More privilege problems for Labour

This afternoon Parliament will debate the report of the (powerful) Privileges Committee on Education Minister Jan Tinetti's misleading the House. But it looks like another (former) Minister is in trouble as well: Parliament's Registrar of Pecuniary Interests has reported back on their inquiry into Michael Wood, finding that Wood had not complied with his responsibilities. Along the way, the Registrar also found that Wood had lied to the public about his compliance:

Noting that his pecuniary interests had been the focus of intense media scrutiny and comment, I then showed Mr Wood a video clip of an interview he gave on 8 June 2023, the day the inquiry was announced. Apart from expressing the hope that “clarity and transparency” would emerge from the inquiry, Mr Wood had stated that “I have also followed up and corrected the Register of Pecuniary Interests going back to 2017”. I put it to Mr Wood that that statement was not correct, as there had been no amendments made at all to his previous returns, for the entire period since February 2017. What did he mean by that comment to the media? He replied that he “must have misspoken in the heat of the press scrum”. He thought he might have mixed up the Standing Orders and Cabinet Office requirements.

Wood does not look at all good from this. Its one thing to make a careless mistake, front up, and fix it. Its quite another to refuse to fix it, despite constant reminders, for two years, then lie to the public about what you're doing. Voters in his electorate can draw their own conclusions about his honesty and fitness for office.

Wood's case will now be considered by the (powerful) Privileges Committee. Of course, given that Labour has four of the eight places on the committee, and will effectively be judging one of its own, I don't think the public can expect any justice from them. The problem of course is that if Labour gives Wood the proverbial (powerful) slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket, it makes the entire pecuniary interests declaration system pointless, with a consequent impact on Parliament's credibility.

The government of doing nothing

Last week, Labour chickenshitted out on a wealth tax, with Prime Minister (for now) Chris Hipkins ruling it out as long as he holds office (which sortof suggests a solution, doesn't it?) But taxing wealth to build a more equal Aotearoa wasn't the only thing they chickenshitted out on - they also refused to break up the rapacious supermarket duopoly which is robbing us blind. Why? Largely it seems because they'd get the blame if it went wrong, and so they'd rather let Foodstuffs and Progressive keep screwing us than do anything about it. And today, there's the icing on the cake: a consultants report advising that the government's current half-measures are ineffective and will condemn us to another 20 years of supermarket robbery:

The Government’s much-touted reforms of the supermarket industry are unlikely to result in a material improvement in competition, according to its own advisers.

Instead, without additional action, consumers can expect little to change for the better over the next 20 years, with a risk that the variety of products stocked by the supermarkets will continue to reduce and that supermarkets’ gross profit margins will continue to rise, ministers have been told.

Crushing the supermarket duopoly and limiting its excess profits is something that would have a huge effect on the cost of living, and on poverty. But Labour just won't do it, because they're chickenshits afraid of upsetting the status quo. "In it for you"? You be the judge...

New kiwi blog

An old-style post-title for an old-style post! Che Tibby returns to blogging with The Apocrypha of Noah - which so far, seems to be looking at climate change.

Climate Change: Overturned

Last December, Labour made the first in a series of terrible climate decisions, over-ruling Climate Change Minister James Shaw and the Climate Change Commission to sabotage the ETS by setting excessively high volumes and low prices. The result was immediate: the carbon price crashed from ~$85/ton and began a long-term decline (which has only worsened as Labour has done more to undermine it). But today, thanks to Lawyers for Climate Action, that decision has been overturned:

Today the High Court gave judgment in favour of Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc in a judicial review of the Regulations which set the number of additional Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) units available over the next five years and imposed various price restrictions. The Regulations are referred to as the Climate Change (Auctions, Limits, and Price Controls for Units) Amendment Regulations 2022 and were made in December 2022.

The judgment means that the Minister of Climate Change must now reconsider the unit limit and price control settings for 2023 to 2027 by 30 September 2023.

The decision was by consent - Shaw accepted that his decision-making process was flawed, and that he did not have reasonable grounds to conclude that Labour's preferred settings were lawful and in accordance with our emissions budgets or Paris NDC. Which means they will have to be re-made. The government is currently considering settings for 2024 - 2028, and this decision will neatly allow them to bypass the statutory requirements for changing the settings for the next two years (since those requirements were met or irrelevant for 2024 and 2025 respectively).

