The Greens will never stop their fear mongering about the collapse of the world. They’ve still never provided evidence that CO2 from human emissions presents a danger and needs to be cut.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to discuss this issue which, at its core—quoting from the Greens—is about ‘climate heating’. Really—about humans heating our climate!
One Nation relies upon data, facts and empirical evidence proving causation. Senator Watt relies upon ‘belief’.
Let’s have a look at some data on another issue, and that is the Greens’ claims. On 9 September 2019, I invited Senator Waters and the then leader Senator Di Natale—remember him?—to present us with the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. I also challenged them to a debate on the empirical evidence and on the corruption of science. What have we heard since? Nothing; not a thing—just more claims and more beliefs.
On 7 October 2010, I invited Senator Larissa Waters, who’s now the Greens leader in the Senate, to debate me on climate and climate science corruption. She jumped to her feet and said: ‘I will not debate you.’ Six years later, in May 2016, five years ago, I challenged her again, along with the Labor Party, and again she wouldn’t debate me. She won’t debate me because they haven’t got the facts.
So let’s go instead to someone who used to be part of the Obama administration, Steven Koonin—or should I say Professor Steven Koonin. He has written a book called Unsettled, and he says: ‘Heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900’—121 years ago. Secondly, he says, ‘the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past 50 years’. So much for warming! Thirdly, humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. These are facts. These are things that I have spoken about in the past in this chamber. Professor Koonin continues: ‘Tornado frequency and severity are also not trending up, nor are the number and severity of droughts. The extent of global fires has been trending significantly downward. The rate of sea-level rise has not accelerated. Global crop yields are rising, not falling.’ And listen to this: ‘And while global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are obviously higher now than two centuries ago, they’re not at any record planetary high. They’re at a low that has only been seen once before in the past, 500 million years ago’—as I have said repeatedly. Since all those data that Mr Koonin uses are available to others, he poses the obvious question: ‘Why haven’t you heard these facts before?’ He’s cautious—perhaps overly so—in proposing the causes for so much misinformation. He points to such things as incentives to invoke alarm for fundraising purposes and official reports that mislead by omission. Exactly!
Let me touch on the CSIRO. The CSIRO has admitted to me—we’ve had three presentations from the CSIRO—under my cross-examination that there is no danger from carbon dioxide from human activity. They’ve admitted today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. And they have claimed the rate of warming is, but their own papers reveal that that is false.
There is no merit to this matter of public urgency. We say: toss it in the can.
WILL ANYONE TELL ME THEY’VE CALCULATED HOW MUCH CLIMATE POLICY COSTS?
Our commissioned report by economist Dr Alan Moran estimates that climate policies cost Australians $13 billion every year. You would think on such a costly policy area the government would have made its own estimates. Well they haven’t, not even the Productivity Commission could give me a figure or tell me where the proof that human CO2 affects climate and needs to be cut is.
Transcript
Senator Roberts, you have the call.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for being here tonight. I understand the Productivity Commission does analysis of policy sometimes; impacts, so on. Good policy in my view would be based on specifically, particularly in terms of climate change and energy policies, would be based upon specified, quantified impacts of carbon dioxide. In other words, for a given amount of carbon dioxide output from humans, it would have a quantified effect on climate factors, such as temperature. Now you’ve written reports on climate change, I believe. Have you ever identified any specified quantified link between human carbon dioxide and any climate factor? Whether it be temperature, rainfall, droughts, storms, whatever. Specific quantified impact.
So Senator, sorry, Michael Brennan the Chair of the Productivity Commission. I would have to check, it’s a while since we’ve done work that went specifically to climate change or other related policies like energy policy. For the most part, the scientific basis for the work, I think has been based on findings from organisations like the IPCC. So it hasn’t been the practise of the commission to second guess the scientific assessment made by other entities. But possibly to make a judgement about the economic policy response and how best the economic policy response might sit with that science. But as I say, it’s some time, I would have to take on notice the last bit of work we have done that was specifically on climate or a related policy and confirm that response.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you’ve not been able to identify specific, quantified impacts between human carbon dioxide and temp and climate factors.
Well, I’m really saying that it wasn’t necessarily we would not have seen that as part of our…
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. But you have to, yes. Okay. So I’m not finding you wrong for doing that, but you haven’t seen that. Have you assessed the, you have assessed the costs and benefits of policies?
I’m going to have to take that on notice because it’s a while. And I might even turn to Mr. Latimer because his history with the commission is longer than mine. It’s certainly in recent years, we haven’t done work in this area going back 10 to 15 years, possibly.
2012, we did some work on barriers to effective climate change adaptation, but we haven’t done a lot of work in this arena.
[Malcolm Roberts] Wouldn’t it be difficult to assess a policy if there’s no specified quantified link between the cause, the claimed cause carbon dioxide from human activity, and the impact supposedly?
Well, it could be potentially, but it would be, if we were to undertake work of that nature we would be taking the science as given by what we would take to be the expert scientific community.
Okay.
[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve had policies now going on at least 25, sorry, not in ’96, 25 years that are impacting energy, generation, agriculture, industry, transport, personal as well as business. And these had billions of dollars of impact throttling us back in our economy, especially relative to our competitors. Could you tell me, on notice, what advice you have given to governments? Not you, but the Productivity commission, has given to governments and MPs and ministers since 1996. Please, just the type of communication, the date, the type of communication, who it was sent to, and what the advice was, please?
You said it all. We can certainly take that on notice. It’ll be predominantly in the form of written reports that we will have published. That that’s our primary end for the most part, the overwhelming bulk of our communications with government.
[Malcolm Roberts] And if you could note the specific advice in there. Just a summary of that advice, please?
We’ll see what we can do. Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. Thanks. Thanks Chair. That’s all.
The CEFC holds $10 billion of taxpayer money to be used on wasteful green projects. They are meant to get a healthy return for splashing your cash at renewable pipe dreams, but their profit has gone down by 30% in a year.
All of this is to supposedly cut down on harmless CO2, which you and I breathe in and out all day. The fact that the CEFC exists is just another example of how green-left this apparently conservative government has gone.
Transcript
Senator Roberts.
[Senator Roberts] Thank you chair. Could you tell me what is clean energy? Just a quick preliminary question before we get into it.
Well, ideally Senator clean energy is one that is doesn’t produce emissions.
