Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN’s Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.”
The UN wants to categorise any statement that “undermines” their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn’t provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data.
It’s alarming that those in charge of “information integrity” at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others.
To claim someone is spreading “misinformation” requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim.
We cannot allow “consensus” or UN-dictated “integrity” to replace real, verifiable science.
I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.
— Public Hearing | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Scaddan, for appearing. It must be about 5.50 pm in New York.
Ms Scaddan: It is, exactly.
Senator ROBERTS: On what basis do you categorise a statement or an action on climate or a climate system as misinformation or disinformation, or lacking in information integrity?
Ms Scaddan: We have very clear scientific consensus around climate change. Anything that is undermining the scientific consensus as laid out by the IPCC and the legal frameworks we have for taking climate action would be considered to be false information. I couldn’t say if it was misinformation or disinformation—that depends.
Senator ROBERTS: To make claims that climate is changing owing to human carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide from human activity, would you agree that one needs scientific proof?
Ms Scaddan: As I just said, yes; we have the scientific consensus around climate.
Senator ROBERTS: What constitutes scientific proof?
Ms Scaddan: That is not a question I’m going to answer here. As I’ve said several times now, we have very clear scientific consensus around climate change, its causes and its impacts.
Senator ROBERTS: Consensus is a political aspect; scientific proof is the scientific aspect. Isn’t scientific proof simply empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Yes or no?
Ms Scaddan: I can’t answer questions about science; it’s not something I’ve studied. But scientific consensus is not political; it refers to 99 out of 100 scientists agreeing on scientific evidence and the interpretation of that. That is my understanding of it, but you’d have to ask the scientists to explain it to you. I’m not one.
Senator ROBERTS: We have amassed 24,000 data sets on energy and climate from around the world— legally. There is no data at all that shows there’s a changing climate, only inherent natural variation in cycles. One what specific basis do you claim climate change? Consensus?
Ms Scaddan: I can point you to the work of the IPCC, which is the UN body, as I’m sure you know, that delivers our scientific evidence and consensus around climate.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m well aware of the IPCC. I’ve read the first five reports. One of my staffers read the sixth and final report. Nowhere in any of those reports is there specific, empirical, scientific data proving logical scientific points and cause and effect. On notice, could you point me to a specific location, chapter number and page number, and the authors, within a report where we have empirical scientific data and logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Just give me one.
CHAIR: I’ll stop proceedings at this point in time. Senator Roberts, we are asking about climate disinformation and misinformation—
Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.
CHAIR: No, we’ve asked Ms Scaddan to come on to talk about a global initiative and a multilateral approach. You’re now going to use your line of questioning around whether climate change is real or not. Please be relevant to the terms of reference, otherwise I’ll rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: But this is fundamental to the misinformation.
Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: One nation are a bunch of climate deniers. That’s what this is demonstrating: climate deniers and delayers. Have you not learned your lesson from multiple elections?
CHAIR: Can we all just be respectful—
Senator CANAVAN: I wanted to make a point of order. I think accusations and imputations about other senators are certainly not in order. The inquiry is about climate misinformation, so in terms of your point about the terms of reference, I think a question about whether or not climate change is something to take action on is clearly a threshold issue about whether to take action on misinformation. It’s clearly within the terms of reference.
CHAIR: That’s a substantive issue. You’re not making a point of order.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Scaddan, have you heard of a man called Maurice Strong? Yes or no?
Ms Scaddan: I don’t believe so. I can’t tell you for sure because I meet a lot of people. CHAIR: Is this relevant to the terms of reference?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is. He used misinformation and disinformation techniques while working within the UN. But you’re not aware of him, so I won’t ask any more questions about it. If someone gets scientific proof then the next thing is to establish a policy basis—correct?
Ms Scaddan: That would be the logical step.
