It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. As usual, civilised discussion and absolutely no coarse language, please.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Regarding the issue of the proposed (how ever speculatively) Darwin to national grid power link. The suggestion of a power link seems costly when seen in exclusion from all other possibilities. As an energy and environment guy you will be fully familiar with the concentrating solar thermal power generation system (www.gezen.nl/www.dlr.de/tt/institut/abteilungen/system/publications/Vortrag_CSP_07-Druckversion.pdf) as well as be aware that the length of the proposed power link is premium solar thermal generation country. If 12 gigawatts of power facility were built along the link then the 1 billion dollar cost of it would be small to the 14.8 billion dollar cost of the power facilities, and most of Queensland’s future power needs would be catered for (including the need for 1 gig for Gladstone’s aluminium needs). And the transmission losses would be greatly reduced. So why did we just jump from 1 billion to 16 billion. This is just part of the “repowering Australia” cost that the nation faces RIGHT NOW regardless of what system is employed. That adjustment alone would make a 7% reduction to Australia’s CO2 emissions.
Has anyone seen the internet activity re the Big Day Out’s flag request? Hundreds of comments on hundreds of sites. Ohh if only the general public could debate the state of our democracy and the undermining of international laws with such enthusiasm.
Its a nice dream at least.
Yes, the concerns of Cronulla Man run deep.
I guess you had to expect it – patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels – but I might have expected more of Ruddy. I mean what a beat up. I think the big day out folk were rightfully concerned – the prospect of flagwavers behaving like matadors to anyone of mediterranean features is a concern. Having the political spindoctors climbing all over it is disgusting, but it is what you expect.
A similar issue of political expression concerns the British passenger who was refused from boarding a Qantas plane because he was wearing a T-shirt declaring George Walker Bush was a terrorist.To me this seems no more than a factual statement, or at least a political one.
I suppose that every political statement will be offensive to someone. On that basis Qantas should not carry newspapers and magazines that have political content, on the basis that somebody may be offended by a headline. Would the T-shirt have been considered potentially offensive if it possed a question, rather than made a statement? What for some in this matter, is that a person is being stopped from expressing an political opinion in what in essence is a public space.
I think that Qantas would have been wiser to wait until the offence was caused, which propably would not happen, and then deal with the situation. As it is, it is the company that looks foolish, not the passenger.
Maybe I am even more quaintly old-fashioned than Howard and Rudd, but I always thought there were a whole lot of protocols about how the flag should be flown and other usage of it. The general drift was that it was treated with due respect and correct protocol followed for the limited prescribed uses.
I don’t recall there being anything there about draping oneself in the flag à la Pauline Hanson and sundry Cronulla and other thugs.
The organisers should fly the flag, in the correct manner, if they feel it is appropriate and there are proper facilities. A flag is not an item of clothing, and the inappropriate use of it as a symbol of über patriotism or racial statement should be strenuously opposed by all responsible politicians. Until today I would have numbered Rudd among them.
I’m attempting to repost this message, sent by email from Gandhi
What happened to that bloke who used to come here every Monday and post comments about the global price of oil being politically manipulated? Gosh, he’s been quiet lately, hasn’t he? And no wonder! The price is at 20 month lows! So <a href=" http://ridingthejuggernaut.blogspot.com/2007/01/oil-price-drop.html“>what’s he got to say about that?
(In oddly related news, a FOX TV star said the unusually cold winter weather was <a href=" http://mediamatters.org/items/200701180011“>proof that global warming was being over-hyped).
And did anyone else <a href=" http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/19/its_still_about_the_oil.php“>notice that an Iraqi “negotiating committee” approved a new hydrocarbon law last week, and it’s due to be voted on by the Iraqi cabinet this week?
Tomorrow the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations will hold a hearing to investigate ‘oil and reconstruction strategy in Iraq. Don’t expect to hear too much about it, given the Chimp is going to screech some more gibberish at the same time.
The new Zimbabwe looms on the horizon?
http://allafrica.com/stories/200701200027.html
Is Apartheid in SA about to join white rule in Rhodesia and Saddam in Iraq, as the best options for their respective populations? Will all these historical regime change supporters have a new deeper understanding of each other’s good intentions and poor outcomes?
