Posts

Fighting Back Against Climate Hysteria

Energy is about more than fuel; it is about freedom!

America is leading the fight against Climate Change fraud.

That’s fitting, considering a collection of charlatans, politicians, and paid-off scientific bodies birthed doomsday climate propaganda was birthed within American shores.

July brought good news!

The Climate Working Group in the US Department of Energy produced the document A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.

Since Donald Trump took office, the US Department of Energy has been waging war against all things dodgy and ‘green’.

Critically, his Administration has cut off billions of dollars incentivising Australian companies to pursue Net Zero instead of critical energy infrastructure.

Americans are now talking about ‘unleashing US energy’, creating a ‘nuclear renaissance’, and – yes – drill, baby, drill!

The Climate Working Group responsible for the paper carry familiar names, many of them reformed from their days in the climate movement: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.

The title of the Secretary of Energy’s forward sets the scene: Energy, integrity, and the power of human potential.

He goes on to say:

‘The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating. Yet we are told – relentlessly – that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat. Hydrocarbon-based fuels, the argument goes, must be rapidly abandoned or else we risk planetary ruin.
That view demands scrutiny.’

The US Department of Energy is on a quest to prove (or disprove) one of the most costly ‘assumptions’ in modern politics.

The Secretary adds that ‘media coverage often distorts the science’ and ‘many people walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete’.

He picked a competent collection of scientists and says ‘readers may be surprised’ by the report’s conclusions – some of which I’ll share here.

‘That’s a sign of how far the public conversation has drifted from the science itself’.’

I have pulled out some of key findings from this report that I believe are most interesting.

These comments appear under their chapter headings so that you might further explore them in the report.

Here is what the Department of Energy had to say.

Part 1: Direct Human Influence on Ecosystems and the Climate

Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and fails to meet the criteria set out in the Clean Air Act (1970).

It has no toxicological effects in humans, is naturally occurring in the atmosphere, and key for life. In this way, it is remarkably similar to water vapour. The report confirms that a rise in CO2 promotes plant growth and while it may play a role as a greenhouse gas, how the planet responds to this is a ‘complex question’. ‘Brimstone and fire’ are not among the options…

Part 2: Direct Impacts of CO2 on the Environment

CO2 as a Contributor to Global Greening

The report confirms that CO2 enhances plant growth and that a ‘global greening’ is well-established on all continents. They refer to this as the Leaf Area Index which is measured with satellites. Greening has naturally mitigated any warming. Using modern fertilisers has helped with this process.

When the basic structure of modern plants evolved, there was an enormous amount of CO2 in the air. In one of the many studies done concerning raised CO2 levels, plants respond positively – becoming more water efficient. This changes the calculations for crop production, which should benefit.

This is important, because it challenges the view that rising CO2 will ‘exacerbate water scarcity’. Odds are, it will have the reverse effect.

The IPCC admits to this in its Special Reports, yet rarely discusses it.

Acidic Oceans?

While oceans absorbing CO2 become less alkaline, this trend is well-within historical norms and most ocean life evolved when the oceans were more acidic than today. The report points out that ‘ocean acidification’ is a misnomer and should be called ‘ocean neutralisation’ instead.

Life evolved when oceans were mildly acidic (pH 6.5-7.0). Today they are around pH 8.04.

This is where much of the discussion regarding The Great Barrier Reef comes in – a topic which ‘climate experts’ like to view as the canary in their apocalyptic coal mine.

The report references Peter Ridd’s fine work which includes a body of evidence that strongly suggests the media frenzy regarding a temporary reduction in coral was due to tropical cyclones, not ocean temperature. The bounce-back in growth would seem to confirm this assumption.

It is within the topic of The Great Barrier Reef that the American report calls out political bias and publication bias in the published research. This is alarming. It speaks to the untrustworthiness of government funding and scientific bodies that may be feeding off the ‘climate change’ fear mongering.

Part 3. Human Influences on the Climate

Components of radiative forcing and their history

There is a long discussion here about how the United Nations’ climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, downplays the natural effects of solar radiation – long known to be the primary driver of climate. The UN IPCC’s disproportionate and incorrect thinking has then been imported into government and industry through UN-approved ideology and goals.

In other words, the IPCC’s many serious mistakes and assumptions have filtered through into the ‘global consensus’. This is very concerning.

While the report makes clear that humans, like all animals, are capable of changing the composition of the atmosphere, it does not follow that a catastrophe looms.

Something we very rarely hear our Minister for Climate Change and Energy discuss, for example, is the impact of aerosols which have a cooling effect.

‘Although the IPCC does not claim its emission scenarios are forecasts, they are often treated as such.’

The report notes something that the IPCC’s doomsday predictions often omit, and that is the changing nature of the Carbon Cycle.

Scientists already know that there is a ‘greening effect’ happening across the planet, and if this continues, the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere will naturally accelerate thanks to hungry plants. This impacts the forecast for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and yet it is almost always ignored.

Part 4. Climate Sensitivity to CO2 Forcing

Essentially, this is where the report attempts to ask the question our government should have tabled at the start: ‘How will the climate respond to CO2?’

Destroying capitalism, democracy, and the modern age doesn’t seem to be a recommendation of the report…

As the US Department of Energy X account wrote, ‘Energy is about more than fuel; it is about FREEDOM!’

Simply put, are the climate models that are being used to reshape our civilisation, actually any good?

It is an extremely long, detailed, and technical chapter and the short answer is: ‘No.’

Part 5. Discrepancies between Models and Instrumental Observations

This is a continuation of the above topic, with specific examples on where climate models have shown distinct ‘warming’ biases.

We’ve been told to ‘trust the science’ but what we’re actually being asked to ‘trust’ is an environment of failed modelling from unvalidated and erroneous computer models.

The detail of this is interesting, and the ramifications are frightening.

We are being led to believe that successive governments scuttled Australia’s future based upon climate models that have consistently proven themselves to be wrong. One would hope that the energy grid was torn up for better reasons…

‘Problems with climate models are not just in their disagreement over the future, but also in their ability to replicate the recent past.’

Part 6. Extreme Weather

This is the topic that keeps the Bureau of Meteorology alive. Every storm must be extreme – every weather event must be ‘unprecedented’. A fine perfect day such as today isn’t particularly useful for frightening voters into supporting ‘climate change’ and energy legislation. If Australians doubt the ‘global boiling’ narrative, they may start asking questions of the Treasurer such as, ‘Why am I giving you so much of my money for ugly and environmentally damaging wind turbines?’

The chapter’s beginning states that it is not whether extremes in weather conditions occur (as they always have done), it is if these are becoming more frequent and if the cause is human activity.

This last part matters, because if humans are not to blame, the solution is not to pour trillions of dollars into Net Zero.

