales Coalition (SRWC). It is a bit technical but here is a simple summary.

First some legal background. We are talking about the activity of sonar blasting doing something called “incidental harassment”. In the MMPA harassment means doing bad things to a marine mammal. These can range from causing adverse behavioral changes to outright injury, such as in this case causing deafness. Incidental means the harassment is due to some activity that is not directed at the mammal, in this case the many sonar surveys done in conjunction with offshore wind development.

One of the fundamental rules in the MMPA is that incidental harassment is illegal unless it has been specifically authorized by NOAA. The extreme noise from offshore wind sonar surveys does a lot of incidental harassment so NOAA has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) for each one. Since sonar blasting geared up in 2016 NOAA has issued over 40 IHAs with more pending.

Each IHA lists the number of authorized harassments by species of affected mammal. How this is done is very important here. In simple terms it is like this. NOAA has established noise level thresholds, above which there is harassment. Given the loudness of the sonar the size of the ocean area where harassment will occur is then determined. Then the number of critters of each affected species that will be in that area, hence harassed, is estimated. That number of harassments is then authorized so the survey can proceed.

These IHA numbers are big. It is not unusual for 5,000 to 10,000 harassments to be authorized in a single IHA. Most of these are typically dolphins and seals, with dozens of whales as well. All the IHAs, effective, expired and pending, are listed here: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable

These MMPA authorized harassments are an issue because they can cause deadly behavior, such as driving the critter into heavy ship traffic to be struck. But that is not our topic here as we now have something potentially far worse to consider.

Save Right Whales Coalition (SRWC) blows the whistle

SRWC noticed that the recent IHA calculations were using sonar noise levels that were much lower than those specified by the equipment manufacturer. So they did what NOAA should have been doing from the beginning; they measured the noise from a sonar in action doing a survey. They found that the noise level was comparable to the manufacturer’s specs, hence much louder than what the IHA assumed.

Here is how SRWC co-founder Lisa Linowes explained it to me (somewhat technically):

“Thirteen of the 13 IHAs now active for OSW sonar activity show all of the applications were approved based on a sonar level with a source sound level of 211 dB,pk and 203 dB,rms. Had the developers used the correct sound levels using manufacturer’s data of 226 dB,pk and 219 dB,rms (per NOAA’s own guidance), NOAA’s spreadsheet for determining Level B threshold for impulsive sound levels would be 890 meters from the survey boat. But instead, the quieter sonar value submitted to NOAA placed the threshold distance at just 141 meters and that’s what NOAA approved. Using the same calculation for impact area that the developers used but applying the 890 meter radius results in an area that is significantly larger.”

For more see https://saverightwhales.org/

If the local population scales with area, which seems likely, then the number of harassments will be about 6.3 times higher than authorized. That is 890 divided by 141. For simplicity call it 6 times higher.

Thus the number of unauthorized harassments will be roughly 5 times higher than the number authorized. All of these unauthorized harassments are illegal violations of the MMPA. The number of violations is huge. Note that these low-ball numbers come from the offshore developer not NOAA. The harassment calculations are in the developer’s application.

We know where these low-ball numbers come from. NOAA’s IHA guidance says that if the manufacturer’s data is not available then the applicant can use a proxy number from a 2016 technical publication. Despite the manufacturer’s specs being readily available, all the applicants used some of the lowest proxy numbers. Why NOAA approved this substitution is not known.

Staggering potential penalties for illegal harassment

The potential penalties for unauthorized harassment are sizable. Here is NOAA’s summary:

“If prosecuted, violators of the MMPA could face:

— Civil penalties up to $34,457.

— Up to 1 year in prison, plus criminal fines.

— Forfeiture of the vessel involved, including penalties for that vessel up to $25,000.”

See https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/marine-life-distress/frequent-questions-feeding-or-harassing-marine-mammals-wild#what-can-happen-to-those-prosecuted-for-violating-the-mmpa?

I have seen reports that to date NOAA has authorized over 400,000 offshore wind sonar harassments. If all of these use the low-ball loudness and given our 5 times ratio this implies an incredible 2 million unauthorized harassments or more. At $34,457 per harassment the civil penalties alone work out to just under 69 billion dollars! Not to mention the jail time and criminal fines.

This astonishing 69 billion dollars in potential penalties shows the staggering scale of this issue of unauthorized harassment by offshore wind sonar.

Clearly a thorough investigation is called for. In the meantime this illegal harassment must cease. Active IHAs should be suspended and no more issued until this issue is resolved.

David Wojick
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting.

Essay by Eric Worrall

University of Melbourne explaining the velvet glove approach to EV charge time coercion.

A zero-carbon transport sector needs more than electric vehicles

Decarbonising Australia’s transport systems will take more than a transition to electric vehicles. Understanding how and when owners like to charge their cars is important. Our researchers are examining how we might persuade the increasing electricity demand to meet the time-dependent renewable energy supply.

…

Electricity use already peaks at around 6 pm. The added load from masses of commuters plugging in their vehicles at once would strain the grid – and complicate Australia’s transition to renewable energy.