This is a significant victory for the climate, and a significant defeat for chickenshit, sabotaging Labour. And hopefully it'll help set a convention in future of always following the Climate Commission, rather than trying to over-rule it. We all owe Lawyers for Climate Action a debt of gratitude. And if you'd like to support them in their work, you can make a donation here.

Labour won't tax the banks either

Buried under yesterday's chickenshit announcement by Chris Hipkins that Labour won't support a wealth tax so long as he is leader is another example of Labour chickenshittery: they won't tax the banks either, despite them making "supernormal" profits:

The big four Australian-owned banks avoided a windfall tax on their Covid-era profits partly because Treasury could find no clear evidence their “supernormal” profits at the time were out of line with their standard supernormal profits.

Budget documents released on Wednesday showed the Government considered, the decided against, levying a windfall profits tax on banks to help pay for the rebuild in Hawke’s Bay following devastation in February from Cyclone Gabrielle.

They also show Treasury officials told the Government that while big bank profits had increased in the Covid era: “We have not identified clear evidence for windfall profits, on top of the sector’s usual elevated level of profitability”.

...which seems to be a strong argument for a perpetual windfall tax on bank profits, to tame these rapacious parasites. But instead, Labour decided to do nothing, as usual. So, they won't tax the rich, they won't tax the banks, but they'll cry "poverty" when anyone voices basic expectations about a functioning state or public services. But they're not "poor" - just too stupid, weak, and craven to govern effectively.

Hipkins surrenders

Last month, the Greens kicked off their election campaign, proposing a wealth tax on the ultra-rich. Its a good, sensible policy: the New Zealand state is decrepit and run-down, with everything falling apart and failing after decades of austerity. A wealth tax would give it the money it needs to be able to do the things we want it to do: schools, hospitals, a welfare system that ends poverty and ensures human dignity.

So, you'd expect Labour, the party of ordinary kiwis who rely on those public services, to support this, right? Of course not:

Labour will not propose a wealth tax or a capital gains tax at the election, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said overnight on Wednesday.

“I’m confirming today that under a Government I lead there will be no wealth or capital gains tax after the election. End of story.”

He said “now is simply not the time for a big shake-up of our tax system”.

And so Labour, "the party of the workers", has sided with the ultra-rich to fuck over normal people, as usual. But then, should we really expect anything different from a man paid $471,049 a year, who owns three houses? Bluntly, he's not one of us - he's one of them. Of course he stands for their interests rather than ours.

Obviously, we have MMP, so this is really a question of the balance of power between Labour and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori after the election. But Hipkins' announcement today means that that might not be an issue. He's basicly told voters to fuck off, he's not going to offer us anything - just the awful, unequal, rusting status quo. There's no hope for a better future under Labour. So why bother voting for them?

The clear message from this announcement is that if you want change, you need to vote for the Greens or Te Pati Māori. As for Labour, a party which offers its voters literally nothing deserves to lose.

Untenable

If a political party had been playing host to someone accused of historical indecent assault, you'd think that's the sort of thing voters ought to be able to know during an election campaign. But not according to this snobby judge:

A former political party figure charged with indecent assault will keep his name under wraps until his trial next year.

His lawyer Ian Brookie successfully argued the case could have become a political football in an election year, jeopardising his client’s right to a fair trial.

Brookie defused what was alleged to be a potential election bombshell in two hearings about a month ago in the Auckland District Court.

Judge Anna Skellern recently released her reserved judgment to parties in the case, granting the man ongoing interim name suppression until his trial, scheduled to start on August 19, 2024.

This is terrible for voters, who are being denied information which could affect their vote. Its terrible for the party, who are being denied the opportunity to defend themselves and dispel the inevitable suspicion that they knew or were careless about this historical offending. Its terrible for the party's candidates, who face being tarred by association and suffering reputational damage when the truth comes out. But most of all, its terrible for our democracy. Because if the party ends up in government and helping to make justice policy after the election, and then suppression is lifted, voters will rightly feel that they have been defrauded at the ballot box and that the government gained power by covering up child abuse. Which is obviously horrific for its legitimacy, and for public confidence in our democratic institutions.

But hey, we couldn't inconvenience a rich person, could we?

This is simply untenable. The consistent use of name suppression to protect the rich and powerful from the reputational consequences of their actions is already undermining public confidence in the justice system. Lets not let it take down our democracy as well.

