Electric Vehicles fall flat for Aussie lifestyle

,

Labor’s much-hyped goal of net zero and electric vehicles for 2050 will run out of charge between 2025 and 2030, when lithium supplies are predicted to dry up.

No-one is looking at the harm these electric vehicles cause out of sight in the Third World or asking why they still have a social licence, given that most of them source raw materials on the back of child slave labour either.

You can have your electric vehicles, I’ll keep my turbo-diesel and tow my trailer as far as I like.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. The history of climate change and related energy bills is replete with terrible governance, shoddy governance, deceitful governance. There have been genuine errors made, there have been decisions taken on greed and self-interest, contradicting the science, and now we have inappropriate market manipulation from a cynical, meddling government. This bill is designed to force the uptake of electric vehicles. What hubris, what deceit—and who pays? As always, the people are paying.

How can the Albanese government ignore the critical shortage of minerals essential to producing this many electric vehicles? Lithium has been a global arms race fought between electric vehicles and Labor’s other loves: batteries, solar panels and wind turbines. There’s not enough lithium on earth for one of these follies, let alone all four. Stuart Crow, chair of Lake Resources, said:

There simply isn’t going to be enough lithium on the face of the planet, regardless of who expands and who delivers, it just won’t be there.

So what’s the government’s plan to handle the lithium shortage in the electronics industry as net zero sucks up supply of cobalt, lithium and copper? Demand inflation will force these resources up in price over the next few years. How’s the government going to explain to citizens why their phones, laptops and household goods have been made unaffordable from so-called sustainable, green technologies? By the way, have you noticed how United Nations World Economic Forum sustainability programs can exist only with subsidies, meaning they’re not sustainable?

Back to the point, the engineering boundaries are real, and wishy-washy responses about finding new solutions don’t work when the best solution, lithium, is being wasted on the vanity of net zero. Labor’s much-hyped goal of net zero for 2050 will run out of charge between 2025 and 2030, when lithium supplies are predicted to dry up. This shortage is already manifested in mineral prices. In 2020 lithium was $6,000 per tonne. Today, what is it? I’ll tell you: it’s sitting around $78,000 per time, 13 times higher. Everything this precious resource is being wasted on will be sitting in landfill before 2050. I say it again: everything this precious resource is being wasted on will be sitting in landfill, buried before 2050. Every wind turbine, every solar panel, every big battery, every home battery—all of it rotting while the earth and its oceans are torn apart to feed the monstrous dream of net zero through the strip mining of the seabed for rare earth minerals that are necessary for the production of these follies.

Even electric vehicle manufacturers admit to being in trouble. The World Economic Forum, whose policies seem to find their way into Australian legislation, thinks we need five billion electric vehicles to achieve net zero. That’s not five billion through to 2050; that is five billion every five to 10 years for ever. No wonder you’re looking startled; this is news to most people in this room. The reason electric vehicles are so damn expensive is that, in manufacturing electric vehicles, they are resource and energy hogs. They are resource guzzlers with a huge environmental footprint, far greater than petrol and diesel cars. These price hikes, which have already started, are set to push almost all purely electric vehicles beyond the luxury car threshold required to qualify for Labor’s amendment to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act.

After the amendment moved by the Greens and Senator Pocock goes through, in 2025 hybrids will no longer be included in the bill. Price inflation will ensure not much else will be either. When President Biden gave a $7,000 subsidy, the first thing that happened? Car manufacturers put up their prices by $7,000. Subsidies make things dearer, not cheaper. They shift the price label but not the affordability. Perhaps some cheaper EVs that are made in China and that may or may not still be working in 2030 will benefit.

Labor could, of course, raise the threshold, but at what point do we say that big business is being given a subsidy from working Australians to buy luxury vehicles? Our European friends are a decade ahead of us in this madness. They’ve dismissed policies like this as expensive, wasteful and counterproductive. Their conclusion is that government interference benefits rich companies at the expense of natural market competition. It’s why German finance minister Christian Lindner said:

We simply cannot afford misguided subsidies anymore. These cars have so far been subsidised over their lifetime with up to 20,000 euros, even for top earners. That’s too much. We can save billions there, which we can use more sensibly.

Germans are saying this.

This bill for luxury foreign electric vehicles is designed to fix a number on Labor’s spreadsheet of carbon dioxide output. It’s not to assist a transition to electric vehicles for the general public. The fastest rise in product quality occurred when electric vehicles were forced to compete on merit against their oil and gas hydrocarbon fuelled betters. It was only then, when the customer was king, that their price came down. Their quality went up and their range increased slightly. When European governments handed the electric vehicle market billions in subsidies, car manufacturers grew fat and lazy. They took the money, slacked off on development and raised their prices knowing that public money would cover the difference. This is transferring wealth from taxpayers to electric vehicle manufacturers.

Labor’s bill is more of the same failed economics that fundamentally misunderstands what drives success. Given the price dynamics at play, if anything this bill penalises full electric vehicles and preferences hybrids. At the same time hybrids begin to win the consumer war, this government’s net-zero policies are pushing up the price of fuel and leaving every car owner worse off. We’re quickly reaching a point where car ownership will become a rare privilege that won’t impact at all anyone in this chamber, yet it will make the lives of everyday Australians an intolerable misery. As Norway, the world’s premier electric vehicle buyer, has stated, they want to reduce individual car ownership and see their population walk or catch public transport. The United Nations World Economic Forum EV policy is not about having different cars; it’s about no cars—no cars. Good luck telling Australian tradies that, but that’s what will happen.

These EVs have no resale value because they tend to be sold when the batteries are cooked. If we’re talking about sustainability, electric vehicles are on a swift path to landfill, unlike conventional cars that have many lives and many owners. To get electricity consumption down in order to improve range, EVs are made of composite materials, aluminium and plastics. Most of the steel in the subframe is needed to hold the extra weight of the battery. Recycling is, of course, possible, although with the price of electricity in Australia, thanks to weather-dependent solar and wind driving up power prices, our recycling industry is struggling. Think about this: much like used plastics, glass, solar panels and wind turbines, EVs will not be recycled beyond their copper wires and the little steel that has been used. If electric vehicles are a less desirable product at a terrible price heading towards extinction, what are their alleged climate virtues? Let’s consider that: this virtue is not based on science; it’s not a calculation of their cradle-to-grave life cycle. It’s a self-declaration. Electric vehicles identify as net zero, and so this government treats them as such.

No-one is looking at the harm these electric vehicles cause out of sight in the Third World or asking why they still have a social licence, given that most of them source raw materials on the back of child slave labour—child slave labour. What is the environmental cost of the Third World mining operations to build a car that sits in an Australian dealership with a green virtue sticker on the side? That’s completely irrelevant as far as this government is concerned. Why else would Labor throw good money after bad behind Congo cobalt? Labor are turning a blind eye to the 40,000 children in the Congo mining the cobalt for EVs—after this bill, 45,000. Leading electric vehicle manufacturers claim to be free of child slave labour, yet their supply contracts for cobalt are with companies with child slave labour in their supply chains—deceit.

We like to think that our civilisation has advanced, yet these net-zero technologies, more than any other, are indulging in the cheap, largely unregulated labour of our poor neighbours and their children. When it’s not children down mines clawing at the ground with their bare hands, it’s the toxic mining practices for rare earths that make coalmines look like an oasis. This is the truth behind the green sticker. Electric vehicles need mining, and the Greens hate mining—or so they tell us. Greens and teals demand coal stay in the ground. How can anyone make more EVs without using coal to smelt the steel and the aluminium, process the plastics from coal and oil and make the glass? How can we make more electric vehicles without oil in the bearings? It seems the government and the Greens and teals cheer squads are determined to find out. It’s impossible.

Added to the list of disasters waiting to happen is the effect of this many electric vehicles on the national electricity grid. Now we’re talking about something that’s hurting everyone. All it takes is three or so electric vehicles on an average suburban street to charge at the same time, and the powerlines melt down or shut off. Weather-dependent power like solar and wind cannot charge this many electric vehicles—full stop, that’s it. I’m sure this bill will lead to government departments buying another off-market round of electric vehicles to zip around Canberra. What it will not do is save the planet. What it will not do is make electric vehicles more affordable. What it will not do is ease the cost of living. What it will not do is create a better, more competitive product. And who will pay? As always, the people will pay for this government’s stupidity and deceit.

Even if they are miraculously delivered in this fit of madness, as a product electric vehicles have serious unresolved issues, like their tendency to spontaneously combust. Australia’s firefighters have complained that they do not have the ability to put out lithium-ion battery fires in electric vehicles. So what happens when our underground car parks are packed full of these things and one starts off a chain reaction? What happens if they catch fire beneath apartment blocks, inside shopping centres, in tunnels? The ventilation of buildings and car parks is not designed to handle the safety issue, the hazard and risk issue of the scars, and there will be serious accidents in tight residential areas. If there’s a fire, the water used to fight that fire is 10 times the amount for a conventional car fire. Firefighters are terrified of this. Even worse, that water becomes toxic as a result of contact with a toxic battery fire and must be captured and treated. Allowing firefighting water to run off site is an environmental contamination. EV does not stand for electric vehicle; EV stands for environmental vandalism. This bill states that its purpose is, ‘To encourage a greater uptake of electric cars by Australian road users to reduce Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector by making cars more affordable’. Let me be straight: this is a big-business perk to help the richest people in this country improve their environmental virtue-signalling and their social credit status on paper. It is nothing more. Labor is offering another incentive to the rich, urban, professional teal voters to come on over to Labor and to keep their buddies in government, the Greens, with them.

Yet underneath it all, the Australian people are left to pick up the bill for Labor’s empty virtue-signalling and economic stupidity. This government needs to stop sucking up to the teals and start governing for Australia, and replace policies from the United Nations and World Economic Forum alliance, that began in 2018, with policies instead that serve Australia.

I want to mention a couple of points from Judith Sloan, the economist and journalist. At a time when United Nations and World Economic Forum policies drive goals of converting our transport fleet to electricity and hugely increasing demand for electricity, our bureaucrats push United Nations and World Economic Forum policies to kill reliable, baseload coal power and replace it with expensive, intermittent, unreliable wind and solar. And here’s what Judith Sloan said:

It is surely ironic it was Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen who explicitly outlined the numerical challenge in front of transforming the NEM in such a short time frame. He has told us we will need 22,000 solar panels every day and 40 wind turbines every month for the next eight years. There will also be a requirement for at least 10,000km of additional transmission lines.

At the same time, we’ll see 11,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation coming off capacity. This is insane. And who will pay? It’s the people who will pay. We need sensible government—honest governance. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one nation. And we stand for affordable, clean, secure mobility for all Australians.

/3 Comments/by

Albanese pouring fuel on the cost of living fire

, ,

The cost of everything is going up, but the Albanese Labor government is pouring more fuel on the fire by tipping billions into policies that will make electricity prices even higher. With more wind and solar in the grid than ever before power bills have never been higher. Time to give up on this pipe dream.

Transcript

President the Albanese Government’s behaviour goes well beyond a broken election promise to give cost-of-living relief. The Government is actively making inflation worse.

The inflation rate is 8% and will remain at 8% into the future, on the back of increases to energy prices. Electricity, gas, diesel and petrol are all inputs into every corner of our economy.

Forcing energy prices up to appease the sky god of warming will force up input costs right across our economy and lead to more inflation.

Weather-dependent solar and wind power will never provide baseload power. Doubling down on more solar and wind, before the added cost of changing out every wind turbine and solar panel with new ones before we even get to 2050 will lead to more inflation.

Taxpayers pay for these things twice: once in taxpayer subsidies to wind and solar and through higher inflation. Energy inflation.

Not only do we have a lack of wage rises, we have a lack of wages. Businesses are closing all over Australia as inflation wreaks havoc in the productive economy and energy costs drive manufacturing overseas.

This Government has no answers. We have just seen a child care bill that gives handouts to millionaires but fails to create a single job.

Failing to use government policy to create jobs while allowing 220,000 new migrants into Australia every year will create a pool of unemployed, resulting in reduced market power for labour. That can only mean lower wages, even before losing 8% a year off their pay packet through inflation.

One Nation believe the way to break the inflation cycle is a comprehensive root and branch review of the taxation system, to return bracket creep to wage earners while forcing big business, especially foreign corporations to pay their fair share.

Queensland Labor’s Health Department still mandates COVID injections for health professionals. Injection mandates must be abolished now. Let anyone who wants to work, work.

We are one community, one nation and Labor are a threat to breadwinner jobs.

/1 Comment/by

Climate talk-fest not coming to Australia is a win!

,

If Climate Change talk-fest COP doesn’t want to come to Australia that’s their loss. We’ll keep our abundant protein-rich red meat, delicious range of seafood, cheap and reliable coal-fired power, huge gas reserves and efficient petrol and diesel cars. Let COP eat their bugs in the dark while they wait for their electric vehicles to charge.

Transcript

Great news, Vanuatu still exists.

Experts told us it would now be underwater due to global warming and rising sea levels. Just like Al Gore forecast Mount Kilimanjaro would have no snow by 2016.

How many islands has Vanuatu lost due to rising sea levels? None. Mount Kilimanjaro is still topped with icy white powder.

Maybe that’s why it’s now called climate change instead of global warming?