Senator ROBERTS: To set a policy to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, we need to first quantify the specific impact on climate, such as temperature, rainfall, natural weather events, storm frequency, duration and severity per unit of human carbon dioxide. Do you agree?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, what’s this got to do with misinformation and disinformation? Could you reframe the question like, for example, Senator Canavan did—’Would that be an example of misinformation or disinformation?’ Ms Scaddan’s not here to answer your questions on what is scientifically verifiable or not. She’s here to talk about misinformation.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking her to verify it. I’m just asking her to verify the logic, and she’s done half of it already.
CHAIR: No, this is way outside the terms of reference.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got to understand the basis of misinformation and disinformation, Chair.
CHAIR: Why don’t you frame that question that way, then?
Senator ROBERTS: As a basis for understanding comments about climate action, whether or not climate change is real or what aspects of it are, we use scientific proof. We’ve agreed on that. To address climate action and to assess misinformation and disinformation, we need to understand the policy basis. We’ve semi-agreed on that. What is the policy basis? What is the specific impact? I don’t expect you to know it, but point me to a specific location, page number or report that shows the policy basis for climate action.
Ms Scaddan: I’m happy to answer this. If you don’t expect me to know it, it’s a little surprising that you’re asking. However—and I’m sorry to disappoint—I don’t know the specific page, paragraph number or point. But I am happy to follow up and send you the relevant IPCC reports and pages that would give you the scientific consensus on climate.
Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Can we just—
CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s great. When you’re replying, Ms Scaddan, please give me the specific page number of the scientific proof which is the empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect and then please give me the specific impact of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor as policy basis. I want specific locations.
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?
During this Estimates session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water of Australia (DCCEEW), I questioned the government on two issues: secretive appointments that erode trust and climate claims without evidence.
I quoted Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, and asked the Minister a simple question: what impact has Mr Kaiser’s appointment had on morale within the department? The Minister assured me he has “absolute confidence” in Mr Kaiser and claimed there’s no evidence of a negative effect on morale. I moved on — however noted that he left out some controversial aspects of Mr Kaiser’s background.
I went on to ask Minister Watt a simple, direct question: You claim we are facing “drier and warmer” summers — where is the specific data to back that up?
Instead of providing a source, Minister Watt resorted to his usual script. He tried to laugh it off as a “conspiracy” and claimed I simply “refuse to believe” the experts.
If the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO have the data, why is it so hard for Minister Watt to produce it?
I won’t be put off by snide remarks. I will keep asking the same question until the Australian people get the transparency they deserve.
We cannot base massive economic policies on feelings and forecasts that no one is willing to defend with data.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Minister, following on from my last question, I will quote from a news report. Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor at the University of New South Wales and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, said: The fact that they commissioned— that’s your government— the Briggs review, have yet to release it, and are still making appointments through this outdated, opaque, and problematic process is particularly concerning … hugely corrosive. Even if the individual is the right or the best or a good person for the job, it just smells of jobs for mates, it smells of cronyism, and it smells of a conflict of interest. These are the types of issues that undermine public trust in government. In my experience, both public servants and private sector employees are usually wonderful. What is the impact of this appointment of Mr Kaiser on morale in your department?
Senator Watt: I have absolute confidence in Mr Kaiser’s ability to do the job, and that’s certainly being borne out—
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, I asked for your opinion of the effect of his appointment on the morale of the people in the department.
Senator Watt: I’ve seen no evidence that it’s had a negative impact on morale.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can I ask a second question?
Senator Watt: You are making an imputation or implication in relation to Mr Kaiser, and I’d repeat the point—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just quoting what an independent person said.
Senator Watt: Mr Kaiser comes to this job having been the director-general of the premier’s department in Queensland, the director-general of the state development department in Queensland and the director-general of the resources department in Queensland, on top of a lengthy private-sector career. With that kind of background, I’m not surprised that he’s doing a very good job as the secretary.
Senator ROBERTS: You omitted some of the controversial aspects. Moving on to my second question, you said in your opening statement, Minister, that we’re facing drier and warmer summers. Can you give me the source of that data, please—the specific location? No quips about ‘hard to convince’.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I thought we’d get into climate conspiracies by about 4 pm; I didn’t think we’d get there by six minutes to 10.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re avoiding the question. Could you give me the specific location, please?