[Senator Roberts] Emissions of what?
Emissions of carbon dioxide or their equivalent is how we would, I guess broadly considered clinically. I mean, it’s not a technical term, but in the, in the general parlance.
[Senator Roberts] So, what’s dirty about carbon dioxide?
Well.
[Senator Roberts] ‘Cause you’re exhaling it right now.
Yeah. I mean, it’s omnipresent around us. I appreciate that, Senator. But what we’re about is is trying to decarbonize the Australian economy in the electricity sector and the ag sector and infrastructure and property and so on. So that’s, that’s what we’re about. And part of that is investing in renewables which are of course, clean energy.
[Senator Roberts] So there are a few leaps there we’ll, we’ll ignore the leaps. But if we look around inside this building and outside. Everything that we see in here has come from the use of energy and human progress over the last 170 years has been due entirely to the ever decreasing cost in real terms of energy except for the last 25 years, since 1996 where the costs have doubled and in fact more than doubled. So we’re reversing human progress on the basis that carbon dioxide is a dirty gas, correct?
In fact, power prices during the day in many states of Australia are extremely low today, and in some cases have been negative. So I don’t know if that is always the case.
[Senator Roberts] Wholesale prices and consumer prices, especially for families have increased dramatically in the last 25 years. So let’s get onto the clean energy finances claim. This is quote, we invest to lead the market operating with commercial rigor to address some of Australia’s toughest emissions challenges in agriculture, energy generation and storage infrastructure, property, transport and waste with $10 billion to invest on behalf of the Australian government. We work to hope that’s the people we work to deliver a positive return for taxpayers across our portfolio. So the clean energy finance corporation is normalised surplus. What some people might argue is a kin to a profit from operations. Excluding extenuating circumstances in 2019-20 was $100.5 million compared with 143.6 million the year before. Isn’t that a disappointing decline? And do you expect a recovery?
We’re very proud of our economic record, Senator and the you know, the operating surplus that we produced last year we think is, we think is a significant achievement. In fact, when you take away from that operating surplus net operating circles the cost of government funding we still produce a profit for the Australian taxpayers. So we, you know I think what we’ve done investing successfully across all those sectors that you mentioned it has been a terrific achievement.
[Senator Roberts] So what does it return? I would calculate it as about 1%.
Well, it depends how you, how you look at it. Senator we, we’ve directed by the government to try and achieve a portfolio benchmark return across across the whole portfolio. And if you look at our sort of cumulative return through to 31 March of this year our return is approximately 4.63%. So I, you know, I think that’s a that’s a very positive return.
[Senator Roberts] Okay. Secondly, the clean energy finance corporation impairment provision at 30th of June, 2020 was $121.1 million compared with 59.7 million in the previous year. So that’s a 100% increase and it represented 5.1% of loans and advances at amotised cost compared with 2.3% in 2018, 19. So it’s more than doubled.
Remember it’s a provision, senators. It’s no, it’s not a loss or right off of any of our assets. And we’re pleased to say that we have negligible losses in our portfolio across the course of the eight years that we have been, we’ve been investing. The increase is a reflection of some of the, you know, some of the challenges that we have taken into account in relation to wind and solar projects and the challenges with grid and marginal loss factors and curtailment. So to be prudent and conservative, we did increase in payment provision substantially last year. I’ll maybe get my CFO.
Senator, I might also just add that one of the factors that we were considering back in August when we were wrapping up the June financial year end was that everybody was projecting at that point that we were headed into a recession. And if you’re headed into a recession, your probability of default on loans will increase. So we prudently put extra money aside to provision for that event. Fortunately, with hindsight now we did not head into a recession. We were back on the way out and we’re, we’re experiencing growth now. So that prudent provision that stood there at that point in time was not needed because we did not suffer actual losses. That was just a provision —
[Senator Roberts] So the 5.1% includes the provision?
That was all provision. So it was purely a statistical calculation on the probability of default. If we had low electricity prices. We were headed into a recession and really the property market as well. People are looking at that and saying, we’re not quite sure what’s going to happen with valuations in property. And so we had to prudently provide for those things fortunately, not required in hindsight.
[Senator Roberts] Okay. Thank you. What are your projections for impairment over the next five years?
Over the next five years, it’s actually spelled out in the budget papers and I can give you that exact number but effectively we’re not projecting an increase dramatically in the provision. So if we look at, I’m on page 166. The budget papers, and we provide in there on about halfway down the page, write down an impairment of assets. There’s in the budget year, 45 million. Now that’s a combination of two things. There’s about 20 odd million dollars of true impairment provision that we allow for. And about 25 million that we’re providing in the event that we have to invest at suboptimal rates to provide some stability in the grid. One of the things that’s factored in here is the grid reliability fund. We expect that we will have to invest equity. In some cases that equity may be at less than market rates. So instead of a concessional charge, it ends up as an impairment charge. You write it down to the fair value. Now that’s to make sure that the grid can cope with the, the ongoing changes to the generation nature.
[Senator Roberts] So how much have you on another question, how much have you written off in terms of lost capital and foregone interest?
Over the entire life of the corporation? I think from memory it’s like, it may be as high as 800,000. We can take it on —
[Senator Roberts] No, it’s, it’s a bit immaterial in the scheme of the scale of the CFC.
It’s lifting the signal. I’m going to give the call to send it to McAlester.
Okay.
[Senator Roberts] Everything that you’re putting money into has a subsidy. It can’t stand on its own merits. Aren’t you lending money out and expecting to get it back?
We, I mean, as you know, as we’ve discussed all our capital expected capital has been returned with the expected income. And, and I’m not sure about your statement there that everything that we’ve invested in is is receiving a subsidy. You know, we’ve a very broad investor, right? From large scale projects to, as I say, in property you know, even, you know, things like the build to rent sector and venture capital and clean technologies. And so I, you know, I’m not sure why you think that all all the sectors and all the companies and projects we’ve invested in would be receiving subsidies.
