Despite promises of being one of the world’s largest batteries for only $2 billion dollars, Snowy 2.0 is shaping up to cost over $10 billion and only supply a fraction of promised capacity.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak about the Auditor-General’s performance audit titled, No. 33—Performance audit—Snowy 2.0 governance of early implementation: Snowy Hydro Limited.
Some background for those who may be new to this project: Snowy 2.0 is an extension of the Snowy Hydro project, hence the name. In 2017, Prime Minister Turnbull announced the cost of Snowy 2.0 as $2 billion. This report states that the cost is now $5.1 billion plus billions of other costs, totalling well over $10 billion. The completion date is out to 2025, so we can expect further cost blowouts. The project involves using electricity from unreliable sources like wind and solar to pump water from a lower reservoir, Talbingo Dam, through underground pipes to an upper reservoir, Tantangara Dam. Water is then sent back down to Talbingo Dam, generating electricity on the way. Snowy 2.0 is referred to as a ‘big battery’ because water is stored in the top reservoir until it is needed. The same turbine is either pumping water uphill or generating electricity from the water coming down. The total pipe length is 27 kilometres. Generally, water is pumped up during the day—provided the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. The water is then released down the pipe to generate electricity in the evening peak, when it’s most needed. As the sun does not shine and wind goes quiet at night, pumping water back up the hill overnight, ready for the morning peak, will need coal power. The upper reservoir may hold multiple days worth of water and, at some point, the dam must be refilled, especially as Tantangara Dam is currently only 17 per cent full.
Pumped hydro only works when the dam has water in it. For every megawatt of power generated by water coming down the hill, the turbine needs 1.3 megawatts of power to get the water back up, because of losses. In total, 30 per cent more coal is used in Snowy 2.0. Pumped hydro, put simply, entails generating electricity 2.3 times to be used by consumers once. This is not cheap electricity; it’s actually really expensive electricity. The solar and wind fairy tale needs pumped hydro as a way of storing unreliable wind and power generation, which occurs mostly during the day, and moving that capacity to the evening peek, when unreliable solar and wind can’t provide baseload power.
Maximum generation for Snowy 2.0 is an impressive 2,000 megawatts, but here’s the catch: annual generation is listed in this report as 350,000 megawatt hours. Running at full capacity, Snowy 2.0 will generate electricity for only 175 hours a year. To put that into perspective, my home state of Queensland used 68 million megawatt hours last year. Snowy Hydro will contribute the equivalent of half of one per cent of Queensland’s power each year, one-tenth of one per cent of Australia’s annual generation, at a cost of $5 billion and rising—and that doesn’t include all the costs. This madness will send us broke. There’s a far better way: a 2,000-megawatt coal-fired power station is able to run at 2,000 megawatts 98 per cent of the time, 24/7. Liddell in the Hunter Valley generated nine million megawatts last year.
For less than the cost of this green fairy tale called Snowy 2.0, a coal plant can produce at least 25 times the amount of electricity. That’s why Germany’s Greens coalition government is turning Germany’s coal-fired power stations back on. Shutting ours down when we see what’s happening in the rest of the world is criminal irresponsibility. Prime Minister Albanese is promising reduced electricity prices while at the same time building horribly expensive power generation. The Prime Minister’s agenda will fail, and he will take Australia down with him. Instead, One Nation will build baseload power stations, reduce the cost of electricity, restore grid reliability, restore grid stability, restore Australian manufacturing and restore the income of working Australians.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/T7E2G3CHLgY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-07-28 13:30:302022-07-28 13:30:34Snowy Hydro 2.0 – The whitest white elephant in Australia
There is a fundamental problem with climate change alarmism. In the two recessions of the last two decades where carbon emissions were hugely reduced, there was no difference to the CO2 in the air and temperature of the world.