Senator Watt: You and I have had many conversations in estimates hearings—
Senator ROBERTS: And we’ll continue to have them.
Senator Watt: about whether climate change is real or not. I have failed to persuade you that climate change is real. The Bureau of Meteorology has failed to convince you that climate change is real. CSIRO has failed to convince you that climate change is real. What you see on your TV has failed to convince you that climate change is real. I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince you.
Senator ROBERTS: Is your forecast of drier and warmer summers cyclical; is it a change in climate? Can you give me the specific location? I will keep raising this until you give me the specific location of variables.
Senator Watt: I have no doubt that you will keep raising it.
Senator ROBERTS: No-one has provided it.
Senator Watt: Many witnesses at estimates hearings have presented the evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you provide it?
Senator Watt: You’ve just chosen not to believe them.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1768964264087-59b6df8c-796b-4250-b49e-19136ad9c379.png6391138Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-21 13:04:272026-01-21 13:04:31The Data is Missing — and They Know It
Victoria has taken another step toward eroding democracy and destroying the natural environment. Premier Allan’s extremist government approved the Meadow Creek industrial solar project, completely ignoring objections from locals. Under new laws in Victoria, there’s no right to appeal this decision.
This is about appeasing wealthy urban voters under the guise of a false climate emergency—not saving the planet.
The project will turn 566 hectares of prime farmland into an industrial site, destroying property values, tourism, and jobs. Toxic runoff from degrading panels will flow into the Ovens River water supply catchment and then into the Murray-Darling Basin.
RMIT planning professor Michael Buxton described the approval as “an autocratic imposition without regard for liberal democracy.” No wonder many Victorians are leaving Victoria-stan!
Labor’s climate crusade is a façade—behind it lies the destruction of our human and natural environment.
– Senate Speech | November 2025
Transcript
Last week, Victoria continued its incremental destruction of human rights and the natural environment. Premier Allan’s extremist government has approved the Meadow Creek industrial solar installation against the wishes of local residents. Five hundred submissions opposing the development were lodged by people who did not realise Victoria is no longer a democracy and the will of the people is a joke to Premier Allan. Under new laws in Victoria, there can’t be any appeal to this decision. Premier Allan will happily run roughshod over communities it doesn’t need votes from to pander to constituents it does. In this case, rich urban voters with an ability complex, happy to destroy the natural to assuage their guilt at living lives of plenty on the back of Australia’s coal power—all in the name of a fictitious, dishonest climate emergency. What they’re really doing is denying young Australians the same life they led—a life which included homeownership on a single wage, proper holidays, a decent education without a lifetime of debt, and a healthy natural environment.
RMIT planning professor Michael Buxton has described approval of Meadow Creek as ‘the autocratic imposition of a project without any regard for the principles of a liberal democracy’—a massive $750 million development turning 566 hectares of prime farmland into a toxic industrial site, destroying the value of neighbouring properties, destroying the natural environment, destroying tourism, destroying employment in agriculture and tourism and destroying the human environment. The toxic run-off from the solar panels, once they start to degrade, will go straight into the Ovens River water supply catchment and then into the Murray-Darling Basin. The Labor Party lies say they’re not running a war on the bush. No wonder so many Victorians are leaving and seeking political asylum anywhere other than Victoria-stan. Victoria is dishonestly pretending to save the planet while killing the human environment and natural environment. (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/K3RMhnkka8U/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-15 13:23:112026-01-15 13:23:15Killing the Bush to Please the Cities
The Nationals are starting to see the truth about the net zero scam — well, sort of.
They are finally admitting net zero is hurting regional Australia—yet they still cling to the scam. One Nation has said for years: scrap net zero completely. It’s costing taxpayers $30 billion a year and will blow out to $1.9 trillion by 2050, while electricity prices keep rising and everyday Australians suffer.
