Posts

Betraying the Food Bowl

,

The government’s modelling suggests we need 107 million tonnes of carbon sequestration by 2050. By my math, that would mean around 5 million hectares of productive farmland will be swallowed up by trees and woody weeds. When I asked them exactly how many hectares would be lost, the department admitted they don’t have a figure. They are implementing a plan that will devastate our agriculture sector.

Despite the UN Paris Agreement (Article 2(1)(b)) explicitly stating that climate action should not threaten food production, this department hasn’t even sought legal advice on whether their plan breaches that requirement. They are relying on Treasury “scenarios” that claim food production will magically increase by 32%, even while they lock up the land used to grow it.

I asked if they had assessed the combined impact of reforestation and carbon plantings, renewable energy projects (solar/wind) and massive clear felled transmission corridors. The answer was a flat no. They are ignoring the “slow-motion train wreck” of transmission lines and renewables destroying our food bowls because they say it’s “another department’s problem.”

While officials talk about “diversification of enterprise mix” and “market clearing,” I know the truth on the ground. Locking up land leads to explosions in noxious weeds and feral animals, increased management costs for neighbouring properties and the destruction of regional communities and jobs.

My Conclusion: This reckless “plan” is nothing but bureaucratic speak and strategy without a shred of solid data to back it up. They are gambling with Australia’s food security to satisfy an insane, unachievable net-zero agenda.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. The net zero Agriculture and Land Sector Plan commits to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050. Based on sequestration rates of one to 21 tonnes per hectare, that means at least five million hectares of farmland could be converted to trees and woody weeds. How can you justify this when it risks reducing food production and creating food insecurity for Australians?

Mr Lowe: The Ag and Land Sector Plan doesn’t commit to 107 million tonnes of sequestration. The way I’d characterise that is that that was part of the Treasury modelling which described a particular pathway to achieving net zero, which factored in an amount of sequestration that would be needed in the particular scenario. What the Ag and Land Sector Plan does is identify a range of different options for landholders and farmers to reduce emissions and commit to a number of particular actions in which to achieve that. The first of those is understanding on-farm emissions as a foundational action. The second is around research and innovation, technology being an important factor in supporting farmers to reduce emissions, as it has been. Research and development have been foundational actions to support farmers throughout the course of agriculture in Australia. The third is on-ground action. We know that supporting farmers with the capability and skills that they need to manage their enterprise and reduce emissions is really important. The fourth is around maximising the potential of the land sector.

In relation to that, from our perspective, we think there are significant opportunities for producers to take up diversification of their enterprise mix in relation to land sequestration opportunities. Earlier in this committee, we were talking about soil carbon projects, and soil carbon projects are being explored by a number of participants in the livestock sector. Revegetation, where they’re garnering ACCUs as well. I might leave it there, but we can go into further detail if you’d like.

Senator ROBERTS: So the net zero agriculture and land sector plan does not commit to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050.

Mr Lowe: No, it doesn’t.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any sequestration?

Mr Lowe: It acknowledges that sequestration will be an important factor in achieving net zero, and it acknowledges that sequestration is also an important opportunity for producers in terms of diversification of their enterprise mix and diversification of income sources.

Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land under this plan is currently producing food?

Mr Lowe: It’s in the order of 50 to 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass where agricultural production of some form is undertaken. I’ll defer to colleagues as to whether I got that number right.

Dr Greenville: Yes, 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass is currently undertaking agricultural activities.

Senator ROBERTS: What will be the impact of the plan on food production?

Dr Greenville: I think the Treasury projection and the ag and land plan modelling that they conducted—and it’s just a scenario—has agricultural production continuing to increase out to 2050.

Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land is affected, though?

Dr Greenville: They did not provide estimates of the land base—

Senator ROBERTS: Does that bother either of you?

Dr Greenville: Sorry, Senator, maybe as you saw, we’ve mentioned and had a discussion with keen interest with Senator Canavan and Senator McKenzie around this topic. We at ABARES are undertaking some work to explore the implications for the land use.

Senator ROBERTS: Based on the question before you, you’re undertaking that work?

Dr Greenville: Yes. We let the committee know, and there were some interesting questions on notice when we provided some detail around that. I’m happy to talk.

Mr Lowe: To clarify, that work has been ongoing. It was acknowledged in the Treasury modelling that I referred to earlier that ABARES has been undertaking that work.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you just accept Treasury modelling?

Mr Lowe: We provide inputs into Treasury modelling.

Senator ROBERTS: But you haven’t published modelling yourself on the impact on food output. You’re relying on Treasury saying it will increase.

Mr Lowe: As my colleague, Dr Greenville, said, we’re undertaking work in relation to that.

Senator ROBERTS: Based on questions that were put to you today.

Mr Lowe: No, based on work that was already ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Even article 2(1)(b) of the UN Paris Agreement requires climate action to avoid threatening food production. Is there any land being locked up under your plan?

Mr Lowe: The ag and land sector plan also acknowledges—and a key tenet of it is—that achieving emissions reduction shouldn’t come at the cost of food security. We would say that the ag and land sector plan is consistent with that acknowledgement that you read out.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice that your plan doesn’t breach the Paris Agreement?

Mr Lowe: The Net Zero Plan and the six sector plans are government plans to be consistent with the Paris Agreement.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice?

Mr Lowe: We have not, as a department.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you know it’s consistent?

Mr Lowe: I think that question may be best directed to DCCEEW, but I’m not aware of legal advice.

Senator ROBERTS: Aren’t you responsible for the plan?

Mr Lowe: We’re responsible for the ag and land sector plan, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: And the impact on the ag sector?

Mr Lowe: Yes. We have not sought legal advice in relation to the ag and land sector plan, and its consistency with the Paris Agreement, to answer your specific question.