I thank the Australian Greens for this breaking news that Vanuatu’s climate minister would only back Australia’s bid to host the 2026 Conference Of Parties, COP, if Australia doesn’t commit to any new coal or gas projects.

With that headline the solution is clear.

Australia must immediately fund and build as many coal and gas projects as humanly possible so there’s no chance we’ll have to host the expensive UN-WEF talk fest for climate elites, the 2026 COP.

What is the COP?

The UN’s Conference Of Parties involves millionaires, billionaires and politicians bouncing around the world in fuel-guzzling private jets to luxurious locations.

Gorging themselves on prime beef while preaching to we lowly peasants to reduce our carbon dioxide footprint, stop flying, stop driving and stop eating red meat.

If the 2026 COP was hosted in Australia, taxpayers would be forking out for the UN’s globalist elite talk fest.

We’d be paying for them to tell us to destroy our energy grid and commit economic suicide to appease the sun gods.

If COP doesn’t want to come to Australia that’s their loss. We’ll keep our abundant protein-rich red meat, delicious range of seafood, cheap and reliable coal-fired power, huge gas reserves and efficient petrol and diesel cars.

Let COP eat their bugs in the dark while waiting for their electric vehicles to charge.

We have one flag. We are one community. We are one nation.

/6 Comments/by

Wind turbines are environmental vandals

, ,

I remember when greenies hugged trees. Now greenies chop down trees and hug manufactured wind turbines made of concrete, steel, fibreglass and gearbox oil. 40 million tonnes of wind turbine blades destined for landfill by 2050. Wind power isn’t renewable.

Transcript

There’s nothing more galling than the sight of a 100 metre wind turbine slumped over. A smouldering aluminium & concrete corpse testament to wind power’s stupidity.

Even if a wind turbine fibreglass blade makes it through a 12 year operating life, the blade is still a global waste catastrophe.

Every year, Europe already adds 2 million blades filling landfills.

At the same time that we declared plastic straws an environmental sin, our beautiful planet has 40 million tonnes of wind turbine blades destined for landfill by 2050.

Every blade of every wind turbine installed to 2030 will be in a landfill by 2050.

So-called renewables need to be renewed every 10-15 years.

We’re not building our net-zero, nature-dependent generation once. We’re doing it twice over. Or three times. With all the waste this will bring.

This is environmental vandalism, killing the environment in the name of saving it.

I remember when greenies hugged trees. Now greenies hug manufactured goods composed of concrete, steel, fibreglass and gearbox oil. Greenies are resource hogs.

Recycling wind turbine blades is not impossible. It just takes a huge amount of energy for which coal is the optimum fuel. That’s why, without affordable coal energy, wind turbine blades and solar panels are dumped not recycled.

German wind farms kill 100,000 birds a year and unlike those killed in cities, these birds tend to be endangered species due to the location of turbines.

New model turbines are approaching 240 metres in height with blades close to 120 metres.

That will need a big hole to bury.

This is not ‘free’ energy and it certainly is not ‘renewable’.

Governments should not ‘force’ a technological transition. If wind technology was any good it would not be reliant on subsidies of $500,000 per turbine per year.

Real transitions – those that serve to benefit our community – happen naturally through market forces because they have natural economic or social advantages that meet people’s real needs.

We are one community, we are one nation and the United Nations & World Economic Forum’s net-zero is environmental vandalism.

/7 Comments/by

Are weather events more severe because of climate change?

,

Every time there’s a drought, flood or cold day you’ll hear climate alarmists claim it’s all because of climate change. Well this study says there is no positive trend in the severity or frequency of natural disasters. That puts a bit of a hole in the “climate emergency”.

Study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to Minister Watt. You said in your opening statement:

There can be no doubt that the severity and regularity of these natural disasters is a result of climate change …

I’ve got a media report that I’m happy to table—I’ve got 10 copies—and a study which I will table that found there is no positive trend of extreme weather events as a result of climate change. Given this scientific study’s finding that there is no increase in severe weather events because of climate change, there appears to be some doubt about your statement. Have you misled the committee with your opening statement?

Senator Watt: Whose report are you quoting from?

Senator ROBERTS: An Italian European Physical Journal Plus—a team led by Gianluca Alimonti from the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics and the University of Milan extended the analysis to include natural disasters, floods and droughts.

Senator Watt: Is that peer-reviewed data?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Senator Watt: You’re sure?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I think we’re all very well used to you questioning the science of climate change—more usually in the Environment and Communications committee, but it’s good to see that you’re consistent and apply the same approach across different committees. No scientific expert has ever been able to convince you that climate change is real, and I doubt that I will have the ability to do that either. To give you one example, I accompanied the Prime Minister to visit a dairy farm in northern Tasmania after the recent floods. I won’t give the gentleman’s full name for his privacy, but it was a dairy farmer called Michael. Without any prompting from any politician, he recognised the increasing number of floods and natural disasters that they were having was due to climate change. But we all know—

Senator ROBERTS: So a dairy farmer named Michael trumps a scientific study? I want to know: on what basis did you make your statement and claim? What source—specific locations, specific publications—

Senator Watt: I’m not going to play your game. We know that no evidence will ever convince you that climate change is real. I have seen you ask the head of the CSIRO. I’ve seen you ask any number of scientists who present evidence of that. There are countless IPCC reports, comprising of advice from the best experts in the world—

Senator ROBERTS: Not one of those IPCC reports contains evidence. That’s a fact.

Senator Watt: and you reject all of them. So it doesn’t really matter what I say to you. You will continue with your climate conspiracies. There’s nothing I can do to help you.

Senator ROBERTS: I note your use of a label. Whenever people use a label like ‘denier’ or ‘conspiracy theorist’, it indicates they don’t have the data. You’ve just confessed that you don’t have the data. If you did, you’d be able to give me the specific location.

Senator Watt: I refer you to any number of IPCC reports, which you continuously choose to ignore and reject. I invite you to go and speak to any farm body—

Senator ROBERTS: Have you read the IPCC reports? I have. There is no specific location of any evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. I ask you to verify and validate your statement. Give me the specific location.

Senator Watt: I would be happy, on notice, to provide you with any number of scientific reports that back up what I’m saying. I will repeat that I could provide you with an infinite number of reports and you will never believe them. Everyone knows that. I’m okay. You don’t accept that climate change is real—that’s your right. But what I’m interested in doing is working with the farmers who are actually paying the price for climate denialism. I’m interested in working with the farm bodies that have been waiting for a government that believes that climate change is real and is prepared to put promises in place. I don’t have the exact figures to hand, but ABARES has provided reports that show that, due to climate changes over the last 20 or so years, the average farm profit or productivity—it’s one or the other—has fallen in the order of 25 to 30 per cent. They’re on later, and you can ask them about that as well. Do you know what? You won’t believe them either. I accept you just don’t believe the evidence. That’s okay, but I’m not going to get held back.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not up to you to tell me what I will or will not believe.

Senator Watt: We all know your record.

Senator ROBERTS: What is up to both of us and every single senator and member of parliament is to come here with the empirical evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. You have never done that. None of your imputed sources have done that. I want, in each the references you provide, the specific location of the data on which you rely and the specific location of the framework that proves that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. Science is not just about data; it is about data within a framework that logically proves cause and effect. I want that from you. For each of those references, I expect that from you. Otherwise, they’re not valid.

/11 Comments/by

Australia is already at Net Zero!

, ,

The biggest madness about Net Zero is that Australia’s emissions are already at… net zero. Our forests and oceans already absorb many times what is produced by humans.

Transcript


Well done, everyone. What an amazing job you’ve done. I’m delighted to announce that the Commonwealth of Australia has reached its net zero target under the United Nations Paris Climate Agreement 30 years early. Well done, everyone. Senator Babet. Well done. I thank Senator Assistant Minister MacAllister for the definitions she used in the Senate chamber during the climate change bill from Article four of the UN Paris Climate Agreement.

Quote Net zero is a balance between human production of emissions and removal of those emissions by environmental sinks. End of quote. Our country has so many forests that Australia already sequesters sinks three times more carbon dioxide than we produce. Worldwide forests and oceans sink three quarters of human production. Under the Government’s own definition, Australia is already at net zero and the rest of the world is not far behind.

But the Paris Agreement definition of net zero ends with these words quote In the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty. The UN Paris Agreement allows development, and that’s great news for our project Iron Boomerang. Yet notice the last part eradicating poverty. If the Albanese government takes measures under its Climate Change Act that increases poverty in Australia, it will be in breach of the UN Paris climate agreement that the Liberal-Nationals signed.

Yet high energy prices from insane energy policies are increasing inflation, destroying wealth, destroying jobs and opportunity, and forcing people into poverty. Our human carbon dioxide production is not breaching the UN’s Paris Agreement. Instead, the destruction of baseload power in this country and worldwide is breaching that agreement and it does not require that action. The Albanese Government cannot pick and choose which elements of the UN Paris Agreement it uses.

One nation will hold this government to the letter of the UN agreement Australia signed, and that is simple. Climate, zealotry and deceit must not push one person into poverty. Not one person, not one, none.

/16 Comments/by

So it’s come to this – Globalist push on Climate Change

,

I always speak up for what is right. Again today I will speak up for what is right. The Climate Change Bill 2022 seeks to exploit fear based on fraudulent science to enshrine in legislation the subjugation of everyday Australians.

It’s time to vote against a world where hunger and poverty will increase by design as a means of control.

Transcript

So it has come to this, Madame President.

The globalists’ 50 year ‘long march through the institutions’ has come to this.

50 years of bribery, coercion and censorship of the few remaining honest scientists has come to this.

And 50 years of inciting hatred and violence against anyone who opposes the climate change agenda of ‘fear-based control’ has come to this.

Our scientists, crony corporations, political parties and mouthpiece media have failed Australia.

As a servant to the people of Queensland I have never failed to speak up for what is right and I will speak up for what is right again today.

The Climate Change Bill 2022 seeks to use fear based on fraudulent science to enshrine in legislation the ‘subjugation of everyday Australians’.

On many occasions now I have sought to alert Australians to the nightmare being planned for them.

Those many speeches, motions and bills have made little headway in mainstream media due to dodgy journalists protecting the interests of their advertisers and billionaire owners.

The public have been deceived into thinking climate change is a product of human activity and this bill is necessary to save Australia.

The truth is Australia will need to be saved from this bill.

This is not conjecture, look at the ‘net zero’ chaos overseas resulting from the scientific fraud underlying net zero. Here is just some of that.

Greening the world and growing food

According to the NASA Goddard Space Centre one quarter of the increase in carbon dioxide in the last 30 years has been absorbed into plant life, leading to an increase in forest cover.[i]

This is a demonstration of the fertilizer effect of CO2[ii].

Removing CO2 from the atmosphere will reduce the health of native forests and vegetation.

Reducing CO2 will reduce crop yields, remove food from the tables of the world’s hungry, and require the increased use of chemical fertilizers that are made from … natural gas.

An irony lost on the proponents of this bill.

The world is finding out, as Sri Lanka has found, the trade-off here is between plant food and starvation. It is that simple.

Forestation levels around the world have been rising since the 1980s because of the increase in CO2.[iii]

Australia is currently gaining forests.[iv]

Let me be clear for the disinformation media. Our continent is gaining trees, meaning the density of vegetation is improving thanks to CO2.

We are losing extent – much of that chopped down as part of green energy construction – building wind turbines, solar plants, access roads and transmission easements to take unreliable energy from where these things are being built, to where the power is needed.

13,000 hectares of native vegetation is planned for destruction just in North Queensland alone[v].

I remember when greenies hugged trees, now they chop them down.

Forests are being chopped down for biomass, also known as wood chips.

Apparently wood chips are renewable energy now[vi], spruiked on the BBC back in 2018 when the Drax coal plant was converted to burn trees imported from America in the name of reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[vii]

Burning trees produces more C02 than coal[viii], but warmers never let the facts get in the way of the feels.

One Nation has always supported preserving our old-growth forests because One Nation supports real environmentalism.

Ocean Health

According to NASA one half of the increase in carbon dioxide over the last 30 years has been absorbed in the ocean carbon cycle.[ix]

Carbon is sequestrated in silt and in biological sinks. Sea grasses, mangroves, tidal swamps and wetlands all sequester carbon and thrive.[x]

Providing habitat for fish breeding.

Carbon is also an ingredient in phytoplankton, the start of the marine food chain.

The more CO2 that is produced from all sources and then absorbed in the ocean carbon cycle, the more phytoplankton is produced, leading to an increase in marine life.

Increasing populations of fish support the continued harvesting of seafood as a cheap source of protein. Something oddly opposed over there in Greensland.

The marine carbon cycle also absorbs nitrogen and phosphates coming from natural and man-made sources.

Phytoplankton absorb these elements as part of their growth cycle, producing oxygen in the process. The less carbon dioxide available to be absorbed, the less oxygenation occurs and the less healthy our oceans become.

Coral is calcium carbonate CaCO3. Some of the carbon sequestrated in the ocean has helped coral growth, probably contributing to the record coral cover across the Great Barrier Reef announced just a few weeks ago.

That is an inconvenient truth if ever I heard one.

Greening the earth mitigates increasing temperatures[xi]

A new study reported on the NASA website shows increased vegetation during the current “Greening Earth period” – their words not mine – has a strong cooling effect on the land due to increased efficiency of water vapor transfer to the atmosphere.

