Posts

Net Zero’s Price Tag: Why Won’t They Tell Us?

,

I have consistently asked the government and its bureaucrats for a straight answer on the total cost of reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions to meet their targets, yet no one can provide it. I’ve heard figures ranging from hundreds of billions to $1.9 trillion, but Australians deserve to know the real number. We need transparency on what these policies will cost compared to doing nothing at all.

I made it clear what I’m asking about: the costs of wind and solar generators, transmission lines for scattered renewables, shutting down coal, restrictions on livestock, bans on petrol and diesel engines, and the impact on vehicles like the V8 LandCruiser. These are sweeping changes that will reshape our economy and lifestyle. Officials agreed to take my question on notice, but the fact that they cannot answer upfront is deeply concerning.

I also raised the issue of rising electricity prices and subsidies. Net zero policies are driving up power costs, threatening industries like aluminium smelting. The government then uses taxpayer money to subsidise vulnerable consumers, adding another layer of expense. I want to know the total cost of these subsidies and interventions. Australians need the full picture before we continue further down this path.

Finally, I challenged the minister on what Australians call the “ute tax,” which is hurting vehicles like the V8 LandCruiser. He denied its existence but admitted the government introduced fuel efficiency standards, this is just a net-zero tax in disguise. He claims these standards will save consumers money, but I remain concerned about their impact on vehicle choice and affordability, especially for regional Australians. These policies are not just about efficiency—they are part of a broader net zero agenda that is increasing costs, threatening jobs, and changing our way of life without honest disclosure of the consequences.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. It seems to me that everyone in government and the bureaucracy is incapable of telling people how much reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide—  

CHAIR: I will stop you right there. We will be respecting the people sitting at the table. Would you like to rephrase your question?  

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t get an answer from the government or the bureaucracy on how much it’s going to cost in total overall for cutting Australia’s carbon dioxide production to meet your targets. Why is that? I’ve heard everything from a couple of hundred billion here or there to $1.9 trillion. What is the number?  

Mr Fredericks: Senator, I know we’ve had this discussion before. I think the generality of your question makes it very hard for us as officials to answer it in any meaningful way. We always want to try to assist you because your questions as a senator are legitimate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Mr Fredericks: If there’s a way you can in some way refine it, we can have a crack. Otherwise, if you think it would be better to put it on notice, and we can give you a response on notice, I’m happy to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Fredericks. I will accept your invitation. I’m talking about all the costs of wind, solar generators and power lines needed for the scattered wind and solar; the killing of coal; the killing of the farting cows; the banning of petrol and diesel engines; and the killing off the V8 Toyota LandCruiser. How much is it all going to cost Australia to get to where you somehow think we’re going to be in 2050 compared to just letting Australians be? What is it going to cost to do all of that versus what does it cost to do nothing?  

Mr Fredericks: Senator, I think if it’s okay with you, we’ll take that on notice. Because you’ve given some specificity, we are in a position to be able to describe, as it appears in the budget, costs associated with some of the measures you just described. We can legitimately do that. We will take that on notice and do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. So you understand what I’m asking now, even though I haven’t named every single component? There are a hell of a lot of components that I would like to know the cost of.  

Senator Ayres: I think, Senator Roberts, that Mr Fredericks has said that they will answer it as far as they can. I can say to you that in your question were a couple of assertions. Killing off the V8 Toyota LandCruiser is not an initiative of the Albanese Labor government. Killing the Australian auto industry was an initiative of the Morrison, Abbott and Turnbull governments. International auto makers now make vehicles. Australia doesn’t make cars anymore because they killed the industry. That is not something that can be costed, Senator. It’s the economic harm that is done by coalition governments to Australian manufacturing that is entirely the responsibility of Mr Hockey—I saw him featured in the newspapers yesterday; it was a pretty interesting article— Mr Abbott, Mr Turnbull, Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg. All these characters thought it was an act of total genius to kill 40,000 jobs and Australia’s capacity to make cars. You can see that there is a contrast with this government. There is $2 billion, for example, in your home state of Queensland, to back the aluminium sector so that investment is sustained in Australia. The aluminium sector is going through their own process. You might not like it. They have just on the back of that announcement—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking about the aluminium sector.  