Senator ROBERTS: I read that you spent $2.2 million developing the plan, yet you cannot provide a figure, as I understand it, for hectares to be reforested.

Mr Lowe: We don’t have a figure currently; that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How is that acceptable?

Mr Lowe: It’s work in progress.

Senator ROBERTS: How is that a plan?

Mr Lowe: There are a number of elements of the plan, as I mentioned, for foundational actions. Maximising the sequestration potential of the land is one of those.

Senator ROBERTS: I get the carbon dioxide sequestration. I don’t believe in all this crap, because there’s no data to back it up. I believe carbon dioxide sequestration will increase food production, but not if it locks up land—because then you’ve got noxious weeds and feral animals proliferating and going onto neighbouring properties, which increases the cost of managing neighbouring properties. Are you aware of these things?

Mr Lowe: I’d say, consistent with my earlier comments, that there are significant opportunities in carbon sequestration for producers. I’m aware of a number of examples of producers who have put into place plantation forestry on their enterprise and added that to their enterprise mix—so they’ve increased the number of trees on their property. It’s supported an increase in carrying capacity of stocking rates and diversified their income stream by enabling them to undertake forest activities. There’s an example of a New England wool producer, Michael Taylor; he’s got native and pine forest on his enterprise. He’s got a sawmill on his enterprise as well, where he cuts down, saws and processes the timber on his enterprise to sell. One of the benefits he ascribes to that is having an income during leaner years; where he’s got lower stocking rates, he can sell the timber and continue to employ people on his farm.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like to visit some properties in south-western Queensland that have been locked up, where neighbouring properties are being destroyed?

Mr Lowe: Always open to visiting farmers and properties.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you commit to publishing a hectare estimate before implementing any measures; yes or no?

Mr Lowe: We’re already implementing measures.

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know how much land will be locked up?

Mr Lowe: As I’ve said, that work is ongoing but we are already implementing measures in relation to the ag and land sector plan.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re implementing the plan before the plan is finalised?

Mr Lowe: The plan is finalised.

Senator ROBERTS: But the hectares aren’t.

Mr Lowe: That work is still ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO’s land use trade-offs model shows carbon plantings compete directly with agriculture for land. How will this impact Australia’s food bowls and rural jobs?

Mr Lowe: I’d say it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach as to how carbon sequestration plays out in the landscape. There will be lots of different ways that land managers and producers decide to take up carbon sequestration opportunities. So I probably wouldn’t characterise things in the way that you have. What I would say is that we think there are opportunities for producers. I also think that, certainly, the types of lands that might be more favourably disposed to carbon sequestration—and ABARES can talk about this in more detail if you like—are the types of lands that are less productive. We would envisage is that we would often see multiple-use land, so land where there’s revegetation happening but also still able to support primary production.

Senator ROBERTS: I know the answer to this question. Have you assessed the combined impact of reforestation, renewable energy projects and transmission corridors on farmland availability?

Mr Lowe: In terms of hectare impact, for example?

Senator ROBERTS: The loss of productive farmland.

Mr Lowe: The answer is no. The work that we have ongoing is particularly in relation to carbon sequestration in the landscape.

Senator ROBERTS: You are not going to consider the renewable energy projects taking up farmland for transmission lines. They’re massive, and the farmers are pretty damn upset about them. People in regional communities, not just farmers, are upset.

Mr Lowe: That is a matter that’s the purview of DCCEEW in terms of renewable energy and transmission. We are interested in understanding the land impact of that and have been working with DCCEEW to understand that better.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand you’re developing a national food security strategy.

Mr Lowe: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How can that strategy be credible if you don’t know how much farmland will be lost to carbon dioxide sequestration, solar and wind generation or transmission lines?

Mr Lowe: I think the development of the strategy will be taking in multiple perspectives in relation to Australia’s future food security. We received over 400 submissions when we put out a discussion paper recently on Australia’s future food security. I haven’t read those submissions in detail. I imagine some of them might have raised those sorts of issues, so it is something that will be a matter of consideration. Equally of consideration—in fact, something that I understand came through really strongly in the submissions—will be the climate impact on our primary production enterprises and the importance of resilient farming systems as well.

Senator ROBERTS: In your planning and strategising what comes first—data or strategy?

Mr Lowe: We’d like to think that there’s a combination of both, where we can.

Senator ROBERTS: I thought data was the first step to understanding what you’re going to strategise about.

Mr Lowe: Another input is consultation, and we take that really seriously. In the development of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, we focused very heavily on consulting and consulting with our state and territory counterparts. We had an issues paper out on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan. We received a large number of submissions in relation to that. We held a sustainability summit that was auspiced by Minister Bowen and Minister Watt on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, and we held a number of roundtables as well with industry stakeholders on the plan.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you integrate land-use change modelling into the food security strategy and publish the findings?

Mr Lowe: We have land-use change modelling on foot. We will publish the findings, and we’re very happy to use it as an input into the food security strategy as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Has DAFF modelled the impact of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan on agricultural gross domestic product?

Mr Lowe: I’m just trying to think about that.

Dr Greenville: That was part of the modelling that Treasury undertook, and it’s an area where you have quoted that 107 million tonnes from. They have projections as part of that, like the 107 million tonnes, about agricultural production as well as agricultural emissions intensities and so forth. There’s detail in that.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked the assumptions on which it’s based or the actual figures?

Dr Greenville: We provided some information to give them the baseline on which they looked at the plan, and they’re quite detailed with what they’ve done in terms of the plan, the assumptions they’ve made and the like, and that’s all been published as part of that result.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you scrutinised it?

Dr Greenville: Obviously, we’ve taken a look. We take a keen interest, which is why—

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Taking a look’ is a bit different from scrutinising.