The report did not find an increase in hurricanes or heat waves nor did it see a rise in hottest day records. Even severe tornados were decreasing. Their weather studies agree with Australia where the 1880-1945 period was the roughest.

Indeed what the report reveals is that the bias of our short-lived memory (dating back roughly 50 years) makes human beings a poor judge of climate trends which often operate on much larger time scales.

Part 7. Changes in Sea Level

This is the UN’s favourite topic. Who hasn’t seen the photoshoot of the UN Secretary-General wading out into surf in his expensive suit to ‘prove’ rising sea levels and thereby imply we need to free up hundreds of billions in ‘aid’ relief from countries such as Australia and given to Pacific Islands?

If the sea levels aren’t rising, there are a lot of taxpayers who might start demanding a refund.

There are two major problems with detecting small sea level rises.

The first is its dependency on geological activity on landmasses that may be themselves sinking or rising.

The second is the enormous historical variability of sea levels (up to 400 metres) which follow glacial periods. This modern era is an inter-glacial period in which we have been experiencing a rise in sea levels entirely unrelated to human activity.

20,000 years ago, the sea level was 130 metres lower. That’s how ancient people were able to walk across land bridges and why there are human civilisations across the world now drowned under water. Even between 14,000 years ago and 6,500 we have experienced a 110 metre sea level rise.

Was this ‘catastrophic climate change!’ or a natural cycle to which humans adapted?

What could we have done to stop this? Nothing. We didn’t cause it.

The glaciers which caused this enormous change in sea level started before the Industrial Age and continue to this day. So, when it is claimed that sea levels have risen 8 inches since 1900 – it is perfectly valid to assign that cause as natural.

This is the conclusion the report reaches – that there is no evidence that human activity has influenced sea levels.

Theoretically, to reverse sea level rise, we would almost have to manufacture an Ice Age. No one wants that. Certainly not the animals and plants.

Part 8. Uncertainties in Climate Change Attribution

This chapter critiques the way scientific reports assign the cause of data to anthropogenic activity instead of natural causes. (Anthropogenic is an adjective describing something that is related to or due to human activity.)

‘There are ongoing scientific debates around attribution methods, especially those for attributing extreme weather events to “climate change”. The IPCC has long cautioned that methods to establish causality in climate science are inherently uncertain and ultimately depend on expert judgement.’

In other words, most of the time you read an article or a report that says, ‘This flood is because of climate change!’ there is no proof, only an ideologically skewed assumption, possibly a lie.

The more incorrect the attributions in a report, the more difficult it becomes to untangle ordinary weather events from genuine outliers.

For those who are interested in how the IPCC decides if a weather event is due to ‘climate change’, they use several methods:

  • Optimal Fingerprinting (based around computer models)
  • Time Series Analysis (to pick outliers from data)
  • Process-Based Attribution (observations, computer models, and theoretical understanding)
  • Extreme Event Attribution (a guess about the likelihood of human impact)

The report is highly critical of the IPCC’s methods, especially given their reliance on computer modelling which is known to be mostly wrong.

Part 9. Climate Change and US Agriculture

This part of the report is geared toward the US market although the lesson for Australia is simple: while climate variance may slightly impact some crops, most crops are expected to increase their yields or demonstrate no change. Positive impacts are seen on corn, wheat, and soybeans.

If the world is to starve, it won’t be due to ‘climate change’. Instead, it will be due to the UN’s interference in fertiliser use which saw Sri Lanka collapse into anarchy almost overnight and their agricultural sector wiped off the map.

It is very likely that efforts to combat the non-existent threat of climate to agriculture will itself create a threat.

In Australia’s case, this can be seen in the tearing up of farmland for wind turbines, solar panels, and transmission lines.

Part 10. Managing Risks of Extreme Weather

It’s not the severity of weather events, it’s their proximity to increased populations… With more people in the world living in reclaimed areas and on artificially constructed land (for example China and its mega projects), it is inevitable that videos of floods running through cities will occur at a time when before these places were uninhabited.

Despite this, the report finds that technological advancements, particularly to building codes, has resulted in a significant decrease in mortality and property loss relative to storm severity.

Part 11. Climate Change, the Economy, and the Social Cost of Carbon

This is the most-quoted portion of the report because it handles the question facing Western economies: What is this whole carbon discussion going to cost the average taxpayer? Indeed, what will it cost our civilisation? Of what advancements will it rob us? Will it hold back our progress? Are we creating new classes of control with climate measures?

‘Economists have long considered climate a relatively unimportant factor in economic growth, a view echoed by the (UN) IPCC itself … mainstream climate economics has recognised that CO2-induced warming might have some negative economic effects, but they are too small to justify aggressive abatement policy and that trying to “stop” or cap global warming even at levels well above the Paris target would be worse than doing nothing.’

Of chief concern in this report is the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ – a new concept. The report says, ‘Estimates are highly uncertain due to unknowns in future economic growth, socioeconomic pathways, discount rates, climate damages, and system responses.’

Key takeaways that defy conventional government narratives on climate include the observation that human societies do well in warm climates and poorly in cold climates. ‘This implies that warming will tend to be harmful in hot regions but beneficial in cool ones.’ Even the UN IPCC noted that climate was a minor consideration compared to population, technology, and other things such as conflict.

So far, any historical ‘warming’, if real, has led to the greatest period of human flourishing. It has not been a ‘catastrophe’.

Indeed, Earth’s past far warmer periods are scientifically classified as ‘climate optimums’ because during such warmer periods humans thrived, civilisations thrived, and the natural environment thrived.

‘Even as the globe warmed and the population quintupled, humanity has prospered as never before. For example, global average lifespan went from thirty-two years to seventy-two years, economic activity per capita grew by a factor of seven, and the death rate from extreme weather events plummeted by a factor of fifty.’

The takeaway?

‘Most climate economists thus recommend humanity to just wait-and-see.’

Following this is a list of serious reports into historic human economies which, when examined, display significant benefits to warmer climate on every metric.

What’s startling is the way in which economists measure the Social Cost of Carbon and, as with computer modelling of temperature, it is riddled with assumptions, bias, and dodgy data.

Here’s a sample:

‘Economists use IAMs to compute the SCC. Two of the best-known are the Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation and Distribution (“FUND”, Tol 1997) and Nordhaus’ DICE. EPA (2023) introduced new ones for its recent work. IAMs embed a “damage function” or set of functions relating ambient temperature to local economic conditions. The assumptions embedded in the damage function will largely determine the resulting SCC. IAMs also assume a long-term discount rate or, as in DICE, compute the optimal internal discount rate as part of the solution. One approach to developing a damage function is to begin with estimates of the costs (or benefits) of warming in specific sectors in countries around the world and aggregate up to a global amount.’