Re the flag and the t-shirt: it should entirely be up to Qantas and Big Day Out organisers to determine what is shown/worn at their own events. If you think the BDO organisers can ban the flag, then you should support Qantas restricting what t-shirts can be worn on its flights.
Conversely, if you argue that Qantas can’t restrict t-shirts, then you should argue against the BDO restrictions on the flag.
A caveat – if the Government is providing support for the BDO, then it could be argued that it can put requirements on the BDO organisers.
MP, Airlines as fashion police… now there’s an interesting concept! I await with interest the promulgation of the Qantas ‘passenger dress code’. The t-shirt in question made a political statement – it did not incite any actions or use bad or offensive language. People may have disagreed with it’s message and are perfectly entitled to do so but to demand it’s removal is a bit much.
Back to the flag. Messrs Howard and Rudd would have been well advised to check their facts before engaging in their respective rants. Information on the flag and protocols for it’s use are at: http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm#protocols
Some points:
* The flag should be raised briskly and lowered ceremoniously.
* The flag should be raised no earlier than first light and lowered no later than dusk.
* When the flag is raised or lowered, or when it is carried in a parade or review, everyone present should be silent and face the flag. People in uniform should salute.
* The flag should never be flown if it is damaged, faded or dilapidated. When the material of a flag deteriorates it should be destroyed privately and in a dignified way.
* The flag should not fall or lie on the ground or be used as a cover (although it can be used to cover a coffin at a funeral).
None of this seems consistent with a gang of goons running around cloaking themselves in the flag, trailing it in the dirt or otherwise acting disrespectfully.
The BDO organisers are to be commended for striving to uphold the dignity of the flag.
Bemused,
I take your points as they relate to the official use of the flag, but it’s far more commonly used than that, including as an image to adorn food, car firms and products to clean people’s bottoms, and as a fashion accessory for successful sports stars, not to mention being waved in audiences in the cricket – where it is a direct challenge to the other side – and other sporting events. I’d have to ask, what makes BDO think it such a danger?
However, I agree that as a commercial body Qantas may take what dress decisions it likes. The organisers of BDO may or may not be the same, but the test there is whether the Govt actually has the power to dictate what decisions are made.
As for upholding the dignity of the flag, I’d say the court is still out. They may well be attempting to make a political statement (a la Rudd’s “political correctness gone mad” comment. It would hardly be the first time.
Gandhi might be interested in this profound insight (April 2006) from the (US) Heritage Foundation on the real factors behind the price of oil. An extract: “Oil prices are rising—not because the world is running out of oil but because the bulk of reserves are in countries where market incentives cannot work fully or in the hands of monopolists who may be exercising their power by restraining investment”. See, it’s not only the Lefties of Mordor who invent conspiracy theories about the price of oil!
Plenty of room in Mordor for the gringo and infidel haters too. Just one big unhappy family.
2 tanners,
I was referring to the flag in the narrow sense and not including commercial items which use an image of the flag as part of thir design. The same official web site states:
Commercial use
The Australian National Flag may be used for commercial purposes, including advertising, without formal permission but subject to guidelines:
* The flag should be used in a dignified manner and reproduced completely and accurately.
* It should not be defaced by overprinting with words or illustrations.
* Other objects in displays should not cover the flag.
* All symbolic parts of the flag should be identifiable.
So basically no problem with a t-shirt, coffee mug, badges etc with a proper representation of the flag on it. But such items are not flags per se. The actual flag is in a different class altogether and, officially at least, required to be accorded due respect.
“it is a criminal offence to fly the Union Flag from a boat.�
Could someone please inform Australian boat owners that it is illegal to fly the current Australian union flag from their boats?
Maybe Canada had the right idea in 1965 when they introduced The Maple Leaf Flag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack#Status
Re BillB’s post at the top that’s the first I’ve heard of a Darwin grid link. They say solar thermal will be a winner combined with energy storage and carbon taxes. It seems the former is technically difficult and the latter is politically impossible. This whole topic needs an overview in the light of various claims, for example that the Gladstone alumimium smelter is a white elephant. Another stems from recent publicity over Basslink whereby Tas Hydro can apparently get $1 per kwh meeting mainland peak demand and reimport brown coal fired electricity for a few cents since the greenhouse factor is not currently relevant in Australia. I don’t see any leadership on these issues coming from Canberra.