Without this the world would be hotter.

Increasing CO2 – plant food – fertilizers our forests, increasing transpiration, leading to more water vapour transfer, which in turn cools the earth.

Increased temperature causes increased evaporation from the oceans and that water vapour transfer also cools the earth.[xii]

We have a beautiful, self-correcting ecosystem that has maintained the earth in a liveable temperature range for millennia.

This bill is based on self-interest, arrogance and hubris, risking a natural ecosystem that will protect us from any variability in atmospheric gasses.

And always has.

Renewable power is a fairy-tale.

Madame President wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could get all our energy from the ‘Sun and wind’ for free.

That is the extent of the thought process in many Green and Teal voters.

Missing the obvious problem – Solar panels, wind turbines, transmission lines through the middle of nowhere, battery backups and access roads are not free.

The direct loss of natural habitat from wind and solar is significantly greater than any other form of power.

Three megawatts of wind or solar generation is needed to replace one megawatt of coal, hydro or nuclear.

To explain that with an example, the NSW Government’s own webpage on wind power mentions their 850MW of wind turbines generate just 1941GW of power annually.[xiii]

850MW running 24/7, if it were a coal or nuclear plant of that sized, will generate 7440GW/h per annum. The actual wind turbine output of 1941GW/h represents just 26% of rated capacity. What a joke these things are.

Solar is worse.

Battery backup

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) recently assessed the battery requirement for net zero grid stability at 60GW/h.[xiv]

Power going into a battery loses 20% in resistance, meaning 72GW/h of generation will be needed to produce 60GW/h of output.

Batteries cost about $1.5m per MW/h, meaning batteries for short term grid stability will require an investment in excess of $100bn every 10 years which is as long as they last.

This is just the start. Germany experienced an 8% reduction in output from wind and solar in the first half of 2021 owing to poor weather.[xv]

No battery can keep the lights on during a sustained period of bad weather, such as Australia has had these last two years.

Blackouts will be normal.

Nuclear is the only way to do net zero

Other countries who descended into renewable hell ahead of us are being forced to rethink to save their economies.

South Korea has given up and announced a move away from wind and solar to nuclear.[xvi]

Germany will extend their last three nuclear power plants until baseload power can be restored from gas.[xvii]

Last week the UK government announced a huge new 3200MW nuclear power plant[xviii].

Nuclear power plants across the world will grow 26% through to 2050.[xix]

Green energy Madame President is very well named, it has become glow in the dark green!

Australia can supply the world with reliable, safe coal for a lifetime, instead the world is going nuclear simply because wind and solar can’t supply reliable baseload power, and coal has been demonised.

Australia will be forced to make this same hard decision if the Climate Change Bill passes.

Insane power bills will destroy the Australia we know

Last week in the UK the household energy cap increased from $2160 to $6020. Just in one year. How can people afford that.[xx]

Commercial power has risen 600% in one year.

Widespread business closures are now likely.[xxi]

A glance at the graph of UK GDP shows citizens of the UK are less wealthy now than they were in 2007.[xxii]

The correlation of GDP stagnation with the retirement of cheap baseload power and the switch to wind and solar is undeniable.

German households are so desperate for heating, firewood is being horded and woodchips are back in commercial use.

Seriously, what’s next – candles?

Despite $250bn spent on solar and wind so far, and $250bn still to come, Germany is planning for blackouts next winter.

10% of German industry is threatened with closure and 40% are under financial pressure.[xxiii]

No wonder Prime Minister Albanese is holding a jobs summit concurrent with the Climate Change Bill.

Here is One Nation’s submission to the jobs summit.

Stop destroying cheap, reliable, coal power.

The mouthpiece media are blaming the war in Ukraine for the gas shortage in Europe, deliberating avoiding the real question-

Which is how did energy-independent nations lose their energy independence, and become reliant on Russian gas in the first place?[xxiv]

Wind and solar did that.

Is this empirical proof wind and solar are unable to sustain baseload power or is it stupidity in shutting down baseload power before replacements were built?

The answer is both.

With unrealistic and unnecessary timelines now embedded in the Climate Change Bill, Australia is about to walk the same path that has brought the rest of the world, especially the UK and Germany nothing but misery.

Cost

Wind and solar is only cost-effective to build and operate if the cost is offset with taxpayer subsidies.

Australian subsidies for wind and solar currently total $13bn every year.[xxv]

Reuters reported last week Australia will need about 40 times the total generation capacity of today’s national electricity market to achieve net zero.

This includes 1,900 GW of solar and 174 GW of wind.[xxvi]

Not megawatts, gigawatts. How is that even possible.

As a comparison Liddell coal plant is 2GW and at full capacity can supply 5% of our current energy needs.

Charging electric vehicles is a large part of this huge increase in power generation needed to reach net zero.

The $20bn cost of re-wiring the national energy grid to allow for the charging of electric cars[xxvii] dwarfs the national electricity market, which is only $11bn.[xxviii]

What will that do to power prices?

There is no costing in the Climate Change Bill because the costings are coming out at insane amounts of money.

I have an amendment to this bill standing in my name to introduce a cost benefit analysis for every government decision taken. Surely that is just prudent economic management.

Blackouts

Last week AEMO announced its latest 10-year outlook for the national electricity market, which warned of reliability “gaps” affecting New South Wales from 2025 and affecting Victoria, Queensland and South Australia from 2030.[xxix]

Gaps in this context means structural blackouts – not enough generation to meet demand.

We know today there will be catastrophic blackouts in 2025 and even worse blackouts in 2030.

What is the Government’s plan to stop the blackouts coming from coal plant closures?

There is no plan because the Climate Change Bill is not about increasing energy output, it is about forcing a reduction in energy consumption.

The Climate Change Bill is about control

The only way to achieve long term stability under net zero is to use smart meters to restrict energy use.

Germany has already started that rollout.[xxx]

The South Australian Government has also announced the rollout-out of smart meters[xxxi]

Smart meters allow the energy operator to go in and turn off any appliance in your home that is connected to the fuse box.

Air conditioners, hot water service, one or all of your light and power circuits can be switched off.

This is not intended as an emergency measure, it will be normal lie under net zero.

Big Brother will reach into your home and decide for you what appliances you can use and when.

That is terrifying in what used to be a free country.

To the Greens and Teal supporters who voted on the basis of feelings not facts can I say this.

You have been deceived.

The experience from countries ahead of us on the net zero slippery slope has been the destruction of small and medium business, the decimation of the middle class and intrusive government control.

You will have less and the elites behind this scam will have more.

We a paying for our own enslavement.

It is time to vote against creating a world where native vegetation, crop yields, the marine environment – the entire biosphere is being damaged through reducing carbon dioxide.

It is time to vote against a world where hunger and poverty will increase by design as a means of control – neo serfdom.

Have some decency.

Vote no to the Climate Change Bill 2022.

We have one flag, we are one community, we are One Nation and we are proud carbon-based life forms.

[i] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_fertilization_effect#:~:text=The%20CO2%20fertilization%20effect,carbon%20dioxide%20(CO2)

[iii] https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation

[iv] https://theconversation.com/every-year-in-australia-nature-grows-8-new-trees-for-you-but-that-alone-wont-fix-climate-change-146922

[v] https://stopthesethings.com/2022/01/23/getting-away-with-green-murder-wind-industry-destroying-vast-tracts-of-australian-wilderness/comment-page-1/

[vi] https://www.energy.gov.au/data/renewables

[vii] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180821-the-giant-coal-plant-converting-to-green-energy

[viii] https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/uk-biomass-emits-more-co2-than-coal/

[ix] https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle

[x] https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2021/03/06/seagrasses-and-mangroves-can-suck-carbon-from-the-air

[xi] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming

[xii] https://carnegiescience.edu/news/water-evaporated-trees-cools-global-climate#:~:text=New%20research%20from%20Carnegie’s%20Global,effect%20on%20the%20entire%20atmosphere.

[xiii] https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/renewables/renewable-generation/wind-energy-nsw

[xiv] https://reneweconomy.com.au/energy-crisis-reminds-us-why-we-need-a-rapid-shift-to-renewables-says-aemo-chief/

[xvi] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-30/korea-pares-back-renewables-as-it-taps-nuclear-for-climate-goal?cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-energy&utm_medium=social&utm_content=energy&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter

[xvii] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-its-nuclear-plants-running-2022-08-18/

[xviii] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/07/20/uk-approves-new-nuclear-power-plant-in-eastern-england_5990789_4.html

[xix] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx#:~:text=In%20the%202021%20edition%20(WEO,in%20particular%20India%20and%20China.

[xx] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/29/listening-to-european-electricity-traders-is-very-very-scary/

[xxi] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

[xxii] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita#:~:text=U.K.%20gdp%20per%20capita%20for,a%206.83%25%20increase%20from%202017.

[xxiii] https://www.ft.com/content/d0d46712-6234-4d24-bbed-924a00dd0ca9

[xxiv] https://www.aicgs.org/2021/09/germany-has-a-math-problem-and-its-about-to-get-worse/

[xxv] https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/13-billion-dolllar-cost-revealed/

[xxvi] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/massive-renewable-energy-needed-power-australia-net-zero-economy-by-2050-study-2022-08-25/

[xxvii] https://alp.org.au/policies/rewiring_the_nation#:~:text=Labor’s%20Rewiring%20the%20Nation%20will,signed%20off%20by%20all%20governments.

[xxviii] https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/National-Electricity-Market-Fact-Sheet.pdf

[xxix] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-31/power-supplies-in-australias-biggest-grid-to-run-short-by-2025/101389018

[xxx] ibid

[xxxi] https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/plan-to-switch-off-aircon-pool-pump-and-hot-water-remotely-to-shore-up-power-grid/news-story/5e9b70e06a1dec857979e17f2c2372e8

/17 Comments/by

Media Release: CLIMATE CHANGE BILL A ROAD TO RUIN

, ,

Senator Roberts calls on the Senate to reject the Climate Change Bills 2022 due to the complete lack of cost-benefit analysis.

He says, “Carbon dioxide emissions reduction is the biggest change to Australian lives Parliament has ever considered.”

“Despite the target’s huge impact, absolutely nothing in the Climate Change Bill says how it will be achieved, what the cost to Australia will be or what measurable impact reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide production will have on global temperature.”

“Politicians don’t accept this kind of blank cheque and ignorant attitude to the flow-on effects of legislation in any other policy, and shouldn’t on energy.”

Emissions reduction policies are expected to significantly impact energy, transport and agriculture.

“Grids that have tried to rely on wind and solar to provide their needs have either been left in the dark or have skyrocketing energy prices. Instead of learning from international wind and solar disasters like Texas and Germany, Australian climate alarmists want us to follow their road to ruin.” 

“Adding emissions reduction to the National Energy Objectives will compromise the existing objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of energy.”

“A government funded study has already sounded the alarm on the forced and premature uptake of electric vehicles, finding that uptake could increase electricity demand by 30-100% on Australia’s already struggling power grid.”

“Under an emissions target, taxpayer money will be spent telling farmers to lockup their land for carbon dioxide credits, essentially a scam plagued with integrity issues and currently under government review. Australia’s farmers can grow enough to feed and clothe the world, yet won’t be able to under this target.”

Senator Roberts’ submission to the Climate Change Bills inquiry outlines the lack of due diligence and ideological, rather than evidence based, attitudes that have driven climate policy.

“Not a single politician can say what specific measurable impact these emissions reduction policies will have on any aspect of climate or weather.” “Until the true, full costs of an emissions target are given to Australia, this Bill must not pass.”

/21 Comments/by

The Climate Change Bill and the Climate Fraud on the Primodcast

,

I chat with Chris Spicer from the Primodcast for a deep dive on Climate Change hysteria and why the upcoming Climate Change Bill is going to be terrible for our country.

Transcript

Speaker 2:

Ladies and gentlemen, podcasting from Sydney, Australia. This is the Primodcast. Independent, unfiltered, and uncensored. Beginning in three, two, one.

Chris:

Senator. Welcome back.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you. It’s good to be back Chris.

Chris:

So had a bit of a giggle before we jumped on here about a video that…

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

What an insane planet we’ve got.

Chris:

Absolutely mad.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, sorry. The people who try to control it, they’re insane.

Chris:

Yeah, that’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Fact checkers. But good on you for standing up.

Chris:

Oh mate, I get more insane by the day anyway. So look, thanks for joining me again. I have actually put a few polls out about this episode to see what people wanted to know and what questions people had. So the main reason why I’ve got you on here today, as I said to you before, is that you are very well versed when it comes to the climate change debate, agenda, whatever you want to call it. And I guess, very similar to what we’ve seen with COVID that doesn’t seem too much opposition to the agenda. And if there is opposition, it tends to get silenced.