Senator Ayres: I know you like the aluminium sector. You might not like the fact that they are shifting to a lower carbon profile. They have on the back of the Albanese government’s investment in the aluminium sector. It has given them the confidence to invest themselves $2 billion in renewable energy capability in Queensland. That’s more jobs for Queensland with a government that has a local content plan for the renewables sector, which will mean more engineering, more structural steel and more jobs in Queensland.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the key issue in producing aluminium in Queensland is the prices.  

Senator Ayres: I didn’t interrupt you, Senator. I’m just trying to make the point that some of the assertions you make go to things that are not what the government is up to here. The government is up to supporting Australian manufacturing and Australian industry and rebuilding a modern electricity grid so that we are competitive for the future.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Senator Ayres: That’s what we’re up to. The fruits of that are most starkly evident in regional Queensland at the moment, where 5,000 jobs are sustained in Gladstone and Central Queensland because of that one announcement and investment in new renewable energy capability. The alternative is the plan that these jokers have for nuclear reactors that will force the aluminium sector offshore just like the auto industry was forced offshore.  

CHAIR: Minister, I will ask you to refer to our colleagues respectfully.  

Senator Ayres: What did I say? I’m sorry.  

CHAIR: You called them jokers.  

Senator DUNIAM: We don’t normally joke about things. In the vein of respect—  

Senator Ayres: My friends over here.  

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that.  

Senator Ayres: Sorry, Senator Roberts. I took a side track.  

Senator ROBERTS: Gladstone is under threat because of both this government and the previous government’s passion for net zero. That’s why it’s under threat. Electricity prices are the key ingredient to an aluminium smelter. I happened to live in the Hunter Valley when the alumina smelter at Kurri was built. I know that it has shut down and others are under threat now because of electricity prices and the conversion to net zero. I would also like to understand the subsidies, the support, and what that is going to cost. We have these net zero policies increasing the cost of electricity. We then have the government milking the taxpayer and electricity users to subsidise people who are vulnerable. I would also like to know that specifically.  

Senator Ayres: I want to make two observations about that.  

Senator ROBERTS: By the way, Minister, you introduced the ute tax. That’s what is hurting V8 LandCruisers. Did you not?  

Senator Ayres: I want to make a few observations about this. Firstly, Senator, the most disturbing thing I’ve heard this morning is your assertion that you were around in the Hunter Valley when the Kurri smelter was built. I cannot believe it. You look so youthful.  

Senator ROBERTS: I used to go to school at Kurri.  

Senator Ayres: Really there’s cognitive dissonance there. I am going to have to adjust to this idea.  

Senator ROBERTS: I went past the Kurri aluminium smelter on my way to Kurri High School every day.  

Senator Ayres: I once persuaded somebody who didn’t come from the Hunter Valley that there were two towns in the Hunter Valley—one called Kurri and the other called Kurri.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wagga?  

Senator Ayres: Indeed. That’s right. Senator—  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you or did you not introduce the ute tax that is killing V8 LandCruisers?  

Senator Ayres: Well, there’s no arrangement called the ute tax. You know it. If people want to buy LandCruisers or any other kind of vehicle, they are very welcome to. The broader point, though, is that because the questions you ask go outside the scope, apart from the assertions that I don’t agree with and the ones like your relative age that I can’t reconcile myself to, we will take those questions on notice. The department will do their best to look within the scope of their responsibilities to answer on the cost of measures. I will—  

Senator ROBERTS: It is disturbing that you are now qualifying Mr Fredericks’s answer.  

Senator Ayres: I think I’m saying exactly the same thing as Mr Fredericks; that is, we’ll take those things on notice and they will answer to the extent that they can.  

Senator ROBERTS: That they can? Senator Ayres: Yes. They can answer questions that go to the scope of the department’s activities. If you want economy-wide measures—even if you end up at PM&C or Treasury—you will find that a very substantial number of these investments is private investments. They are encouraged or facilitated by developments in the international market and developments that the Australian government is supporting. You mention government support. We unequivocally support Australian manufacturing. The biggest program factor—  

Senator ROBERTS: It is being called by your policy of net zero.  