As I am sure you have worked out, and as the report goes on to state, there is no escaping the fact that most of this is guesswork.

‘Suppose we assume a relatively high Social Cost of Carbon of, say, $75 per tonne. Deflated by a MCPF value of 1.5 that would result in a carbon tax of $50 per tonne.’

It’s a nonsense accounting system for which we’re paying a fortune – in part to the UN to fund its operating budget.

In conclusion:

The closing chapters of the report address the reality about the oft-repeated mantra of ‘taking action on climate change’.

‘Even drastic local actions will have negligible local effects, and only with a long delay. The practice of referring to unilateral US reductions as “combatting climate change” or “taking action on climate” on the assumption we can stop climate change therefore reflects a profound misunderstanding of the scale of the issue.’

In particular, it calls out the ‘war against cars’ (one of Chris Bowen’s favourite topics) saying, ‘…emissions from US vehicles cannot be expected to remediate alleged climate dangers to the US public on any measurable scale.’ If that is the case for the US, imagine what that means for the tiny population of Australian car owners.

The report concludes with a call for sanity, reality, and a serious approach toward the energy system that encourages and ensures future prosperity.

Under the Biden and Obama regimes, energy and climate experts were forced to remain silent. Under Donald Trump, these same experts have finally been able to speak freely and lay the reality of energy generation on the table for the world to see.

The Australian Uniparty’s ambivalence to this report, to the Executive Energy Orders, and to the constant messaging of the US Energy Department indicate that our government remains in a state of denial. Being willfully dishonest.

Stealing from taxpayers and transferring wealth from we, the people to parasitic billionaires and multinational corporations sucking on subsidies.

While dishonest governments cede sovereignty to the UN, World Economic Forum, and supra-natural agencies including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Governments fraudulently use concocted, unfounded climate alarm to cripple children’s mental health and impose unwarranted claims on every aspect of people’s lives from energy to food, to property, to money … to lifestyle. And to curtail basic freedom.

Fighting back against climate hysteria by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Energy is about more than fuel; it is about freedom!

Read on Substack
/3 Comments/by

DITCH Net-Zero to Fix Cost of Living

, ,

One Nation is the only party completely united in our belief that Australians deserve a better, cheaper way of life by ditching Net-Zero.

Groceries, power bills, insurance and running a small business can all be made cheaper.

Only One Nation can be trusted to put Australians first over what foreign, unelected organisations tell us to do.

Transcript

To get to what matters most in this debate over net zero, we just have to ask Australians some simple questions: is your life more affordable or more expensive over the last five years? Are you paying more or less for groceries? Is your power bill cheaper? How about the cost of a new car—how about your insurance premiums? Has your salary increased more than inflation? The answers are almost the same. It hasn’t gotten better; it’s far worse. All of these problems Australia is suffering from can be traced back directly to net zero policies. 

This isn’t just a culture war, as some people try to write it off as; this is a fight for the survival and prosperity of all Australians. This is a fight to restore our country’s position as the envy of the world. Australia is the richest country in the world for resources. We have abundant energy resources. Australia is awash with vast amounts of proven coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, rare earths and critical minerals. We should have the cheapest power prices in the world, yet we pay more for electricity than the countries to which we sell our resources. Back in 2004, the energy white paper proudly boasted Australia’s average price of electricity as being just a touch over 4c a kilowatt hour—amongst the cheapest in the world. Now the average is 33c a kilowatt hour, just 20 years later. Japan imports most of its energy resources from Australia. Japan’s electricity used to be four times more expensive than Australia’s. Now, ours is 20 per cent more expensive than Japan’s—all because of net zero. Thank you so much! 

We don’t make Fords, Holdens, Toyotas or Mitsubishis in this country anymore, because of net zero. Our steel mills, like the one in Whyalla, are going broke because of net zero. The copper smelters, like the one in Mount Isa, are shutting down because of net zero. Chocolate-maker Cadbury have said they may have to pull out of Australia because it has become undeniably expensive to manufacture in Australia. In the words of Matt Barrie, ‘Australia is about to be a country that cannot make a chocolate bar’—because of net zero. 

Wind and solar pushers have been promising Australia that it’s the cheapest way to go. They’ve been saying it for 25 years, since the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act was implemented in the year 2000, under John Howard, yet here we are today, facing desolation. With the largest amount of wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro on the grid than ever in recorded history, life has only gotten more expensive. As the solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro increase, electricity costs increase. This is the experience of every country that has gone down the path of net zero. As electricity gets more expensive, good jobs in manufacturing are getting shipped overseas and life gets worse for that country. 

/4 Comments/by

One Nation’s View of “The Future Made in Australia” Bill 2024

,

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of legislation that One Nation would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam. This Bill continues wasteful spending, now with a hint of desperation. 

The Bill introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 per kilogram, aiming to meet net zero targets. However, if hydrogen were commercially viable, companies and banks would be investing, but they aren’t. One Nation believes in the profit motive, not subsidies. 

Recent withdrawals from hydrogen projects by companies like ATCO and Shell highlight the unviability of green hydrogen. In contrast, One Nation supports practical projects like the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, which will bring thousands of jobs and $8 billion in private investment. 

The Bill also offers tax incentives for refining critical materials used in renewable energy, costing $7 billion over 11 years. This benefits processors, not taxpayers. One Nation proposes infrastructure projects to support critical minerals development instead. 

Lastly, the Bill changes borrowing rules for Aboriginal communities without actually specifying the new rules, creating uncertainty and potential debt for unviable projects. One Nation cannot support this lack of transparency. 

The net zero transition is destroying Australia with absolutely no benefit to the natural environment.  

It’s time we returned to reliable coal and gas fired power stations.  This measure will put more money back in Australians pockets and end further suffering. 

Transcript

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of the garbage legislation a One Nation government would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam/climate fraud. With this legislation, the boondoggles continue—this time with a hint of desperation.  

The bill has three schedules. The first introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. This is supposedly to encourage the production of hydrogen for use in processes that contribute to the meeting of net zero targets. There it is again, raising its ugly head: net zero targets. There is a reason that green hydrogen is going up in flames faster than the Hindenburg. If hydrogen was commercially viable there would be a queue of companies producing and using hydrogen, but there aren’t. There would be a queue of bankers lending for new hydrogen production. That isn’t happening either. In fact, the reverse is true: companies and banks are pulling out. One Nation has a different strategy to encourage production. It’s called the profit motive.  