Chris:

So what I thought I would do was invite you obviously, and Adam Bandt, the leader of the Greens party onto the show to have an open debate where there’s no Channel Seven, no Channel Nine hand picking questions for him. I just want an open transparent debate. You agreed, which I knew you would, but I never got a response from Adam. So we’re doing it without him, but that’s okay. I’ve got the questions I have. So look, you’ve been speaking about the climate argument now for a while, and you’ve had a bit of experience with it. I think you said something to do with, was it university or something you’ve studied in the past?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. What the argument is, their argument, the climate alarmists, they’re saying that the burning of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas is causing catastrophic global warming and it’s going to destroy the planet and freeze us and fry us and everything. The storms are going to increase. So let’s just have a look at the basic message. Hydrocarbon fuels contain atoms of hydrogen and atoms of carbon, hydrocarbon. And when they burn in oxygen in the air, they use the oxygen. So the hydrogen atoms react with the oxygen atoms to form H2O, which is water. And the carbon atoms react with the oxygen to form CO2, which is carbon dioxide. To be perfectly clear and complete, sometimes if it’s not burnt properly, you’ll get carbon monoxide, CO, that’s one carbon and one oxygen, carbon monoxide. And that’s a toxic poison, but that’s not what their issue is. If you burn it efficiently, you get very little carbon monoxide, but still don’t put the exhaust from your car into your car because you kill yourself. That’s carbon monoxide.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the majority of gas that comes out is carbon dioxide and water vapour. Now then when you find hydrocarbon fuels, they’re found in nature is coal, oil and natural gas, they have impurities because of the way they were formed in nature. They were laid down millions of years ago, hundreds of millions of years ago. So you might have sulphur in it, you might have other elements in it. And when you burn sulphur in oxygen, you get sulphur dioxide, which is a pollutant. You might get nitrous oxides, which are pollutants. You might get particulates, which are pieces of soot basically, they’re pollutants. That’s what used to cause the smoke. You’ll notice these days in most cities, they don’t have much smoke anymore. That’s because the particulates get scrubbed out at the power station. The sulphur dioxide gets scrubbed out at the power station. The nitrous oxides get scrubbed out.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So that’s why these days at a coal fired power station or a gas fired power station, you’ll see a chimney with nothing coming out of it because water vapor’s invisible except on a cold day when it forms steam, and carbon dioxide’s always invisible. So what they’re saying is that the carbon dioxide which is coming out of smoke stacks, coming out of industries, coming out of power stations, coming out of cars, coming out of cows farting, cows belching, coming out of your nose right now because your carbon dioxide, the air has 0.04%. It’s got bugger all of it. That’s enough to keep our plants alive. But when you exhale, because you’re a factory as well, when you take in your oxygen and you mix it with the carbon and hydrogen in your food, then you get same thing, water vapour and carbon dioxide coming out.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So what you’ve done is you’ve taken in carbon dioxide at 0.04%, and you’ve put it out at 5%, which is more than 100 times, 125 times, whatever it is, higher. So you are polluting right now, Chris. We’ve got to kill you. We’ve got to tax you rather. So that’s what they’re about. They’re about limiting the carbon dioxide because carbon dioxide is in everything. And so they can tax almost everything. And when I said to you a minute ago about you’re breathing out carbon dioxide, there is a consultant who did some work in London for Tony Blair’s office. They were asked to assess the feasibility of taxing people for the breath they’re exhaling.

Chris:

That’s insane.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So I’m only a little guy. Maybe I’m producing less carbon dioxide because I’m more efficient than you as a big fellow. So you’ll have to pay more than I will. How can you do that? And I mean, that’s what they’re after. They’re after control of our energy and control of our food and control of our agriculture, that’s it.

Chris:

So when you have people the Greens party, who are obviously more, in terms of that space, they’re definitely the more dominant with what they’re saying. Now this is the question. Not just them, but everyone in general that are pushing for this. How do they know that carbon is causing climate change? How do they know that? Are they referring to a specific type of literature? Where are they getting that information from? Who’s telling them it’s bad?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. So the first thing is I have challenged Senator Larissa Waters, who’s the leader of the Greens in the Senate to a debate on the science behind climate science and the corruption of that science. I challenged her when we were both on the stage in a forum. We were both on a four person panel. On October the seventh, I think it was, Thursday, October the seventh, 2010. She jumped to her feet the moment I challenged her, she jumped to her feet and said, “I will not debate you.” At the end of the forum, I was the last one to speak in answering questions, I turned and walked back towards her just to get to my chair. She jumped and said, “I will not debate you again, just to make it clear.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I challenged her again in the 2016 election campaign in May. I challenged her and also Mark Butler, the Labour party spokesman for climate change. They both said, “No.” I’ve challenged Larissa Waters starting on the 9th of September 2019. I said to her and to Di Natale, who was the leader of the Greens in the Senate at the time, that “I challenge you to a debate. And I challenge you to put forward your evidence for your claims about carbon dioxide from human activity affecting climate.” They have never debated me. They’ve never put forward their evidence. That’s the first thing I want to say. So they run from it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Now what’s their science based on? It’s based on bullshit. There is no science at all that they have ever cited. What they do, Chris, is they say, “We had a storm last night. That was due to mankind’s climate change. Nothing different. They had hurricanes going to New York. That was due to climate change.” Bullshit. Because they’ve had hurricanes going, tracking all the way to Canada. They know that from human civilization and when the United States was developed, we know that there’s nothing unusual at all going on in the climate. But what they do is they tell lies about the Barrier Reef. You’ve probably just seen the article that says the Barrier Reef’s in fine shape. It’s got record coral cover in the north and the central regions and the south, they’re only affected by Crown-of-storms starfish, which is entirely natural and cyclical. So there’s nothing happening in the Barrier Reef.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

There’s nothing happening with storm activity. It’s no more frequent storms, no more severe storms, nothing happening with droughts. They’re no more severe than in the past. The biggest drought we’ve had, most severe drought was 1901 in our recorded history and perhaps 1920s to 40s. There’s nothing changing in snowfall. They just vary. And what they’ll do is they’ll pick a year or a month when we have natural variation, it’s up, and they’ll say, “Oh, this temperature’s high.” But they don’t tell you when the temperature’s low. So there’s nothing. They’ve got no evidence. First of all, they have to prove that there’s something, remember this is all based on global warming, unprecedented global warming. So what they have to do, first of all, is prove that the temperatures are unusually warm and continuing to rise. They’re not.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’ve had 25 years, the most authoritative temperature record for the whole planet is NASA’s satellites. And they’re showing that since 1995, 27 years ago, if you remove the El Nino and La Nina cycles of temperature, the temperature has been flat globally. Flat. If you look at the temperature records for our country, the temperatures were warmer in the 1880s and 1890s. I said 1880s, 1890s, than today. United States, it was warmer in the 1930s, 1940s than today. So they’re fabricating this. They’re just telling lies. And so what they use though, is they make lies up about the Barrier Reef, about the polar bears, the pandas, the cuddly koalas, all the bullshit that they can come up with. There’s nothing there that they have ever presented any evidence. It’s based on nothing it’s based on just simply wanting to control the agenda, to control your energy, control your food, control your water, and control your property.

Chris:

Now I know, obviously you can’t speak on behalf…

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, by the way, Chris, by the way, you mentioned the word carbon. It’s not carbon, it’s carbon dioxide. What they’re done is they started with carbon dioxide from human activity, and then they very quickly converted it to carbon. And carbon, they did that because the old pollution was carbon when they had smoke particles coming out of the chimneys. And carbon is black, usually. Carbon is also diamonds by the way, carbon is also graphite. So pure carbon. But carbon in the smoke stacks was a filthy pollutant. And that’s what they’re trying to conjure up an image of, a filthy pollutant. But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. First of all, it’s odourless, tasteless, colourless. It’s non toxic. And the second thing about it is it’s entirely natural. Nature produces 32 times more every year than we do. Nature controls the level in the atmosphere.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’ve had two natural experiments. In 2008, we had the global financial crisis, which you’d remember. The following year around the world, except for Australia where we were exporting record amounts of minerals, we had a major recession in most countries. So when you have a major recession, you use less industrial fuels. So the use of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas decreased, which meant the amount of carbon dioxide that humans produced decreased. And we know that for a fact. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing. In 2020 we had the almost depression around the world due to government restrictions, not due to COVID, due to government restrictions on COVID. And we had the same decrease in fuels, same decrease in human carbon dioxide, but the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So what that tells you is that we do not control the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nature does. Nature alone. It produces 32 times more every year. We don’t even know how much carbon dioxide is produced by nature in some years, it’s just phenomenal. It swamps human activity. But the second thing is nature alone controls the level because there’s more carbon dioxide in dissolved form in the oceans, 50 to 70 times more in the oceans than in the entire earth’s atmosphere. Slight changes in the sun’s activity lead to slight changes in the ocean temperature, which lead to either carbon dioxide being absorbed or being expelled from the oceans. And so on a seasonal basis, you have this going on with carbon dioxide and that’s exactly what’s showing nature controls it. We also know the laws of chemistry like Henry’s Law. Humans do not control and do not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we shut down everything, all that would happen is that nature would release a little bit more from the oceans to keep that balance.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So we’ve had two experiments which prove that if we tax people, shut down industry, it won’t matter a damn, because nature controls the level in the atmosphere. But it’s very important to talk about carbon dioxide and human carbon dioxide. They’ve never been able to show any impact whatsoever from human carbon dioxide. The whole of these policies are built on bullshit. To have a good policy what you need to do is you need to say, for every unit of carbon dioxide from human activity, it has this effect on temperature, or this effect on snowfall, this effect on droughts, this effect on storms. They’ve never been able to specify that. If you haven’t got that specific quantified effect, you can’t make up a policy about what you’ll do to cut it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And you can’t cost the benefits, you can’t cost the cost to industry. The costs to industry are huge. The cost on families is enormous. And the cost to our inflation is stupendous, because electricity is used in everything. It’s used in services, not just manufacturing and transport. So what’s happening is we have gone ahead with a policy that has never, ever been specified, never. And the other thing about it is that without that specific quantity of human carbon dioxide and its effect, you cannot tell how your policies are being effective or not. You just don’t know how you’re going. So it’s based on bullshit and it’s based on an objective to take money out of your pocket and to control what you do, what you eat eventually, what energy you use, how you use it, what you spend your money on. That’s all of this, it’s a tax.

Chris:

Well, you know what I think, even though I think one of the first times we had a conversation and we spoke about climate and I hadn’t really formed an opinion on it. Simply because I’m aware that the climate changes obviously, and it’s always been that way, but I hadn’t looked into it any deeper than that. So I didn’t know whether human caused climate change, how much of a difference humans were making. I didn’t look into any of that.

Chris:

But what I did notice is that not just in Australia, I mean around the world, these climate policies that are ever being pushed through, or even just spoken about, all seem to have one thing in common, control. And that’s where I thought, well, hold on a second. If this is going to impact my life and control us even more than we are at the moment, then I want to know why. Show me why. Justify it to me. If they could prove that we are in fact causing it and there’s going to be catastrophic and all the rest of it and little koala bears and all that sort of thing, like they do, that’s what they push through. I don’t think any person would have a problem with that.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, you’re right.

Chris:

It’s when they’re just saying this needs to happen. This needs to happen. We have to do this. We need to sacrifice this because of this. Oh, can I have a look at how are you coming to that conclusion? Ah, just don’t worry about it. Everyone knows that that’s what’s happening. That’s all I keep hearing. And again, maybe it’s due to the whole COVID scenario, where I’ve learned that if you get shut down from an alternative opinion to what’s being pushed through the mainstream narrative, then you need to stop and think why. Because the truth doesn’t mind being debated, at all. Lies do. And it’s a very similar pattern as to what you’re seeing with COVID. The vaccine, I guess, to an extent, and climate. They’re all similar.

Chris:

And all three also are to do with control. Mandates, control. And I mean, I did read the climate change bill that Labour have put through. I did have a read of that. There wasn’t much detail in the way of how they’re going to achieve that 43%. They just said, we’re going to achieve 43% by 2030. That was it. So I think they need to be a lot more transparent with, okay, well, how do you think we’re going to achieve that? And what does that mean for people like you and I? Is my cost of living going to get higher?