Transcript
As an engineer, I respect and consult scientists, because lives have depended on it, and still do. As an engineer educated in atmospheric gases and as a business manager, I was responsible for hundreds of people’s lives, based on my knowledge of atmospheric gases. I listened to scientists, I cross-examined scientists and I debate the science. I have never found anyone with logical scientific points based on empirical scientific evidence that shows we have anything to worry about at all.
The basics are these: when you burn a hydrocarbon fuel, you burn molecules containing carbon and hydrogen with oxygen and they form CO2, carbon dioxide, and H2O, water vapour; that’s it. Carbon dioxide is essential for all life. But let’s go beyond the science and have a look at natural experiment. We’ve had two natural experiments, global experiments, in the last 14 years. The first was in 2009, when the use of hydrocarbon fuels reduced in the recession that followed the global financial crisis. There was less carbon dioxide produced from the human use of hydrocarbons. What happened to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? It kept increasing. What happened in 2020, when we had a major recession, almost a depression, around the world as a result of COVID restrictions put in place by governments? We saw the same reduction in hydrocarbon fuel use by humans and the same cut in carbon dioxide output from humans, and yet carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to increase.
Those who understand the science understand that it is fundamental: humans cannot and do not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; it’s controlled by nature entirely. I’ve cross-examined the CSIRO three times now in the last few years. Under my cross-examination, which is the first of its kind in this country and the only one of its kind in the world, the CSIRO admitted that they have never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is dangerous—never stated it. This is all rubbish that’s being talked about. Secondly, they admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. Thirdly, they never quantified, in three meetings, any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity. Never! That is the fundamental basis for policy. What’s more, they showed their sloppiness because they withdrew discredited papers which they initially cited to me at their choice as evidence of the unprecedented rate of temperature change and then failed to provide the empirical scientific evidence. They withdrew the two papers they put to me on temperatures, the two papers they put to me on carbon dioxide.
There is no danger. Temperatures are not unprecedented. We need to come back to the science, not the so-called experts the Greens talk about, not the pixies at the bottom of the garden. We need to come back to the science, the empirical scientific evidence, and base policies on that.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Zl0kwVT6Z0Y/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-07-28 12:52:062022-07-28 13:26:06Science is for debating, not blindly following
Alan Finkel is right when he says we are at a turning point in history. There are two paths for Australia to choose between. One leads to a country where manufacturing thrives and everyone, including the poor, enjoys better living standards on the back of affordable and reliable power. On the other, power prices continue to rise, and the stability of our grid is at risk.
With the highest amount of wind, solar and battery power feeding into the grid in history, Australia’s wholesale power prices have never been higher. All Australians are going to feel the brunt of these price increases. This is a primary cause of our current inflation and it will only get worse, as I have been warning for two years.
Despite net-zero rhetoric, there is an unavoidable truth. Wind and solar cannot solve high power prices and inflation.
Committing to net-zero means that Government has signed a blank cheque to the wind, solar and battery industry whose only solution is more of the same power shortages and high prices.
For example, the closure of the Liddell coal fired power station will be a loss of 2000MW of dispatchable power.
With unreliable renewables operating on average at 23% of their rated capacity because wind and solar take days off, Australia will need hundreds of square kilometres of solar panels to replace Liddell.[1]
Those hundreds of square kilometres of panels, even running at full capacity, won’t guarantee power is being made when needed. Solar power peaks at midday, far away from the peak demand in the early morning and evening. Wind droughts lasting months have wreaked havoc in Europe.[2] Batteries cannot and won’t fix the gap.
The largest battery in Australia can supply 300MW for an hour and a half, a pittance compared to the 2000MW Liddell could produce.[3] That’s even before we consider that because of transmission and power conversion, battery storage might waste around 20% of the power we use to charge them.[4]
What does all this mean? Wind and solar subsidies force other, more reliable sources of power out of the market. Coal generators are forced into early retirement. Nuclear can’t even be investigated.