Climate Change: Underwhelming

The Greens had their pre-election AGM on the weekend, and released their manifesto, including their climate change policy. Unfortunately, its a bit underwhelming. Climate change is the biggest policy challenge facing humanity, and Aotearoa needs to do a lot more if we are to meet our Paris commitments and the 1.5 degree target. And the Greens are offering us... the status quo. Oh, there are tweaks: a standalone Ministry, moving control of ETS settings to the Climate Change Commission and out of the hands of politicians - but these are bureaucratic fiddles. There's no new policies for emissions reduction, no increased ambition, nothing substantive.

On the one hand, this is probably to be expected. James Shaw is the Climate Change Minister, and the status quo is (mostly) his policy. So of course he's focused on fixing the bits where Labour has over-ruled him. But on the gripping hand, it is clear that what we are currently doing is simply nowhere near what we need to be doing. And on that front, a wishy-washy promise to simply "price" agricultural emissions seems weak, leaving open the crucial questions of "how much" and "how much will you shrink the sector by". Because that dirty, inefficient, polluting sector needs to shrink if we are to lower emissions (and improve water quality), and pretending it doesn't does no-one any favours.

This is still the best climate change policy on offer. But I expected more from the Greens. And if they're not going to offer what's required, then who will?

Britain's corrupt Parliament

Last month, Transport Minister Michael Wood was forced to resign after deliberately and repeatedly concealing his pecuniary interests. There's no suggestion that they ever influenced his decision-making, but in Aotearoa we're rightly suspicious of politicians being in a position to profit from public office, and have no tolerance for politicians who refuse to comply with the basic safeguards against it. Meanwhile, in Britain, Wood's crime would have been both legal and normal:

More than 50 MPs have owned stakes in publicly listed companies that raise questions about possible conflicts of interest and that until now have been in effect secret, the Guardian can reveal.

Parliamentary rules mean MPs’ shareholdings, including ones that were held by the former prime minister Theresa May and the former education secretary Gavin Williamson, do not need to be publicly disclosed in parliamentary registers. But as a result voters are left in the dark about some of the financial interests of their elected representatives.

[...]

Almost all of the holdings found are not strictly required to be publicly declared under current transparency requirements. Parliamentary rules, unchanged since 2015, require MPs to register holdings they have in a single company when they own more than 15% of its shares or when their shares in it are worth more than £70,000.

That declaration threshold is around 80% of a backbench MP's salary - a ludicrously high amount. Meanwhile, in Aotearoa, there's no threshold - MPs are required to declare every company in which they have a pecuniary interest (though not, weirdly, its value). And that seems much safer. Allowing substantial financial interests - and over twice the UK median income is "substantial" to anyone who isn't a member of Britain's out-of-touch political elite - to remain secret is simply a recipe for corruption. And while UK MP's might argue that it's "within the rules", that's utterly unconvincing, given that they wrote those rules to suit themselves.

Westminster desperately needs reform to force disclosure, and ultimately divestment, of these corrupt financial interests. And until they do, UKanians are entitled to regard it as a corrupt sewer of self-serving pigs, perpetually ripping off the public to feather their own nests.

As for Aotearoa, the Guardian article mentions that the US requires its politicians to disclose share market transactions, to prevent insider-trading. That seems like it would be a useful addition to our system. Better to be safe than sorry, and if politicians don't want their financial affairs scrutinised, they're not really suitable for public life.

Justice for robodebt

Between 2016 and 2020, the Australian government inflicted nearly $2 billion of imaginary "debts" on welfare recipients, courtesy of an illegal automated overpayment calculation system. The policy led to suicides as people struggled to pay debts they didn't owe. The scheme was scrapped in 2020, and the illegal "debts" were later forgiven and repaid. And today, a royal commission into the fiasco has recommended prosecuting its architects:

The architects of Robodebt will be referred for criminal and civil prosecution after a royal commission handed down its report into the unlawful scheme today.

Commissioner Catherine Holmes has branded the former coalition government's debt-raising scheme an "extraordinary saga" of "venality, incompetence and cowardice".

"The report paints a picture of how the Robodebt [scheme] ... was put together on an ill-conceived, embryonic idea," Commissioner Holmes wrote.

"It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings."