Chris:

But there’s none of that. It’s just this is what needs to happen. This is what’s going to happen. And you can’t ask questions because you get shut down. And that’s why I wanted to speak to you about it because I know that you have the information that a lot of people are looking for that they just can’t find anywhere. And again, if you share something on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, whatever it is, the mainstream social media networks, the same thing happens as to what happened with COVID. They start giving you links. Ah, you spoke about climate. Well, here’s a link to this agency. Here’s a link to that agency. And if you say something that goes against that narrative, they’ll flag your post for false information or misinformation. And I’m starting to see that a lot more in the past six months as COVID’s died down a little bit, you can see they’re transitioning into climate.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. You’re astute. You’re thinking. You’re actually thinking, unlike most people. In France, they’ve had lockdowns due to heat waves, natural heat waves. They’ve had lockdowns. Don’t leave your house because you could die. I’m serious. And they’re talking about lockdowns in other countries for similar things. I’ll just mention a couple of things. First of all, you said, well, where’s your evidence? Well, they haven’t got any evidence. They’re just talking about emotional stories and they’re actually telling lies. So when you want to question science, science is based upon hard evidence. That’s the beauty of science. And when science started emerging a few hundred years ago, it put a real hole in people’s attempts to control, the elites attempts to control, because instead of standing over you with financial power, instead of standing over you with economic power, instead of standing over you with military forces, with thugs, instead of standing over you with emotion, instead of standing over you with religion and fears of going to hell, people started saying, hang on, give me the basis. Where’s the objective facts?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And science is all about having hard, empirical evidence. Empirical just means measured. And so that’s what I’ve been using in the parliament ever since I got in, in 2016. When I first mentioned it, the journalists rushed off to get their dictionaries. They didn’t know that. And people have been laughing at me at times and trying to ridicule, and that’s what they do. And they’ve been saying, “Oh, where’s your empirical evidence?” I’ve given them plenty. But the point is that people now know what empirical means and it’s hard data.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the second thing is, that’s not good enough. We had Emma Alberici on the ABC tell me, well, what more evidence do you need? We produced 50 billion gigatons of carbon dioxide last year around the planet. So what, Emma? So what? Because you’ve got to have the second part of the science, which is you’ve got to be able to prove cause and effect. So if you do this, this happens. If you do this, or if you see this effect, what caused it? This caused it. So you’ve got to have the cause and effect. So you’ve got to have the data, which makes it objective within a scientific framework that proves logically, with reasoning that this is the effect. So that’s the first thing.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They’ve never provided any links to logical scientific points. Never. The same thing I’d mention to you is that the truth loves being debated, as you just said there. I agree with you entirely. And why does the truth love being debated? Because it reinforces itself. If it’s not the truth, it’s found out and it’s no longer the truth. And the third thing I’ll just mention is that this whole climate narrative is anti-environment, because if you look at the real pollutants, which I started talking about, the sulphur dioxide, the nitrous oxide, the particulates. In old power stations like they used to have in China 30 years ago, they’d be belching out these pollutants. And that’s why you see haze in Beijing. It’s not because of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is invisible. It’s because of the old power stations were putting out carbon in the form of particulates, haze, smoke particles. And so what they were saying here was, “Don’t burn our power here, ship our manufacturing to China.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So China was producing real pollution. So they’re actually increasing the pollution around the planet by shutting down us. Where we had clean power stations that scrubbed out the particulates, scrubbed out the sulphur dioxide, scrubbed out the nitrous oxide, and just let carbon dioxide and water through. Harmless gases essential for all life on this planet. So it’s anti- environment. The other thing, I don’t deny that humans have an effect on climate. If you go into massive land clearing, you will affect the climate in that region. We do not have an effect on global climate. Well, how do you affect the local climate? You affect the local climate if you change the vegetation, you change the water vapour, you change the moisture in the air. So those are the things that do affect. So I’m not saying humans should just go and destroy the environment. But what you’ll find is the focus on climate change is causing serious consequences on the environment.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

If you look at the wind turbines, they’re putting up in the name of climate, they’re chopping birds. If you look at the forest they clear for wind turbines. If you look at the solar panels, the agricultural land they’re destroying the forest they’re clearing for solar panels. And these solar panels and wind turbines, they’re hideous uses of resources. For every unit of electricity from a coal fired power station, you need 35 tonnes of steel. For every unit, the same unit of electricity from a wind turbine, you need 546 tonnes of steel. How do you make steel? With carbon dioxide being produced. So these wind turbines, over the life of the wind turbine, produce more carbon dioxide then they save. Not that that matters because carbon dioxide’s harmless.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the point is they use so much materials, that that’s why wind will never, ever compete with coal, nuclear, hydro, gas, oil. Never, because the amount of resources that they consume are huge. So the cost is enormous and the energy density is so low that they produce so little energy that the cost per unit energy is something like double what coal is. So what they’re doing is they’re driving our economy into a tailspin. They’re inflating our economy. What happens is we then subsidise the wind turbines and the solar panels because they can’t stand on their own. We subsidise them. Who do we pay the subsidies to? The wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers, which are mostly in China, and then we subsidise the people who instal them here in Australia, mostly foreign companies and some billionaires. And then we pay them subsidies to keep operating them because they can’t compete with coal.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And then what happens is that the price of normal electricity increases because of the subsidies. And we also then find they rigged the system so that they’re favoured and then that means the coal fired power stations are uneconomical, even though they’re actually half the price to produce. And so then coal starts dying. Next thing, they shut the coal fired power stations down, and you’ve got only high cost components producing our electricity. We’re buggered.

Chris:

Yeah. It’ll drive up the cost of everything. Manufacturing, even our electricity bills. That’s why we need to be asking more questions because I don’t think people realise that when Albanese got up and said that, we’re going to hit their 43% reduction. Okay. It sounds good, but how are you going to do that? And what does that mean? And that’s what I really wanted to speak to you about as well as to how these targets, climate targets will impact everyday Australians in regards to what can we see to go up in price? Obviously we know electricity bills will go up, but what else can we see happening around the country the more they push this on?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. Everything that uses steel and electricity will be increased in price, everything. So if you look at Adam Bandt’s showing signs that he’s admitted defeat on one key part. Coal is used to generate electricity. It’s called thermal coal or steaming coal. It’s fed into power stations to boil water, to drive the turbines, to turn the electricity generators. That creates steam. So it’s called steaming coal or thermal coal. It’s used to provide heat. Coal is also used to produce metallurgical coal in steel mills. In a steel mill you need something that’s got a lot of carbon in it. And when it’s burned it produces carbon dioxide. So they use coal because it’s got the carbon, they also use coal because it’s a solid material and they can blow the air through it, which reduces your iron oxide into iron. Then that forms your steel.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They also use coal because there’s carbon in coal that goes into your steel to make it a better quality steel. We produce some of the best quality steel in the world. And they also need it to support that whole mass because they put the iron ore on top, which is very heavy. And so you’ve got to support that mass so the air can get through it and do its job. So that means coal is absolutely essential for steel. Unless you get scrap steel and just melt it down, but then you need electricity anyway.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So coal is needed for steel. And I’ve been telling people this for years. Adam Bandt in the election campaign suddenly admitted quietly, “Oh, we can’t stop the production of steel.” That’s right. Steel is in trucks. It’s in our food implements, to plough the ground, we harvest the ground. We sow the ground. We harvest the ground, we truck it, we process it. We store it in fridges. We process it in factories that are full of stainless steel. Steel is in everything. It’s in the goods. It’s in the trucks that transport. So steel is in everything. And if it’s not in everything, it’s in the production of everything because you need a steel truck or a steel implement or a steel scalpel or a steel implement. So steel is in everything. You make roads with steel, you make pipes with steel for bringing water in. You do everything with steel, either as the tool or as a raw material.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But electricity, what they’re trying to do there, is say let’s cut our use of steaming coal to generate electricity and use wind turbines. Well, hello. What goes into making wind turbines? Steel. And there’s 16 times as much steel in the bloody wind turbine unit electricity than in a coal fired power station producing electricity. So that’s why wind and solar is so damn expensive and battery cars are so expensive, because they’re huge consumers of resources. We are increasing the footprint of humanity by using this bloody stuff. And we’re increasing the toxic chemicals because it’s very difficult to get rid of batteries. They use very rare earths that are mined using toxic processes.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So we’re increasing the use of copper. So that means mining. We’re increasing the use of rare earths, which means mining. We’re actually increasing the use of mining to produce the rare earths and the other exotic metals and minerals that are needed for solar and for wind turbines and for the increased batteries. And yet you will never, ever produce enough electricity from these things and you certainly cannot store it. So what they’re trying to do is absolute madness, but what’s happening is that they will tax us all out of existence and then they’ll control us. And if you look at the United States, this is an example. You’ve heard of George Soros?

Chris:

Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

George SOS owns the Democratic Party. Obama was a President in the Democratic Party. George Soros said to Obama, negative messages on coal. Obama really ramped it up on coal. They shut down so many coal mines. The price of Peabody Coal shares went from $1,100 to $15. That’s a 98% reduction. Who bought the shares?

Chris:

Soros.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Soros. Because the long term predictions from most people that the use of coal will increase dramatically in the future. That’s the only way to get Africa and Asia up and running the same as we’ve had, in our development of industrially. So coal forecasts are huge. So he’s now sitting pretty with Peabody Coal company, the world’s largest coal producer. That’s what they’re doing. Soros has got a reputation for destroying whole countries, bringing them to their knees economically by manipulating the economy and then making a profit. That’s what Soros does. He destroys to create wealth for Soros at the cost of billions of people’s lives. So that’s what we are facing here. We’re facing control for lining billionaires’ pockets. There are people in this country who are making money hand over fist, they’re billionaires. You can’t afford enormous solar complexes and wind turbo complexes, but they can. And what they do is they make money out of it by getting subsidies. Warren Buffet, who’s the most astute investor ever, he said, “Wind turbines, useless. Subsidised wind turbines, fabulous investment.” It’s the subsidies.

Chris:

Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Government is now the largest transferor of wealth from the poor and from the middle class to the wealthy. And it’s deliberate.

Chris:

That’s exactly what’s happening at the moment. That’s exactly what’s happening. And you can see that. There’s actually a very good documentary I watched only the other day on Netflix called Capitalism: A Love Story. Have you heard of that?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, I haven’t.

Chris:

Very, very interesting. Just in regards to how the system works. This was based in late 2000s. Well, when America had their crisis, was it 2008, 2009?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. Global financial crisis. They had it in ’08, near the end of ’08. And then they destroyed their economy in 09.

Chris:

Yeah, with the bailout package. And what happened with that? And the banks used it and it was an absolute shamozzle, deliberate though. It was deliberate. Goldman Sachs, the treasury department of the US government infiltrated by Goldman Sachs. It’s what they do. It’s what they do. But unfortunately they do it in such a way, like we’re seeing now with climate. We see an issue, the average person will see an issue of climate, this is what needs to happen. But in the background, these people making money hand over fist while it’s costing you money. And it’s going to get to the point now where it’s not going to get better. The economy’s not going to get better so long as they’re pushing this 43% target, that Labour push. So has that gone through? What’s the status of that climate change bill?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’s gone through the lower house and it’s gone to a committee in the Senate and it’ll probably come up in about four weeks time in the Senate for voting there.

Chris:

How do you think it’ll go?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’ll pass for several reasons. First of all, Labour and the Greens, thanks to dopey liberal recommendations on preferencing, Labour and the Greens together have 38 votes out of 76, they’ve got 50%. All the independents, One Nation and the Liberal Nationals have 38, 50%. So it just needs one independent to cross to go and join the Greens and they’ve got it through. Now David Pocock has said that he will support it. So David Pocock, he’s a hell of a nice guy.

Chris:

ACT isn’t he, I think?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. He’s a hell of nice guy.

Chris:

Is he a rugby player?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, a very, very, very good rugby player. Real, real hard on him. He’s a fabulous rugby player, very fit. I mean, the guy is built like an ox, but he’s lithe and agile. I mean, he’s a magnificent specimen as a human in terms of physique. Very, very fit. Very, very strong. He and Richie McCaw from the All Blacks revolutionised the way where way number sevens and number sixes play. They’re really very, very effective. Top player. But on science, complete ignorant. Completely ignorant. He stood up in the Senate the other day and he is not a demonstrative guy. He’s a nice personality. He just said, “I’m all for following the science, like we did in COVID.”

Chris:

Okay. Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

What? And he’s been sold the pop on climate. He’s drunk the Kool-Aid. And there’s so many intelligent people like David, who don’t think. It’s not intelligence that matters. It’s the ability to think analytically. So the economy, if you look… Chris, we’ve been scratching around in the dirt as humans for thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years. We’ve been at the whim of every drought, every famine and humans have been at the mercy of climate until we got hydrocarbon fields, coal, oil and natural gas. And all of a sudden in 170 years, we’ve now got these things. We’ve got so many things that 170 years ago, when the industrial revolution started, we would not have dreamt where we are today. A person on welfare in this country lives better, longer, safer, easier, more comfortably than a king or queen did 200 years ago. Fact. They live much longer and easier and healthier.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So that’s been due to coal, oil and natural gas. We used to cut down forests 170 years ago to do our cooking, to provide our warmth, especially in Europe where you needed the warmth. We used to kill whales to produce our whale oil for lighting, for reading at night. Then we got gas lights. Then we got coal fired power stations. Then we got oil. All of a sudden, we don’t have to burn the forest. So as a result of coal, oil and natural gas, the area of forest in the developed countries has increased dramatically. Forests have increased because of coal, oil and natural gas. The whales, we don’t kill them anymore for whale oil, for lighting. The number of whales are now pretty secure. So coal, oil and natural gas has been a huge driver of the environment, benefit for the environment.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The other thing that happens is when you use coal, oil and natural gas, you have a very high energy density fuel. When you have high energy density, you get high energy production for low cost. And when you decrease the cost of energy, you increase your productivity. If you can afford to use more energy, you become more productive. Think of all the energy you’ve got at home, your fridge, your stove, your dishwasher, your car, your car is so much more efficient than a cycle. If you look at farmers, each of us, we could go out and till our own soil. But it’s so energy intensive, that when you get a farmer with a massive John Deere or Cat tractor, they produce far more than we could even dream of. So when you produce that high productivity, the cost per unit of your food, the cost per unit of all your services decreases dramatically.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The single greatest thing for the last 170 years industrial revolution has been human creativity, our heart in their minds and sharing that. That’s why freedom’s so important. But the second biggest thing and easily the second biggest thing, is the relentless decreases in real costs of electricity and fuels. When you have decreases in fuels, you get greater use of fuels and you get greater productivity. When you have greater productivity, you have cheaper production, you have greater wealth, you have greater prosperity. And what’s happened is we’ve now got greater prosperity, except that in the last three years that every decrease in price for electricity has been artificially increased. And Australia’s gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to now being amongst the most expensive.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Our electricity prices have trebled artificially. If we removed all the bullshit restrictions, we’d still be decreasing the real cost of electricity, but that’s no longer the case. So we are reversing human progress. It’s inhuman, it’s unconscionable and it’s immoral. And it’s all based on a lie. No science whatsoever drives this bullshit and a criminal named Maurice Strong started this in 1980, when he started the scam of global warming. A criminal from the United Nations.