Meanwhile, foreign-controlled corporations and banks dominate our markets, driving prices up while executives pocket millions. Add mass migration pushing rents up, and you see why Australians are sliding into poverty.
One Nation warned this would happen—and we have the solutions. It’s time to put Australians first. Our solutions are practical, proven, and ready to go. As JFK said: Our problems are man-made. Therefore, they can be solved by man.
Transcript
Welcome to the latest episode of your favourite TV show: One Nation Were Right All Along. First up, we have the Nationals finally seeing the light of the net zero scam—well, kind of. Their support has gone from unqualified support to ‘how much net zero can we do before we start losing seats?’ In their announcement, Nationals leader David Littleproud said: ‘The Nationals accept the science of climate change and remain committed to emissions reduction. The current aggressive pursuit of net zero is unfairly damaging to regional Australia and economically unsustainable for the country’—he’s waking up—’We need a slower pace aligned with the OECD average’.
That’s a clever sleight of hand. The OECD reduction has stalled for five years. Their accumulative reduction is currently 14 per cent, and Australia’s is 24 per cent. The latest data will show ours at 28 per cent, double the OECD’s. Tying Australia to the OECD will buy the Nationals an election or two before having to restart reductions. Remember, though, that they still believe in net zero and in the need to cut carbon dioxide production. I welcome the Nationals realisation of the damage net zero is doing and wish they had more courage to walk away from the scam entirely.
In contrast, One Nation strongly oppose net zero, and we would abolish all federal government net zero mandates, programs and boondoggles. We would shut down all the schemes and departments promoting this scam, saving taxpayers $30 billion every year. This is not the only cost of course. Parasitic billionaires and corporations sucking on taxpayer subsidies and electricity consumer subsidies, and others in private industry, are taking advantage of this scam to build industrial solar and wind, transmission lines, big batteries and other paraphernalia of net zero. This cost will be as high as $1.9 trillion through to 2050. Remember that industrial solar and wind lasts only 15 years, which means everything that has been built so far will not be in use in 2050 and will have to be built again and again. The government’s Bollywood version of the cost of net zero does not take into account this massive expense—nor do they consider the environmental cost of the destruction of native forests for wind turbines, access roads and transmission lines; the cost of dumping these monstrosities into landfill every 15 years; or the run-off from toxic metals from damaged solar panels. This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.
Electricity is an input cost right across the economy. The price of everything you buy, from physical goods in stores to services and financial products, goes up as the electricity bills of the companies providing those services go up. Everyday Australians are poorer because of net zero, and so is Australia’s beautiful natural environment. The government used to say, ‘Renewables are cheaper, so prices will come down eventually.’ However, after 20 years of the transition—the last three at breakneck pace—electricity bills are not coming down; they’re rising rapidly.
Some of those who are wealthy enough and have an actual house in which to install solar panels and an expensive wall battery are reporting slightly reduced electricity bills. The very few Australians with the money to spend $25,000 on a solar array and wall battery for a home they own are thumbing their noses at the millions that do not have a house and $25,000 to add solar and a battery. Net zero is becoming a case of the haves and have-nots. Those who can’t afford their own electricity generation are left to buy electricity at prices that have increased at twice the rate of inflation since the net zero benchmark year of 2005. It’s a trend that continues, with a nine per cent increase in electricity prices in 2025.
One Nation are right in our opposition to mass migration. Today we learnt that the majority of Australians agree with us—right again. A poll in the Australian yesterday showed that almost two-thirds of Australians want a reduction in the migration rate; 94 per cent of One Nation supporters support reduced migration, which has now been a feature of One Nation policy for 30 years, ever since the Liberal-National coalition under John Howard doubled migration and started mass migration. Significantly, 78 per cent of coalition voters want a reduction in immigration, and so do 71 per cent of supporters of smaller parties and independents, which does include the teals—so that’s very interesting.