Dr Greenville: Which is why we’re undertaking our own modelling with the land sector. They pointed out that there was considerable uncertainty in land base sequestration potential and the trade-offs between sequestration and agricultural value. We’ve invested in improving information around regional impacts and trade-offs.

Senator ROBERTS: Treasury assumes agricultural production will rise by about 32 per cent by 2050, but we don’t know how much land is going to be sequestered. How much land is going to be destroyed? How is it possible to get food production increased by 32 per cent if we don’t know the land that will be cut off?

Dr Greenville: Under a market-based approach, sequestration will occur where opportunity costs to agriculture are low. That is not inconsistent with agricultural production continuing to grow while carbon sequestration is added as another land-use activity.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve raised markets, so that raises carbon dioxide price. What carbon dioxide price is assumed to drive reforestation at the scale required, and will farmers be forced to choose between growing food and earning carbon dioxide credits?

Dr Greenville: That would be an outcome of modelling we haven’t finalised yet, so I don’t want to speculate.

Senator ROBERTS: The plan references alternative proteins. Is DAFF actively promoting lab grown meat as a substitute for real meat?

Mr Lowe: Not actively.

Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has been made of the economic and cultural impact of replacing traditional meat with lab grown alternatives?

Mr Lowe: We haven’t done detailed work on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, this terrifies me. There doesn’t seem to be any data driving the plan. That’s just a statement.

CHAIR: I’ll take that as a statement. Do you have further questions?

Senator ROBERTS: No, thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Setting the Record Straight with the BOM

,

During the recent Senate Estimates Session with the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), I tabled a graph from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report to challenge some of the exaggerated claims we’ve been hearing about extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods, and fires.

For years the BOM has always referred me to the IPCC’s work as the authoritative source on climate science. I specifically pointed to the IPCC’s Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, where they provide an analysis of a wide range of weather events. What struck me—and I think it should strike everyone—is that for nearly every major type of extreme weather event, the IPCC finds that there has been no detectable change in frequency or severity over time. This includes river floods, fire weather, tropical cyclones, and coastal floods. The data doesn’t support the claims that these events are becoming more frequent or intense because of “climate change”.

This is important because politicians and the media have often linked these events to human-induced climate change. They claim that floods, fires, and cyclones are somehow the direct result of our carbon dioxide production.

Yet if the IPCC itself, the body these same politicians refer to, says there’s no significant change in these events, why aren’t we calling out this misinformation? Why isn’t BOM calling out this misinformation?

For example, tropical cyclones – the IPCC indicates no change in their frequency or severity, not just for today, but looking ahead through to 2100—even under the worst-case climate scenario. And yet, we continue to hear false claims that “human-induced climate change” is worsening cyclone events. This isn’t true. These events have been part of the natural weather cycle for millennia.

The BOM Director, Dr Johnson’s response acknowledged that the science on cyclones is evolving and confirmed that while there may be fewer cyclones in the future, the ones that do occur may be more intense. Yet again, these claims are based on unsubstantiated projections—not hard data. They’re misinformation!

What’s more, looking at the IPCC’s tables, which break down the evidence of (naturally) varying weather patterns, for nearly every phenomenon—whether it’s precipitation, floods, fire weather, or tropical cyclones—the data simply doesn’t support the idea of dramatic increases due to “human-induced” climate change.

So, why are we still seeing politicians and the media push these claims?

This is not saying to ignore the importance of understanding climate variability, it’s about dealing with the facts – the measured data. The science must guide us, not the political agenda. And if the observed, measured scientific data says these extreme weather events aren’t changing as some claim, we need to stand firm against the misinformation.

Let’s be clear: the data doesn’t support the alarmist rhetoric. We should be calling out the misinformation and ensuring that decisions, policies, regulations and public opinion are based on what the science actually tells us—not on what some want us to believe.

I will continue to hold taxpayer funded agencies and politicians accountable. The truth matters, because, as always, it’s we the people who pay.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table this graph from a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as the basis for some brief questions. I don’t have too many questions today. I’ll start with a little preamble just to set the scene for this. When you get the graph, you’ll see it. I refer to misinformation being put out that cyclones and floods are getting more frequent and severe. Over many years in this committee the BOM has referred me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This might surprise you, but I’m not actually going to argue with you on the merits of the IPCC today, even though they’re a bunch of net zero pushers and are politically driven. I’m going to quote them, because you claim they’re the authority. I’ll take you to Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, table 12.12, by working group 1, on the science of climate, at page 1856. In that table is just about every type of measurable weather event. Some call it extreme weather events.

The blank or white boxes indicate there is no detectable change in frequency or severity of the weather event. I’ll go down the list of what the IPCC itself says—not me. River flood—no change is detected in current period. No change is expected to be detected under the worst case climate scenario by 2050 or even by 2100. Fire weather—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Tropical cyclone—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Coastal flood—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Pluvial—there’s a minor risk in the most extreme, worst-case scenario. If your net zero gods at the IPCC say the data shows weather events are not getting worse because of climate change, why isn’t the Bureau of Meteorology calling out the misinformation peddled by politicians when they state that this flood is because of climate change, this fire is because of climate change or this cyclone is because of climate change? Everyone knows that’s not true. These events have been happening for millennia. Even the scientists in the United Nations that you reference say it’s not so.  

Dr Johnson: I might make a couple of preliminary remarks and then ask Dr Braganza, who is online, to join in. I haven’t had a chance to study the page that you’ve just supplied me. I think many times I’ve referred you to the State of the climate report that the bureau produces with the CSIRO every two years, which contains the latest up-to-date information on climate.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve read each of them.  