Senator, I’m Simon Avery, head of government stakeholder relations might be of some assistance there under our act. And this goes to the question you asked earlier about a definition of clean energy technology. The three heads of definition are renewable energy technologies energy efficiency, technologies and low emissions technologies. And so while as you point out renewable energy technologies may have some subsidies. For example, through the renewable energy target for most of the energy efficiency technologies there’s no subsidy involved. And in fact, over the life of the CFC, I think we’ve we’ve made about $9.1 billion worth of commitments. And there would only be about $55 million worth of concessional subsidy that CFC has itself offered 55 million odd over 9.1 billion of lifetime commitments is a drop in the bucket.
[Senator Roberts] So last question chair, the energy minister, Mr. Taylor has cited publicly the Bloomberg graph on investment per capita in various countries around the world in solar and wind. And Australia has double the per capita investment of any other country. Number two country, I think is America. It’s with just over double with six times China’s investment in that, even though they make all of our solar most of our solar panels and wind turbines. So other than providing still further assistance wind and solar. How does this funding encourage private investment in Australia’s renewable energy sector when the evidence suggested that we’re already over investing and bringing bringing quite damaging consequences to us as we’ve heard?
Yeah. I mean, there’s a couple of things in there, Senator, I mean, remember of course, Australia is a world leader in rooftop solar. So, you know, they’ve kind of in excess of two gigawatts of rooftop, solar is is installed each year at the moment in this country. So that accounts for some of the, you know the per capita figures that that you cite in terms of, you know, attracting, you know the use of the private sector and why isn’t that investing well, the good thing is that that we have been creating in private sector investment over the course of, of our life at the CFC and for every dollar that we have, in fact invested we have credited in $2.40 of third party capital. So part of what we’re about is, is coming into, you know into projects, you know, supporting companies and we at the same time are trying to attract in the private sector be they Australian banks, international equity, you know large scale infrastructure funds and so on. And so we’re about bringing in the private sector and you know, not creating any more now.
Even the energy minister has admitted he is scared for the future security and stability of our grid because of the rapid influx of renewables. Climate activists continue to falsely claim that wind and solar is the cheapest form of energy.
It’s a lie. When you take away the billions of dollars in subsidies coal is still the cheapest form of energy.
Transcript
[Senator Fawcett] Senator Roberts.
[Senator Roberts] Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for attending today. I’d like to ask questions on three topics. Firstly, prices, reliability and stability of the electricity network and supply. Secondly, hydrogen. And thirdly carbon dioxide storage. So firstly on prices, reliability, and stability. In your recent report on 14 large scale wind and solar projects in which ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation invested, it says that you “Played an important role in accelerating the early development of the large scale solar industry in Australia and the integration of utility scale renewable energy generation in the national electricity market.” Could you please confirm or correct these specific findings amongst others? Firstly, negative pricing impacts increased significantly in 2020, particularly for Queensland projects.
Senator, I’m not paying attention to the energy markets closely enough to answer that question.
[Senator Roberts] Okay. Secondly, initial project forecasts consistently underestimated curtailment and residual losses, while capacity factors were generally overestimated.
Again, Senator, that’s a report I’d have to go back and have a look at to answer that question.
[Senator Roberts] Third one, incorrectly assumed adequate transmission. And fourthly, the regulator says power cannot be fed into the grid because of instability.
Sorry, what’s the question there?
[Senator Roberts] The regulator, could you confirm or correct whether the regulator says that power cannot be fed into the grid because of instability problems in the grid?
Senator, what’s the context for that?
[Senator Roberts] Well, these are the reports. This is a report in which ARENA and Clean Energy Finance produced on 14 large scale wind and solar projects.
I would need to refresh myself in the report to answer the question.
[Senator Roberts] I’ll just make the statements and maybe you could comment. The fifth point: Frequency Control Ancillary Services costs were both a significant expense and a major operational challenge for several projects. Although this reduced from 2019 to 2020, as Frequency Control Ancillary Services prices have fallen and several projects implemented sales forecasting. And the last point: the failure of critical equipment, especially failure of inverted power stack and the lack of market readily available spares were a major operational challenge for asset managers. Have these, and similar projects, contributed to the instability of electricity market over recent years?
Senator, I don’t believe so.
[Senator Roberts]Snowy Hydro seems to agree. They’re warning us that the transition from a stable base load power from coal is a fact and it’s going to be fraught with risk.
Well, Senator, as the penetration of renewables increases, those issues need to be addressed. The storage and the reliability of the system. You’re asking about the past, have they in the past, and I’m not sure that those projects have caused any instability, as you suggest.
[Senator Roberts] The estimated costs of Frequency Control Ancillary Services, lot of acronyms here isn’t there, for unreliables was initially estimated, about 20 years ago, at just 1% of the cost of electricity. This is before we got onto this transition. It’s not significant cost in coal gas, nuclear and hydro, yet with the unreliables, the wind and solar, it’s now around 8 to 9%. Is that a factor in your plans?
Senator, what’s unreliable?
[Senator Roberts] Wind and solar.
Variable renewables?
[Senator Roberts] Yes.
Right.
[Senator Roberts] So the cost Frequency Control Ancillary Services is now around 8 to 9%.
Senator, I’d have to go and check the market for you and get back to you. I’m not close to those numbers on a daily basis.
[Senator Roberts] Okay, so if you could take it on notice then, the cost of Frequency Control Ancillary Services in aggregate, across electricity sector, and also for wind and for solar, typically, are you aware that the Minister for Energy himself recently admitted, quite publicly and strongly, his fears about future prices, his fears about unreliability, and his fears about grid instability?
Yes.
[Senator Roberts] Aren’t these inherent flaws in unreliable wind and solar, that are not present, or are negligible, in coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear?
Senator, it’s very possible, technically and economically, to build a system with renewable energy that is reliable, safe, secure, low emissions, and low cost.
[Senator Roberts] But not base load power.
Ultimately, all of that combined gives you base load power because if you balance your wind and solar effectively, with pumped hydro, with batteries, gas generators, as the case may be, you can create base load power.
[Senator Roberts] Has anyone done it anywhere in the world, as a nation?
Senator, we’re well on our way to doing it in Australia.