John, thanks for posting my comment (your HTML skills need work BTW).
Gordon, thanks for that link. If it were written today, I would assume that “countries where market incentives cannot work fully” is code for places like Venezuela (was that failed 2002 coup a “market incentive”?). And I would assume countries “in the hands of monopolists who may be exercising their power by restraining investment” means Saudi Arabia. But it’s a crypic analysis that talks about monopolies without naming them, isn’t it?
And a full a year ago? Gosh, who can remember that far back?!
The most honest comment on the gas price crisis came from Scott McClellan (freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose, eh, Scottie?) who said: “This is not something we got into overnight.â€? Exactly. These levels of oil company profits took years of careful lobbying and planning to orchestrate…
Hermit, I was commenting on a post from robert merkel. He was commenting on a proposed link for Darwin to the national grid to enable tidal power from somewhere up there to contribute to our kyoto non contribution. By the way solar thermal power storage is not technically difficult, it is now routinely working well and comes in many forms with yields improving steadily. Carbon tax is for John Howard as palateable as eating coal. There will, however, soon be no other alternative as his bed pal (Bush) is now under extreme pressure (from the industries that both Howard and Bush claim to be protecting) to set mandatory targets for carbon reduction. Frankly I think that Howard looks longingly to Rodert Mugabe (his favourite, though a little extreme, neocon) for ideas on quelling this impertinent uprising of noisey environmental activists.
The commercial use of the flag is bloody rampant. It seems every piece of surf clothing (that are all made in China) has the Australian flag on it.
And I thought surfing was a hedonistic individual lifestyle where you shunned authoritarianism and didn’t need to belong to something.
Patriotism sells big time. It’s why bogans, who are so talentless, need to define themselves with symbols rather than deeds.
Or is that being a bit harsh?
Bemused,
I was having bit of a poke when talking about using the flag to sell nappies. But Runners finishing sprints in first place, wear a flag for their victory lap. Crowds at the cricket and soccer use the national flag (as well, concedo, as the boxing kangaroo) to make a nationalist statement. This doesn’t seem to match with the requirements as you cite them – especially wrapping them around sweatsoaked bodies!
On another topic entirely:
Is the Howard New Team going to adequately address Rudd’s perceived areas of strength, or is it more intended to paper over the weak spots?
Its a sad fact that the idea that the Australian flag could trigger racist violence is actually plausible. I wonder how much further we’ll fall.
2 tanners,
The same way they addressed Latham’s areas of strength. From recollection, Latham was in an even better position than Rudd at this point of the cycle. Maybe Rudd will not implode.
I have some sympathy with Qantas on this one – I think the rule they have in mind is “no loud talking about terrorism in airports â€? rather than “no criticism of Bushâ€? or “no offending peopleâ€?. There are signs warning that it is a criminal offence to joke about bombs in airports, and this while marginal, is along the same lines.
As regards the flag, the BDO guys might have avoided some of the cheap shots they copped had they announced that they would fly the flag on a standard at the venue, and request that no-one else use it in a way that might be regarded as disrespectful or undignified. But as swio says, the whole thing is quite sad.
They say patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, but in John Howard’s case it was was one of his opening gambits.
Forty years ago people were wringing their hands and talking about Australia’s “Cultural cringe” obsequience towards the UK. Then Howard came along and (while still kissing the ring of Her Maj) his government(s) started pumping all this phoney, US-sytle patriotism: Australia #1 Whoo Hoo!!! It has been a shallow exploitation of underlying xenophobia and it remains just that.
The truth is that in an increasingly globalized world, nationalistic fervour is an anachronism. Particularly so in a country like Australia which – like it or not – is genuinely multicultural.
As a nation, we should have a more enlighted self-image of how we fit into the world: a melting point of cultures at the meeting point of East and West. If we can set an enlightened example to the world, we can help guide modern civilisation towards a more harmonious and equitable future. There will also be economic benefits in this approach.