It also finds that former PM Scott Morrison (who was social services minister at the time robodebt was created) misled Cabinet by failing to provide all relevant information about the scheme and its lawfulness. To prevent this happening in future, it recommends repealing Australia's blanket exemption of cabinet documents from the Freedom of Information Act. Its still secret who should be prosecuted, and what for. But the onus is now on Australian federal agencies to follow the recommendation. The problem is that they have a track-record of perverting the course of justice to protect those in power. Hopefully that won't happen in this case.

A tyrannical move in France

The internet is how people communicate now, and social media has become a natural platform for sharing dissent and organising protests. As a result, one of the first things tyrants do when facing mass opposition is shut it down, with blocks on specific platforms, or just a system-wide blackout. We've seen such attacks on the public's right to free expression in places like Iran, Egypt, Myanmar, and India. And now, faced with widespread protests against police murder and institutional racism, Emmanuel Macron is suggesting that France follow suit:

Emmanuel Macron is facing a backlash after threatening to cut off social media networks as a means of stopping the spread of violence during periods of unrest.

Élysée officials and government ministers responded on Wednesday by insisting the president was not threatening a “general blackout” but instead the “occasional and temporary” suspension of platforms.

The president’s comments came as ministers blamed young people using social media such as Snapchat and TikTok for organising and encouraging rioting and violence after the shooting dead of a teenager during a police traffic stop in a Paris suburb last week.

“We need to think about how young people use social networks, in the family, at school, the interdictions there should be … and when things get out of hand we may have to regulate them or cut them off,” Macron told a meeting of more than 250 mayors, whose municipalities were hit by the violence, on Tuesday.

Because obviously, only "young people" - non-pensioners? - use the internet nowdays...

This is simply not what democracies do. Instead, it is the action of a tyranny. Sadly, it seems like France is following Britain towards authoritarianism. The problem for Macron is that a government which walks away from democracy forfeits its legitimacy; if he behaves like a tyrant, there's no basis for complaint if he suffers a tyrant's fate.

Britain's SAS hosted a serial killer

In 2020, the Brereton report found that the Australian SAS had murdered 39 Afghan civilians and committed war crimes. The British government is finally reviewing the actions of its own special forces in Afghanistan, and it looks like the death toll is at least twice as high:

Eighty Afghans may have been victim of summary killings by three separate British SAS units operating in the country between 2010 and 2013, lawyers representing the bereaved families have told a public inquiry.

[...]

Afghans were often killed after allegedly producing weapons when separated from their wider family by SAS soldiers, but there were five incidents where the number shot dead exceeded the number of weapons found.

The fresh claims are cited in a document submitted by the law firm Leigh Day, based on previous Ministry of Defence court disclosures, to a new public inquiry into allegations of war crimes committed by SAS soldiers in Afghanistan.

And these are the murders they have admitted to. There'll be a lot more they've covered up and kept secret.

Appallingly, nearly half the admitted death toll is due to a single soldier, who had a policy of murdering all "fighting-age males", regardless of whether they posed any threat. Which seems both genocidal, and the actions of a straight-up serial killer.

In Australia, the Brereton report got to the truth, and led to consequences. An entire SAS unit was disbanded for its crimes, and criminal trials are imminent. In the UK, with its long history of official coverups, and with politicians trying to "draw a line" under historic crimes to prevent embarrassment to the power structure, I don't think we can have any confidence that anything will be done. Britain will not provide justice for its crimes. Instead, these war criminals and their political accessories and co-conspirators will have to be sent to The Hague.

"Lets lynch the landlord" as policy

Last month the Greens released their tax policy, was was basicly eat the rich. Over the weekend they followed it up with their rental policy. The short version? lets lynch the landlord:

Rents controls would limit how much landlords could increase the rent by each year. The cap would never be higher than 3 percent, which is the upper limit of the Reserve Bank's inflation target.

Landlords would not be allowed to raise rents beyond this limit unless they have made substantial improvements to the property.

The controls would also be property based rather than tenancy to prevent landlords putting up the rent between tenants.

A Rental Warrant of Fitness would guarantee all rental homes were safe, warm and healthy to live in.

A national register of all landlords and property managers would keep track of how many properties were rented, ownership, how much rent was charged over time, and compliance with the Rental Warrant of Fitness.

Less headliney, but also important: relaxing Labour's austerity limits on Kainga Ora, allowing them to build even more state houses. Which would restore some balance to the rental sector.