Eighteen months ago Canadian gas giant ATCO scrapped plans for one of the first commercial-scale green hydrogen projects in Australia, despite strong funding support from the government. Why? Because the numbers did not add up. In a sign of the times, Shell withdrew from a project to convert the Port Kembla steelworks into a hydrogen powered green steel project in 2022. Only last week BlueScope announced a $1.15 billion upgrade to the same Port Kembla plant to produce steel for another 20 years, using coal. The Hydrogen Park project in Gladstone, in my home state, was suspended after the Queensland government and the private partner withdrew. Despite the hype, this project would have only produced enough hydrogen to power 19 cars, while employing a handful of people. On the other hand, the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, a real project, which One Nation has championed for years and which will be starting construction shortly, will bring thousands of jobs to Gladstone, with $8 billion of private sector investment—real breadwinner jobs, real future productive capacity. 

Now, there have been some promising developments in hydrogen powered cars, mostly from Japanese makers. With zero tailpipe emissions, a longer range and faster refuelling, they contrast with the high cost and impracticality of EVs, electric vehicles, to achieve the same outcome. But the Japanese are trialling these on the basis that they may be legislated. The Japanese are covering their options. It should be noted that this research is being conducted in the private sector, acting out of a profit motive. Nothing our government has done will develop this technology. Consider Honda, for example. It is a disciplined, respected car maker—one of the leaders in the world—with an amazing culture. It is a leader in hydrogen. It’s marking time. It has hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, but it’s using it’s shareholder money to support them, prudently, just in case they’re legislated.  

There’s nothing in the hydrogen schedule of this bill that will provide Australian taxpayers with value for money—nothing—and it’s a bloody lot of money: $6.7 billion over 10 years. I can just see Chris Bowen and Mr Anthony Albanese tossing out another few billion, $6.7 billion, to add to their trillions that will be invested eventually in this net zero madness. One Nation opposes schedule 1 of the bill, and if the bill is passed it will be repealed when One Nation repeals all of the green climate-scam legislation.  

Let’s move to schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill creates production tax incentives for transforming critical materials into a purer or more refined form. The materials in question are those that are used in wind, solar and batteries, used to firm unreliable, unaffordable, weather-dependent power—more money being thrown down the sewer. This section of the bill is directed at an industry that already receives government support through other schemes, including the Critical Minerals Facility, which offers loans, bonds, equity guarantees and insurance; the National Reconstruction Fund, which offers concessional loans, equity and guarantees; the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which offers concessional loans, equity and letters of guarantee; and the Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub, which offers in-kind support via free research and development—not free to the taxpayers funding it, but free to the company—which is separate to the normal research and development tax incentives from the Australian Taxation Office. We’re tossing money at these people, and it’s wasted. How much assistance does one industry need? How much, government? After all this assistance, who gets to keep the profits generated from all this taxpayer largesse? The processors do. The critical minerals proposal in schedule 2 will cost $7 billion over 11 years—another $7 billion. ‘What’s a billion here or there?’ says the government. 

The Albanese government is socialising the costs and privatising the profits. We pay for their development and the costs, and the companies take the profits. Worse, there’s no requirement that the recipients are Australian owned. What are you doing with people’s money? What would actually help critical minerals in Australia is One Nation’s proposal for a northern railway crossing from Port Hedland in the west to Moranbah in Queensland to open up the whole Top End and provide stranded assets like critical minerals with access to manufacturing and export hubs. 

Let’s move on to the third schedule, the final schedule. It’s even worse. The bill changes the rules in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow Aboriginal communities wider borrowing powers. The new rules are not specified. Those will come later from the minister. Not only is this a failure of transparency, it creates a second round of debate when the rules are released. It creates more uncertainty. Rules written under proposed legislation should be included with the legislation so the Senate knows exactly what it is voting on and how the powers will be used. But we don’t, and yet you’re going to vote on this. Without those rules, One Nation cannot support this schedule either. 

In One Nation, we support the people. The Liberal-Labor-Greens, though, have decades of serving masters outside the party—globalist, elitist, parasitic billionaires, foreign corporations, non-government organisations, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum alliance. The Senate is open to conclude, given the location of this provision within a bill about injecting money into the net zero scam, that net zero is the destination for this extra borrowing—financing Aboriginal corporations to create their own government subsidised businesses and doing things private enterprise won’t touch. 

Minister for Climate Change and Energy, otherwise known as ‘Minister for Blackouts’, Chris Bowen, member of parliament, is behaving like an addicted, compulsive gambler who has done all of his own money and is now dragging his friends into his black hole. If this bill is passed, the Aboriginal community will be shackled with debt for pointless financial boondoggles that have no chance of commercial success—none. If this is not the intention, then the minister must table the rules. Let’s see what the government does intend.  

The net zero transition is destroying Australia and doing nothing for the natural environment. It is hurting the natural environment. The public are turning against the whole scam now that they realise the cost benefit is not there. It’s costing them money and needless suffering. Business is turning against net zero because its carrying the full cost of soaring power prices and extra green tape. It’s now coming out in the papers—the mouthpiece media. Minister, give it up, turn on the coal- and gas-fired power stations and save Australia from more suffering. 

I’m now going to raise some additional points, related points, explaining what underpins the hydrogen scam and climate fraud. The Senate seems to be populated, mostly, with feeble-minded, gutless senators. Never has any empirical scientific data been presented as evidence, within logical scientific points, proving that carbon dioxide from human activity does what the United Nations and World Economic Forum and elitist, fraudulent billionaires claim—never, anywhere on earth. Or do such uninformed, gullible proponents in parliament have conflicts of interest? For example, the teals and possibly the Greens, it seems, receive funds from Climate 200, which spreads money from billionaire Simon Holmes a Court, who rakes in subsidies for solar and wind. Are the teals, including Senator Pocock, and the Greens gullible, or are they knowingly conflicted and pushing this scam? Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. One Nation has a plan to put more money into Australian pockets, giving you choice on how you spend your money rather than letting these people here waste it for you with the needlessly high cost of living. 

Why do electricity bills keep skyrocketing when we switch to LED lights and star appliances, and when we get power from huge solar and wind generators? The people have been conned by the energy relief fund, which has suppressed what they see in their electricity bills. When that fund comes off soon, you’re going to be in for a nightmare, a shock. Only One Nation has the policies to put more money into people’s pockets now. For some insight from overseas, President Trump says it so well in his 20 January executive order: 

The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment. Over decades, with the help of sensible policies that do not encumber private-sector activity, the United States has simultaneously grown its economy, raised worker wages, increased energy production, reduced air and water pollution … 

That’s exactly what we’ve been saying for years, for decades in fact, in One Nation. And that’s exactly the opposite of what the Greens, the teals, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals are pushing with net zero. 