[Senator Roberts] Okay. Coal, gas, hydro, nuclear in other countries, and formerly in our country, were they reliable base load power sources because they provided stability, reliability, and high energy density. Now, as I see it, and from what I’ve read, unreliables like wind and solar have very low energy density. That’s what makes them inefficient. That’s fundamental basic physics. They’re inherently high cost of making solar panels and wind turbines because of the high resource consumption. It takes for a kilowatt hour of coal, it takes about 35 tonnes of steel. For the same in wind, it takes about 543 tonnes of steel. So inherently higher cost, higher energy used in making them, and much more land needed for solar, and higher energy intensity in manufacturing. So to me, it just seems that the basics are not sound. I’d like your views
Senator, I’ll take solar for example. The technology I know a little bit better than wind. ARENA hasn’t funded any wind technology in our history. Solar has an energy payback of between 12 and 18 months, and the panels last for 20 to 30 years in the field. And the International Energy Agency has come out and said that solar PV is the cheapest form of energy ever, in the history of the world. So those themes from the International Energy Agency, and the things that we’re seeing, are aligned. We think that wind and solar combined with those other technologies to balance the system will give us a very cheap, stable, low emissions energy system, contrary to your perspective.
[Senator Roberts] So if for a given amount of energy needed from a solar panel, we need about three of them to take care of feeding a battery for taking us through the night, and also for days of poor weather. So is that factored in, or just the single solar panel? Because they’re the figures I’ve seen.
It’s the whole system, Senator.
[Senator Roberts] Yeah, I’d like, could you give me a breakdown of those, please? Because I don’t believe them. The breakdown of those costs.
Of what costs?
[Senator Roberts] Solar.
What would you like to know?
[Senator Roberts] I’d like you to compare a solar to a coal-fired power station, base load power. Battery, the number of cells you need.
Well, I’ll take it one question at a time. A solar farm built today can cost in the range of $40 to $50 a megawatt hour as its output. A coal station that you would build today would be at least double that, if it was a HELE coal station. And you’ve seen the prices for gas. We know that gas generators need at least $100 a megawatt hour, and an open cycle, and open cycle gas station to produce profit. So, solar at 40 to 50, and wind at about the same range, is cheaper than other forms of electricity generation today.
[Senator Roberts] So why is it that everywhere in the world, as the as the proportion of solar and wind increases, the cost of electricity in that nation increases dramatically.
Senator, I haven’t seen the figures that you’re talking about. You say every country in the world that’s done it, I’ve not heard-
[Senator Roberts] I’ve seen several graphs from independent sources showing, looking at it from your view, the more solar and wind increase, the higher the cost of electricity.
You’re welcome to share that with me. I can have a look at it.
[Senator Roberts] So One Nation commissioned Dr. Alan Moran, who was a First Assistant Secretary of the Industry Department, a First Assistant Commissioner of the Productivity Commission, and Deputy Secretary of Energy in the Victorian government, to report on the cost of climate and unreliables. Apparently, those figures used to be consolidated once but they’re no longer consolidated. Excluding the costs of transmission, expenditures on Snowy 2.0, and cost of market operator interventions, Dr. Moran has estimated the annual cost in 2018-19 over renewable energy subsidies and support at $6.9 billion. This estimate was made from publicly available information in state and federal budget papers and from regulatory authorities. So all from the governments. It comprises Commonwealth expenditures, the cost of Commonwealth subsidy schemes, and state expenditures and subsidy schemes. Do you agree with Alan Moran’s estimate of 6.9 billion?
Senator, I’m not aware of his work.
[Senator Roberts] Do you have any idea of the extra cost of solar and wind on top of the additional, on top of ordinary electricity costs?
Senator, those figures are readily available. And I think one of the things that gets missed when looking at that figure, for example, the subsidy figure, as you call it, is the benefit that the renewables have provided the system in terms of lower costs, as you’ve pointed out, you know, it has been pointed out that the effect of having wind and solar in the market is to suppress prices. And I think we can see that in today’s market. So I think you have to be fair and look at the benefits or the impact of renewables on a holistic basis, rather than just looking at the subsidies, which were necessary to get solar and wind, for example, to the point where they are the cheapest form of energy generation. And I think we’re seeing the benefit of that in today’s electricity prices, which are at record low levels, I think.
[Senator Roberts] Are you aware of the study in Spain that says for every so-called green job created there are 2.2 jobs that could have been created had they stayed with coal-fired power station?
Senator, I’m not aware of that study.
[Senator Fawcett] Senator Roberts, you’ve had a pretty good run. How much more do you have?
[Senator Roberts] I’ll ask one more question on this topic, and perhaps we can come back if there’s, if I’ve got time afterwards.
[Senator Fawcett] We’re already well over, in terms of our schedule. I’m keen to move on to Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
[Senator Roberts] What is the effect of these unreliables, wind and solar, compared with the Prime Minister Gillard’s Labor carbon dioxide tax? Do you have any idea?
Sorry Senator, I’m not quite clear how to even answer that question.
[Senator Roberts] Well, I’ve been told that an estimate is that the cost of the Gillard carbon dioxide tax is about half the cost of these extra wind and solar costs on our energy sector.
Senator, I’m just not sure. I can’t answer that question as you’ve put it.
[Senator Roberts] I’ll put the questions on hydrogen and carbon dioxide sequestration on notice.
This government already funnels billions of dollars into renewable energy projects. As huge as that cost is, there is an even bigger silent one: the cost of complying with green regulation.
I was shocked that the Clean Energy Regulator, with a $75 million budget, has never made an estimate of just how much that cost is to business and Australians.
Transcript
Senator. So Senator Roberts, you have the call.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for attending tonight. First of all, what’s clean energy?
[David Parker] Senator, as the Clean Energy Regulator, we have a range of legislation that we’re entrusted to administer and the relevant bits of clean energy are defined in that legislation.
[Malcolm Roberts] So what are they?
[David Parker] Oh, there’s a range. Charlene, would you like to have a go at that?
[Charlene Thompson] Charlene Thompson, Executive General Manager, Scheme Operations Division. So Senator, as part of our administration of various legislative schemes, we are entrusted with looking after the two aspects of the renewable energy target. Which includes the large scale renewable energy target and the smaller scale target. And I believe the eligible technologies under that Act include solar, PV, wind power, I think there’s some bio methane in there as well. So, those things are essentially eligible activities or technologies that attract the incentive provided by the renewable energy target.
[David Parker] So there’s one other, which is heat pump hot water.
[Charlene Thompson] That’s right, yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, what was that?
[David Parker] Heat pump hot water. So, it’s the new hot water systems. Rather than having, you know, electricity go through a resistive heater or a gas heater. You have a heat pump on like a reverse air conditioner, which puts heat into the water. They’re more efficient, use less electricity.