Dr Johnson: I know you read it, and I’d encourage you to refer to it again. Across a range of phenomena we know there are very strong signals already from climate change, in particular around temperature and in particular around drying in the southern, south-east and south-west parts of Australia. Those signals are very strong. The level of confidence in them is very high. Some of the signals for other phenomena, including tropical cyclones, are still evolving and maturing. We have seen an increase in the incidence of high-intensity rainfall. We know as a matter of fact that, as the atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture—probably up to 10 or 11 per cent more—than it would otherwise have, and that we’ve seen an increase in high-intensity events. We’ve certainly been on record saying that we expect in Australia it’s likely that there will be a lower number and frequency of cyclones, but they’re likely to be more severe. We’ve been on the record for that for ages. We’ve also been on the record on many occasions—  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain the basis for that? The UN says it’s not—  

Dr Johnson: I’ll come to that. Dr Braganza might want to say something about this in a minute. We’ve also been on the record that, particularly when it comes to individual cyclones and individual rainfall events, it’s very difficult to attribute single events to climate change. We’re talking about longer term global trends here. That’s been our position for some time, and it remains so unless new evidence is entered into existence that would cause us to change our mind. I can only be accountable for the science we do. I can’t be accountable for how those in the public domain choose to talk about it. We certainly provide advice, as we’ve done to this committee many times and in many other fora, about what we’re observing and what our science is telling us is likely to come down the pipeline, and also where we have higher or lower confidence about what is or isn’t coming. They would be my general comments.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you correctly—just before we go to Dr Braganza—that cyclones are not becoming more intense?  

Dr Johnson: No, I didn’t say that. I said that in our outlooks we think there’s a reasonable likelihood—Dr Braganza will be able to quantify this in more specific detail—that the Australian region is likely to see fewer cyclones, but there’s a likelihood that they’ll be more intense rather than less intense. Dr Braganza is our lead in this space and I’d rather he answer these detailed questions that you might have.  

Dr Braganza: For tropical cyclones, the bureau, as Dr Johnson has pointed out, has consistently communicated that we have potentially seen a reduction in the number of tropical cyclones in our region, in particular in the east. We haven’t communicated that we’ve seen any significant change in intensity. Categorising changes in tropical cyclones is difficult. We’re limited to the satellite era. Prior to the satellite era, categorising tropical cyclones for severity and even whether or not they’re a tropical cyclone in the mid latitudes becomes difficult. There are data limitations in trends in tropical cyclones. The bureau has been entirely consistent in how it’s described those and entirely transparent in the data limitations. We have not communicated that we have seen large changes in tropical cyclones that are due to climate change. We don’t communicate around these individual weather events that they were caused by climate change. For tropical cyclones there are multiple aspects to the weather event. When we talk about intensity, we’re often talking about wind speed. Wind speed is just one aspect of a tropical cyclone. There’s also rainfall intensity and there’s storm surge intensity. Due to sea level rise and increased warmth in the atmosphere, we expect increased heavy rainfall and increased storm surge activity from all such events, not just tropical cyclones. There are also events such as east coast lows and others. Observational data is what it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to comment on this, because you don’t have the table in front of you, but I’ll just go through chapter 12 and table 12.12, emergence of climate impact drivers in different time periods. That’s with regard to the future. The white colour indicates that there’s no confidence in what they’re saying or what they’re projecting. In terms of already emerged and ‘worst case scenario’ in the future by 2050 and by 2100: mean precipitation, no confidence in the data. No trend has emerged. River flood is the same. Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood is the same. Landslide is the same. Aridity is the same. Hydrological drought is the same. Agricultural and ecological drought is the same. Fire weather is the same. Tropical cyclones is the same. Coastal flood is the same. These are often taken advantage of by politicians and the news media; there’s no evidence for their comments attributing them to climate change caused by humans.  

Dr Braganza: I’ll have to take that on notice since I don’t have the material in front of me. Some of the phenomena you’ve called out again in terms of establishing observed trends is limited by sample size. You’re talking not about weather events necessarily; you’re talking about impact events such as the size of a flood following heavy rainfall. There are possibly data limitations involved, but I would have to see exactly the material that you’re referencing. 

/4 Comments/by

Impacts of Climate Change Policy Unknown

,

The cost of living is skyrocketing, energy prices are going up and the economy is getting worse.

All of these things are being fuelled by the insane net-zero climate policies both sides of government have pursued over decades.

Despite this, an independent auditor has found that the responsible department can’t actually measure how much these economy-destroying policies is affecting anything, except your wallet.

With no measurements or KPIs in place, we’re giving a blank cheque to policies that could well be doing absolutely nothing or making the country worse.

It’s time we abandon the ridiculous net-zero completely. Australians have suffered enough.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. The Australian National Audit Office report by the title Governance of climate change commitments found that you are ‘unable to demonstrate the extent to which specific Australian government policies and programs have contributed or are expected to contribute towards overall emissions reduction’—’emissions’ meaning carbon dioxide from human activity. Last estimates, you said you disagreed with that, yet you agreed with all five recommendations from the auditor, didn’t you?  

Ms Geiger: Yes, we did agree with all the recommendations in the report.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Audit Office responded to you, disagreeing, and said: … DCCEEW does not have a single, structured plan or strategy that links activities being undertaken to the achievement of emissions reduction targets … … As outlined at paragraph 2.26, DCCEEW’s monitoring of the progress of climate- and energy-related work does not include an indication of what contribution measures will make towards emissions reduction targets. Because of this, DCCEEW is unable to demonstrate the impact of its work on climate change targets, as set out at paragraph 2.28 and in Recommendation no.1. That’s the end of the ANAO statement. Do you still maintain that you can demonstrate the specific, quantifiable effects your policies have had on the reduction of carbon dioxide from human activity, despite what the Audit Office said?  