I have one final point. I remember Scott Morrison as prime minister at the time, a few years ago, introducing some green hydrogen scheme incentive, with more subsidies from taxpayers to foreign, predatory billionaires. He said at the time that a price of $2 per kilogram for hydrogen would be fine. We worked out that the price of electricity at that price for hydrogen is $200 per megawatt hour, which is exorbitant. It’s almost 10 times what the fuel costs are for coal. What he didn’t tell you at the time, and what Labor has blindly followed, was that the actual price of hydrogen was $6 per kilo. Pipedreams are now becoming nightmares for people across Australia. 

Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. Only One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. We are importing ideology from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, and we are importing poverty and deprivation. One Nation, though, has a plan to put more money into Australians’ pockets, to give you choice on how you spend your money. 

/by

The Climate Alphabet Soup

,

There are numerous government organisations dedicated to implementing United Nations climate policies, making life increasingly harder for Australians. It’s hard to keep track of them all. One such organisation is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC). It incurs $537 million in annual expenses and has $7.3 billion of taxpayers money tied up in assets. The wage bill for their top 15 employees is $7.4 million a year.

Ian Learmonth, featured in this video and head of the CEFC, received a $614,000 bonus last year, taking his total remuneration for the year to $1 million dollars or 1.7 times the salary of the Prime Minister.

It’s no surprise he didn’t want to disclose this when I asked.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: There’s an alphabet soup of agencies and government departments involved in the energy transition. As simply and as specifically as possible, what do you do at the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, what are your basic accountabilities and what are the unique qualities you bring?

Mr Learmonth: The object of the CEFC, as per the act, is to facilitate the flows of capital funds into the clean energy sector and to deliver on the government’s climate targets. We’re using a significant amount of capital deployed out there in the Australian economy, effectively, to decarbonise Australia. That’s really what we’re doing. We have 165 people, most of whom are very skilled at going out into the marketplace and finding places that we can use this catalytic capital to drive emissions reduction.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total wage bill for all employees? Do you have any casuals and contractors or are they all full-time permanents?

Mr Learmonth: We just tabled our annual report that has all that information in there. If you’d like any further details that aren’t obvious or available in the annual report, I’m very happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: There have been no changes since the annual report was released?

Mr Learmonth: No.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total budget for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Learmonth: Do you mean over the forward estimates? What time period?

Senator ROBERTS: This current financial year and if you want to bring it into the forward estimates, that would be handy, too.

Mr Learmonth: Once again, I will take that on notice. It’s probably best that we do it that way. My CFO might be able to dig that number up for you. We’ve certainly got what’s in the budget papers.

Senator ROBERTS: Just getting in the chairperson’s good books, last question: what is the total salary package of everyone at the desk here who is attending right now?

Mr Learmonth: Once again, it is in the annual report. Certainly, Andrew and I are explicitly there on page 215 of the annual report. If you’d like any further information about that, we can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: Why the reluctance not to share it?

Mr Learmonth: It’s there and there’s a whole raft of different short-term incentives.

Senator ROBERTS: If it doesn’t meet our needs, we can send a letter to you and get the details? Is that right?

Mr Learmonth: I would be positioning it the other way. If there’s anything that’s not in that public document around the remuneration of the CFO and myself, we could provide it to you on notice.

2023-24 Annual ReportDownload

/2 Comments/by

The Australian Climate Scam: Global Control and Wealth Transfer

,

This article is based on a speech I delivered at the Environment and Energy Forum, held at the Dee Why RSL Club on June 2, 2024.

Every major climate and energy policy in this country was introduced by the Liberal National Party. Every one of them. Labor then came in and ramped it up.

Australia once had the world’s most affordable and reliable energy and now household electricity costs have trebled.

The Light Australia: Issue 13 – August 2024 | https://thelightaustralia.com/

Every major climate and energy policy in this country was introduced by the Liberal National Party. Every one of them. Labor then came in and ramped it up. Australia once had the world’s most affordable and reliable energy and now household electricity costs have trebled.

The debate on net zero has devolved into a debate about the details. This will only increase support for campaigns opposing the massive industrial wind and solar projects encroaching on the doorstep of regional Australia, the impact of which is killing our nation.

But who is to blame for this situation? Every major climate and energy policy in this country was introduced by the Liberal National Party only to be subsequently ramped up by Labor.

Australia’s energy costs are among the highest in the world, despite being the largest exporter of hydrocarbon fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. While other countries benefit from our resources, we can’t seem to do it. Low and affordable energy is vital for human progress and economic competitiveness, impacting all sectors of the economy. When energy prices rise, the cost of goods and services increases across the board.

Our competitive advantage once lay in attracting aluminium smelters into the Hunter Valley due to its cheap coal. Now, those smelters are shut down. Just 170 years ago, we used whale oil for lighting at night and later coal became the whales’ best friend by replacing whale oil. We also used to rely on trees for heating and cooking, but coal, oil, and natural gas have taken over those roles and as a result, hydrocarbon fuels have become the forests’ best friends. Today there is 30% more forested area in developed continents compared to 100 years ago and polar bears are doing fine.

The high cost of energy is killing disposable income and lowering living standards. This is hurting families and households, costing jobs that are going to China, where we export our coal and import solar and wind components. This situation is driving investment from our country, damaging manufacturing and agriculture, and killing innovation. It’s killing our future, security and lifestyle. We are killing the environment in an effort to save it!

The man responsible for the basic solar and wind projects we see today was John Howard and his government. He introduced the national electricity market, destroying our electricity sector. He introduced the solar and wind renewable energy targets and was the first to adopt a policy on carbon dioxide emissions trading.

It was John Howard who also stole farmers’ property rights to comply with the United Nation’s Kyoto climate protocol back in 1996. Six years after being voted out of office, having laid the groundwork for the destruction of our energy sector, he gave a public lecture in London where he admitted to being agnostic on the topic of climate science, acknowledging that he lacked scientific evidence. Yet, he implemented all those policies in the name of science.

Barnaby Joyce was initially the strongest voice against the climate fraud. Then in 2016, Malcolm Turnbull, as Prime Minister, gave his electorate, New England, New South Wales $400 million to build wind turbines, which Barnaby Joyce accepted. Senator Ian McDonald from the Liberal Party in Queensland told me back in 2015 (and I’ve seen the speech) that Senator Matt Canavan once gave a speech advocating for reducing carbon dioxide from human activity.

When people like this, who were once sceptics and openly admitted it, change their stance, it destroys the credibility of the climate realist movement. It destroys truth. Fortunately, with the exception of Howard, who remains agnostic and refuses to take responsibility for his actions, Senator Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce are now aligning with our perspective. David Littleproud, the leader of the Nationals and a committed globalist, is pushing for funding of carbon dioxide “farming”, which is immoral. We’re now prematurely closing coal-fired power stations, claiming that large quantities of solar and wind will supposedly replace them.