Senator Ayres: is the biggest pro-manufacturing package in Australian history to back investment in areas such as critical minerals, iron and steel and aluminium. It is backing current jobs and prospective investment. It is the kind of thing I would have thought your political party would support. The alternative is zero in industry policy and forcing important industries such as the auto industry offshore, which is what my friends over there, in the era they want to go back to—the Morrison period.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re very pleased, Minister, to say our policy—  

Senator Ayres: The Morrison period, where they want to go back to, had 40,000 jobs gone. I think it’s a very strong contrast and one that I’m very happy to talk about over the coming weeks and months.  

Senator ROBERTS: Our policy is to end net zero and restore manufacturing. Do you admit, Minister, that a Toyota V8 LandCruiser simply cannot survive under your vehicle emissions rules and that you effectively killed it off?  

Senator Ayres: I can answer in terms of my own practical experience. I went in to work this morning. There were all sorts of vehicles on the road. Some of them were old vehicles. Some of them were new ones. Some of them had been purchased new. Some of them had been purchased second-hand. The government has, as we canvassed a bit earlier before you came in—  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, everyone can see you on TV.  

Senator Ayres: But you came in—  

Senator ROBERTS: Everyone can see you answering this question.  

Senator Ayres: The government has introduced a set of fuel efficiency standards. Before that, Australia was operating on the basis of standards that had been developed in the 1970s. We were the dumping ground for vehicles just like the Russian economy and a couple of other places around the world that hadn’t taken this step. It’s in the interests of—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m deeply concerned about Australians.  

Senator Ayres: It’s in the interests of people having to buy less fuel. It’s cheaper for people when there is a vehicle efficiency standard. It means that cars aren’t overusing petrol or diesel. It costs less to get from one place in regional Queensland to the other because you are using less fuel. That’s a good thing. It’s a good thing for consumers. It’s a pity that we don’t have an automotive manufacturing sector in Australia that would be able to take advantage of those things as well and build LandCruisers, Hiluxes and all sorts of things for the Australian market and the international market. We lost that opportunity because of previous—  

Senator ROBERTS: Power prices are rising too high.  

Senator Ayres: Because a previous government decided to force the auto industry offshore.  

CHAIR: We will move on.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Thank you, Minister. 

/1 Comment/by

Defending Agriculture Against Net Zero’s Harmful Agenda

,

The UK recently completed a trial of a carbon credit system that sets a daily allowance for each person—in effect, a limit on your ability to purchase food, clothing, goods, and travel as you have always done. The limit has been set at 20kg of carbon emissions per day, with food restricted to 2600g. Food manufacturers are cooperating by adding a carbon statement on their packaging to inform consumers how much of their allowance each product consumes. For example, a packet of cheese accounts for 1100g—almost half of your daily carbon allowance. Different foods have varying carbon rates. Root vegetables like potatoes and carrots are relatively low, while red meat incurs the highest charge – so high, in fact, that if you were to spend your entire daily food carbon allowance on red meat, it would buy you 30g of steak—just one mouthful.

You may recall I mentioned this in a speech some time ago and was fact-checked. Well, fact-check this! Net zero is supported by the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, and the Nationals. Only One Nation stands firm in defending our agricultural sector from this insane push to control the food supply and hollow out the bush.

Transcript

The UK has just concluded a trial of a personal carbon dioxide allowance which, as the name implies, calculates how much carbon dioxide is produced annually in the UK, then divides that per person per day and then works out by how much that figure needs to fall in order to meet net zero goals. We have the white paper in my office that informed the trial. The whole concept of a daily carbon dioxide allowance is now out there for all to see—conspiracy theory no more; I bloody told you so!

To anyone who is advised by data and empirical evidence, not mass formation psychosis, carbon dioxide is the gas of life, necessary for all life on earth. It’s plant food. The more CO2 produced, the more food, plants and trees the earth is blessed with. The climate change scam is not founded on science; it’s founded on feelings. It has become a religion for those who consider themselves above religion, and increasingly amongst those who could do with having some religion in their lives.