Ms Geiger: We have a range of ways that we measure the impacts of our different climate change initiatives towards the emissions targets. Ms Rowley might be able to talk through the specifics that balance both the forward projections and the contributions that particular initiatives might make to our targets, as well as annual updates of how our emissions are tracking.  

Ms Rowley: As we discussed at the hearing in February, we do have a range of ways that the government tracks the progress towards its emissions reduction targets and quantifies the impact of its most important emissions reduction policies and measures. In our February hearing, I talked you through some of the specific findings from our 2023 emissions projections report, which is one of the key ways that we track progress towards our target, and explained—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; you’re tracking progress in implementation with a projections report?  

Ms Rowley: We track both: progress to date in our National inventory report, which is published every year and reports on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from all sources across the economy—that’s a backwards look; and our emissions projections, which are based on a range of assumptions looking forward, look at what current policies deliver in terms of our expected emissions for the future, and they run out to 2035.  

Senator ROBERTS: Just for clarification: are they actual impacts of the reduction of carbon dioxide from human activity or just reductions in carbon dioxide from human activity?  

Ms Rowley: It covers all greenhouse gases, not just carbon dioxide. The projections include detail of the projected impact of some of our major emissions reduction policies and measures.  

Senator ROBERTS: That doesn’t answer the question. What would be the impact of those projected decreases, and what is the impact of the reductions to date? Do we see any difference in temperature? Do we see any difference in rainfall, snowfall, storm severity, frequency, duration, droughts, floods, sea levels? What are the specific impacts? 

Ms Rowley: If you’re talking about the impact of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate, obviously the global climate and the observed impacts of climate change are a function of Australia and all other countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. The key reports that we refer to in our work and draw on are things like the IPCC assessment reports, as well as work done domestically by groups like CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology. That looks at the impacts of climate change to date, which, as I said, are the cumulative effect of global greenhouse gas emissions. It is, I think, rather more difficult to attribute any single change in the tonnes of emissions from Australia to specific changes in the global climate, not least because it is a cumulative effect. But it is also very important to note that the cumulative effect of climate change is reflective of global greenhouse gas emissions and that, with the reduction in the global greenhouse gas emissions, the projected impacts—and, over time, the observed impacts—of climate change will be less, and Australia is contributing to that as part of the global action on climate change.  

Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like the ANAO was right. The Australian National Audit Office was absolutely correct. You cannot measure the impact of what you’re doing, and you’re not.  

Ms Rowley: I think that the ANAO was particularly interested in drawing connections between Australia’s policies and measures and Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. And, as I said, our emissions reports—both backward looking, through the inventory, and forward looking, through the projections—do seek to quantify the impact of policies and measures on Australia’s emissions. As I said, that’s just one of many things that we do to track the implementation and progress. Specific policies and measures, when they’re out for consultation, include analysis of the likely impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. For example, recent consultations on the new vehicle efficiency standard included specific analysis of the likely impact on greenhouse gas emissions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; that’s not what I’m after. We’ve already discussed that you can project reductions in carbon dioxide, but you can’t tell me what the impact will be. You claim you can. Can you please provide on notice the specific quantifiable effect of each of your policies, since you claim you have that? So let’s have that, please. Can you provide it on notice?  

Ms Rowley: I think perhaps you’re making a different point to the ANAO’s. The ANAO was interested on the impact on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from our policies and measures. You’re asking about the impact of Australia’s mitigation action on global climate change. Is that correct?  

Senator ROBERTS: No; I’m asking about what the impact is on climate factors like temperature, snowfall, rainfall, drought severity, frequency and duration. We have been told the world is coming to an end—that these things are going to happen. I would like to know the impact of your specific reductions on those climate factors.  

Ms Rowley: As I said, those are intermediated through global emissions and global action.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t provide it?  

Ms Rowley: We can certainly provide, as we have in the past, information about both the global outlook and the impact of global reductions in emissions.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one anywhere in the world, Ms Rowley, has provided the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate factor—no-one ever.  

Ms Rowley: Senator, I’m not sure that that’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you can prove me wrong, I would love to have that. If you can take that on notice, that would be great—the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate factors, such as air temperature, troposphere temperatures, stratosphere temperature, heat content of the air, heat content of the ocean, heat exchange and storm frequency, severity and duration. You pick them.  

Ms Geiger: We accept the international science on the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change.  

Senator ROBERTS: I know you do. That’s what bothers me.  

Ms Geiger: We can provide on notice further background on that. But the premise is that we accept—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not interested in further background; I’m interested in hard specific numbers that should be and must be the basis of any policy that is going to gut our energy sector. The specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate factor is what I want to see. That’s what I want to see. I’m happy for you to take it on notice. Let’s move on to the freedom of information request that I put in. The request was LEX76280 and was in relation to the Powering Australia Tracker. You redacted a single measure on page six of that document. What’s that measure, please? 

Ms Geiger: I understand that the freedom of information request was about the tracker. My colleague Dr Mitchell might have that information to hand.  

Senator ROBERTS: The one that was redacted on page six.  

Dr Mitchell: We have provided the response that explains why that line was redacted in more detail. It said that it’s redacted on the basis of cabinet in confidence.  

Senator ROBERTS: Really? Can you take on notice to provide a table with all of the policies in the Powering Australia Tracker, detailing the cost of each of them by year over the past three years and their budget over the forwards?  

Ms Geiger: We can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s move to fuel security. We covered the minimum stock holding obligations for petrol, diesel and jet fuel at some length last Senate estimates. You gave to me on notice, in SQ24000046, that the refineries may also report crude oil and unfinished stock as liquid fuel. Do you have a breakdown of how much of the reported stock holding is actually finished liquid fuel versus crude oil—not a projected conversion of existing crude into future petrol, diesel or jet fuel, but the actual quantities of the four measures, as it exists now?  