This is fun. find out where you sit on the Australian political spectrum:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/index.php?page_id=206
the rule they [qantas] have in mind is “no loud talking about terrorism in airports�
IOW, don’t talk about the war. Truly Fawlteyesque behaviour. I’m surprised at your sympathy, John.
And why the hell shouldn’t I talk about terrorism, let alone wear a t-shirt referring to it, in an airport if I want? Or even joke about it (which of course this wasn’t)? If my joking takes the form of a hoax and ties up resources then there are existing laws to cover that and a magistrate can decide who was being the pillock – me or ‘the authorities’. Just like in the recent Chaser case.
Thers’s a helluva lot of creeping fascism about. It makes me feel much less, not more, secure.
We are multiracial but were never multicultural ghandi. That’s where the chattering classes were deluding themselves and when fundamental Islam came along to throw down the gauntlet to their multiculturalism, the game was up. Multiculturalism aint about food and wine festivals. Oh Islam is into a globalised world alright. It’s called the Caliphate and won’t brook any allegiance to national groupings. That’s why and where Howard begs to differ and the left just don’t get it.
I am interested in finding the arguments against the following and in understanding why it isn’t being done or as far as I can see even discussed.
Assume we need to replace green house gas producing energy sources with energy sources that produce little or no green house gases.
One way of funding the infrastructure needed is to put a carbon tax on greenhouse gas production and to spend the tax on infrastructure to produce “clean” energy.
The problem with this is that we know governments are not good at spending money efficiently and so it is unlikely that they will use the carbon taxes wisely.
What would be the effect of instead of putting a carbon tax put a carbon surcharge on greenhouse gas energy proportional to the amount of carbon produced but leave the money with the purchaser. The surcharge money has restrictions on it but it is “owned” by the purchaser. The restriction is that it can only be used to invest in energy sources that produce little or no greenhouse gases. It can also be sold for a discount to those who think they can invest it for a profit.
Wouldn’t this solve the problem of finding the finance needed to get clean energy without being too inflationary and it could be politically acceptable because the surcharge could be sold for less than its face value for those who do not want to use it for solar panels, investment in carbon free coal stations etc. It is really directed savings and is similar to the 9% super surcharge so it is not a new thing.
The key factor is that there would be lots of buyers looking for a place to put their money in clean technologies and they will do a better job of investing than the government will with lots of tax money to spend.
My back of the envelop calculations show that a 30% surcharge on energy would produce enough funds to give Australia a carbon free energy infrastructure within ten years.
Ahh, channelling that genius of social history, Alan Jones.
Let’s see in the last year or two I have been to
a Lebanese wedding,
a Catholic wedding between a Filipino and an “Aussie” Aussie,
a wedding between a catholic Chilean and Fijian-Indian muslim,
a Greek orthodox wedding between an Indonesian and a Greek,
a wedding between a Thai and a Vietnamese and
and a christian Korean and a Honkie (someone from Hong Kong).
Over the next year we have a another Catholic wedding between a Brazilian and a Filipino and a Chinese wedding too.
I think there might be one person in that list who is not an Australian citizen, though I might be wrong about him. Let’s see as religions go that’s…
Greek Orthodox
Sunni Muslim
Catholic
Maronite Christian
…and languages…
Korean
Mandarin
Cantonese (another form of Chinese for the mono-culturalist out there who struggle with diversity)
Spainish
Portugese
and Greek
After hearing observa’s pearls of wisdom about the non-existence of multi-cultaralism and thinking about the weddings above I thought to myself; wow what a broad and diverse mono-culture? Why this must be the most diverse single culture that ever existed in the history of the entire world. Who would a thought it, the single Australian culture is the most diverse that ever existed. Amazing.
Derrida Derida: I believe you are off the mark, & I believe JQuiggin has hit the nail on the head. There is no allowance for “joking” or especially “hoaxes” in airports.
When next at an airport, try this: Whilst promenading around the departure hall you could try the following on janitors, hosties heading home, ushers at the Virgin Blue queue & others:
Joking about a hand grenade in your luggage, or
Joking about hijacking.
You will discover in quicktime just HOW seriously security is taken. In the extremely unlikely event that a total stranger gets all civil libertarian about your sudden legal plight & the application of physical restraints, it certainly won’t be someone who was on the flight you had been booked on.