Chris:

Yeah, I was watching a little, it wasn’t long, it was maybe five or six minute documentary on him a few weeks ago. But I think, look, the people like Adam Bandt, the people like the independents that put a lot of climate activists got through independents at the election, what do those people gain from that? Obviously they’re not the ones that are going to be benefiting from extra control. Is it just they’re brainwashed? It has to be.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But what they’re benefiting from is increased representation in parliament. The Greens have now got two senators from every state. They’ve got more clout in parliament. They can now tell the government what to do. The Greens are completely ignorant. They have no idea of what we are talking about right now. They have no interest in what we’re talking about right now. The Greens are hell bent on control. If you look at the Greens, they supported injection mandates. They were speaking vigorously on injection mandates. They supported the invasion of the United States and NATO into the Ukrainian conflict. They support control everywhere if you look at the Greens. They want to increase regulation. They want to tell you how to live, what to do. The Greens are so damn arrogant and ignorant that they think they can ignore four and a half billion years of evolution and tell us how the planet should evolve in the future.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Now you probably believe in evolution. I do. Our planet has come from being a ball of gases to being a solid planet. And then we had erosion on the planet due to water and air. And then we had life forms introduced to the planet. Then it was single cell. And then we had complex animals. Then we had dinosaurs and then mammals. And then we had humans and our ability as humans, completely different from any other animal species. We’ve got a neocortex, that’s wonderful. We then created all kinds of technological improvements in just 170 years we’ve just gone phenomenally well. What they’re trying to say is how we should evolve in the future. They’re playing God, Chris. They’re trying to tell us how the planet would evolve. Forget your four and a half billion years of evolution. This is what we’re going to do in the future. Who do they think they are? They think they’re God.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So they’re all about control. Now, what I said was all of the Greens are delusional when it comes to science, they have no idea. They’ll talk about the koalas being threatened. They’ll talk about the Barrier Reef being threatened. They’ll tell lies, they’ll fabricate lies one after the other, and you can come in and give them evidence, they won’t do anything. But the other thing about the Greens is some of them are the foot soldiers for the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. The Greens is the policy introduction for the United Nations into this country. What they do is they bring in policies, they get the media through their stunts and then the Labour Party starts adopting those policies, and you check. Then the Liberal Party says Labour Party’s getting votes. So we need to put in those policies. And so the Greens bring in these policies and they’re doing it on behalf of the United Nations. But most of the Greens wouldn’t know what I was talking about there, just some of their leaders would know.

Chris:

Yeah. Talking about the Greens, that’s why I was looking down. I’ve got to read this to you. It was a post I’d seen yesterday. I don’t know if he put it out yesterday or was just the post he’s put out and someone took a screenshot of it. So it’s a Adam Bandt Twitter, I’ve put it up for you to see through the thing there.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I can’t see it there.

Chris:

You can’t see it. So this is what he tweeted, off subject but I think you can see the mentality and what’s going on there. He said, “Yearly reminder that drug dealers aren’t to blame for your loved ones banned drug related problems. Quite the opposite. Dealers often act as community elders, keeping an eye out for regulars and providing a stigma free community connection point.” I couldn’t believe that. What is wrong with him?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris:

What’s wrong with him? He’s not all there. He can’t be. I couldn’t believe that. It’s one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, no, I can believe it. These people are inhuman, they’re anti-human, mate. If you look at the Greens policies, they’re anti-education, anti-science, anti-environment, the impact, they tell you they’re pro environment. But the impact on the environment is horrendous. Anti-industry, anti-development, anti-Australian. They’re anti-homosexual because they support Islam and Islam wants to throw homosexuals off the bridges, off the roofs of buildings. They’re anti-women, anti-families. I can make a solid case in all these things. The Greens, some of those are deliberate. Some of those are just through sheer ignorance. By the way, bringing up that thing about drugs. What’s the difference between a drug pusher and big pharma?

Chris:

No. What?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The drug pusher doesn’t force you to use their drugs.

Chris:

That’s a fair point. They don’t mandate it. That’s right. I was only saying the other day, could you imagine how illegal a Pfizer vaccine would be if it was made by a Columbian drug cartel? Can you imagine?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep.

Chris:

Oh, it’s crazy. But I could not believe that when I read that. He says outrageous things, honestly. His Twitter feed’s like a comedy. It’s hilarious, some of the shit. You think, the world doesn’t work that way. Do you know what, it looks to me like he’s got no actual experience. No life experience. He’s never been to and seen what drugs do to people. Because I think if he could, he would legalise drug use. He would.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris:

For sure. When I see certain things, I’ve seen people, I’ve seen someone get stabbed in a park over drugs when I was 15 years old. You see a lot of things. And that’s why when you look at comments like that, that he’s made, that drug dealers are essentially elders looking after the community. No.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. David Leyonhjelm in the Senate and other people in the LDP put out some pretty good questions. I think we need to think about banning things and criminalising things. Because when you do that, you create a black market and then you can’t control it. Okay. So there is a reasonable argument for legalising some drugs. That’ll actually bring it under close to public scrutiny and you probably have less use of it. That’s one side of the argument. So I’m open to that debate, but it’s got to be done very, very properly. Not a lot like he’s doing it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And you’re never going to have a drug lord who’s going to be the representative for the community and the judiciary for the community. I mean, that’s complete rubbish. That’s nonsense. And that’s the problem we have, Chris, because if you saw some of the Green’s election campaigns and remember they had a very successful election campaign, they’ve got more members in the lower house, they’ve got more members in the Senate. There was one TikTok video of somebody dancing above Parliament House. They had a picture of Canberra’s Parliament House and somebody dancing above it and Adam Bandt looking up with a vague look on his face. That was it. No message, no words. That was it. What kind of people does that appeal to?

Chris:

Yeah, I don’t know. Brain dead.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Exactly.

Chris:

I think look, the issue with drugs is one that I think there’s a lot of variables, but I think when we’re talking about drug use, I don’t believe cannabis should be… That should be decriminalised for sure. But then you look at drugs like marijuana and you go, okay, well. But then you look at drugs like heroin or methamphetamine and you start thinking well, okay, you don’t really want that legalised in any capacity. But marijuana, sure. Because a lot of the pharmaceutical drugs do more damage to the community than black market drugs will ever do. Ever. If you look at the US, their opioid epidemic, now it’s fentanyl. It was OxyContin. Now it’s fentanyl. They’ve got huge problems over there on legal drugs that are prescribed by doctors and fulfilled by pharmacies. So opioids, painkillers, some benzodiazepines are much more dangerous and harmful to the community than marijuana would ever be.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, marijuana, sorry. Let’s talk about medical cannabis because we’re very, very strong supporters of medical cannabis, very strong supporters. It’s a wonderful product. It’s entirely natural. There are no side effects for most people at all. Not only that, you can’t overdose on it. You can stuff yourself so full of medical cannabis that you still wouldn’t have any problems. Whereas opioids, you can die. And the opioids are addictive whereas medical cannabis is not. So there’s a separate argument for marijuana compared with medical cannabis. But they’re both worth looking at. Medical cannabis, we’re entirely sold. That’s it. And we are keeping the two separate at the moment because most people are not ready for the decriminalisation of marijuana because of the THC in it, the psychotropic effects.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But medical cannabis, it’s used by a lot of people in this country and it should be much, much cheaper and much more readily available. It should be readily available at least by prescription from a chemist, at least. And the reason it’s not, Chris, is because of big pharma. Big pharma controls the health department, at state and federal level. It controls many of the doctors, it controls the doctors’ Guilds, the doctors associations, and what they do is they’re seeking continued profits. Medical cannabis is useful for so many things. In the 1930s, I read somewhere, it was the number one prescribed medicine. Number one. It was in the Doctor’s Almanack. It was taken out because big pharma wanted to produce its toxins and medical cannabis cannot be patented because it’s natural. So that means if you can’t patent it, you’ll never be able to charge outrageous prices for it. And yet it’s effective, it’s safe and it’s affordable and accessible. It’s perfect. That’s why it’s not wanted by big pharma. And that’s why big pharma keeps the government to outlaw it.

Chris:

That’s right. I don’t know about Australia, but I know in the US a lot of the anti-cannabis campaigns, TV campaigns and whatnot were funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris:

That’s exactly it, they don’t want that because you think about the conditions. I mean, depression, I get anxiety, insomnia. Instead of sleeping pills, people just have medicinal cannabis. There’s so many…

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Post traumatic stress.

Chris:

Post traumatic stress, cancer, for pain. But you know what’s interesting as well? I’ve been looking into it a bit recently, is there the use of certain, what are they? I can’t think of the actual name of it now, but the mushrooms. Little micro doses of mushrooms that they’re giving to, I think retired military personnel in the US to help with their PTSD. It’s working wonders.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’s also being used in some countries, I think in the United States. I know some doctors who are involved with it working wonders with mental health issues. Really very, very effective, very effective. And so we need to advocate more for at least experimental use of them right now. There are people, I can put you in touch with people in this country who are actually using it therapeutically right now.

Chris:

Yeah. I’m sure it happens. Australia’s quite far behind, especially behind the US when it comes to experimenting with drugs that were frowned upon for so many years, and it’s working wonders. And I don’t know how much influence the pharmaceutical companies have here. Well, I know they’ve got a fair bit considering what we’ve been through over the last few years, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of talk. I know the Greens do support that, but I think they support recreational use don’t they?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. And what we want to do is we want to separate those two for now because we want to get medicinal cannabis into people’s hands, cheaply, readily. We want to make that more widespread. So most people are open to that, but they’re not open to recreational use. So rather than stop the use of both, because by pushing both, we just want to push at the moment medical cannabis. We’ll look at the other one later. Put it aside for now, let’s get medical cannabis into people’s hands and into people’s bodies.

Chris:

Would you say it’s a generational thing, because I don’t know many people at all that are around my age that would oppose the legalisation of recreational marijuana use. Maybe highly religious people, but the average person, I don’t think they care too much.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, I don’t think it is a generational thing. We know of a lot of army veterans or defence force veterans, we know a lot of older people who have got things that come on with age, they love medicinal cannabis. They think it’s fabulous. I think over a million people use it, but we’ve got to make it much easier.

Chris:

It’s quite expensive, isn’t it, I think, at the moment to get it?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep, and it shouldn’t be. We could have with our clean environment in this country, we could be supplying medical cannabis all over Asia. It would be huge. And hemp producers, hemp. Then we’ve also got cannabis producing food. I mean really good food. Textiles. So it’s a wonderful, wonderful crop. We could get that in into Australia, that would be fab. And it is coming in certain places. They’re already growing hemp. They’re growing medical cannabis, but it’s just not widespread yet. But there are some people who are trying to do battle with all the bureaucrats and the regulators and they’re making progress and we’ve been supporting them and we’ve got a few more things planned.

Chris:

Do you know Dr. Katelaris? Heard of Dr. Katelaris? Also known as Dr. Pot?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No.

Chris:

No. So he’s an Australian doctor who was charged in the 90s for supplying and helping children and also breast cancer, people with breast cancer with medicinal cannabis, back in the 90s.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Which State?

Chris:

New South Wales.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. We know of a couple of Queensland doctors who’ve helped people enormously, especially epileptics.

Chris:

Yeah. Well, he was doing it in the 90s and actually reversed breast cancer in many women that he was treating, and also helped children that were in pain with medicinal cannabis. Done great work, great work. He did an interview I think on 60 Minutes or something like that. And then a few days later, apparently the feds kicked in his door and got hold of him. And he had history with Dr. Kerry Chant then, in regards to what happened then. Well, he had his medical licence taken and was actually sent to jail, pending his court hearing and he represented himself and used on the basis of medical necessity and he walked out free, as he should.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, what’s changed, mate? What’s changed now the medical… No, I shouldn’t say that. The health departments are telling doctors what to say and what not to say. They’ve completely smashed the doctor, patient relationship. That’s sacrosanct. The Greeks developed that 3000 years ago. That’s been smashed.

Chris:

Absolutely.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’re destroying informed consent. We’re mandating things. I mean, this is not all right. It’s not human. And this is what our country has descended into and that’s what we’re fighting against.

Chris:

There’s too much government involvement in our lives. And a buddy of mine only a few weeks ago was fined for fishing without a licence. And I thought, man. You know what? Obviously, I know you’re a part of it, but no politician should have the right to tell another human being that they’re not allowed to fish. It is our basic human right to fish.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I agree. And who’s pushing for that? United Nations. They’re trying to lock up. We have the largest continental shelf fishing zone in the world. We have a tiny population by world standards of 25, 26 million people. That’s it. We should be exporting seafood hand over fist all over the planet. We import three quarters of the seafood we consume. How the hell does that happen? I’ll tell you how it happens. We have 36% of the world’s marine parks in our country. Some of them are controlled on behalf of the UN, by our state and federal governments. Some are controlled directly by the UN. China has 1.4 billion people. What’s that? I’m guessing that’s around 60 times what we have.