[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s defined as clean, is defined in the regulations, which you have to enforce?
[David Parker] Well, for our purposes, yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. The purpose of the agency is listed as being accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. I think that means carbon dioxide. Any such goal must be tempered by the costs this entails. The Regulator administers a range of programmes, including the Emissions Reduction Fund, the Renewable Energy Target, and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. The Regulator has a budget of about $75 million. Is that about right?
[David Parker] That’s about right, yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s generally recognised that the costs imposed on business by regulations is considerably in excess of the direct costs of the Regulator itself. So, more than your $75 million. Have you estimated the cost of compliance by businesses as required by the government’s regulation review guidelines?
[David Parker] Well, in terms of our existing regular regulation, no, we haven’t done a survey, but let me say, as a matter of culture, we take it as one of our duties to reduce the cost impact of the legislation that we administer. And I think it would be fair to say that we have a good record in that.
[Malcolm Roberts] How do you do that? And what kind of examples can you give me?
[David Parker] Yeah, Okay. So I can give you a range of examples. So, let me take one in the small scale renewable energy space.
[Malcolm Roberts] Small scale?
[David Parker] Small scale. So, this is solar panels on roofs, for example. When that scheme was originally conceived it involved people filling out lots of forms. The forms were shooting out all over the place and eventually winding up at the Regulator. Then we’d have people look at the forms, that would take some time, obviously filling in forms and moving information around the various parties in the industry would have a cost. As one of the innovations that was co-developed with industry, we now have a process called the Solar Panel Validation Arrangements. I won’t go into all of the details, because that will take some time, but broad broadly speaking, what it means is that the installer takes out their telephone. There’s an app on that telephone. They take a photo of the panels, where they’ve been installed. Before and after, so that you can see that it’s been done. That’s an Andy Ford measure. Takes a photograph of the relevant barcodes on the panel. So we know what panels are there. And then, you know, essentially you press submit information. So, it goes through the network, the web, to the various people involved, and it quickly ends up in our shop, for the purposes of validating the install and providing the Renewable Energy Certificates. That data essentially just goes directly into our systems and doesn’t require very much human intervention at all. And so that reduces the time taken to do this. And I could give you a range of other suggestions, like that.
[Malcolm Roberts] So a new scheme is coming in, the Corporate Emissions Reduction Transparency Report.
[David Parker] Yep.
[Malcolm Roberts] And it seeks to gather and codify information from all companies rather than the 2,500 presently covered in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. The scheme was open to public comment until 19th of March, 2021 in a government media release of 19 February. At 28 days, seems a bit short. Was this part of the regulation impact statement procedure required by the government? And have you estimated the paper burden costs of the scheme?
[David Parker] Well, let me just correct some of the facts that you stated. It’s not a requirement to all companies. It’s a requirement for us to set up a framework, which we’ve done. It’s a voluntary arrangement.
[Malcolm Roberts] It’s an opt-in.
[David Parker] It’s an opt-in.
[Malcolm Roberts] Strictly speaking, it’s an opt-in.
[David Parker] Well, whether you call it strictly speaking or want to go to the issues about companies who’d want to opt in and why, it’s formally an opt in arrangement.
[Malcolm Roberts] So is this scheme proceeding?
[David Parker]A scheme is still in the process of development. You told quickly the story of the proposal being put out for consultation, we’ve got quite a substantial amount of feedback from industry about that. In essence, if you like, the scheme is about moving reporting from and this is itself, a simplification, moving reporting under the search process to the extent that companies opt in, moving that from gross emissions. Which is the arrangement under the so-called NGERS Reporting, National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System over to a net story, if companies wish to opt in. And companies, as part of that, will be able to tell their story about how they’re proposing to reduce their net emissions position.
[Malcolm Roberts] So when you talk about emissions, you’re talking about carbon dioxide?
[David Parker] Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.
[David Parker] Or equivalent.
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry?
[David Parker] Or equivalent.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, methane. You’re not talking about nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, particulate or any of the real pollutants.
[David Parker] Well, nitrous oxide is a relevant gas that’s covered. So, anything that anything that’s covered, yep.
[Malcolm Roberts] So it covers real pollutants too? Now it is an opt in programme, as you said. Yet it’s likely, it seems, that green activist organisations will use it to target those companies that initially choose to opt out. To not opt in.
[David Parker] Well, look, I think that remains to be seen. I wouldn’t speculate on how we will use, who might opt in at this stage. I mean, it’s very early in the process. I mean, it’s quite clear that the way climate change issues are being thought about has moved quite clearly into the net space as opposed to the grey space. And so, what this report does is intended to align with that shift.
[Chair] Roberts again, I’d like to hand the court over to Senator Davidson. You can ask two more questions, if you’d like. Then we’ll pass it over.
[Malcolm Roberts] Can you offer information regarding the compliance costs for business?
[David Parker] Look, it’s difficult to say. It will depend on how a company chooses to opt in, on what basis. Whether that’s an equity basis or a basis that comes directly out of the NGERS arrangement. So it’s one of these things, which is quite difficult to say at this point in time.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, last question, if the large scale renewable energy target has been achieved, and I’m told that we have achieved it, why is there a positive price to the renewable energy target subsidy target itself? When any such price is possible only if the regulatory measures are in place requiring retailers to incorporate this energy in their supplies. So if we’ve already achieved it, why are we driving more subsidies to achieve even more?
[David Parker] Well, the price of Large Scale Generation Certificate, so let’s just focus on that, for the purposes of discussing the question. So, the legislation sets a statutory target of 33,000 gigawatt hours. And a couple of things to observe. So there was a statutory target through time, but also a mechanism embedded in the legislation to permit, in technical terms, arbitration. Not arbitration, but arbitrage between the years, pardon me. And there is still some obligation that remains to be met, should a company wish to, right? They’ve taken so-called default arrangement out of that. They could redeem those payments for a certificate. So there’s some sort of old demand. And the other point is that that target is not the only demand that’s there in the market. So, it’s possible for people to voluntarily surrender certificates if they wish. And there are some schemes which also connect into the scheme, such as Green Power. Where, if people wish, they can sort of tick the box, I’m using term somewhat pejorative, but choose to purchase low emissions energy from the energy retailers. And I won’t go into all the details, but that also flows through into an LGC demand on top of the statutory target. So prices are hitting down. We expect them to hit down further, but in terms of where they go over time, as some of those things that I’ve explained with them work themselves out. Where the price heads over time, there there’s a range of views about that.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/8PHb2v_mKLo/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-26 18:00:002021-06-01 17:41:19Government has no idea how much renewables cost – Clean Energy Regulator
I questioned the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner at Senate Estimates. This is one the dozens of climate related agencies that the government pays for in their never-ending pursuit of renewables.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you chair. Thank you, Mr. Dyer, for being here with us.