Some large solar and wind turbine complexes are not even connected to the grid, yet they are collecting money because they’re supposed to be producing energy. Eraring Power Station in NSW will no longer be shut down as of next year. On the first night of the Minns’ government taking power in New South Wales, on election night, the incoming energy minister announced they would reconsider closing Eraring Power Station. They knew about this and yet still continued their pretence of funding the net zero agenda.

As expensive as wind and solar are now, the real cost is only beginning to reveal itself. We haven’t yet seen the full picture – the pumped hydro station mega project – Snowy 2.0 in NSW initially had a budget of $2 billion, which has ballooned to $14 billion and is likely to reach $20 billion. We said this from the start.

The net zero transition is a complete mess. We haven’t even begun to address the transmission lines, which will incur enormous costs. We’re looking at 15,000 kilometres of transmission lines crisscrossing Australia to transport power from sunny and windy areas to cities where it is needed. 15,000 kilometres of environmental devastation, carving out a 75m wide path through national parks, remnant forests and productive farmland. What a disgrace – and an act of environmental vandalism.

All of these policies were introduced by the Liberals and then Labor takes over, intensifying the effort, turbocharged by the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

I have held them accountable. They have admitted to me that they have never claimed there is any danger from carbon dioxide from human activity. They stated that temperatures are not unprecedented. Yet we are constantly told that the globe is warming with unprecedented temperatures. No empirical scientific data or logical scientific points to support this claim have been provided.

We are facing climate fraud, not climate change. CSIRO is now producing GenCost (a net zero economic report) which is filled with fraudulent numbers and bogus assumptions to make solar and wind energy look good.

We have seen no specific effects of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor – be it temperature, ocean temperature, snowfall, rainfall, severe storms, or anything else – ever.

You cannot formulate a policy without it being based in actual science because, without understanding the effects of what you’re blaming (carbon dioxide), you cannot track the effectiveness of your policy. We are essentially flying blind, with the ‘ministry for madness’, led by Blackout Bowen, (Chris Bowen, Federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy) steering us off a cliff. This outcome can be attributed to Liberal/National Party policies – that’s the reality.

Not only is there no scientific basis for their policies and no way to measure their effectiveness, but there is also a lack of cost benefit analysis. They are attempting something unprecedented without any evidence to support their approach. Other countries have seen that increasing reliance on solar and wind power dramatically increases prices and reduces reliability.

Climate Change is nothing but climate fraud. We are funnelling obscene amounts of money – billions of dollars – into the pockets of parasitic billionaires, while simultaneously destroying our economy to the tune of trillions of dollars. When you look at the life cycle of these renewable energy sources, just 15 years, it is clear that we are not only destroying the quality of life for current Australians but also for generations to come. We are subsidising foreign corporations, including the Chinese government, to install these monstrosities that are literally destroying our environment.

Hydrocarbon fuels granted us independence from nature. Coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy share a remarkable quality: high energy density. This provides lowcost energy, boosts productivity and wealth, reduces the cost of living and increases the standard of living.

For 170 years, until 1996 when John Howard came to power, we had experienced the benefits of this high energy density and resource efficiency. Power stations can generate all the power needed, requiring a small footprint to generate that power. This results in reduced use of minerals and land, with a significantly higher energy output.

To illustrate, consider the amount of steel needed per megawatt of energy capacity. A coal-fired power station requires 35 tonnes of steel, whereas a wind turbine needs 546 tonnes for the same energy output. Considering the intermittency of wind, its low energy density, and production limitations, the overall cost of wind energy is much higher. Solar energy, meanwhile, demands an enormous amount of land.

Now consider the low-capacity factor of solar and wind energy, which averages around 23% of the nameplate capacity (or intended output). This means that over a 24- hour period, a 1MW (megawatt) wind or solar plant will only produce 230 KW (Kilowatt) of electricity. This limitation is because solar panels can’t generate electricity at night or when it’s overcast (when the sun doesn’t shine), and wind turbines require consistent wind. To achieve the same electricity output, you would need four times the nameplate capacity, meaning you would need 4 x 1MW of generation to produce 1MW.

Even worse, the majority of this generation occurs during the day, which means during morning and evening peak hours, industrial wind and solar are only generating around 10% of nameplate capacity. Consequently, you would need ten times the amount of generation to achieve the expected electricity output.

In contrast, coal or nuclear power plants can reliably generate electricity at their full capacity, meaning you only need 1MW of generation to actually get 1MW of power, with some allowance for maintenance. Importantly, this approach does not require the destruction of the natural environment.

Consider the capital cost of this massive overbuild. This aspect is largely overlooked. Coal-fired, nuclear, hydro, and gas-fired power stations have a small footprint and are typically located relatively close to metropolitan areas, resulting in lower transmission line expenses for both construction and maintenance.

In contrast, solar and wind are scattered, leading to significantly higher transmission costs and increased maintenance expenses. These installations disrupt farming, rural communities, and the natural environment because they are dispersed widely.

The dispersed nature of solar and wind energy not only increases transmission costs but also, when factoring in their low-capacity factor and the need to build extra capacity, up to ten times more, the overall costs become extremely high.

Transmission costs previously accounted for approximately 49% of electricity costs. However, the current breakdown of electricity costs is far from clear, making it difficult to determine the current share of transmission costs.

Backup batteries to store and distribute electricity from daytime generation to evening and morning peak periods will add tens of billions to the overall costs. There are approximately $40 billion in large scale pumped hydro projects proposed or under construction, further increasing costs. Gas-fired power stations are also being considered as backup, essentially resulting in two forms of power generation in case the primary source fails.

This situation is absurd and nonsensical. The instability of solar and wind energy stems from their asynchronous nature, while coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear energy sources are synchronous and inherently stable. Solar and wind’s instability leads to increased complexity of management and more breakdowns. It’s like going back 170 years to when our energy was dependent on the weather.

As Henry Kissinger stated years ago – whoever controls energy, food, and money controls the nation. With the current trajectory, they are on the way to controlling all three.

Most importantly, hydrocarbon fuels have been the greatest driver of human progress and lifestyle improvements throughout history, significantly enhancing standards of living. This progress is now at risk of being smashed, with human progress being the biggest loser.

One Nation embraces coal and nuclear energy, with the cheapest option prevailing.

We possess 25% of the world’s uranium reserves and approximately a century’s worth of thermal coal. Although coal is still cheaper than nuclear energy, the need to discuss both options is required. We should lift the ban on nuclear energy.

Additionally, we must address the national electricity racket, which has become a bureaucratic nightmare that unfairly favours wind and solar energy. This system allows bureaucrats to set prices rather than letting the market determine them, leading to a situation where consumers are being conned.