Chris:

Oh yeah. A lot more.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They have a tiny coastline compared to ours. Who’s our biggest exporter of fish, seafood into this country? China.

Chris:

Oh, Thailand would be close to China, wouldn’t it?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Thailand is second. Thailand has a tiny coastline compared to ours. A population that’s about three times ours. Yet they’re the second biggest importer of fish into our country. How can that be? The fish don’t say, “Oh, we better look after Australian waters here. We’ll stay out of Australian waters. We’ll go to Thailand waters.” Bullshit. The Thais and the Chinese say that to the United Nations because they have a country to feed. What we’ve done here is the Greens, the Labour, the Liberals and the Nationals have sold out our fishing industry. We used to have a vibrant fishing industry. Not anymore. We’re so regulated.

Chris:

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t John West originally Australian? Well, I’m trying to think of the old cans of salmon and tuna, John West.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t know where John West was, but I know that our last tuna cannery was packed up, dismantled, packed up and sent to Thailand back in 2010. Sydney was told by Alzheimer’s Sydney had lots of canneries, seafood canneries. We had a vibrant fishing industry. It’s been gutted because of UN regulations. What’s that done to the price of fish? What’s that done to the quality of fish? What’s that done to your choice, your freedom?

Chris:

Oh, quality of fish at the moment, I don’t know about up there, but in New South Wales, try getting a nice piece of barramundi. You could tell they’re all farmed. They got that muddy taste to the farmed barramundi, you can’t get any fresh barramundi, it’s almost, around where I am, impossible.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

See, this is the UN affecting our energy, UN affecting our water, UN controlling our food, controlling our transport, controlling our movement. What they want to do is control our identity, control what we spend, how we spend it through digital identity, which is a product of the World Economic Forum, the Liberal party introduced legislation before the election. And they’ve copied parts of that from the World Economic Forum’s digital platform project. Copied and pasted it into our legislation. I mean, this is what’s happening to our country. That’s why we’ve got to speak. And that’s why it’s so important to keep doing what you are doing.

Chris:

Yeah. We need to continue to have these conversations. And I have tried many times to have people on the other side of the debate on for a chat, and I’ll be completely, even if I don’t agree with them. There’s some things you say that I don’t agree with. There’s probably some things I say you don’t agree with, and that’s fine. But you always allow the opportunity or the other person to speak and get their point across. And I’m happy to do that. Just the other day, I wanted Mike Carlton to come on another chat about a few things that he was saying. And I said something about his best mate, Peter FitzSimons. And I got a message just last night from Mike Carlton in my inbox saying, “Fuck off dickhead.” And then blocked me.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Let me tell you a story about Mike Carlton. I’ll see if I can remember. It was a few years ago, there was a journalist called Ben Cubby. He was at the Sydney Morning Herald and he was their Chief Environmental Reporting. Got that? He was the head of their environmental reporting. So Ben called me up and said, “Can I interview you about this?” This is before I got into the Senate, “About your stance on climate?” And I said, “Sure.” And I gave him a whole lot of stuff. In the middle of that I said, “Do you know about the IPCC? The UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change?” “No.” No clue. Here he is, the environmental reporter on a single biggest issue, supposedly, in the environment. He didn’t know about that body.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So I told him a few things. He made a story, it’s a long time ago, probably seven or eight years ago, he made a story and he published it. And it wasn’t that offbeat, but it talked about me being a director of a company I wasn’t. It talked about me doing other things. It tried to frame me as a bit of a coal producer, I wasn’t. I’m very keen on, supportive of coal, oil, gas, and nuclear and hydro electricity because they’re the cheapest forms of electricity. And what else did he do? Oh, that’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Then Mike Carlton came out and said I was antisemitic. Antisemitic? At the time I was a volunteer on the Galileo Movement, which was founded by a man whose wife was Jewish and who, as a two and a half year old, escaped from the Holocaust concentration camps. A Hungarian Jew, a lovely, lovely lady. A lot of my friends are Jewish. I was at a bloody protest in support of Israel where the Greens were hammering the Israeli companies in this country. I was standing up for the Jews, and Mike Carlton came out and said, I was antisemitic. I mean, what a lying bastard.

Chris:

I think they just throw labels on people. I don’t think there’s any thought.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Correct.

Chris:

They just chuck a label on you. Maybe it could just be for… Look, undoubtedly, it’s so people look at you in a particular way. So anything you say after that point, people will just ignore. That’s why they label people, anti-vax, what you were referred to, climate denier. I got called, and this is something I’ll… because a lot of people have agreed. A lot of people have disagreed with my point, but I made a point the other day to, I’ll tell you who she is now because it ended up as a nightmare on Twitter. Twitter’s good, isn’t it? I’ll tell you what. It’s Doctor, she’s down, I think in South Australia, an indigenous woman. Oh, I’m trying to find her now. Where is she? Here we go. Dr. Tracy Westerman. You familiar, no?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, no.

Chris:

So anyway, she said something about how come when people ask if you’re Italian, Greek, and you tell someone you’re Italian and Greek people go, oh, okay. But when you tell people you’re indigenous, they say, okay, but how much? How indigenous are you?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I’ve never thought of that. And no one’s ever told me that.

Chris:

That’s what she said. And I said to her, look, in my own experience because I’ve seen it happen, is that people will claim they’re indigenous even if they’d never mentioned it before in their life. I knew someone who did it, they had a dental campaign, I don’t know if it was a federal or state funded dental programme, but indigenous Australians got some free dental work done. This is about 10 years ago now. And a friend of mine claimed that he was indigenous for that for free dental work. There’s another person I know who’s great, great grandfather was indigenous. It’s actually a distant family member. So I know exactly who she is. And I know her family. She claimed that so she could get housing. She got into public housing in about six weeks while I know people that have been waiting for five years. And that was my point, is that a lot of people unfortunately say that or claim it for their own personal gain. And she went off, saying it was weaponized language.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, wait until she gets hold of Nampijinpa Price in the Senate. Most people know as Jacinta Price. Her full name is Nampijinpa Price. Man, what a wonderful Senator she’s going to be. I don’t know if you’ve listened to her first speech. Wow. She put the facts out there. She is just a wonderful human being. She is just so lovely to have in the Senate. She doesn’t hang back. She’s just great. And she’s in the Liberal Party, but where credit’s deserved, I give credit. And Nampijinpa Price deserves heaps of credit. She’s going to change that parliament just by telling the truth on indigenous. Beautiful.

Chris:

Well, I’ll tell you what, she’s upsetting the left at the moment. She’s upsetting the left of what she was saying the other day. But again, that’s that same guy I was telling you about, Pete FitzSimons interviewed her and apparently was quite rude and I think she said that she felt bullied by him.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. I can’t imagine anyone bullying Nampijinpa.

Chris:

I don’t know. I did see the speech, but I don’t know much about her, but that’s what we need though. We need a voice where, because I think we all know deep down. There’s a lot of stuff that’s going on at the moment that we know is bullshit. We know that, but people are just too afraid to say that because of the backlash they cop.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, we’ve been calling out and the worst thing you can call an Australian woman is racist. And that’s what they’ve done with Pauline. And you just said you are given labels at times. I’m given labels, climate denial and all that. Whenever they give you a label, it means they can’t argue with you, it means they haven’t got the facts and they can’t string their facts into a logical argument. So they resort to a label. So when people give me a label, I just say, “Well, thank you very much, Chris, for giving me that label. It means you haven’t got an argument. So thank you. I’ve just won the debate. See you.” And they can’t give Nampijinpa Price a label. They give Pauline a label, but it doesn’t shut Pauline down. It won’t shut me down because we know what they’re doing. That Pauline has been fighting so hard for the aboriginals in this country and the Torres Strait Islanders.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

When I was first elected into the Senate in 2016, I was walking up to One Nation headquarters in Albion at the time. And three aboriginals from the Territory saw me. And so they walked up and said, “Where’s Pauline’s office?” And I said, “In this building, come with me.” And I said, “What are you doing down here from the Territory?” And they said, “Well, she’s the only one who gets it. She’s the only one who stands up for us. She’s the only one who knows what’s going on.” And we’ve been calling out the Aboriginal industry because the Aboriginal industry is feeding 30 billion a year into an industry from taxpayer money and it’s not getting to the people in the communities.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We made a list of something like, oh, how many? There are dozens and dozens and dozens of Aboriginal groups that are not serving the people. The people on the communities, the Aboriginal communities are languishing, and they’re not getting the money. The money’s going to black and white consultants, black and white lawyers. It’s going to a whole industry. As some of the aboriginals in the Territory said, you talk about a housing project to build houses. Most of the bloody money goes on white contractors, when the aboriginals could develop a skill and build the bloody houses themselves and have greater ownership. Why is that being neglected? That’s not help.

Chris:

No, it’s appalling. And you know what? You see it with a lot of other minorities. You see that they’ll be used for political gain or for many other reasons. And that’s what we’re seeing at the moment, that topic at the referendum that’s going to be put out, for the indigenous voice. I don’t agree with it, only because I think that we need to come together as one now, this division, it needs to stop. It’s unnecessary, we’re one country. And I just think it does more harm than good, especially in the long term.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

You’re exactly correct. It also says something else too. Currently, around about 5 or 6% of federal senators and MPs identify as indigenous. 5 or 6%. When you look at the number in there, out of the total number of 227 representatives, 5 or 6% are indigenous. The indigenous population is 3%. They’re already overrepresented. So aren’t they really saying that the Aboriginal representatives in parliament are not doing their job?

Chris:

Well, that’s an interesting way to look at it. Isn’t that? Well, that’s what they are saying.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. That’s right? So that is like the whites in parliament. They’re not doing their job either because they’re following the party power brokers’ instructions. They’re not representing the people, they’re following the party power brokers’ instructions. The other thing it does is, I agree with you. We are one nation or one country, whatever term you want to use. And it separates into two. That’s not good.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the third thing it does is really insidious. The Greens are very, very damaging with this one. They create victims. They create classes of people and they say, “Chris, you are being demoralised. You are a victim.” And then that destroys your sense of responsibility, destroys your initiative and you become a victim forever. That’s what the Greens do. And to some extent, the modern Labour Party does that. The old Labour Party used to be about standing up together, united by all means, but at least standing up and the Greens create victims to get votes. And in the process they destroy lives. So the Greens are about looking good, not doing good. And the Greens actually, that’s why I keep saying they’re inhuman, because they’re destroying lives. They’re creating perpetual victims and saying, you are this or you’re that, or you’re a single parent or you’re an Aboriginal or you’re a Torres Strait Islander. No, you’re Australian. If you’ve got particular concerns, let’s hear about them. But don’t talk to me about my skin colour or all short people need more money, Chris.

Chris:

Do you know what? It’s the virtue signalling and just like Coles have now announced that they’re got to put a welcome to country on their receipts. What? I don’t understand that. Why? Why don’t you do more for the community? I looked at this last night. Coles have 112,000 employees. I think it was 1800 or 1600 of those employees are indigenous. So how about you do more there? If that’s your concern, how about you do that? How about you employ more indigenous Australians? Because you know what? My children, at the school, they have indigenous, NADOC, we have all these things and I’m all for that, because I think we can all learn a lot from indigenous Australians. In regards to their connection with the land are unmatched, unmatched. And I find it very interesting. And I’m all for my kids learning a bit more about culture. There’s no problem with that, but it’s this pushing it down your throat all the time that gets to me.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, let me give you a little example of something. We’ve got an excellent barrister in our office. And I asked him to research the Native Title Act, which came in under Keating, I think it was. Now, all of us whities think that the Native Title Act was brought in to give Aboriginals some land. Bullshit. The Native Title Act of parliament, federal parliament, the preamble to it, the introduction to it, is littered with the words United Nations. If you go to an Aboriginal community like we have in Cape York, Northern Territory, they cannot get access to land. If you cannot get access to land, how the hell do you get money to borrow, to pay for a house? How the hell do you get money to start a small business? What the Native Title Act was about, was about locking up the land, taking your land, pretending to give it to the Aboriginals, but not. And so it was about locking up the land. Where did it come from? United Nations. It was about stealing land.

Chris:

What year was that?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, Keating. When was Keating in power?

Chris:

No idea. It’s why I asked.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

’96, ’93, ’96, somewhere around there.

Chris:

Was the mid 90s, somewhere there.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Early to mid 90s. So this is what’s going on and people aren’t aware of that. And we all sit back and think, well, the virtue signal etc. We’ve done our job. We’ve given the Aboriginals land, bullshit. Go to an Aboriginal community and talk to them. They will tell you they can’t get the land. And they’ll also tell you the Aboriginal industry is stopping the money flying from the taxpayers to the Aboriginal in the community. Torres Strait Islander, we were up there last year. I said, what do you think about Close The Gap? Because to me it’s a negative because you’re focusing on the negative, closing a gap. And he said, “It’s bullshit and you’ll never close the gap while ever we have a Close The Gap programme.”

Chris:

That’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Of course it is. But I was wanting to know, so I said, “What do you mean?” And he said, “Well, who do you think makes money out of having a Close The Gap programme? All the people supposed to be on these programmes who are closing the gap.” If they close the gap, they won’t get the money. They’re not interested in closing the gap. It’s that simple. It’s been turned into an industry that is hurting the Aboriginals in the communities. That’s what we object to. And Pauline has been calling that out since ’96.