Wind and solar are inefficient and intermittent. There is less supply of electricity and it is more unreliable. That makes power more expensive and risky for businesses, employers and wage-earners.
Wind, solar and battery advocates claim that a ‘plan to transition the grid’ can solve all this. What is rarely said is that the plan to ditch coal could cost $320 billion, a cost that one way or another Australians will have to pay from their hip pocket.[5]
Australia is facing down the barrel of a cost of living and inflation crisis. We must abandon the ill-advised forced uptake of wind and solar that is going to keep making power bills more expensive.
Instead, we must stop demonizing coal and build coal fired power stations to cover our transition. Power companies must know that the government won’t force coal to go broke so they can freely invest to maintain their existing assets and build more.
Wherever possible we must build dams with hydro power and retro fit hydro. Snowy Hydro 2.0 has laid bare the false promises of pumped hydro.[6]
And finally, we must investigate nuclear power. Australia has had a nuclear reactor running in Lucas Heights, Sydney since 1958.[7] Australia’s ban on nuclear power is no longer fit for purpose. Everything must be on the table to be investigated if it means bringing Australia’s power bills down.
Although electricity from nuclear is typically more expensive than coal and hydro, in places such as South Australia with its massive uranium reserves and low thermal value coal, nuclear needs to be considered.
It may be years before some of these solutions take effect, but it will be even longer if we do not start them now. Decades of politicians making decisions for the next election instead of the next generation has left Australia with this cost of living and inflation crisis. We must act today with a vision for the future, rooted in reality and with the sole focus of making Australian living cheaper and easier while being environmentally responsible.
[1] For example, 1800Mw Liddell output at 90%, 10-30% capacity factor of solar, estimated 2-3ha (0.02-.03sqkm) per MW of solar power
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Er2O8F6YtkPkCS-Z5f5uhX3DFMIT8_E2wpvO3J1weng.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=17681024Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-07-13 09:19:282022-07-13 13:41:20Wind and solar cannot solve high power prices and inflation
Peta Credlin nails the lies from Premier and PM that the latest floods are because we don’t have enough wind and solar. People who have lost everything, some of them three times over, are being lied to and hijacked for a political cause. From Sky News Australia.
Australia has the largest amount of money (wasted) on intermittent renewables in our history, the most wind and solar feeding into the grid in history, and what is the result? Skyrocketing power prices and risk of blackouts! Ditch wind and solar subsidies. Bring back cheap, reliable power.
http://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/6942e4fa-0db8-11e4-b149-00144feabdc011522048Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-07-06 12:00:422022-07-06 12:00:46Wind and Solar subsidies have to be ditched
Who would have thought that affluence would be measured by who could afford lettuces at $20/kg, rather than Lamborghinis? The humble zucchini is now $2 each, and meat and fuel prices are continuing to rise. Inflation will remain with us for the next 18 months.
A small percentage of these rises are caused by supply issues relating to the war in the Ukraine however to blame Putin is to misdirect the blame to a convenient fall guy. Australian governments cannot use the war in Ukraine and Putin to explain away the prices rises and supply issues. Like COVID, Ukraine’s war has highlighted the deep flaws already existing in Australia’s approach to strategic industries.
Years of flawed climate ideology has destroyed our ability to grow food in Australia.
The government’s forced uptake of expensive, unreliable wind and solar power at the expense of cheap sources has increased electricity bills, one of the largest costs of doing business at every stage from farm to table.
Australia imports 1.7 million tonnes of the most common form of fertilizer – urea and only produces 200,000 tonnes locally, most of that here in Queensland. Urea is made from natural gas. Australia has one of the world’s largest reserves of natural gas so why are we paying 400% more for imported products when Australia could be self-sufficient?
Australian Governments have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to protecting strategic industries such as fertilizer. Production shortages will continue and prices will continue to rise and that is on successive short-sighted, LNP and Labor State and Federal Governments.