[Mr. Dyer] My pleasure.
[Malcolm Roberts] The data shows the large project subsidy is around $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide and that’s close to $40 per megawatt hour. If the large scale renewable energy target has been achieved, which is what we’re told why is there a positive price to the renewable energy targets, certificates effectively subsidy when any such price is possible only if the regulatory measures are in place requiring retailers incorporate this energy in their supplies. So if we’ve achieved the target, why is it still there?
[Mr. Dyer] It’s a fantastic good question, but it’s not my area of expertise overall or roles I’m the ombudsman effectively for renewable energy and transmission. So it’s not, one I can comment on
[Malcolm Roberts] Are you the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner?
[Mr. Dyer] It’s formerly the National Wind Farm Commissioner.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah the National Wind Farm Commissioner, okay. So the history of manufacturing, the history of farming, the history of just about any service if it’s dealt with closely and evaluated closely then managing a process is most productive and efficient when variation is minimised. So what we’ve got now is an increase in variation of supply from electricity, and that’s the most crucial sector. So the sector that determines our manufacturing success, our agricultural success, our processing success, the quality of life, the affordability of energy is now being driven by increasing variability through wind and solar which have notoriously variable, energy supplies. Is there any thought been given to that? That’s inherently more expensive.
[Mr. Dyer] Senator, my role is to help work with communities and proponents and governments to help the rolled out of projects to occur in the country around the country. I don’t set the policy about what should be put out there on a pathway to help resolve concerns.
[Malcolm Roberts] Do you have any concerns from citizens as I do from our constituents that we’re supposed to be doing all of this stuff, transitioning to unreliable energy because of climate yet, we’re transitioning to the two things that are make us even more dependent on weather and climate variability, seems insane to me. Do you have any constituents as I do who are complaining about that?
[Mr. Dyer] Most constituents, the complaint to us, very supportive of renewable energy, but just don’t want one in their backyard.
[Malcolm Roberts] Why is that?
[Mr. Dyer] Because of the perceived impacts of the visual amenity noise, property values, of fire risk and a whole range of things that might to be tabled to our attention.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s low vibes, low frequency vibrations in particular?
[Mr. Dyer] Yes. There have been a body of complaints about what’s called infrasound.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. Yeah. I’ve heard them of people in severe pain, trauma almost due to it. Has any study being done on the impact of wind turbines on energy and Earth’s atmosphere and the effects of that wind turbines taking energy out of the atmosphere.
[Mr. Dyer] Not to my knowledge.
[Malcolm Roberts] It might seem very minuscule but then you see labor’s carbon dioxide tax was introduced to cut the number of carbon dioxide molecules in air from one in 5.7 million produced by humans to one in 6 million. So that seems very minuscule too but we’ve got a whole industry and the decimation of other industries based on a theory that when in reality nature is shown to control the level of carbon dioxide in the air. So no studies have been done looking at the effect of taking energy out of earth’s atmosphere and out of the earth’s winds that you’re aware of. I’m not aware of any either.
[Mr. Dyer] No, there’s been theories around that. Wind turbines might cause frost because they take the wind out of the sail, so to speak. And the top here that might protect vineyard from causing frost could be at risk. But when we’ve dug into those research matters there hasn’t been any substance to them.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. So wind sources of power are not reliable. They’re unreliable, they’re costly inherently so because they’re very low density energy they’re unstable in terms of they’re being asynchronous. When they’re added to the grid, they increase instability. They’re scattered, which increases transmission costs. They have limited life sometimes as short as 10 to 15 years then I have an environmental legacy with massive burials in Wyoming for example. I don’t know what’s going to happen in Australia. Is anyone talking about those issues?
[Mr. Dyer] Decommissioning is certainly a big topic at the moment as we come to end of life of many wind farms around the country and who pays, who is accountable, what is the disposal, disposal mechanism for things their blades is a hot topic. Thank you very much Mr. Dyer.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority makes very scary claims that CO2 is destroying the reef. They do this even though they cannot provide the specific effect of human carbon dioxide on climate factors like air or ocean temperature.
The greens are always rattled when I start to pick apart these claims and you can hear them try to smear me throughout the video.
Transcript
[Chair] Thank you for attending today.
[Malcolm Roberts] First question is: what empirical scientific evidence does the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority have within a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect, and specifically proves that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut to save the Reef? GBRMPA has said a lot about that. And I’d like to know what evidence in specific.
[Joshua Thomas] I’ll ask my chief scientist to address that, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Mr Thomas.
[David Wachenfeld], Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not our direct business. There are thousands of scientists all over the world who do research into climate and the effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Those, the work of those scientists is synthesised and summarised in the assessment reports of the IPCC. We don’t independently assess evidence for the effects of carbon dioxide on atmosphere and climate. And that’s a global issue, not a Great Barrier Reef issue.
[Malcolm Roberts] So I understand… I’ve forgotten your name, I’m sorry.
[David Wachenfeld] David Wachenfeld.
[Malcolm Roberts] Mr. Wachenfeld. I understand that…
[Whish-Wilson] Doctor.
[Malcolm Roberts] Doctor. Thanks. I understand that… GBRMPA. Do we have any advance on David? Okay. I understand that GBRMPA has echoed those claims and spread those claims that carbon dioxide needs to be cut to save the Barrier Reef. Is that correct?
[David Wachenfeld] So the Authority’s position is well set out in that Climate Change Position Statement, and yes-
[Malcolm Roberts] What is that?
[Joshua Thomas] So we have a position statement that articulates quite clearly that we see climate change as the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. And that all action should be taken to reduce emissions over time at a global, national and local scale.