I’ll conclude with one final point. The late Professor Bob Carter, a wonderful paleoclimatologist, once remarked to me that this must be the biggest scam ever. I replied, “Bob, it’s not even close.” The primary issue here is the anti-human agenda, aiming to control humanity. We are facing an anti-human apocalypse, staring right down the barrel of it.

One Nation believes in the primacy of affordable energy. We advocate for honest, practical solutions based on data to address this issue. The UniParty, consisting of both Liberal and Labor, must be called out because they are the ones pushing this agenda. Together, they are working towards a global plan of control and wealth transfer, and it’s the people who pay the price.

Australia has the world’s best resources, people and climate. We have the capacity to excel in mineral resources and agriculture.

All we need is a government that believes in Australia’s potential.

Issue-13-The Light AustraliaDownload
The Australian Climate ScamDownload
/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

Labor Proposes to Tax the Shirt off Your Back

,

During Question Time, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher twice failed to rule out adding a tax to clothing.

This tax will be passed on to you and I at the checkout, making clothing more expensive and adding to the cost of living. The excuse for this tax is to reduce climate change by reducing the amount of clothing being manufactured. The wealthy wont reduce their purchases for the sake of a tax, yet everyday Australians will have no choice.

This exchange shows the Albanese Government really is considering taxing the shirt on your back, so you buy fewer clothes. Welcome to life under a Labor/Greens/WEF government.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Gallagher. Last week the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tania Plibersek MP, stated that Australians were throwing out too many items of clothing, and manufacturers should sign up to a government-backed scheme called Seamless to recycle and not dump used clothes. Clothing can and should be recycled into new clothing and other fibre products. One Australian company operates an upcycling scheme that has dozens of manufacturers, trade linen suppliers, recycling companies and retailers as members, and has taken 100 tonnes of clothing out of landfill. Minister, why is the government reinventing the wheel, creating its own favoured solution and imposing that instead of working with the industry to help them upscale their existing solution?

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. From what I’ve seen from the minister and the work that she has been doing in space, she has been working with industry and relevant businesses on the development of this policy. That has been critical to the work that she has been doing and it has certainly been under way for some time. I know there was talk before there was a summit and there was talk of a voluntary code, but it is an important part of ensuring that we are protecting the environment from the amount of waste that is going into landfill—and a big contributor of that is clothing. I don’t know, maybe I have misunderstood your question, Senator Roberts, but while there are manufacturers and industries in place that are already doing this, this is about building on that and making it more across-the-board, particularly for those that aren’t doing that, to make sure we are lifting our game in relation to recycling, and preventing the huge amount of clothing material going into landfill. If there are manufacturers or businesses that you think are feeling out of the loop of that consultation I’m sure the Minister for the Environment and Water would be happy to reach out.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary question?

Senator ROBERTS: Councils do not currently include clothing on the list of things people can put into a yellow bin. Most suggest giving used clothes to charity shops, very little of which can be resold. Most of that ends up in landfill at the charity shop’s expense. Isn’t the first step here sorting out the system for recycling and processing, then working with councils and retailers to encourage recycling through yellow bins? Is your government putting the cart before the horse?

Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept that, Senator Roberts. Where we can, we do work with councils and we work with businesses—we’ll work with anybody who wants to help protect the environment and reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. From my reading—and I was not here last week—of the work that Minister Plibersek was doing, it was about encouraging the voluntary cooperation or involvement of businesses in Seamless, in that program, to build it from there. So I would think, yes, you have to work with all of those people, including the councils that run the recycling facilities, whether it be the tips or whether it be what is called the Green Shed here. People donate to Vinnies. There are clothing bins. There are all of those options. Many of those are run by local government. But the Commonwealth government should provide a leadership role and provide that stewardship, where we can, and work together with everybody involved.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Plibersek threatened that if the industry did not accept the government’s superfluous Seamless then a 4 cent waste levy should be imposed on clothing manufacturers. This proposal will increase the cost of clothing at the checkouts. Minister, will you, right now, rule out taxing clothing? 

Senator GALLAGHER: Minister Plibersek has been working with the industry to reduce the amount of waste. Clothes are cheaper than they have ever been—this is part of the problem. Anyone with teenagers or anyone who goes on some of these websites knows that you can replace your whole wardrobe, very cost-efficiently, because of the nature of people’s buying habits and the ability to get clothes from overseas. We are seeing that the average Australian sends almost 10 kilos of clothing waste to landfill every year. So it is a big problem, and it’s a problem that we need to work across industry to fix. 

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: A point of order on relevance: I asked, ‘Will the minister now rule out taxing clothing?’ 

The PRESIDENT: The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator GALLAGHER: I am explaining what the government is doing. You might want to take it somewhere else, which we have no plans to do. We are talking about what we are doing now with Seamless, which is: working with industry to reduce the amount of clothing going to landfill. And we will work with anybody who wants to work with us on that.

Following Question Time, I moved to take note of the Minister’s response to my questions.

When did it become appropriate for the government to decide how much clothing you own? Minister Tania Plibersek is repeating World Economic Forum rhetoric designed to widen the gulf between the haves and the have nots. It’s terrifying that Minister Plibersek should recycle WEF talking points to the Australian public.

The real failure however is that many people aren’t aware that clothes can be recycled. Councils and retail stores don’t offer recycling options, and although the fashion industry has started recycling facilities in Sydney and Melbourne, more is needed.

Instead of taxing clothing, how about working with the industry to expand capability and encourage the clothing industry to tag items for recycling instead of throwing them out. The government could do with ignoring the WEF and its CCP-style rules and instead think for itself on behalf of Australians not globalists. How about less stick and more common sense?

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the government’s proposed tax on clothing. 

We are told the proposed tax on clothing is to encourage recycling. The proposal from the Minister for the Environment and Water was floated over the weekend. This was not some random thought bubble. The World Economic Forum and its acolytes have been saying for years that everyday citizens are buying too much clothing. Minister Plibersek repeated those World Economic Forum talking points in the same press conference. This begs the questions: What’s the correct amount of clothing a person can own? Who decides how much clothing we each get to own? Is the intent to remove colour and style options so that a few approved uniforms are all we need? Didn’t China try that already? 

This proposal sits alongside the World Economic Forum policy that I spoke to last sitting, calling on people to wear clothing for a week and jeans for a month before washing them. It’s true that laundering clothing does wear it out. To get by with fewer items of clothing, one has to wash them less often. At least they thought this through. 

It’s terrifying that a minister of the Crown would repeat World Economic Forum talking points designed to ensure that everyday Australians have less. The failure here, though, is this: the reason we throw out so much clothing is that Australians don’t know clothing can be recycled. Councils don’t have clothing on the lists of things you can put in a yellow bin. Retailers don’t have recycling bins in stores, and they don’t attach a tag to a garment saying, ‘You can recycle the product in a yellow bin.’ The industry already has recycling facilities in Sydney and Melbourne, which is a good start. 