Australia’s agricultural sector and rural communities, and $100 billion of agricultural production and hundreds of thousands of jobs, are about to be sacrificed on the altar of climate fraud. It is driven by globalist politicians and directed by parasitic billionaires who will benefit from this criminal enterprise—including Coca-Cola, who sponsored the trial. Coca-Cola is the world’s largest producer of plastic, with 120 billion single-use plastic bottles each year holding their toxic sludge and producing 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—so their support for this white paper and trial is nothing short of greenwashing. Coca-Cola’s leading shareholders are Warren Buffett, of Berkshire Hathaway, as well as BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. These wealth funds invest on behalf of the world’s predatory billionaires who will profit from a carbon dioxide allowance. This is in the open following the admission last week by British Prime Minister Starmer that farmland being stolen from British farmers via taxation extortion will be purchased by corporate partners, including BlackRock. I wonder if this is what Prime Minister Albanese spoke about in his recent meeting with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.

What is the future for Australian food producers under this crony capitalist dystopian agenda headed our way? Red meat is top of the hit list. The methane cycle means cows do not produce methane in a way that remains in the atmosphere; I’ll return to that point in a minute. Nonetheless, this trial used the figure for red meat carbon dioxide production of 100 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent, which equals 100 grams of carbon dioxide for every one gram of meat. Quick maths means your daily food allowance of 2,600 grams of carbon dioxide will be enough to buy 26 grams of red meat—one mouthful—and then you eat nothing else that day.

I raised this years ago in this chamber when the World Economic Forum first called for a limit on red meat of 30 grams a day—another conspiracy theory that’s come true! A cooked breakfast will have to be half the size to squeeze into your daily allowance—again, with nothing left over for food for the rest of the day. Your daily allowance will cover two plant based meals a day because predatory billionaires like BlackRock and Bill Gates are buying up farmland to grow the cereals and soy needed for plant based meals. Not surprisingly, the whole thing is rigged towards the products they can exploit for their own financial gain—including plant based fake meat, which contains 20 chemical ingredients; most are shared with pet food. The nutrition profile is not even close to the nutrition profile of natural foods like red meat and dairy. Speaking of dairy: don’t wash your yummy plant burger down with a glass of milk, because you can’t. One glass of milk is your entire food budget for the day, with just enough left over for the coffee to go in it.

The hypocrisy here was on display to everyone at last week’s COP 29 meeting for the UN, in Baku, where the area dedicated to meat based foods was packed and the one dedicated to plant based foods was empty. The World Economic Forum at Davos has hosted speakers calling for this system to include carbon dioxide credit trading so rich people can live their lives exactly as they do right now and poor people can skimp on food, clothing, travel, electricity and entertainment and sell their excess credits to rich people. The rules never apply to the people who make them. The war on livestock is a war on good nutrition and is based on a lie which is designed to enrich billionaires. Over 150 nations signed the Global Methane Pledge without even bothering to check if the methane was man made. Methane from fossil fuels has a higher carbon-13 isotope ratio, and, even though hydrocarbon fuel use is rising, the carbon-13 levels of atmospheric methane are falling. Between 2020 and 2022, microbes in the environment drove methane emissions more than hydrocarbon fuels did. That’s a pretty big deal.

Methane has supposedly caused 30 per cent of our current temperature rise—say the broken climate models. Yet 90 per cent of that recent rise was nature’s microbes, not cattle. The Big Brother in every aspect of our lives is based on fake science of carbon dioxide and methane.

Personal Carbon Allowances White Paper – REPORTDownload
/3 Comments/by

Study Reveals Carbon Credits are a Scam!

,

A reputable study says that 70-80% of carbon credits “are devoid of integrity”. This is a market that is costing Australia roughly $5.5 billion based on carbon credit units that even the Greens agree is a scam. This is driving up prices even higher in the middle of a cost of living crisis.

It’s time to stop the corruption and cancel these ridiculous net-zero policies.