[Malcolm Roberts] So according to Dr. Wachenfeld, the evidence for that is in the IPCC.
[Joshua Thomas] No, Senator. The evidence for that is in probably thousands of scientific papers by scientists-
[Malcolm Roberts] You can’t point to where it is specifically for the basis of that policy?
[David Wachenfeld] Well, Senator, there is… I’m trying to summarise here a vast body of global research conducted by scientists all over the world that is probably most authoritatively summarised in the IPCC reports. The specific consequences of climate change for the Great Barrier Reef are also covered by the work of many scientists through many institutions. That work is summarised in our Outlook Report, which we produce every five years.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you for repeating it again. Mr. Thomas has just told me, your position statement says it’s carbon dioxide from human activity is the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Now I want to know what specifically you rely on. Pinpointed. Where’s the specific scientific data within a logical scientific framework that proves human carbon dioxide affects the Barrier Reef. And here’s the quote, Mr. Thomas: “the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef.”
[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, as Dr. Wachenfeld is trying to explain, there are thousands of sources that we can-
[Malcolm Roberts] I just want one.
[Joshua Thomas] That we consider and digest. And we’d be very happy to provide you a summary or a list of some of those sources that we rely on heavily.
[Malcolm Roberts] What I would like and make very clear is the empirical scientific data within a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect that specifically states the link between carbon dioxide and various climate factors, such as water temperature, ocean temperature, air temperature, rainfall, droughts, winds, currents, ocean alkalinity. That’s what I would like. Until you have that, it’s no basis for policy, no basis for your statement.
[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, we do have that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Good. I’d like to see it.
[Joshua Thomas] Well, it’s in the Outlook Report, is the short answer.
[Malcolm Roberts] Can you give me the page, please.
[Joshua Thomas] Sorry?
[Malcolm Roberts] Can you give me the specific page of the specific effect of carbon dioxide? To make a policy and a statement on a position statement such as Mr. Thomas has made, we need the specific link between amount of carbon dioxide and impact on those various climate factors. I want to know where it is.
[Joshua Thomas] So, Senator, that’s not one piece of work. The impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on our atmosphere, the greenhouse effect that they have warming our atmosphere, obviously that’s global research. As the atmosphere warms, the ocean warms. That means the Great Barrier Reef warms. The Great Barrier Reef is approximately 0.9 of a degree warmer than it was about a century ago.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in the human cause. I want to see the link, the quantified link. Because until you provide that, there’s no basis for Dr. Thomas’s position statement. I want to know the link.
[Joshua Thomas] Yes, Senator, there is a basis for that position statement.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’d like to see it then.
[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, it’s present in a vast body of global science summarised by-
[Malcolm Roberts] So you can’t give me a specific link to that policy?
[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator.
[David Wachenfeld] The policy, yes, Senator. I’ve got it right here.
[Malcolm Roberts] Specific quantified link stating carbon dioxide from human activity.
[Joshua Thomas] Dr. Wachenfeld has tried to answer your question. The Outlook Report is our best digest of the information available to us about the pressures on the Great Barrier Reef, of which we see climate change as being the greatest. That report has some 1400 citations in it. We’d be very happy to point them out to you here this evening in the back of that document, or separately provide them on notice to you.
[Malcolm Roberts] I just want the specific, I just want the specific interest.
[Whish-Wilson] This is the elbow we’re talking about. It might be very different than Senator Roberts’s ward.
[Roberts] So what-
[Chair] Senator. Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator Whish-Wilson. You do not have the call. Can I suggest that you do take that on notice? I think what Senator Roberts is after, is a worked example of one of those pieces of work that demonstrates the linkage he’s talking about. Could I ask you perhaps to take that on notice if that answers your question?
[Malcolm Roberts] Sure. And I’ll make the comment, Chair, that when people align or smear, it indicates they don’t have the evidence. So that’s… Not accusing you of doing that by the way.
[Joshua Thomas] I rest my case.
[Malcolm Roberts] So are you aware that Liberal, Labor and National Party MPs have told me that they have never seen such evidence for the Reef nor for climate generally? Are you aware?
[Joshua Thomas] No. Senator, I’m not aware of what other politicians have told you. Sorry.
[Malcolm Roberts] Are you aware that the Howard-Anderson government introduced a renewable energy target that is now gutting our electricity sector, stole farmers property rights to comply with the UN’s gear of protocols, and was the first major party to introduce a carbon dioxide tax?
[Chair] Senator Whish-Wilson.
[Whish-Wilson] You live in-
[Chair] Senator Whish-Wilson. Interjections are disorderly. And Senator Roberts, can I ask you to come to the point on relevant questions that the officials can answer without long preambles. The hour is late and we have another two sections to get through.
[Malcolm Roberts] So on notice you’re gonna provide the evidence. What I highlight, is that I need the specific quantified relationship between human carbon dioxide production and climate factors, including air temperature, ocean temperature, ocean alkalinity, winds, and currents. Is that clear?
[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, I should just point out here. We will provide that information to you. We may need to consult other portfolios-
[Malcolm Roberts]Happy to hear that.
[Joshua Thomas] And other experts who have the Commonwealth lead on climate policy.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZDdSIB_tuCs/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-25 11:00:002021-05-27 09:05:56CO2 is not the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef – Senate Estimates GBRMPA
The temperature data supplied by the Bureau of Meteorology is relied on by many climate agencies to support claims of climate change. Some of this data however has been modified. If BOM has been getting it wrong, how can we trust that they are now getting it right? I asked them last night at Senate Estimates.
Transcript
[Senator Roberts] I draw your attention to your State of the Climate reports, 2016 and 2018, and specifically the two graphs of Australian surface air temperatures. One in State of the Climate 2016 on page four and the other in State of the Climate 2018 on page two. Are you familiar with those reports?
[Dr. Johnson] I’m familiar with the reports, but I confess, you know, I haven’t committed those pages to memory.
[Senator Roberts] I can understand that.
[Dr. Johnson] No, I am familiar with the reports, yeah.
[Senator Roberts] One of our research scientists, in updating his records, compared your 2016 graph on page four and your 2018 graph on page two. He then obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology the actual temperatures used in producing those two graphs. He found the two graphs very different for the dates from 1910 to 2016 yet surely the temperature data from 1910 to 2016 should be the same for both graphs, shouldn’t they?