Mrs Svarcas: Just so I’m really clear, for the MSO obligation, you’re asking how much of the crude oil do we count as petrol, jet fuel and diesel?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Can you also provide to me the actual amount, right now, of crude oil as it is, jet fuel as it is, petrol as it is and diesel as it is, and not projected conversions of crude oil into those things?  

Mrs Svarcas: I will have to take on notice the projected for crude oil into those things. The MSO does allow, under the reporting obligations, for an entity to effectively say they’ve got a bucket of crude oil, and they will be converting X amount of it through their normal operations—and how much of that is going to be diesel, how much of that is going to be jet fuel et cetera. I would have to take on notice how much of the crude is crude, if you will, and how much is fuel.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’d be good. You explained previously how there’s the domestic minimum stockholding obligation for petrol, diesel and jet fuel put in place by the government then there’s the International Energy Agency agreement for 90 days of crude oil. Last estimates, you told me we were at 55 International Energy Agency days of crude oil. What’s the latest figure for that, and is all of that stock in Australia’s exclusive economic zone here?  

Mrs Svarcas: The actual figure of that today—the last report was from March 2024—is 53 days and that figure captures all of the things. It might be helpful if I describe what’s captured in that. It’s crude oil as crude oil. It’s diesel, petrol and jet fuel. It also includes other refined products. For example, the oil that you would put into your car is included under the definition provided to us by the IEA. It’s those stocks that are on land in Australia and in our domestic waters. But, importantly, the difference between the IEA days and the MSO calculation is that it does not include the product that’s in our EEZ; it’s just the product that’s in Australian waters or physically in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: So is there any double counting then?  

Mrs Svarcas: No, there’s no double counting. There’s a difference between a vessel that is in Australian waters—how it’s included in the IEA days—and stock that is in the EEZ that is counted in the MSO days. It might also be useful, if you’ll indulge me, to explain the difference between the measures that we have in place so that you can get an idea of what we use it for. As I described, the IEA days are one single calculation of all of the fuel and fuel products as defined by the IEA. We also have our consumption cover days. They’re the days that we report every month publicly, and you’ll find those on our website. They are a measure of how long the stock will last. So they give us a really good indication of what we’ve got every month, and how long, based on average consumption, that will last. That’s all publicly available. Then we also have the MSO, which is slightly different, and the purpose of that measure is to set that minimum stockholding obligation to give us the insurance policy of making sure, from our perspective, how much fuel, liquid fuels and things we should have in Australia should there be a market disruption. So the purpose of each of those reportings is slightly different, which is why what goes into them—what we count and how we count them—is also slightly different, because they have different purposes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to the numbers that you’re going to give me. Our strategic reserve—  

CHAIR: If you’ve finished that line of questioning, we will need to rotate. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve just one more question on strategic reserve. You told me at last Senate estimates that Australia has sold all of the oil reserves in the United States’ strategic reserve?  

Mrs Svarcas: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels—nearly two years ago—in June 2022. That hasn’t been reported anywhere, as I understand it.  

Mrs Svarcas: No, I believe it was publicly reported. I’ll be happy to table that report.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did anyone at the department announce that the 1.7 million barrels had been sold?  

Mrs Svarcas: Like I said, I believe it was. I’m happy to be corrected if my evidence is wrong but I do believe it was made public at the time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/5 Comments/by

Natural Carbon Dioxide Experiment Proves the Real Inconvenient Truth

In 2020 the world conducted one of the largest global experiments ever seen.

Countries across the globe completely shut down their economies, locked everyone in their houses and stopped industrial production on a scale never seen before (and we hope to never seen again).

This unprecedented reduction in human activity and the burning of hydrocarbons should have been a climate activist’s dream – none of that pesky carbon dioxide being put into the air!

Yet through one of the largest industrial shutdowns the world has ever seen, the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air kept going up. It didn’t even deviate at all.

The question has to be asked, if the response to COVID – shutting down almost everything – didn’t even make a dent in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, what will?

The answer is that nothing the net-zero climate lunatics tell us to do will make a difference. Human production will not affect the level of CO2 in the air over and above natural variation.

Anyone trying to tell you differently is selling a scam.

/by

CSIRO Refuses to answer questions at Senate Estimates

,

I have asked CSIRO time and time again to provide the evidence that Carbon Dioxide from human activity is a danger to the planet and they still haven’t given me the evidence. Like I do every estimates session, I sent the CSIRO the questions I wanted them to answer in advance so that they could be prepared. This round however CSIRO was especially belligerent in not answering my questions. I have formally lodged them as questions on notice. That means if they refuse to answer them this time the CSIRO could be held in contempt of the Senate.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: While your annual remuneration package, Dr Marshall, is $1,049,000 and Dr Mayfield’s is $613,000, the medium income in Australia is just $49,000. Government policies based on your advice are hurting everyday Australians. You may not feel the impact, yet 25 million Australians do feel it. For some, it is now excruciating. With your pay comes accountability. I’m a representative and a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, and as such it’s my duty to hold agencies that are advising on government policy accountable, particularly agencies advising governments over the past 30 years on policies that are now costing billions of dollars and impacting our nation and all Australians to the extent of trillions of dollars.

Each of my questions is fairly short. In your answers to my questions in person and in writing, on notice, at last October’s supplementary estimates hearings, you cited seven papers, attempting to justify your assertion that the rate of the most recent period of temperature rise was unprecedented over the past 10,000 years. You did not specify the location of the basis of your claim. So, we went through all the papers, and we actually contacted Lecavalier and got the data from the authors and uncovered many startling issues and questions that raise serious doubts about CSIRO’s conclusions, which appear unfounded at best. Detailed examination of your references reveals some startling facts. Firstly, are you aware, for example, that Kaufman 2020, which you cited, in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point and then loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? Are you aware of that?