However, intelligent management of electric vehicle charging can bridge gaps in the renewable energy supply. EVs could charge from solar cells during the day and feed electricity back to the home or the grid in the evening.

“Electric vehicles can be hugely beneficial while we make our grid smarter and more sustainable,” says Professor Mancarella.

…

Researchers must understand when EVs will be drawing power from the grid – especially as Australia transitions to weather-dependent renewable energy.

“Being able to shape behaviour is fundamental, because you’re going to need to convince your demand to behave in a way that meets your supply,” says Dr Lavieri.

…

“People are living on budgets, and they are trying to minimise their costs,” says Dr Lavieri.

Monetary incentives could guide charging behaviours. These include free public charging and time-of-use tariffs – discounts for charging at off-peak times.

…

Read more: https://research.unimelb.edu.au/strengths/updates/news/zero-carbon-transport-sector-needs-smart-ev-charging?sfid=7012e000000C8zbAAC&utm_medium=email&utm_content=TT_AI_AP_2023_transport_newsletter_2_CTA_Story_3&utm_source=mse&utm_campaign=R_All_2023_BD_TT_AI_AP

What a shame nuclear power, which could avoid the need for energy rationing by delivering full power output any time of day, is too expensive and difficult.

Except in France where they are obviously a lot smarter than everyone else in the world, or have a special kind of engineering ability which makes nuclear affordable – they managed to affordably decarbonise most of their electricity supply using nuclear in the 1970s.

I mean, our politicians wouldn’t be lying to us about the cost of nuclear power would they? Surely they wouldn’t be considering imposing energy rationing and price coercion, when there was an affordable zero carbon alternative to coercion which they just couldn’t be bothered to support? Surely not.

T

This piece is not about climate but about the mindset of taxpayer-funded Australian Broadcasting Commission, which has a legal charter for impartiality. This has not prevented the ABC from adopting woke/Green/Left positions on most controversies including Australia’s impending referendum to set up a new chamber of Aborigines to “make representations” to both Parliament and the executive. The ABC’s position on climate can be taken as read.

Guys, don’t cancel me, but in our household we’ve watched ABCTV 7pm News (Vic) for 40 years. It’s an addiction – like heroin, crystal meth, fentanyl. Close to 7pm we get twitchy for our fix – will the iView app work on our Smart TV (IQ just above 100)? Up to Tuesday (September 26), we accepted the assurances of the ABC Charter that ABC flagship TV would be impartial, professional  and devoid of green-Left spin. But  last night’s news (Tues) shattered my illusions.

I must now put in a complaint to the ABC Ombudsman (properly, Ombudswoman) Fiona Cameron. She will consider it carefully before, as I expect, rejecting it , her role  being “to build on the credibility and trust Australian audiences have in the ABC.”

The same item was in the NSW 7pm news (21.30mins),  and I assume around the nation. This item even wound up on the France 24 news channel, in English, albeit with some clips that didn’t make the ABC compilation. These dual versions enable me to do a compare and contrast exercise.

The item is about the Electoral Commission’s job of setting up polling stations in remote areas like Arnhem Land and  the Tiwi Islands. The distances are formidable and the AEC ‘s efforts commendable. The ABC itself threw in substantial resources to get its reporters around.

So what’s my beef? Well, judging by the ABC footage, the Yes vote out there is 100 per cent. A Yes tally of 50 per cent, 60 per cent or 70 per cent might be remotely (pun) plausible. In some tiny communities (the ABC mentions one comprising ten people), even 90 per cent might be the go. But 100 per cent across the board?

This smacks of ABC desperation as polls show the Yes armies heading for their Waterloo.[1] A potent argument for No is that the Aboriginal community is thoroughly split, so why should we balandas deliver them a permanent pack of Aboriginal-Industry aristocrats? 

I can imagine the conversation at Ultimo as the 7pm News piece is packaged into shape:

ABC Senior Editor: Remember we’re storytellers. Let’s go through all these grabs and vox pops and make them tell a story.

ABC Junior Editor: Good thinking! What story line do you have in mind?

ABC Senior Editor: [Guffaws] Well doh! Why are we here, you cretin?

So here’s the anatomy of the finished item. ABC Melbourne’s Tamara Oudyn, dressed all in white (is that a wrong note?), teleprompts how the AEC is encouraging vote-averse blacks to vote.

14.24 mins: Shot of shed for remote polling, with two and a half big VOTE YES! signs outside.

14.26: ABC reporter Roxanne Fitzgerald says, “Signs are up and teams are ready to go.” She must mean, “YES” signs are up and “YES” teams are ready to go.

14.29: An Aboriginal man in a white YES 23 shirt hands out a voting card.

14.32: An Aboriginal woman lodges her vote. She is holding a pamphlet which from the logo, colour and text I can identify as a YES pamphlet.

14.37: We’re now in the Tiwi Islands. ABC vox pops an Elder Bernard Tipoloura who says, “I strongly believe in people talking for us in Canberra.” Behind him are two VOTE YES! placards.