Here’s an idea: instead of taxing clothing to create a new recycling system, as the Labor Party is considering, how about working with the industry to expand capability and then encourage the public to recycle clothing instead of throwing it out? This government needs to use less stick and more commonsense. It needs to use less control and do more listening and consulting. 

Question agreed to. 

/9 Comments/by

Rally in Canberra Against Reckless Renewables

, ,

A huge response for the rally on Parliament House against reckless renewables on Tuesday, 6 February 2024.

Wind and solar installations are environmental vandals and will never be able to provide the baseload power we need to function competitively as a country.

It’s time to end the wealth transfer to climate billionaires like Simon Holmes a Court, Twiggy Forrest and Mike Cannon-Brookes.

/2 Comments/by

Wind Scam Unravels as Projects Fail

The economic and environmental cost of wind generated power is becoming clearer to investors as they back away from more projects, both overseas, on Australian soil and off-shore.

Following on from my speech last week drawing attention to financial losses in the wind energy scam, I speak about what’s behind these unravelling, expensive Net Zero operations.

It’s time to look again at clean coal.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, it has been only a few weeks since my last speech drawing attention to financial losses and failures in the wind energy scam. Today, we have more. Europe’s largest onshore wind turbine installation, Markbygden, has filed for bankruptcy protection. If completed, it would have consisted of 1,101 wind turbines and 750 kilometres of access roads. Escalating construction costs meant the project can no longer bid electricity into the grid at a price the grid operator can afford.

As I explained last week, there are not enough mines to mine the materials, not enough steel mills to make the steel nor enough special-purpose ships to bring them across the world. This is just economic cost. The environmental cost no longer factors into the equation. As an example, the Clarke Creek Wind Farm west of Rockhampton hit the news in the last two weeks, when their environmental impact study caused real environmentalists, like One Nation, outrage. The environmental impact statement admitted that the most severe impact of the proposal will be on the skulls of any koalas beaten to death for trespassing on the project’s land.

Offshore wind in Australia has had a bad week, too, with BlueFloat withdrawing their plans for offshore wind in the Shoalhaven area of New South Wales. BlueFloat’s proposal was for a 359 square kilometre area with 105 turbines located 14 to 30 kilometres of the Illawarra coastline. Each turbine would have a diameter of 275 metres and feed into three offshore substations. What an insane idea. One strong storm, and the whole lot winds up on the beach. Saltwater corrosion repair now accounts for 30 per cent of the levelised cost of electricity from offshore wind turbines. Offshore wind is unprofitable from the perspective of construction and maintenance costs.

It’s time to have another look at clean coal before the green movement has us all sitting in the dark with a fridge full of inedible, spoiled food.

/12 Comments/by

No Basis for Extreme Weather Predictions

The Australian Department of Treasury website states that extreme weather events are expected to occur with increased frequency and severity. I asked in the recent senate estimates what sources Treasury had based this prediction. I was informed that it was consistent with the government-stated position on climate change and climate action.

Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 6th Assessment Report on the Science says there have been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters. It summarises the available scientific evidence on the signal of natural disasters and finds no change in signals for weather-related events, including river flood, rain in terms of heavy precipitation, landslide, drought, fire, wind speed, tropical cyclone, relative, sea level, coastal flood and marine heat wave.

The Minister was not prepared to take my question on notice regarding their source of empirical scientific data.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The next one is fairly straightforward. A statement on the Treasury website states that ‘Extreme weather events are also expected to occur with increased severity and frequency’. On what are you basing that statement?

Ms Kelley: We worked with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the AOFM in terms of the statement, and the statement is consistent with the government’s stated position on climate change and climate action. The statement uses publicly available information from the 2023-24 budget and the Annual Climate Change Statement.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure it’s consistent with lots of things, because you just told me where the sources of it are. I’ll go back to the quote: ‘Extreme weather events are also expected to occur with increased frequency and severity’. I’ll direct you to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sixth assessment report on the science, chapter 12, table 12.12. That summarises the available scientific evidence on the signal of natural disasters. I’ll run through some of the types of disasters where the United Nations says there’s been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters: frost; river flood; rain, measured in terms of heavy precipitation or mean precipitation; landslide; drought; fire weather; wind speed; windstorm; tropical cyclone; dust storm; heavy snowfall; hail; relative sea level; coastal flood; and marine heatwave. There’s been no change in signal for any of these events according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So I’m wondering what type of weather event this increased risk you are claiming is going to come from. What type of natural disaster are you talking about?

Ms Kelley: That’s probably not my area within the department, so—

Senator ROBERTS: Do you think I should take it up with the department that you copied your policy from?

Ms Kelley: Yes, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is probably the most appropriate department.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve taken their material and just placed it on your website? You’ve trusted them.

Ms Kelley: We have been wholly consistent with government policy in terms of the statement. It’s informed by a range of different pieces of evidence.

Senator ROBERTS: Great. Thank you very much.

Senator Gallagher: Senator Roberts, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Senator ROBERTS: No, we don’t have to agree to disagree. We just have to get the data. Perhaps you could take it on notice, Minister, to get me that data.

CHAIR: Thank you very much—

Ms Kelley: Sorry, could I just add to the question about—

Senator ROBERTS: I wouldn’t be winking about it, Senator Gallagher.

Senator Gallagher: Eh?

Senator ROBERTS: I wouldn’t be winking about it.

Senator Gallagher: No, well, this comes up a lot—

Senator ROBERTS: This is costing this country trillions. This is costing our country trillions of dollars.

Senator Gallagher: I think, fundamentally, we have a different—

Senator ROBERTS: Mine’s informed by the data.

Senator Gallagher: You strongly object to climate science. We don’t.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t reject it. That’s a false statement. I don’t reject the climate science; I follow the climate science.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, thank you. Ms Kelley would like to make a final remark.

Ms Kelley: I just want to answer your question about the costs. I’ve got some clarification. We’ve borne our own costs, and Ms O’Donnell is bearing hers. There are no other decisions to be made about costs.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. I just make the point that the minister is not willing to provide me with a source for that advice to the government. You’re a senior member of the government.

Senator Gallagher: I think at a number of estimates hearings, on a number of questions on notice, that information has been provided, Senator Roberts. If there’s anything further we can provide, I’m happy to add—

Senator ROBERTS: Senator Gallagher, I need to correct you. The logical scientific points, with the empirical scientific data, have never been provided to me by anyone.

CHAIR: Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, I’m just going to make the decision that there’s a repetition to your line of questioning. Thank you very much for your brevity in general.

/6 Comments/by