Dr Marshall: Chair, if I may, because the senator has said a lot there—the preamble to the question—CSIRO exists to help all Australians, all 25 million, and we have done so for the hundred years of our existence but perhaps never more so than in the last year, when we’ve protected citizens, we’ve developed vaccines—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking about COVID.

CHAIR: No, you had a very long preamble, Senator Roberts—which is unlike you—but let’s just let the official respond.

Dr Marshall: We’ve created personal protective equipment to protect frontline health workers, and we’ve helped government, both state and federal, to better understand the spread of the disease, its longevity on surfaces and how to best protect our people. As a result of all that work, Australia has come through this pandemic in remarkably good shape. There are crop yields that are at record highs despite drought, despite other impacts of a variable climate. So, Senator, we are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of all 25 million Australians. And I can bet that you, Senator, right now have at least three things on your person that were created by CSIRO science that maybe you don’t even know you have but that are benefiting your life.

So, whatever we are paid, which is decided by the rem tribunal, not by us, is because everything we do is designed to benefit Australia. And, like you, Senator, we want to ensure that all Australians, not just your constituents but all Australians, have the lowest possible cost of energy and the best possible life that our science and technology can create for them. And believe me when I say that when we do things like the GenCost report it’s all about helping industry and governments to make the right decisions for the future energy mix so that we can have a lower cost of energy, so that Australian industry can have a lower cost of energy, so that we can produce more products and generate more revenue here in Australia rather than shipping raw materials overseas and buying them back at a 10-times-higher price. So, we have the same mission, Senator, as you.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got a lot of information from you but not an answer to my question. Are you aware, for example, that in your response to the Senate committee as a result of Senate estimates the paper that you cited, Kaufman 2020, in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point altogether and loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? Are you aware of that?

Dr Marshall: Dr Mayfield might be. I’m certainly not.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the answer.

Dr Mayfield: Senator, you’d be aware that we’ve probably met on a number of occasions.

Senator ROBERTS: We have.

Dr Mayfield: We’ve had quite a lot of exchange of information, whether through this forum or through questions on notice or letters that you provided to us prior to estimates. So we’ve done that over quite a long period, and in that time our observation is that you don’t agree with our answers. We can’t change that, but we also can’t change our answers, because we’re very comfortable that they’re based on the best scientific knowledge and scientific process. In the response we gave you earlier today with regard to the most recent questions, which we tabled through the committee, I think we will have to fundamentally disagree. That is the bottom line.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a simple question: are you aware that Kaufman 2020—

Dr Mayfield: We’re aware of your argument, but it doesn’t change the conclusions we make.

Senator ROBERTS: in importing data from the Dahl-Jensen borehole, omitted the first data point altogether and loaded the remaining data points in the reverse time order? That’s what you presented to the Senate as evidence. Are you aware of that?

Dr Mayfield: We’ve also presented a lot of other information to you, Senator, on many occasions. The bottom line is that you never agree.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get to that. Are you aware of that error?

Dr Mayfield: We know what we believe in. We know what we understand through the scientific methods.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on.

Dr Mayfield: That’s what we’ll stick with. So we won’t be moving away from our answer. We will have to agree to disagree.

Senator ROBERTS: I note that neither of you answered my question. No. 2: are you aware that Kaufman 2020 disagrees with another of your references—that is pages 2K 2013, the reconstruction that has no uptick in recent temperatures? Are you aware of that?

Dr Mayfield: We’re aware of all of these claims through the various interactions that we have with you, Senator. We’ve provided our answers. Those are the answers we have. They’re not going to change.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware—No. 3—that one of your references, the North report 2006, directly contradicts CSIRO’s claim—your claim—that the latest rate of temperature rise is unprecedented? Are you aware of that?

Dr Mayfield: Senator, again, we’ve been through all of this. We can go through every single question that you make, but it’s the same general response: we’ve provided our best response, we’re very comfortable with those responses and the basis of them, and we don’t have any basis on which we would change them. We’ll have to agree to disagree—bottom line.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m happy for you to keep asking if you really need to, but we are behind schedule.

Senator ROBERTS: Next question: Lecavalier, which is one of your key papers, from 2017, makes a conclusion that hangs on one data point from one short ice core, in contradiction to CSIRO’s clear statement last October to me in writing. We obtained Lecavalier’s data from the authors and uncovered many startling issues. In Lecavalier 2017, proxy data was used for recent times, when more accurate thermometer data from many Arctic thermometer stations is readily available. Yet in response to our comments about Marcott 2013, which you cited, in Senate supplementary hearings last October you said that thermometer measurements, when available, should be used instead of proxies. We agree. When the proxy is replaced with an amalgam of Arctic thermometer measurements, there is no period of unprecedented temperature rise in Lecavalier, which you cited. Why?

Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ve been through this many times. We have given you our answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I will go to the next one, because the chair wants me to hurry up. In citing Marcott 2013, how did the CSIRO overlook mentioning the author’s own statement written in the paper:

The result suggests that at longer periods, more variability is preserved, with essentially no variability observed at periods shorter than 300 years.

So, for periods shorter than 100 years, no variability is preserved in the data. The authors explain that variability is not preserved for periods shorter than 2,000 years and, for periods of 300 years or less in duration, no variability passes through the process that Marcott used to analyse his data. Given the duration of the most recent period of temperature rise is just 40 years—and that’s Marcott citing Mann 2008 in his own paper and the paper you cited—there is no validity to CSIRO’s claim that the rate of recent temperature rise is unprecedented. All eight of your papers are completely flawed. There’s no evidence in your papers—not one of them. Why are you misleading the Senate and holding us in contempt?