There is also “green tape”, thousands of pages of heavy handed, draconian laws which do very little to protect the environment and are not based on solid data or science. Instead, they just make it too hard or too expensive for many farmers to use their land. In Queensland some farmers are being prevented from working their land at all.
Our most essential need for surviving and thriving is water. Supposed environmentalists have stopped major dam building initiatives for nearly 30 years. Responsible use and environmental management is of course necessary. Australia has enough water to feed and clothe the world. A lack of vision and forward planning from politicians means that we are at the whim of every weather cycle.
If there’s one thing we should have learnt from the COVID response and now from regional conflicts it is this. Australia can’t rely on the rest of the world. We need to be able to grow every bit of our own food here with minimal government interference.
More than that, Australia has an obligation to use the gifts this country has been blessed with to take our place in the worthwhile endeavour to feed and clothe those who would otherwise be in need.
Our farmers have been extraordinary in their commitment to growing food and fibre because this is a noble endeavour. Successive LNP and Labor Governments have made this endeavour harder and harder in the name of ideology and failed climate “science”.
Now the result of years of mismanagement is being felt in petrol stations and supermarkets across Australia.
Australians can no longer afford to go backwards at the hands of climate zealots whose inner-urban, well-off lifestyles are the least affected by climate madness.
Build dams, install the cheapest available power sources and get government out of the tractor-driver’s seat. If Australia is to survive coming food crises, we must do all of this now.
An old quote says a country is only three missed meals away from a revolution. We have enough arable land to feed Australia and millions overseas, government just needs to get out of the way and let farmers do what they do best.
In my questioning at Senate Estimates the Bureau of Meteorology confirmed that we’ve had bigger floods before. Our recent weather has been severe and affected many people and my heart goes out to them. But greenies claiming that our recent weather is unprecedented are abusing these people’s grief for political gain.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to ask some questions about the distressing floods, but first of all I want to commend you for admitting that you don’t know everything. That’s so refreshing to hear. I don’t know everything, and someone who’s talking about weather certainly doesn’t know everything. Nature’s highly variable, and natural variation is enormous. Coming to the floods, they’re very distressing for people and it’s important to give them the right information. According to the Bureau of Meteorology’s graphs, in the last 100 years there have been two major floods and in the previous 90 years there were 11 major floods.
Dr Johnson : Sorry, just to be clear, where are you talking about? In Brisbane?
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Brisbane, yes. In 1974, which is the highest recent flood in the last hundred years, the flood levels reached were much less than in 1893 and much, much less than in 1841.
Dr Johnson : Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the government, state or federal, discussed anything about doing some research with regard to flood mitigation?
Dr Johnson : Maybe I can respond to the two parts of your question. You’re right, there have been bigger floods in Brisbane since records have been kept, and records have only been kept since the 1840s, so who knows how big the floods really get in Brisbane. When you look at the historical narratives, if you read George Somerset’s writings on where the traditional people of the Brisbane Valley used to have their summer camps, one could reasonably possibly reasonably draw a conclusion that flood levels have been even higher.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re familiar with where the university’s experimental mine is at Indooroopilly?
Dr Johnson : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Apparently, geologists say that the floods were five metres higher than the 1841 floods. That’s unfathomable.
Dr Johnson : All of these things are possible. But to correct the record, there have been 12 major floods in Brisbane since 1840 and three since 1970, including the most recent ones. We had the 1974, the 2010-11 and the one the other day, so three major floods in Brisbane since 1970. Certainly, of the most recent ones, the 1974 flood was the biggest.