What caught my eye with the poll is that two parties who have been pushing infinite immigration are doing so against the wishes of their supporters. Only 10 per cent of Labor’s supporters want more migrants, while 49 per cent want fewer. While 27 per cent of Greens voters want more immigration, 32 per cent want less. Immigration is now one of the biggest election issues in New South Wales, which is not surprising, given the rental crisis in the greater Sydney area, thanks to the Albanese immigration invasion. It is interesting to see there is no gender divide on immigration. Opposition to high immigration is spread evenly between men and women.
It’s a betrayal of the very concept of democracy for this government to continue its globalist agenda to flood Australia with these very high levels of mass immigration against the wishes of the Australian people. Liberal and Labor governments are importing too many new arrivals from cultures that do not readily assimilate and bring with them a religion, Islam, that seeks to carve out a slice of this country to introduce their own system of law—divisive.
At the same time, the government is inhumanely ignoring the tragedy of the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, in Sudan and in South Africa. I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs yesterday in question time how many Christian refugees we brought in from these trouble spots. The answer was telling: zero! I asked who’s benefiting from Australia’s humanitarian intake. His answer was that the top five countries for refugee visas, 15,000 in all, are all Islamic countries. This is nothing more than selective discrimination against Christians. In the past, Australians would have considered this sedition. One Nation still does.
Third, One Nation is correct about the standard of living. For years, I’ve been warning the Australian people that the net zero agenda, combined with mass immigration, is destroying business investment in our productive capacity, reducing living standards. Sky News is reporting today just how bad things have become. One in seven Australians now live below the poverty line, and one in six children are below the poverty line. That’s 3.7 million people struggling to pay for food, power and rent in a nation bursting with resources, all a result of Liberal-Labor uniparty policies—mass migration, net zero, housing, overregulation.
In what was once the richest country, per capita, in the world, we now have the worst poverty in my lifetime, yet we still have the natural resources; the abundant hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas; amazing farmland; and a strong tourism industry. For years, successive Liberal and Labor governments have shut down industries that provided breadwinner jobs in steelworks and heavy manufacturing, and value-adding jobs like textiles. They weighed our farmers down with so much green tape and blue United Nations tape that they are struggling to stay afloat. Australian wealth is being sabotaged in a process called ‘managed decline’. It’s deliberate. Yet our GDP is still growing. What’s going on? Australia’s wealth is being transferred from Australians to foreign beneficiaries. The world’s predatory billionaires have used their investment funds, like BlackRock, First State, Vanguard and State Street, to buy not only shares in Australian companies but entire industries. Except for two of our insurance companies, all our insurance companies are foreign owned.
Major retailers Coles, Woolies and Bunnings are foreign controlled. The Australian big four banks are foreign controlled, and so are our telcos and oil and gas companies. Satan’s bankers then put up prices, knowing they control the markets, so consumers become price takers. There’s no market anymore; it’s controlled. Australians working at the top of these companies take extremely high salaries—in many cases, multimillion dollar salaries—in return for compliance, and everyday Australians go backwards into poverty.
The government is making things worse, allowing so many new arrivals that housing prices and rents are forced upwards, while quality of life and standards of living go backwards. In Sydney, median unit rents have surged 40 per cent since 2021, and Melbourne and Brisbane aren’t far behind, climbing more than 30 per cent. For low-income renters, over half now spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing—30 per cent on housing! Our prime minister went to the last election promising to leave no-one behind, knowing his policies were doing exactly the opposite. The government is now increasing spending on housing, on paid parental leave, on child care and on hiring more and more and more public servants on high wages to paper over what is a crashing economy. The government can’t use debt and money printing forever to save its backside. Debt and printing money cause their own severe economic problems and then more poverty.
One Nation has opposed the net zero war on business investment. We have opposed the migration invasion, and we warned that these policies, combined with the red bureaucratic tape, green tape and blue United Nations tape would destroy the standard of living in our beautiful country. And it has. We bloody told you so! We have put forward solutions and practical, effective policies to solve all these challenges—proven solutions. All these issues are due to decades of dishonest Liberal-Labor uniparty policies and laws. As President John F Kennedy said:
Our problems are man made. Therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/LT-DsfmPeM8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-18 16:38:062025-12-18 16:38:10Wake Up, Australia: The Uniparty Is Selling You Out
Albanese wants you to pay $1 billion to host a party for climate billionaires to fly in on private jets and lecture us on “reducing our carbon footprint”.
