Andrew Franz comments

But the Australian ABC tells us all the time that "renewables" are cheaper.

It is false to say that "Morrison took a hard-line stance toward Beijing".

Morrison called for an international investigation into the cause of the pandemic.

China responded with trade boycotts. Australia did not respond except to reinforce the call for a "rules based order". Which country DOESN'T call for a rules-based order? And how is this "hard line"?

Please correct your article.

"unfathomable profits from fueling the climate crisis"?

What utter nonsense!

People who make statements like this should cease using fuel, cease using iron and steel, aluminium and polymers. Go and live in a cave and use "renewable" "biomass" (aka firewood).

But can you believe VW's emissions?

Dieselgate: https://fortune.com/2018/02/06/volkswagen-vw-emissions-scandal-penalties/

"Fully Vaccinated"

Manufacture supercars in Australia, which has a free trade agreement with the UK.

Naoto Ueyama, postulated 2 things:

"All of the different mutant strains of the virus which exist in different places will be concentrated and gathering here in Tokyo"; and

"We cannot deny the possibility of even a new strain of the virus potentially emerging"

Kenji Shibuya, only refuted the second with "Mutation takes place when virus stays in immunocompromised partially immunized people for a long period of time".

It is undeniable that the first postulate is correct. It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that an asymptomatic athlete or official from a specific country might transmit the virus to athletes or official from other countries.

It is undeniable that a gathering of all countries carries a greater risk of spreading a particular EXISTING than not gathering.

Logic.

Only one problem, the virus has lapped all of the other competitors.

Meanwhile Xi Jinping, keynote speaker says ""Rules should be followed by all"..

Should he be calculating his liability?

"Virus cost global tourism $1.3 trillion in 2020: U.N" - Reported by JapanToday

The "first of its kind claim" is dubious. Boeing launched a self-cleaning bathroom in 2016:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l84M_22eWGY

First "without harming human health" is also a dubious claim. UV lights are widely used in public toilets to prevent drug addicts using them.

https://www.hawkesburygazette.com.au/story/2878552/lights-aim-to-give-junkies-the-blues/

This is from 2 years ago:

"This public bathroom has UV antibacterial lights in it"

https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/8yhrfz/this_public_bathroom_has_uv_antibacterial_lights/

Shanghai was using UV light in trains back in March.

Not very efficient - why not use ozone?

Hospitals use ozone overnight in operating theatres - for good reason!

Ozone is 100% effective, it penetrates carpets and seat material (which manual cleaning doesn't), requires minimal labour and leaves no residue except dead microbes.

Contact me if you need any other advice.

Are you quoting Chomsky or the parrot?