Chris:

So it comes from… That’s what I mean, there’s people that will label you and Pauline as racist and on all the rest of the terms that they use.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Nazis.

Chris:

Nazis. If you have to speak, because if what you say, if you just make a point and you just read that in passing, it may look that way. But the way you explain it and the way that you, and not just you, but Pauline as well, it’s very clear to anyone that listens that it comes from a good place. And that in fact, you’re probably doing more for that community than what the other people are, and that you’re actually standing up and speaking for them. But it’s the same thing. The minute you even suggest that you’ll vote no to the referendum for the indigenous voice, the comments were flying about you being racist. You’re like, well, that’s irrelevant. What do you mean I’m racist? I’m objecting to a particular issue. But people just can’t, when I mean people, I mean let’s be honest, primarily the left, but they just see it and run with it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t call them the left. As you know, I call them the control side of politics, because left and right are meaningless terms these days. I know what you’re saying. And most people can understand a broad group by the left, but there’s so many people on the left economically who are on the right when it comes to morals or values and vice versa. It’s an irrelevant term. And I realised, I was reading a book one day about 10, 15 years ago. And I realised that left and right are used to confuse people. The real terms are you’re either in favour of control or you’re in favour of freedom. And the real issue throughout humanity has been control versus freedom. Labour Party is in favour of controls. Greens are in favour of controls. So what you call the left broadly, in favour of controls. UN is in favour of controls.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And that’s been the entire battle in humans, it’s a battle within each of us, whether we want to control someone else. It’s a battle between two of us, who’s going to control. It’s a battle between a group. It’s a battle within a community. It’s a battle within a nation. It’s a battle between nations, that’s what’s caused most wars. So it’s that ego again that comes up. That’s what the core issue is with humans, the control element, the fear based element. People who want to control, always beneath control is fear. So it’s whether or not we let their fears take over and control others, try to control others, or we let our spirit come through. And then we’re of the universe.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

You’re not a part of the universe, you’re of the universe, but the way we create ourselves and fabricate the ego that I call Malcolm, I’m part of the universe, whereas I’m really of the universe. And I think we’ve got to get back to that holistic thinking, that unified thinking, universal thinking, which means you don’t have a voice for Aboriginals. You have a voice for the people of Australia, that’s it. And what we’ve got to get back to is that, because at the moment we have a voice for the Liberal Party, a voice for the Labour Party, a voice for the National Party, although it’s pretty weak, and a voice for the Greens.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They’re all speaking for the UN. David Littleproud is the leader of the Nationals. He’s trying to push forward globalist policies. One of the last things he did as a National Party minister was introduce a bill on biodiversity, which is complete bullshit. It was about controlling land in the guise of giving money to farmers for that control. I mean they’re coming at us every which way they can, Chris. We’ve just got to be so much on guard, but I think we’ve got to get back to being individuals within a human species of our universe rather than looking at separation and fragmentation.

Chris:

Mate, well said. We’ll end it there on that. That was yep, exactly right. You’re exactly right. And I heard something a few weeks ago and they said that in the video, he said that we were controlled by freedom, that we’re being controlled by freedom. And then once cryptocurrency and people, you had the internet, they started talking, like we are doing here and bouncing ideas off each other, they lost a little bit of that control. So the shift now is they’re trying to control us with safety, which is exactly what they’re doing. In the last three years, how many viruses have popped up out of nowhere? How many? Coronavirus, monkey pox, now there’s a new one in China where there was 31 cases identified of a brand new virus. It’s just one after the next.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Foot and mouth in Bali.

Chris:

Foot and mouth, that’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

That one’s real.

Chris:

Yeah, that’s very concerning that one. Very, very concerning. But anyway, I’m aware you have another meeting at 12, so we’ll leave it there. But Malcolm, always a pleasure.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, same here, Chris. And keep doing what you’re doing, mate, because we can’t rely on the mockingbird media, the anti-social media, the legacy media, the charlatan media. We’ve got to rely upon people like you to get the truth out. So thank you.

Chris:

Absolutely. And is your TNT Radio, what’s your vision for that? Are you doing that for the foreseeable future?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep. Every two weeks on a Saturday from three til five. And thank you for mentioning it. TNTradio.live wonderful, wonderful, global, Australian actually, but they have hosts in New York, Los Angeles, Tel Aviv, Belfast, Ireland, London, all over Australia. And they have journalists during the week and people who’ve come from prominent positions. We’ve got former CIA, senior people in CIA on there. And then on the weekends, they tend to have people like me and we take our turns. So every second Saturday three til five I’m on. But TNT was funded by a person who wants to change politics in this country and change journalism, bring it back to basics and honesty. And by a journalist, Mike Ryan, who’s doing a wonderful job. What they’re doing is they’re just saying to the media, here’s some honesty. And they’re saying to the media, here’s the real politics. So they’re reporting fearlessly on any topic. They just tell the truth. As they say the only thing that TNT mandates is the truth.

Chris:

Yeah. We need to have that. And that’s why I have no problem recommending your show on TNT Radio because we need to work together collectively. Because you know what that’s going to do, it’s going to pressure the mainstream media to hopefully start being a little bit more honest, because people are going to get sick of it. And I’ve already noticed that people are getting sick of the mainstream media. People know that the mainstream media lie. And I think it’s a lack of awareness that podcasts like mine and shows like yours exist. But I think people are really starting to see that now. And it’s going to force the mainstream media to change, because if the mainstream media change and they’re more forthcoming and truthful with their reporting, everyone wins. Everyone wins. So it doesn’t bother me if I promote your show and we’re all in it together collectively, it’s a collective effort. But anyway, Malcolm.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I meant what I said, keep doing what you’re doing.

Chris:

I appreciate that mate, all the best.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

See you, mate.

/8 Comments/by

Submission to the Climate Change Bill Inquiry

As elected members of parliament we have a shared solemn duty to behave with integrity.

This embraces our duty to ensure legislation and policies are solidly based on accurate and objective data so that the consequences on our constituents and nation are safe, affordable, reasonable and fair.

Yet Attachment 1 shows there has never been, and there remains no, factual scientific basis presented in parliament for legislation cutting or limiting the production of carbon dioxide from human activity. Parliament has never debated the climate science.

The term logical scientific point means the empirical scientific data within a logical scientific framework proving causality. Senators and members of parliament have never been presented with the necessary logical scientific points to justify legislating the cutting or limiting of carbon dioxide from human activity. Nor has parliament ever been presented with the specific, quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate or weather.

Attachment 2 shows that CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and The Chief Scientist have never produced the logical scientific points needed as the necessary and essential basis for climate change legislation. The supporting detailed scientific documents are Attachments 6 and 7.

I acknowledge and thank Senator Arthur Sinodinos as then Minister for Science and his predecessor Mr Greg Hunt for supporting me in arranging for my science and senate office teams to cross-examine government climate science agencies.

Attachment 3 concisely summarises facts explaining that no government, institute, agency or entity of any kind anywhere has produced the necessary logical scientific point. Together with climate scientists and climatologists internationally and within Australia we have held agencies, institutions, universities and individual academics accountable.

Attachment 3 notes that Maurice Strong was the United Nations Under-Secretary-General who triggered and fanned global climate alarm. He did so while having many serious conflicts of interest including being a director / shareholder of the Chicago Climate Exchange trading global Carbon Dioxide credits and being disgraced for his involvement in the UN Oil-for-Food program. Following allegations of serious breaches of American law he fled from American law enforcement agencies to exile in China. The United Nations Environment Program that he founded and led stands accused of contradicting scientific evidence and causing the avoidable deaths of 40-50 million people from 1972 through 2006.

Attachment 4 reveals the repeated results of two global natural experiments and prove that cutting carbon dioxide from human activity can have no effect. The associated limited summary of the science introduces concepts explaining why the cutting of carbon dioxide from human activity can have no effect on global or regional climate or weather. Included are basic facts on Earth’s essential, natural atmospheric trace gas that is the focus of legislation before our parliament.

Attachment 5 presents the fundamental basis for policy and legislation and for measuring progress toward achieving legislative aims and targets. This is combined with core questions that are at the heart of senators’ responsibilities to our constituents and I ask the committee to consider and deliberate upon these fundamental questions that must precede any consideration of the climate change legislation.

Attachment 6 summarises the staggering and sometimes crippling cost burdens of climate and energy policies.

Attachments 7 and 8 provide details underpinning Attachment 2. Attachment 7 provides a detailed scientific report documenting our discussions with CSIRO, an entity whose advice politicians claim is the basis for climate and related energy legislation. Attachment 8 cites associated peer-reviewed scientific papers in a scientific and statistical analysis of CSIRO’s presentations of its climate science claimed to underpin legislation. Please note particularly our scientific analyses of Marcott (2013), Lecavalier (2017), Harries (2001) and Feldman (2015) being papers upon which CSIRO relies and note the conclusions.

Attachment 9 provides detailed supporting statistics and analysis for Appendix 6. It cannot be sensibly refuted since the data was professionally and independently sourced from federal and state government budget papers and reports.

The attachments prove that the effect of Australia’s human production of carbon dioxide has never been specified or quantified in any way. Yet sound legislation should be based on quantified and measurable evidence so that we can assess its cost-benefit and measure implementation to track whether the legislation is effective and achieves the desired outcomes.

This is impossible with current climate and related energy policy and the government’s latest climate change bill.

I hope that you, as a fellow member of parliament, share my commitment to doing our due diligence in fulfilling our duty to serve our constituents, state and nation. I hope that the attachments are of assistance to you in fulfilling our duty to the people of Australia.

I would welcome meeting with the committee and welcome an opportunity for me and my team to address the committee in its hearings to afford senators an opportunity to scrutinise our scientific team. We welcome you holding us accountable

Our principal scientist has legally gathered 24, 000 datasets worldwide on climate and energy from peer-reviewed scientific papers, institutes and government agencies including CSIRO and BOM. He is the recipient of an Order of Australia Medal for his services to research.

I hope every member of the committee agrees that in assessing legislation we each have the onus to produce the logical scientific points including the specific, quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate or weather. As senators and before endorsing legislation we each have the onus to prove that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut as proposed in government legislation currently before the committee and before all senators in parliament.

The attachments reveal the need for detailed scrutiny and serious consideration of all climate and related energy legislation.

Our Earth’s climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Historical empirical scientific evidence shows there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current temperatures or weather events.

Climate science has been hijacked. Special interest groups pushing ideological societal change, rent-seekers wanting to profit from taxpayer subsidies and politicians looking for easy new ways to tax citizens are hijacking our nation’s governance and sovereignty. Alarmingly, once highly regarded agencies such as the CSIRO and BOM, have allowed themselves to become a part of the climate change industry and have failed to provide government with robust competent science advice, upon which to base policy.

There is no logical scientific point with empirical evidence linking carbon dioxide from human activity as the cause of climate variability. No entity or person has ever proven that the ongoing natural climate variability is not entirely natural.

This lack of vigorously tested evidence has allowed governments to create policy that is permanently damaging our once cheap and reliable electricity system. Our manufacturing industries are disappearing overseas, families are struggling to pay their exorbitant power bills, farmers are under pressure, and our once reliable electricity system is on its knees, due to government regulations forcing intermittent wind and solar into the electricity grid.

Even our children are not safe from this alarmism, with eco-anxiety finding its way into the innocent world of our children.

Nor is the environment safe due to the lack of recycling of many solar, wind and battery components with relatively short working lives and due to other inherently damaging aspects of solar and wind.

I implore you to apply the utmost of analytical and sceptical scrutiny to the claims underpinning climate and related energy policy. The effects of climate policy are historic, and Australia has never before faced such a fundamental and arguably monumental change to our way of life and lifestyle. Your extra scrutiny on the claims underpinning climate and related energy policy could be the difference between millions of Australians suffering if the proposed legislation is passed, or alternatively, having a more prosperous nation if existing climate and related energy legislation is rescinded.

I sincerely hope that your decision on legislation is mindful of the costs and burdens on our constituents, on our nation and on our national security. Your vote if in favour of the climate change bill will prevent sound governance while your vote against the bill will enable sound governance, fairness and integrity.

A mandate for a policy and legislation lacking the claimed scientific basis is a mandate based on lies or misrepresentations. As such it is not a mandate.

Every one of us though has a mandate and responsibility to tell the truth and to vote with integrity.

CONCLUSION

After 14 years studying and investigating climate science, along with in-depth research into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and profound cross-examining of CSIRO and BOM, we know there is no empirical scientific data as evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity has changed or will change temperature or any climate or weather factor.

Importantly, the effect, if any, of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate or weather variable has never been quantified.

In its presentations to my team and I, the CSIRO stated that there is no danger from carbon dioxide from human activity and that there is nothing unprecedented about our planet’s temperature.  Therefore, there is no scientific justification for any government to introduce policies designed to reduce carbon dioxide from human activity.

We are calling for all climate-based policies and subsidies for renewable energy to be rescinded. The consequences of climate alarmism cost the Australian economy in productivity and growth, and in our ability to compete in the highly competitive international arena.

Clearly, it is time to change our approach to climate change.  These Bills must be rejected.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

Enclosures: Attachments 1 through 9

/20 Comments/by