14.50: Another vox pop Aboriginal says, “Yeah, Vote YES! We need some changes!” He waves his VOTE YES! sign at the camera.

15.14: Remote Voter Service’s Aboriginal Ebony Williams Costa says, “And I’m also about getting out and informing people about Aboriginal rights.” This seems code for YES. I can’t imagine her pushing their “rights” not to have a permanent non-elected Voice assembly. Reporter Roxanne says a funeral and sorry-business is reducing voter turnout.

15.43: Marion Scrymgour, federal Labor MHR for Lingiari, is interviewed with three VOTE YES signs in the background.

15.54: Two young Aboriginal women are shown casting their votes. The one on the left holds a single flyer for YES.

16.00: Two Aboriginals with VOTE YES! shirts stand in front of no fewer than five VOTE YES! signs. Roxanne says, “Despite traditional low voter turnout, remote communities will see more voter service than ever before, with voting extended by a week to try to ensure everyone gets a say.” Everyone, that is, who votes YES, judging by the ABC item.

16.36: Ends.

To sum up, in the piece’s two minutes we see 13 “VOTE YES! ” signs, three “VOTE YES!” T-shirts, two “VOTE YES!” flyers, and the ABC finds three vox-poppers to deliver YES messaging. The ABC’s score for the “NO” camp: zero, zero, zero, and zero respectively.

Maybe Ombudswoman Cameron will tell me that the ABC crews trudged hill and spinifex looking for NO case material out there to balance the item and, sadly, none was to be found.

A friend of mine who knows how things work in such remote places, suggests this might even be true. The reason: each little settlement is controlled by a “big man” who well recognises that a Canberra Voice could operate to reinforce his power and patronage. Hence before the ABC’s visit, Big Man has patrolled to ensure no trace of NO material is seen and filmed. He might not even need to, because no-one out there wants to tangle with him.

Now let’s check out the France 24 TV version from stringer James Vasina.

He’s apparently taken a feed from the ABC as some shots are the same or similar.[2] But he runs other clips which the ABC perhaps left on its cutting-room floor.

He includes a scene (0.13mins) at Mowanjum on the mainland, showing a community store – and with a VOTE YES sign outside.

At 0.24 Vasina has an elderly man saying, “Our voice has to be heard somewhere, especially Parliament House and all that. It’s hard to understand what it really means. A few people voted NO, I’m not sure why, I just decided to go with this.”

So there we have it, remote NO voters do exist, but the ABC couldn’t find any or found them and ignored them.

Vasina (0.47) then abandons the backblocks in favor of high political theatre, saying,

The Prime Minister blames these No votes on misinformation campaigns, given that the Referendum aims to provide Australian’s indigenous people with a representative body to advise Parliament.

The PM doesn’t seem respectful of us NO voters, and Vasina omits that the Voice would also have the right to hector the executive. By omission, Vasina implies to Francophiles that Aborigines don’t already have advisory systems, let alone a peak $4.5-billion-a-year body, the NIAA, with 1300 staff, plus heaven knows how many other bureaucratic beasts.

Vasina at 1.00 wheels out Mr Albanese himself, but not Opposition Leader Dutton or an inconvenient Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, to spruik the YES case. The PM tells France 24 he is confident that remote Aborigines will “overwhelmingly” vote YES.

At 1.14 we see the AEC sign “Polling Place” on a remote-station fence. About 1.5 metres distant and tied to the same fence are two VOTE YES! signs (is that legal?). The cameraman (again, I’m assuming it’s an ABC person) pans into loving close-up of the upper VOTE YES! sign, then scrolls down and pans lovingly on the  second VOTE YES! sign.  Two more VOTE YES! signs are inside the yard. A fifth VOTE YES! is across the track. Some message here perhaps?

Unlike the ABC, France 24 then plugs in (1.35) stock footage of perhaps 200 people at a city rally. At first sight it’s a YES rally, with a chap in foreground wearing a T-shirt with “Stop the Genocide” on the back. It’s actually a NO rally  and the TV crew (ABC?) are sneakily emphasising a lone anti-NO campaigner.

At 1.40 someone there holds up a sign (at last!), “VOTE NO – Fairaustralia.com.au”. At 1.48 we even get to see two more VOTE NO signs, one reading, VOTE NO – Do Not Comply”. The item then fades out with Vasina mentioning that conservatives don’t want Australia divided on racial lines.

If you ask me, Vasina is out of his depth in this coverage, and maybe allows in a smidgeon of NO material by accident or because it’s tough trying to explain complex things to a beret-wearing audience 17,000km away.

My task now is to persuade my rusted-on ABC household to subscribe to Sky News, or at second-best, haul up France 24 on YouTube. Although head of the household, I still prefer consensus.

Tony Thomas’s new book from Connor Court is Anthem of the Unwoke – Yep! The other lot’s gone bonkers. $34.95 from Connor Court here

[1] The Duke of Wellington is running the NO camp.

[2] I might be wrong and the shots might have come from some TV pool arrangement.