I am inclined to feel that he may have been provocative in both his dress sense & demeanour.
Pulling someone off a flight isn’t a decision taken lightly.
Not saying Oz is not a broad church swio, but have you been to any arranged marriages with a third or fourth wife lately mate? Also are you comfortable with bringing in more and more Hilali supporters to see chaps like Hilali elected to govern you? (before you answer that, assume for a moment George Bush and John Howard have retired)
Of course while the observa’s betters were up there in the commanding heights, arguing over such deep and meaningfuls as social discount rates, they were always prone to overlook developments on the ground. To some of us troglodyte ground dwellers, it seemed fairly obvious that reducing GG emissions down to 40% of 1990 levels couldn’t possibly cost only 1% of GDP. Pie in the sky. Five times that and growing fast apparently
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/man_pauses_stares/
Perhaps its time for the Quigginses to get the Lancet onto that figure…. err, no wait a bit, that won’t work for them!
I’ve seen the draft IPCC report, and 1 per cent of GDP is well inside the range of estimates reported there. I doubt that the Spectator is a reliable source on matters of this kind.
JQ: have you read the Spectator’s interview with Stern? It is very funny, so much so that it is plausible Stern was impersonated by Borat. Certainly “Stern” had no answer when shown the page in the IPCC FARt showing 5% of GDP as the cost of averting meltdowns o 5%, until when the tape was off he admitted that computer models are mostly spurious. He fared no better in Davos, where he was heard only “politely” while AGW was voted only 18/19 of the world’s pressing problems.
Spectator or no Spectator, those who advocate reducing GG by 60% of 1990 levels by 2050, eg Mike Rann here
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20880925-5005962,00.html
are asking us to believe that will probably cost us 1% of GDP. In that I think they’re being as deceitful as they often accuse GW denialists of being. IMO they have a hidden agenda in doing so. So, why don’t we test their credibility with a bit of a straw poll here.
Assuming in Australi we wanted to reduce GG emissions by 60% of 1990 levels by 2050, do you believe it would cost:-
A Closer to 1% of GDP than 5%
B Closer to 5% than 1%
C Multiples of 5% (eg closer to 10% than 5% or graeter still)
For me its a no-brainer and the answer is C. What say JQ and the rest of you?
Australian 2006 GDP = 654.3billion
Australia’s 1990 GHG emissions = 552 million tonnes per year
Australia’s most recent (2004) reported GHG emissions = 565 million tonnes per year
40% below 1990 = 331 million tonnes per year
Reduction task = 565-331 = 234 million tonnes per year
For this to cost only 1% of GDP ($6.543 billion per year), the average price of carbon would be $30 / tonne.
$30 / tonne of carbon doesnt seem unrealistic.
I heard the former president of DuPont chemicals state without equivocation on RN the other day that unilaterally introducing energy efficiency measures and emissions reductions had significantly improved profits for the company. Which suggests GDP could well be improved and not diminished by such measures. So it would appear we are being accelerated toward environmental catastrophe in order to preserve the present day profitability of some industrial dinosaurs and for no other discernible reason.
Of course, my simple back of envelope stuff doesnt account for indirect effects on the economy of spending so much money, nor does it account for the year to year increase in GDP – its gonna be much higher than 654.3billion by 2060 methinks. But it gives a starting ballpark kind of an idea.
Some other things to think about:
US$30/tonne would be enough to make wind power, nuclear power and various bioenergies and geothermal energy viable in Australia, and would bring other renewable energies such as solar thermal, wave and tidal power within range too – not sure about clean coal though, at least not any time soon.
petrol emits 2.5kg of CO2 per litre, so an increase in petrol price of 20c per litre is like a carbon price of $80 per tonne of CO2 on petrol. A permanent increase in the price of petrol of 20c would be enough to make biodiesel and ethanol viable fuels in Australia.
Plenty of things can still be done that actually save money e.g. energy efficiency, solar hot water.
US$30/tonne is a good price for tree planting, and I’d wager it would make vaccinating cattle to reduce their methane emissions look good too.
So I pick A observa.