Senator ROBERTS: I was going off the bureau’s graphs and it had lines across the major—
Dr Johnson : We probably haven’t put the line on for the one the other day yet, but—
Dr Johnson : Was it? But there are three: 1974, 2010-11 and 2022. For the record, that is the flood history in Brisbane. The second part of your question is about flood mitigation. That’s not a responsibility of the bureau. That’s the responsibility of state governments and local governments, indeed. As you know, obviously Wivenhoe Dam being put in, although its primary purpose is not for flood mitigation—it’s for water security—it does perform a flood mitigation function. The Brisbane City Council also undertakes significant flood mitigation works. As you’re probably aware, since the 2010-11 flood they’ve installed extensively throughout Brisbane engineering works to try to reduce the backflow of water from the river up into the suburb. It was one of the experiences from the 2010-11 flood that people were getting flooded through water coming back up through the stormwater system. The flood mitigation work is their responsibility. Certainly the flood mitigation works draw heavily on bureau historical data.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was getting at: it’s not your responsibility to—
Dr Johnson : It’s not our responsibility to do the mitigation.
Dr Johnson : Correct. And the state and local governments also heavily utilise not only their own in-house capability but also significant capability in the private sector. So we make all that data available. People are welcome to use it—and we hope they use it—to keep our community safer in the future.
Senator ROBERTS: My question wasn’t going to any attempt to pin you down and blame you for the floods—that’s ridiculous.
Dr Johnson : No, I wasn’t reading it that way.
Se nator ROBERTS: Good. But I can’t imagine that the bureau has any responsibility to correct politicians or media that produce stories saying the floods in 2022 were due to climate change caused by humans or anything like that. That’s their responsibility, not yours.
Dr Johnson : We just report what we see happening in the environment. We try to do so to the best of our abilities and as factually as we can. So we don’t choose to speculate on what we’ve said. What we’ve said very clearly is that, with climate change, we can expect the frequency of high-intensity rainfall events to increase—
Dr Johnson : Based on models and also based on our recent experience. What we can also see, just as a basic law of physics, is that, for every one degree the temperature rises, the atmosphere holds about seven per cent more water. The Australian temperature record is around 1.47—plus or minus 0.2—since records have been kept. I’m not an engineer like you are, Senator, but the atmosphere is holding roughly 10 per cent more water than it might have had in pre-industrial times. That water has got to go somewhere. It circulates around the planet as part of a mass balance with the oceans and the rivers. I think it’s absolutely reasonable to expect that, as the climate continues to change, the likelihood of high-intensity events like those we have seen will increase. And, all other things being equal, there will be an increased risk of flooding for those communities live on active flood plains. A lot of people live really close to rivers that are still very active—
Senator ROBERTS: And some people say that Brisbane is a city built in a river.
Dr Johnson : Indeed. I think the title of the book is A River with a City Problem.
Senator ROBERTS: Some argue—and there is a lot of conjecture about this—that an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere leads to a cooling effect, for all kinds of reasons. So there are a lot of uncertainties in forecasting the weather and forecasting the climate. I want to quote from the transcript from the Senate estimates in February. I asked whether the State of the Climate reports scientifically prove that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. You responded: ‘I’ve got the report in front of me. I don’t believe there’s a section in there’—that’s right, it’s not the purpose of the report. I happen to agree with you. I’ve been through many of your reports. Later on, you said: ‘I think we made it really clear what the purpose of the document is. It’s to provide a synthesis of our observations of Australia’s climate and oceans.’ Previously you said: ‘I think it’s important for the record to note that none of the State of the Climate reports in any way whatsoever make statements with respect to global emissions.’ I compliment you on your clarity and I appreciate your clarity. It’s not the Bureau of Meteorology’s responsibility to correct politicians when they say that the state of the climate contains evidence of cause and effect, is it?
Dr Johnson : Certainly the bureau is not in the habit of making public comment around statements that our elected officials make. As you know, our job is to advise. Elected representatives are free to say whatever they wish to say. You, of everybody, would probably know that best. We provide our best scientific advice to you and you’ll form your own conclusions on that advice.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/0.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-04-14 09:14:402022-04-14 09:20:01Today’s weather and floods not unprecedented – Bureau of Meteorology
Scott Morrison won the last election by bashing Bill Shorten on his climate policies, especially a net-zero emissions commitment. After getting elected for not buying into the climate nonsense, Scott Morrison unexplainably signed us up to net zero despite CSIRO confirming there was no change in the ‘Science’™.