[Dr. Johnson] I believe so, but again, I’d need to check exactly what you’re referring to ’cause they may, Dr. Stone has the report, I think, in front of him. Are you able to shed any light on this?
[Dr. Stone] I’ve got the more recent one. I’m sorry. And like Dr. Johnson, I haven’t committed.
[Dr. Johnson] I’m happy to take these-
[Dr. Stone] It might be easier just to- So we’re comparing apples with apples, Senator, and happy to answer your question.
[Senator Roberts] So let me get to the core point, then. The only changes to produce the 2018 graph should have been, as we see it, the addition of data from 2017 to 2018 on top of the 2016 graph, yet the actual data shows that in the 2018 graph, temperatures after about 1970, looking at the graph, from your perspective, are inflated and progressively increased. And the temperatures before 1970 have been progressively decreased with the effect of increasing the slope of the temperature graph, exaggerating the warming. So I’d like to know what is the reason, on notice, what is the reason for this when temperatures of historical records end up records up to and including 2016 should not have changed at all, let alone systematically changed one way after 1970 and the other way before 1970 to exaggerate the warming. I’d like to know that answer.
[Dr. Johnson] I think we’re happy to take that on notice to make sure we’re answering your question accurately, Senator.
[Senator Roberts] On notice, what basis, on what basis were the temperature data from 1910 to 2016 changed to produce the 2018 graph for the years 1910 to 2016. And has the Bureau of Meteorology’s Australian temperature record been wrong every year until 2018? Can you guarantee that the 2018 record would not turn out to be wrong in 2024? Or is the Australian temperature record anything that BOM says it is? That’s what I need to answer.
[Dr. Johnson] Take those questions on notice, chair, if that’s alright.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ILquABt6bBE/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-25 09:39:472021-06-01 17:42:13What happened to the temperatures? Bureau of Meteorology
The one thing we have never had in the Senate is empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut.
I have repeatedly challenged the greens to debate me on climate change. They refuse to because they don’t have the facts.
Transcript
So far we’ve had a global warming emergency, then a climate change emergency, then a climate catastrophe emergency. Now we’ve got a climate collapse emergency. One thing we’ve never had is any empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. I first challenged Senator Waters to debate me and to provide the scientific evidence 10½ years ago. She immediately declined. She declined again in 2016 and again 602 days ago in the Senate. There has been nothing since, because there is no such evidence justifying the collapse of our electricity sector. What is threatened with extinction here is not our planet; it is our civilisation and it is science.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/JbOQ3oto85k/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-17 12:24:392021-05-17 12:28:33Debate me on climate – Challenge ignored for 602 days
First it was the hole in the ozone layer, then global warming, then it was climate change, now it’s climate collapse.
Alarmists keep moving the goalposts because their claims are simply not true. I spoke to this in the Senate last week.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I’ll discuss collapses already underway, and none of them involves a climate collapse—firstly, the economic collapse. In the name of unsubstantiated climate alarm, the Howard-Anderson Liberal-Nationals government, starting in 1996, colluded with the states to deceitfully bypass the Constitution to steal farmers’ property rights to comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. It concocted Australia’s first major party emissions trading scheme, a carbon dioxide tax to comply with UN dictates. It introduced the Renewable Energy Target, which has grown to now cost Australians an additional $13 billion each year, every year in their electricity costs, again to comply with UN dictates. In the name of climate, our electricity prices have risen artificially from the world’s lowest to now be the world’s highest. Manufacturing has collapsed. We no longer make cars; we make fewer household appliances; and we make no manufacturing tools, which are crucial for our security. Agriculture is being hammered. The Liberal-National energy minister, Angus Taylor, openly states he has fears for electricity prices, reliability and grid stability. Under this budget’s dreamy forecast, bets on hydrogen and continued subsidisation of expensive unreliables like wind and solar, we’re enduring a manufacturing collapse and we face economic collapse.
The second collapse is the collapse of science. Here are some facts. Firstly, on Monday 26 September 2016 the CSIRO confirmed that it has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and said it never will. So why do the Greens push policies for economic collapse? Why have Liberal-National and Labor governments enacted policies over 2½ decades for economic collapse? Secondly, on Wednesday 10 May 2017, in this building, the CSIRO admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. That means we didn’t cause the current mild cyclical warming that ended around 1995. So why did the Greens push policies for economic collapse? Why have Liberal-National and Labor governments for 2½ decades driven economic collapse? According to NASA satellites, global atmospheric temperatures have been essentially flat with no warming for more than a quarter of a century. Despite China, despite India, despite America, despite Europe and despite Russia producing record quantities of carbon dioxide, higher human production of carbon dioxide has not increased temperatures. So why do the Greens push policies for economic collapse? Why have Liberal-National and Labor governments driven for the last 2½ decades economic collapse?
Following the global financial crisis, most nations were in recession during 2009. In 2020, as a result of government COVID restrictions around the world, nations were again in recession. In both recession years, the use of hydrocarbon fuels fell and human carbon dioxide production fell, yet in both recession years atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued increasing. Nature alone controls the carbon dioxide levels, so why do the Greens push policies for economic collapse? Why have Liberal, Nationals and Labor governments driven economic collapse for the last 2½ decades? The Bureau of Meteorology data on cyclones in Australia show no trend in cyclone frequency, severity or duration. There’s no climate catastrophe. The most severe drought in the last 120 years was the 1920s to 1940s drought. The next worst was the Federation drought in 1901. There is no climate catastrophe. Floods, bushfires, snowfall and every other climate factor show no change, just natural cyclical variation. There is no climate catastrophe. It’s been 601 days since my latest challenge to the Greens to present the data on which they base this nonsense and to debate me on the climate science and the corruption of climate science.
Finally, there’s no unprecedented global warming. There’s no climate change. There’s no climate catastrophe. There’s no climate collapse; instead, we have a collapse of science. The collapse of science led to an energy collapse that caused an economic collapse. Welcome to the Greens nightmare that is now the Liberals, Nationals and Labor nightmare. This is what happens when data is ignored and, instead, governance is based on unfounded opinions, personal and party political agendas, cronies, headlines, fear, emotions, UN policies, party donations and serving vested interests. And who pays for this atrocious governance and for these climate lies? We the people pay.