Observa and Steve: you are on the right track, only it’s worse. One per cent of Oz GDP fromn 2006 with growth at 2.5% p.a. mounts up, to $533 billion by 2050, or 81% of GDP in 2006. JQ like Stern regards that as trivial. Zimbabwe is begiining to look like a safe haven!
Steve Could you explain how a litre of petrol (approx 1 kilo) emits 2.5 kilos of Co2?
As you say: Something to think about!
Can read about it here, which is also the source of my number:
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/fuelguide/environment.html
Quote:
“It might seem odd that a greater weight of emissions is produced than the weight of a litre of fuel, but this is because of the addition of oxygen from the atmosphere to the fuel during combustion to form CO2.”
Co2: One atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen.
The oxygen comes from atmosphere, not the fuel.
In every Co2 molecule there are two oxygen for each carbon atom. Plus oxygen atoms are a little heavier than those of carbon (Carbon’s atomic mass = 12, oxygen’s atomic mass = 16). So one kilo of carbon is going to produce about three kilo’s of carbon dioxide (actually about 3.6kg of carbon dioxide). Petrol is not pure carbon, it has a lot of hydrogen in it too so it comes up a little different. High school chemistry.
The “greenest” approach I can think of at first sight appears one of the worst. It is to use smoky two stroke engines, but fuel them with biofuels and organic lubricants like castor oil. The carbon particles released get removed from the carbon cycle in proportion as they get washed out of the air into water, since carbon isn’t biodegradable and only gets recycled by weathering in the open, a bit like sun bleaching – but carbon sinks in water. The very real pollution that happens is local and short term, not global and long term, and doesn’t drive the greenhouse effect (also, it is practical to use filters, which even increases the carbon sequestration).
Australians consume about 70,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per person per year. How much do we have invest to get this much energy from a non polluting source? PacHydro estimates it will cost $600 million to build a 200 megawatt geothermal power station. If this operated for a full year at 80 per cent capacity, the capital cost to produce a watt would be approximately $3.75. Thus the capital to produce 70,000kwh over one year is approximately $30,000 using geothermal sources.
70,000 kWh at 10 cents per kilowatt hour is $7000. If we put a surcharge of $3,000 per year on this energy and we required the surcharge to be invested in some form of low emission energy production then we could have a greenhouse gas free economy within 10 years with current technologies.
For those who haven’t been following, I’ve repeatedly explained the difference between levels and growth rates to Tim Curtin but he is unable to grasp this basic point.
As for observa, simply saying “I don’t believe it” is not an argument. As regards your questions, no serious economist (including the Howard government’s own modellers*) gets much more than 3 per cent (They did one run with 10, but they had to use really ludicrous assumptions to get it).
JQ: That was unworthy of you and a false claim: if I save 1% of my GROWING income it produces a LEVEL of capital which itself adds to the GROWTH of my income; investing 1% of Australia’s GDP GROWING at 2.5% produces a LEVEL of capital by 2050 equal to 81% of today’s GDP; investing 1% of GDP pa in say carbon sequestration produces a LEVEL of gas in the ground, which yields nothing in itself; what has to be demonstrated then is that the $533 billion tied up in this way by 2050 reduces the LEVEL of atmospheric CO2 by enough (costing one suspects much more than $30 per tonne of CO2) to make any noticeable difference in the global climate. What the cost benefit ratio on all this will be is a no-brainer.
Serious economists couldn’t predict stagflation in the 70s, nor can they predict the next recession, or the weather next week and 20 years ago none of them predicted GW, yet JQ says trust us folks, the answer is A in the year 2050 and yet in Oz not one nuclear power station is even on the drawing board yet. Well I’m finished asking economists, I’m asking all you out there for your educated hunch, intelligent guess or stab in the dark. In other words nail your colours to the mast now and let’s see what the consensus is now. If you don’t I’ll assume you don’t have a clue and that’s as valid as choosing A, B, or C.
Hey get back in your box would you observa?!
It’s all very well criticising the experts if you’re either one yourself or you can exercise a little humility in the process but, for instance, I won’t be asking you to tell us how to do an inverted air with twist in heavy surf because … ummm I don’t have any reason to think you would know. (heh – should I?)
Get it?
Funny but sometimes you have an unworthy flash that proffers an alternative way of understanding a concept (such as “no-brainer”) 🙂