Transcript

Carbon dioxide credits are a scam and an absolute fraud, and the Greens agree with One Nation on this. Yes, you heard that correctly. It’s difficult to believe. Australians may wonder what we agree on Granted, the Greens and One Nation have come to the same conclusion for very different reasons. Nonetheless, we share the conclusion that carbon dioxide credits are a scam. They are rife with opportunities for fraud. 

The Clean Energy Regulator has issued 140 million carbon dioxide credits. At the current spot price of $35 each, this represents a racket potentially worth $4.9 billion. That’s expected to grow by 20 million credits, or $700 million, this year alone, making it $5.6 million. 

The Greens and One Nation aren’t the only ones to criticise Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs. In 2022 Professor Andrew Macintosh, environmental law expert at the Australian National University, and his colleagues published a series of papers absolutely tearing apart the ACCU system. Keep in mind that this is a $5.5 billion market that’s being fabricated, in part to give the UN income, ultimately. As usual, they enlist parasites who benefit while pushing UN policy for them. For example, the major banks. Rothschild Australia, the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch had on their advisory boards in this country at the time the CSIRO chief executive, Dr Megan Clark—a conflict of interest? 

Back to the study of ACCU carbon dioxide credits. The study was done under Professor Andrew Macintosh, who said: 

The available data suggests 70 to 80 per cent of the ACCUs issued to … projects are devoid of integrity … 

So 20 to 30 per cent may have some integrity. Remember, this is a $5.5 billion market. Here’s another quote: 

What is occurring is a fraud on the environment … 

‘A fraud on the environment’, I say to the Greens. This is what Dr Macintosh said: 

What is occurring is a fraud on the environment, a fraud on taxpayers— 

Australian taxpayers— 

and a fraud on unwitting private buyers of ACCUs … 

In response to these revelations, the government commissioned what they call the Chubb review. The government should just have been honest and called it what it really was: a whitewash, a distortion and misinformation. Actually, the Chubb review is disinformation. In the past, when Professor Chubb has been requested to provide empirical scientific data within a logical scientific point backing up claims of climate change due to human carbon dioxide, he has repeatedly failed to produce it. He has never produced it, yet he’s often advocated for it. He’s part of the climate fraud industry and has received a lot of money to push climate fraud. He has been heavily rewarded by both Liberal-National and Labor Party governments. The Chubb review, in this case, addressed nothing of substance and provided no evidence for its claims that problems have been fixed, yet the government held the report up as proof that everything’s fine. As Professor Macintosh and his colleagues outlined in their response to the Chubb review, it spent less than six pages discussing the ACCU rules, which relate to a $5.5 billion market. They say: 

The– 

Chubb— 

report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions … 

I’ll say that again: 

The– 

Chubb— 

report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions, and includes very little analysis to support its findings. And importantly, the panel does not address key questions around the integrity of the scheme’s rules. 

What use was that? This is ‘a fraud on the environment, a fraud on taxpayers and a fraud on unwitting private buyers of ACCUs’. Here is another quote: 

Bewilderingly— 

I don’t find it bewildering; it’s straightforward, as I’ve been watching this scam unfold for years– 

in its assessment of the methods, the panel does not refer to the findings of a review it commissioned from the Australian Academy of Science … The academy … found numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes. 

There were ‘numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes’. This is so typical of this government. It is so typical of the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor, pushing the climate fraud. Here is another quote: 

The— 

Chubb— 

review … acknowledged the scientific evidence criticising the carbon credit scheme, but says “it was also provided with evidence to the contrary”. Yet it did not disclose what that evidence was or what it relates to. The public is simply expected to trust that the evidence exists. 

Maybe the dog ate the evidence for breakfast. This is what the government says is assurance and integrity for taxpayer money. 