The “Conference of Parties” has previously told the world to stop eating red meat, stop driving affordable petrol and diesel cars, and generally commit economic suicide on the altar of net-zero.
One Nation says ditch this nonsense and restore in cheap power, paddock grown meat on the BBQ and an affordable four wheel drive in the garage.
Transcript
One billion dollars—that’s how much the Albanese Labor government expects hosting a United Nations climate talk fest in Australia will cost taxpayers. The United Nations’ Conference of the Parties involves millionaires, billionaires and politicians bouncing around the world in fuel-guzzling private jets. Now the government wants Australians to pick up the tab for this party. What would all these people be talking about if they came to Australia? At last year’s Conference of the Parties, known as COP, the first order of business for attendees was fuel up the gulf stream, with 644 luxurious fuel-guzzling private jets descending on Dubai for last year’s Conference of the Parties. For drivers though, COP organisers this year will cut a brand new highway through tens of thousands of acres of untouched Amazon forest in Brazil. The second order of business is to tell everyone else in the world to reduce their carbon footprint.
The next order of business for attendees is to tell Australians to stop eating their abundant supply of organically raised chemical-free meat. Only we lowly peasants would be banned from eating healthy protein and forced to eat bugs or lab grown horrors, of course. The climate activist billionaires will still be able to afford a good steak. The final order of business for the climate lecturers is to tell those Australian freaks who take their four-wheel drives and camping gear out into the bush to appreciate nature that those cars are banned. Australians are being faced with a choice—pay a billion dollars to be lectured by out-of-touch climate billionaire parasites or reject all this nonsense and save trillions of dollars. One Nation stands for Australia with Australians. We believe in cheap power, paddock grown meat on the barbecue and an affordable four-wheel drive in the garage. We believe in putting Australia first. We will continue to put Australia first.
BOVAER is a chemical additive that has been approved in Australia for feeding ruminants, including cows.
Bovaer is a trade name. The active substance is 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), which is diluted in propylene glycol and adsorbed on silicic acid. The chemical suppresses methane production by 99% in laboratory trials, but only 45% in field trials, and 28% when used for 12 months. This suggests that either the animals develop resistance to the chemical, or the chemical degrades in storage.
3-NOP is not approved for use in organic beef or milk in Australia, so those wishing to avoid the chemical can purchase organic products.
Bovaer itself is harmful if it comes into contact with human skin, and the Product Safety Sheet requires the use of personal protective equipment.
The amount of Bovaer used in cow feeding is very small. If used as directed, the product does not affect the animal and does not appear in meat or milk fat. Additionally, the animal consumes 5% less feed for the same output.
However, food.gov.uk conducted testing at levels above the recommended dose and found that at (double) the dose, effects identified included decreased ovary size. At five times the dose, the chemical WAS found in milk fat. Further research at higher levels was prevented by the premature slaughter of the animal, which is a red flag to One Nation.
Long-term genotoxicity testing concluded there was evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats. However, the makers hired “experts” to contest the result. There has been no attempt to determine the happiness of the animals, i.e. does consuming this chemical cause them any discomfort?
The primary purpose of the product is to reduce methane emissions. However, ruminants have been part of the ecosystem since time began and bovine methane actually helps the environment.
There is no reason to add this chemical to stockfeed, regardless of its safety. This product is nothing more than a fundraiser for climate carpetbaggers to create a billion-dollar industry for themselves where none existed and none is needed.