Dr Mayfield: We are not misleading the Senate.

Senator ROBERTS: You are, sir.

Dr Mayfield: We’ve made our responses known to you in a number of meetings.

Senator ROBERTS: Ha, ha, ha! These are simple facts.

Dr Mayfield: And we’ve had climate scientists talk to you, and you continue to ignore our answers, and we can’t change that.

Senator ROBERTS: This is why I don’t accept your answers.

Senator CANAVAN: I haven’t heard the answers and I’d be interested in them, Dr Mayfield. I think Senator Roberts has raised some interesting points. Can we all hear the answers?

Dr Marshall: It might be easier just to look at the State of the Climate report that we produce every two years in partnership with BoM.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that one, don’t worry.

Dr Marshall: The data’s in there, you can see it. It’s not theoretical, it’s measured.

Senator ROBERTS: My eighth question: you cited the IPCC, the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change from the UN, assessment report 5, working group 1. This is an irrelevant citation as the UNIPCC AR5 WG1 summary for policymakers itself contains no reference to rates of temperature rise in the last 10,000 years. That’s the only unprecedented change you claim to be in climate. Out of all the meetings we’ve had, all the letters exchanged, that’s the only one you claim is unprecedented, yet it doesn’t mention it at all. There is no reference even to the Holocene period or the last 10,000 years. Most citations in working group 1 are for only the last 1,000 years. Can CSIRO explain the inclusion of this irrelevant citation that contains no logical scientific point relevant to your claim? Can you explain why you’re using that?

Dr Mayfield: Again, you would be familiar with three meetings that we had. We had climate scientists there, we went through the arguments with you. We’ve been there, we’ve done that.

Senator CANAVAN: Chair, can I raise as a point of order? I don’t think it’s appropriate for a witness to refer to private briefings they’ve had with another senator. Senator Roberts is asking a question in this format—

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t mind.

Senator CANAVAN: in this framework. Unless there’s some public interest that’s being claimed here, I think the senator deserves an answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I got a lot from his answer, Matt, thank you.

Dr Mayfield: The record of those meetings has been tabled previously, as has the response to your various sets of questions, so there’s a lot of information that’s been tabled.

CHAIR: The fact is that this back and forwards has going on for at least the whole time I’ve been on the committee. I’ve got to say, Senator Roberts, I admire your perseverance, but I think it’s getting to the point of

being unproductive at a point in time when we are more than half an hour behind schedule and we have other important witnesses we want to devote time to.

Senator ROBERTS:   Okay, I’ll wrap up with two more. Your reference, pages 2K2013, is an irrelevant citation as it covers only the last 2,000 years—we asked for 10,000—and cannot support your claim of what you say is unprecedented over the last 10,000 years. The second-half of this question is: your reference, pages 2K2017, is an irrelevant citation as it covers only the last 2,000 years and cannot support your claim of what is unprecedented over the last 10,000 years. Why did you cite those two references?

Dr Mayfield: Again, the climate scientists that work with the CSIRO have an understanding of the science literature. They’re making those references because they add to the argument. As I said earlier, you don’t agree with the answers and we can’t change that.

Dr Marshall: Are you worried that somehow we’re giving bad advice to the government about what’s going to be the lowest cost of energy?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, definitely.

Dr Marshall: Because that’s what you said—

Senator ROBERTS: And on climate policy that’s driving the destruction of our economy.

Dr Marshall: That question has nothing to do with any of the modelling that you’re talking about.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about the underpinning advice that’s driving policies on climate and energy—

Dr Marshall: So am I.

Senator ROBERTS: the underpinning climate advice.

Dr Marshall: So am I, and it’s about the cost of solar, hydrogen, nuclear, coal, gas—

Senator ROBERTS: Dealing with property rights—

Dr Marshall: That’s got nothing to do with climate modelling.

Senator ROBERTS: destruction of our manufacturing sector—that’s what’s underpinning—

Dr Marshall: The future cost of energy is about the economics and the technology and the science that we produce.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not talking just about energy. I’m talking about climate science that underpins the destruction of our economy, including energy, but also property rights, water resources, right across our country. That’s what I’m talking about. You’re paid $1,049,000 a year in remuneration, and we’re getting this as science. It’s junk.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve made your point. Dr Marshall, I’ll let you reply, but then we are going to call it a night.

Dr Marshall: It is a fact that CSIRO’s science is in the top one per cent of the world, in some cases in the top

0.1 per cent. It’s a fact.

Senator ROBERTS: That is spurious—

Dr Marshall: It is a fact.

Senator ROBERTS: and climate science is not science. You have not given me any of the data, not a bit.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Dr Marshall: I will give you the data to substantiate every word I just said. I will give it to you.

/by

Greens Climate Emergency MOU

,

Transcript

Thank you Mr. Acting Deputy President. And there we have it, a motion and hyperbole, not one bit of science. In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, I wanna firstly point out that The Greens last week wanted to declare a climate emergency because New Zealand did.

Not because of the science, but because New Zealand did. The Greens wanted to declare its climate emergency because Japan did. Yet Japan is building coal-fired power stations hand over fist. Now The Greens want to pledge to increase 2030 targets in line with the science.

Yet listen to what the CSIRO has divulged. I asked them where’s the danger? They said, they’ve never said there’s any danger due to human production of carbon dioxide, never. And they said they never would. So why the policy? Why The Greens rants? Secondly, the CSIRO admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented.

That means we didn’t cause the mild warming that cyclical natural warming that ended in 1995 And it’s been flat since. Then ultimately the CSIRO relied not on empirical scientific data, It relied on climate models. Models unvalidated and already proven wrong. What’s more, the reliance on models means that they have no critical scientific evidence.

/by