While the Greens, Professor Macintosh and I may agree on the integrity issues with carbon dioxide credits, here’s where I leave them behind: there is no reason to reduce our output of carbon dioxide or trade credits for it. Carbon dioxide credits can never have integrity because they are a scam designed to transfer wealth from the pockets of everyday Australians and their families and small businesses to the bank accounts of billionaire net zero scam artists and parasitic multinationals sucking on the financial payout from climate fraud and associated financial scams. I note some of these points. I won’t go into them in detail. The government that introduced the renewable energy target, a scam, and the national electricity market that is really a national electricity racket—it’s not a market; it’s a bureaucratic controlled entity—stole farmers’ property rights across the country so that they could comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. They put in place the first policy—not legislation—advocating for a carbon dioxide tax. It wasn’t Julia Gillard. It was the Howard government that did all these things. The Howard government laid the foundation for all of this. It went around the Constitution to steal farmers’ property rights around the country. Then, six years after being booted from office and after the Liberals and Nationals in the Howard government told us that it was all based on science, John Howard, in a major lecture to sceptic think tank in Londan said that on the topic of climate science, he was agnostic. He didn’t have the science, and now our electricity sector has been crippled because of the renewable energy target, the national electricity market and an alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies. 

There has never been—there never is—any empirical scientific data and logical scientific points that human carbon dioxide is warming the planet. There is not any from the CSIRO—I’ve done freedom of information requests and held them accountable in the Senate—nor from their publications ever. There is not any from the Bureau of Meteorology. It’s the same deal. There is not any from the United Nations. It’s the same deal. There is also no policy basis. There is no documented effect per unit of human carbon dioxide on climate factors such as air temperature, rainfall, heat waves, drought severity and frequency or storm severity, frequency and duration—none at all. There is no basis for the policy on which the carbon dioxide credits are based. There’s been no cost benefit analysis. There’s been no business case. Ross Garnaut, who produced a report for the Rudd-Gillard government, said in his report on the science that there basically was no science and he was going on the consensus. Yet he is parasitically sucking on solar and wind subsidies, driving up electricity prices and putting Australians into poverty. Remember, the money that goes to the extra costs of electricity in this country is a highly regressive tax on the poor in our country. 

In 2009 and 2020 we had two global experiments showing that human carbon dioxide has no effect on carbon dioxide levels in the air. We had a major downturn with the global financial crisis in 2008. We then had a recession in 2009. COVID hit us. It arrived on our shores—it didn’t really hit us; the government hit us—in 2020, and then 2020 was almost a depression because of the restrictions and lockdowns. In both years, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued rising unabated. Yet we’ve been told for decades now that by cutting back on human production of carbon dioxide we would see the levels in the atmosphere start decreasing and go down. We had a major reduction in industrial activity and a severe recession in 2009 and 2020. The production of carbon dioxide from human use of hydrocarbons, coal, oil and natural gas decreased dramatically, yet nothing happened. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere kept increasing. 

I asked the CSIRO why. They said that there is an inflection. I asked them for the details of that inflection, to characterise it statistically. They failed to do it. I asked the Bureau of Meteorology, and they said, ‘Senator Roberts, it would take years for that to come through.’ Here is the CSIRO saying that we’ve already seen it and the Bureau of Meteorology saying that we will see it eventually, but it will take a long while to come. You can’t make this stuff up! What the experiments in 2009 and 2020 showed is that the production of carbon dioxide from human activity will not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Once you understand Henry’s law—the quantities of carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean are 50 to 70 times more than the entire atmospheric carbon dioxide—then you start to understand why that’s the case. But not content with climate science fraud, the CSIRO is perpetrating gen cost, which is energy fraud based on bogus assumptions that have been completely debunked. Aidan Morrison has done a marvellous job; others have done a marvellous job. 

There’s no basis for this scam, this fraud, but let’s return to the fraud. A report in the 2010s said Europol found 95 per cent of carbon dioxide trading credits were suspicious. That’s easy to believe because there’s no physical basis to the measurement of reductions to carbon dioxide produced. They’re all projections. They’re all based on guesses. They’re formulae based on estimations. They were never quantified and are still not quantified. China is producing record quantities of carbon dioxide, and so are Russia, Brazil, the United States and the European Union—Australia are a small player—yet temperatures are flat and have been flat since 1995. That’s almost 30 years of flat temperatures. I urge senators to establish this inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of how taxpayer money is being fraudulently abused. 

/3 Comments/by