Naturally, landlords hate it, making their usual threat to sell up. Which is a feature, not a bug, because unless they turn arsonist, the houses will still be there. They'll just be parasite free. Economists also hate it, but given that their "discipline" is basicly making excuses for the rich, they would. And as with MMP, the Wal Footrot principle applies: want a reason to vote for it? Just look at the people telling you not to.

[With thanks to the Dead Kennedys for the post title]

This could be interesting

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security announced their 2023/2024 annual work programme today, and its interesting reading. There's a bunch of spy stuff, including reviews of "Execution of class warrants", "Acquisition and use of bulk personal datasets (NZSIS)", and "A specific form of online intelligence gathering operation (NZSIS)", which will be interesting to see how the spies are violating our privacy and human rights. There's also a review into "New Zealanders and International Terrorist Screening Center Databases (NZSIS)", which covers "no fly" lists. And then there's this:

Assessment of security risk in meeting transparency requirements (GCSB and NZSIS): A review would examine the agencies’ approaches to the assessment of security risk from official publication or disclosure of information on their activities, including in response to requests under the Official Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 2020.

Or, to put it another way: are the spies being too paranoid? Obviously, I'm primarily interested in whether they are applying sections 6(a) and 6(b) of the OIA correctly, but the broader issue of public reports - including IGIS reports? - is also important. And with the SIS recently refusing to release basic performance statistics on their processing of immigration security checks, it seems particularly appropriate.

Of course, if they're reviewing it this year, we won't see a report until 2024 or 2025, which of course will not be allowed to include classified material. Which invites the question: if IGIS finds the spies have been too paranoid in censoring information, will they censor it to protect their reputations?

Another Parliamentary bully

Two days ago Stuff carried a story about Labour Minister Kiritapu Allan's staff quitting rather than put up with her bullying. And it appears to have opened the floodgates:

A senior public servant, with decades of experience, says Cabinet Minister Kiritapu Allan “yelled and screamed” so loudly, staff in the office heard the telephone call.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they witnessed Allan’s interactions with younger staff members both from government agencies and her Beehive office in a meeting, as well as seeing her “absolutely berate” another official for 20 mins on another occasion.

Allan “strongly refutes” the allegations.

Another former senior official with a long history of public service, has also spoken to Stuff to confirm they had concerns about Allan’s dealing with staff. “Basically low trust and respect of public servants was [the] issue,” they said.

And NEMA’s chief executive Dave Gawn, in a statement, said he “was aware of concerns regarding relationships in the minister's office, and that he understood action was taken to address these concerns.”

Labour are as usual circling the wagons around their bully, calling the reports "dirty politics" and saying that there have been no "formal complaints" (while refusing to release evidence of informal ones). But senior public servants don't put their careers and reputations on the line like this for no reason. And those careers and reputations are on the line, because while Stuff has withheld names, unless Allan is a total sociopath who does this to everyone, she will know exactly who her victims are.

I've said this before when it's come up, over Sam Uffindell, and Judith Collins, and Nick Smith, and Meka Whaitiri, and Maggie Barry, and all the rest: we should not tolerate bullies in our Parliament. And if certain political parties do, we should not tolerate them either. Labour needs to either sack and de-select Allan, or show that she has recognised that she has a problem and has taken effective steps to remedy it. Otherwise, we should regard them as a party of bullies and bully-apologists, and shank them for it at the ballot box.

Meanwhile, its been three years since the Francis report made it clear that Parliament was a toxic sewer of a workplace. And this shit is still going on. Parliament only got round to establishing a Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards last year, after three years of foot-dragging. The obvious question is whether they will be investigating Allan. And if not, what the fuck are they for?

More Australian corruption

Oh look, another Australian state premier has been found to have acted corruptly:

Former premier Gladys Berejiklian engaged in serious corrupt conduct and breached the public’s trust through her secret relationship with now-disgraced ex-MP Daryl Maguire.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption’s (ICAC) bombshell findings end a wait of almost two years for a ruling on Berejiklian’s conduct while she was in a secret relationship with Maguire.

In the damning two-volume report, the ICAC found that Berejiklian engaged in “serious corrupt conduct by breaching public trust” through the awarding of grants that Maguire had personally lobbied for “without disclosing her close personal relationship” with the then Wagga Wagga MP.