There’s still no proof that human produced carbon dioxide affects the climate and needs to be cut. By signing up to net-zero, Scott Morrison has given a death kiss to productive agriculture, mining and every Australians power bills with no justification..
Transcript
If you could be as quick as you could.
[Roberts] Thank you. And thank you all for attending. My questions are gonna be initially to the minister. And then if there’s time to the Chief Executive, of CSIRO. Minister, referring to the government’s change in its 2050 net zero policy in the 2019 election, the government’s opposition to the UN’s 2050 net zero carbon dioxide policy gained you many votes and a lot of political traction and you used the the policy, Labor’s adoption of the policy to really smash the opposition leader Bill Shorten. Just two years later, after emphatically repeatedly and thoroughly criticising Labor and the Greens, there was an unexplained reversal last year and the government adopted the UN’s 2015 net zero carbon dioxide policy. What is the specific change in climate science in which the government’s change of policy is based?
Oh, well, thank you. I think to answer that question in detail I think it will probably be best for the environment minister, but I would simply say that I don’t accept the premise of all of what you’ve said in terms of-
[Roberts] What do you disagree with?
Well, you said unexplained. I mean, obviously we went through quite a detailed process. The prime minister spoke on a number of occasions about his desire to get to a net zero position if it can be done in a way that protects Australian jobs and continues to see industries thrive. And that’s what Minister Taylor worked on. Now we’re not obviously in the space where we have the detail in terms of those portfolios, but it was explained over a period of time. The government made the decision. Obviously, it played out publicly where there was a conversation, I think, with the Australian people. And obviously, there was a live debate that you were aware of that the coalition went through when the government came to a conclusion.
[Roberts] Okay. It wasn’t explained in terms of some change in science. There was no references. There was no document. No publications referred to no specific page numbers of the change in the data or the cause. So there was nothing to change the policy.
Well, as I say, the government was not prepared to commit to such a policy without being able to do the work as to how we would get there and how we would do so in a responsible way. And that was the the job that Minister Taylor in particular was tasked with. And that was the the work that fed into the government decision. Now, in terms of the detail, the various portfolio parts of that, I think that’s probably for another part of estimates.
[Roberts] Okay.
I think that summarises the government’s position.
[Roberts] Well, let’s go back a step further. What’s the basis of the government’s climate policy and ensuring policies on consequent policies on energy, agriculture, manufacturing, social policy and other aspects that the UN’s climate and associated policies impact? What’s the overall basis?
Sorry. I might just get you to repeat that question, sorry.
[Roberts] What is the basis of the government’s climate policy and the consequent policies that stumble on from that on energy agriculture, manufacturing, social policy and other aspects that the UN’s climate and associated policies impact?
Well, look, it’s a fairly broad question.
[Roberts] It is.
I might ask officials if they can assist.
[Man] There are appearing in my data.
Yeah. [Joe Evans] Miss Evans.
Very quickly, Joe Evans, the deputy secretary in the department and Senator, the basis is really the globally agreed science on climate change, which is articulated through the International Panel on Climate Change reports
[Roberts] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
That’s the one. Yeah.
[Roberts] Okay. Thank you. That was nice and quick. Back to the minister. Cutting human carbon dioxide output has had huge costly impacts across our society, especially on fundamentals for productivity and prosperity, for example, energy. Surely the only sound basis for a policy with such economic consequences is the specific effect of changing human carbon dioxide output. The impact for example of a specified change in human output of carbon dioxide, what specific impact would it have on climate factors such as temperature, rainfall, droughts, wind? So the specific impact. Then when the effect is quantified, only then can we do a cost benefit analysis of the cost of doing that and the benefits that come from that. And significantly, we can’t do any measurement of progress as we implement the policy unless we’ve got that specific impact of carbon dioxide. What is that specific impact of carbon dioxide on various climate factors?