For these reasons, One Nation opposes the use of Bovaer.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Bovaer.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=16751200Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-30 12:42:052025-01-30 12:42:09One Nation Opposes the Use of Bovaer to Reduce Methane Emissions
Corruption and conflicts of interest are rife in Government. Very few are as blatant as former Minister Matt Kean, who will be chairing the agency helping to set the price of carbon credits while getting paid by an investment company that makes money out of carbon credits!
End the net-zero pipe dream and this will all go away.
Transcript
The chair of the agency that helps set the price of carbon credits is paid a government salary as the federal adviser and regulator and will simultaneously be on the payroll of a company that makes money out of carbon credits.
In June the Albanese Labor government appointed Matt Kean as the Climate Change Authority chair. Given his track record, how can Matt Kean be considered a qualified choice? As New South Wales Treasurer, his last budget tripled their deficit and put them on track for a $160 billion debt. As energy minister he left their grid facing blackouts with the proposed shutdown of Liddell and Eraring power stations.
Matt Kean’s glaring incompetence, though, pales beside his conflict of interest. The Climate Change Authority that Kean chairs, from which he advises the government, influences the price of carbon credits. Two months after getting the job, Matt Kean accepted a second job. The Climate Change Authority mustn’t be doing too much if the chair has time to shop himself around for other part-time jobs. When the chair is chasing other careers, do we really need a Climate Change Authority? That second job is with Wollemi Capital, who will make millions from investing in carbon credits. Matt Kean is chair of the government agency that helps set the price of carbon credits while he works for a company that will make money out of carbon credits. It seems that Australia has the best politicians that money can buy.
What does the Albanese Labor government say about this blatant conflict of interest? Nothing. Silence. The government is happy to put the fox in charge of the henhouse, and Australians will continue to pay.
The government’s appointment confirms that climate fraud is all about transferring wealth from us the people to corporations and to billionaire parasites taking solar and wind subsidies while fleecing carbon dioxide credits. Only One Nation will end the wind and solar subsidies rort, ditch the net zero plans and rorts, and fire Matt Kean.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/k7uY9k6oqWA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-09-12 22:20:002024-09-12 23:00:14Former Minister Matt Kean’s Conflict of Interest Exposed!
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.
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.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/The-Light-Newspaper.png?fit=3566%2C2458&ssl=124583566Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-09-06 10:20:142024-09-06 10:20:34The Australian Climate Scam: Global Control and Wealth Transfer
The Snowy Hydro is a $12 billion pumped hydro project that connects two existing dams in the Snowy with a tunnel, to allow excess power generated by industrial wind and solar sources during the day to be used for pumping water up the hill into the top dam, where it can be released to provide hydro power for the evening and morning peak periods. This sounds like a reasonable idea except, the cost started at $2 billion when announced by Liberal PM Malcolm Turnbull in 2018. It’s now $12 billion and that’s not including the cost of the transmission lines to take the power into the national grid, which is $14 billion at the least. I expect the final cost will more likely be $20 billion.
Additionally, the project itself and the transmission lines are being built through undisturbed National Park, which will be permanently scarred.
This project will generate 350,000 MW/h of power per annum, providing revenue of $30 million a year at current rates, which suggests they expect electricity to become much more expensive. This means the project will not recover it’s capital cost and is likely to run at a loss every day it operates. The same machinery that is used to pump water up hill and the same “headrace” tunnel used for that purpose, is the same tunnel that brings the water down and generates electricity. This means the facility can’t pump water up and generate electricity at the same time.
So, while it’s true that the generator has a capacity of 2,200 MW, it doesn’t maintain this output all day. As Snowy Hydro admitted during my questioning, they aren’t actually generating new power; they’re simply time shifting existing power. This project has encountered delays due to drilling mistakes and now faces serious obstacles to completion.
Why are we throwing good money after bad on this boondoggle? The reason is that without pumped hydro acting as a “big battery” to transfer expensive, unreliable wind and solar power from the day (when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing) to the night and early morning when it isn’t, the grid will never survive. Evening and morning peak hours will be in darkness – every day. In renewable energy terms, pumped hydro “firms” wind and solar. They have to build Snowy, regardless of the cost.