But despite that, they recommend not charging her. That'll boost public confidence in politicians!

But Berejiklian isn't alone. Her predecessors Barry O'Farrell and Kristina Keneally were both found by ICAC to have behaved corruptly, meaning that half of NSW's premiers since 2009 have been corrupt. Something is terribly, terribly wrong in that state. And despite repeated ICAC investigations, the culture of corruption just seems to continue. Perhaps there's a problem with this whole "investigate, but never charge" regime...

The obvious question

So, Parliament's "powerful" Privileges Committee has found Labour Education Minister Jan Tinetti innocent of deliberately misleading Parliament. Tinetti had given a false answer to a question in question time, been told it was false by her staff, refused to correct it, and then stood by her lie and gave a deliberately misleading answer later. Some of the Committee found her explanation - that it was all a dreadful mistake, which just coincidentally covered up her own control-freakery and lies - "unconvincing". But the Committee's report ultimately found that Tinetti's repeated refusal to correct her answer was not intentional, but merely the result of "a high degree of negligence" and "a significant error of judgement". Tinetti has now been forced to apologise to Parliament - a perfect example of a "powerful" slap on the wrist by a wet bus ticket.

...which is what happens when the government, which holds four of eight places on the committee, is allowed to judge itself. Meanwhile, the public can draw its own conclusions about Tinetti's honesty, competence, and the integrity of Parliamentary "justice".

Meanwhile, there's an obvious question: should someone who displays "a high degree of negligence" and makes "significant error[s] of judgement" even fit to be a Minister?

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day, one of the last for the current Parliament. But there's a lot of locla business to get through before the interesting stuff. First up is the third reading of the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill, followed by the combined second and third reading of the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill, and then the first reading of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. If these go for their full time they could easily eat all the available time today, but that seems unlikely. So the House should finish the first reading of Eugenie Sage's Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill (which Labour will vote down rather than keep their promises on climate change or on banning mining on conservation land), and should at least start the first reading of Karen Chhour's racist Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. If the House moves quickly it might make a start on Helen White's Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill. There should be a ballot for one or two bills tomorrow.

How convenient

Visa processing times have gone through the roof, and the holdup appears to be SIS security checks. But the SIS now refuses to release basic performance data on whether it is doing the job properly because "national security":

The SIS has refused to reveal its average processing time but said the timeframes were being formalised in a service level agreement with Immigration New Zealand (INZ).

[...]

Director-General of Security Andrew Hampton said to reveal the number of security checks (NSC) and how long they took may prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or international relations.

How convenient that suddenly basic accountability information is suddenly a state secret. I'm sure that will help ensure SIS does their job properly. Even more convenient: if they've actually classified the statistics, its a crime punishable by 5 years imprisonment to leak them. So there's not even the usual check on underperformance.

The supposed "justification" for this is that unnamed "adversaries" could "exploit the border screening system" if given time-series data on processing times. How? By knowing whether SIS was doing its job quickly and efficiently? And do they think that those supposed "adversaries" don't know that already?

This is a perfect example of how "national security" is used to hide embarrassing information and evidence of underperformance. And the only interest it serves is that of an agency which is too busy chasing imaginary enemies to perform its basic functions.

Climate Change: Debunking another fossil lie

One of the most pervasive pieces of fossil industry propaganda is that decarbonisation will "make us all poorer" by destroying the value of fossil fuel assets. But it turns that its just another fossil industry lie:

Research published on Thursday finds that the loss of fossil fuel assets would have a minimal impact on the general public.

“We find that the bulk of financial losses associated with rotten, polluting assets is borne by the wealthy,” said the co-author Lucas Chancel, a professor of economics at Sciences Po in Paris. “Only a small share of financial losses is borne by the working and middle class because they have no or relatively little financial wealth.”

The study, published in the journal Joule, found that in high-income countries two-thirds of the financial losses would be borne by the most affluent 10%. In contrast, governments could easily compensate for the minimal impact on those on middle and lower levels of wealth.

Which is obvious, when you think about it. Normal people don't have huge share portfolios. We don't own oil companies. Instead, like everything else, those assets are owned by billionaires and bonesaw-wielding Saudi autocrats. Destroying that wealth doesn't hurt us, and in fact seems positively beneficial in terms of limiting the power of those billionaires and autocrats to undermine democracy and destroy the world.

But then, I guess that that's what they're afraid of...