Well, I’m happy for officials to elaborate, but I mean, in terms of what the government’s approach has been, it has been to be part of The Paris Agreement. So part of collective action across the world where we are doing our part, and we’ve been doing that obviously with our emissions reductions to date, which have been tracking, in fact, ahead of many comparable OECD nations and many sort of comparable resource-rich nations, such as Canada.
[Roberts] So what would be the extra impact of tracking?
But if I can also go to your question, and in the preamble to your question around, you talked about other economic impacts or impacts in relation to higher energy prices and the like. What we’ve seen under our government in the last few years is actually energy prices coming down year on year and coming down quarter on quarter. So we as a government never look at these issues in isolation. We look at it as part of that collective response and taking our responsibilities to the environment seriously, but never taking our eye off the ball, in terms of the need for affordable and reliable energy for instance. And that’s something that we’ve been delivering and that’s been our track record.
Senator Roberts, we got to go to the office of the chief scientist at 6:25. So I know you did want to ask some questions to the Chief Executive Officer, of CSIRO. So I just wanted to give you that chance.
[Roberts] Thank you. So essentially what you’re saying, Senator Seselja, is that your answer is the same as the one Senator Cormann gave me repeatedly when I asked questions in the Senate and wrote him letters? That was, we’ve got to do our part of global agreements.
I’m not aware of exactly what former Minister Cormann-
[Roberts] That’s the gist.
Well, as I say, I’ll take you take your word for that.
[Roberts] I can show you his letters.
Sure. I’m not disputing. All I’m saying is I’m not aware of exactly what Minister Cormann told you, but my evidence is the evidence I’ve just given.
[Roberts] Assuming what I’ve said to you of Senator Cormann’s responses, you’re agreeing with it.
Well, look, it’s a difficult question to answer without seeing all the detail of what you’ve said but I think my evidence speaks for itself.
[Roberts] Okay. Bob Hawke’s Labor government first introduced the climate topic in the eighties. Then in 1996, the Howard Anderson Liberal-National’s government first made it policy. On what specific quantified effect did they base that policy? Do you know?
Well, look, I think you’re talking about history of before I was in this place. And so I would prefer without having been involved in those discussions, I don’t feel qualified to give a detail answer on that.
[Roberts] No, I understand. It’s okay. Are you aware that the Howard-Anderson Liberal-National’s government implemented their renewable energy target that is gutting electricity and industry, generally? That they stole farmer’s property rights to use their land. And they did that deceitfully going around the constitution, section 51, clause 31. And that John Howard was the first leader of a large party to adopt an emissions trading scheme, which Tony Abbott rightly called a carbon dioxide tax. Are you aware of those major policies that are now still in play? And John Howard actually said that the renewable energy target has gone too far now?
Well, I certainly wouldn’t accept your characterisation of some of those policies in the way you’ve framed them, and certainly in relation to those fine leaders of our nation that you’ve sort of characterised their policies in a certain way. So no, I wouldn’t agree with that.
[Roberts] Okay. Thank you.
Sorry. Senator Roberts, I’m sorry-
[Roberts] I just got one thing to follow up.
Well, it’s gotta be very quick.
[Roberts] It will be very quick. Are you aware that six years after being booted from office in 2007, in 2013, John Howard admitted, at a global warming sceptics annual address in London, that on climate science he was agnostic yet he introduced these policies?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/25wrsuzXz8Q/0.jpg360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2022-03-03 09:42:572022-03-04 10:45:34What changed to make the Coalition adopt country-killing net-zero?
Australia claims a very large part of Antarctica as our territory. Despite this, China is muscling in, refusing to sign treaties and building 5 research bases in the Australian Antarctic territory. To add to the worries, Australian Government has back-flipped on its plans to build a strategically important, all-weather runway at Davis research base.
This opens the door for China to do it instead, further eroding our claim to Antarctic territory.
The decision came from the minister for environment which begs the question, have we let China take a strategic win because we were a little bit worried about the penguin’s feelings?
Transcript
I think the last stretch.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here tonight. Minister Sussan Ley recently made a decision to not proceed with the building of an all-weather runway at Davis research base in Antarctica. What level of consultation did the Minister have with the Department of Defence and what advice was received prior to making such a decision, which many see as retrograde?
Senator, I can probably assist with that. That was a decision taken by the Government. There was extensive consultation with a range of departments and indeed I and Mr. Ellis personally, were in discussions with the Secretary and the CDF and others on that matter before it was considered by Government.
I understand Defence were pushing it.
I think the view taken by the Government was that the combination of the very significant environmental impact, the proceeding with the airstrip, would do together with the very sizable cost, ultimately meant that proceeding with a project that would not provide results for another 15 or 20 years was not viable. However, there are a whole range of other ways that we are very confident we’ll be able to ensure continuing and indeed expanded presence in Antarctica.
Was the Minister aware of the likelihood of China then building the strategically important runway, thereby enhancing its claim for a portion of the Australian Antarctic territory when the Australian Antarctic territory is renegotiated, or even sooner, because China is not a party to the Treaty?
A full range of geopolitical and other considerations were available to government in taking the decision, Senator.
Is the Minister aware that China has already built five research bases within the Australian Antarctic territory to enhance its future claim?
The answer is yes, we certainly are aware. I’ll let Mr. Ellis answer as to the number, but certainly we’re aware that China, and indeed a number of other countries, have established bases in the area claimed by Australia.
Does this mean that environmental issues, such as the comfort of penguins can be used to negotiate, to negate issues of national security to the detriment of all Australians? You mentioned that, you mentioned the 15 year time span for the return, I’ve just come from the Australian Rail Trade Corporation and they’re talking about a 30 year timeframe.
Some of these projects do involve a long period of time, Senator. But the answer is that we are very confident that the right decision was made, taking into account all of the factors and, as I’ve said, indicating that Australia’s is continuing presence. Our scientific research, our expeditionary exploration are second to none and we’ll continue over the decades ahead.
So is this yet another example of the short-term strategy visions that have dogged Australian antarctic policy, antarctic policy making us a pushover for the Chinese Communist Party?
I wouldn’t agree with the premise of any of that Senator, Australia very significantly ensures that we are a strong player in the international system that focuses on Antarctica, on CCAMLR and Australia, through investments, such as the Nuyina, which we’ve just been talking about at 1.8 billion dollar investment together with all of the other activities that Mr. Ellis and our hundreds of staff, both in Hobart and in Antarctica undertake, we believe that we are very much ensuring Australia’s interests are protected and advanced.
Perhaps a question to Senator Hume. The Chinese Communist Party just rolls over weak leaders. They see in Australia a country that is handed over its sovereignty to many UN agreements, destroying our energy, for example, our property rights, UN policies gutting our culture. These get no respect from the CCP and I think it makes us targets. So, was this the best decision to make at a time of heightened concern about the expansion as policies and aggression of the CCP? Especially as what they’re doing to us in trade.
I don’t necessarily agree with the premise of your question, Senator Roberts, but what I will say is that Australia in no way will be ceding any of our territory. The decision that was made was always gonna be contingent on a final investment decision next year and careful consideration of the environmental impact, economic investment and broader national interests. Australia feels that it’s particularly important that all nations place the Antarctic environment at the absolute centre of their decision making, and respect to the Treaty system. And the government is now considering further investments in our scientific research and environmental programmes in Antarctica. That include to continue to create jobs and investment for Tasmania, as the international gateway to East Antarctica.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/i7qAk-SNtnM/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-02-17 13:34:102022-02-17 14:13:22Government opening the door to China’s bullying in Antarctica
