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

US Tariffs Could Hit Queensland Hard

,

We need One Nation’s national-interest-first policies that will:

✔️ restore and protect Aussie industries

✔️ fix energy

✔️ cut immigration

✔️ restore sovereignty

Thanks for having me on your radio show Jason @2GB873

Transcript

Jason Morrison: There’s a lot of talk about Donald Trump, but there is actual stuff going on today with respect to tariffs.  There’s a whole batch of countries that have had letters sent to them from the US government in the most bizarre manner on Truth Social, signed letters from President Trump saying, “Dear Japan, Dear South Korea, Dear Malaysia, Dear Kazakhstan, Dear South Africa, Dear Laos” – informing their leaders of the tariff situation and what will be imposed on them.  Japan, Korea, 25% tariff to the US.  The other nations – Malaysia, South Africa, Myanmar, Laos – they’re at 40%.  You could go through the list.  Now we haven’t got ours yet. And perhaps we could be given an extension because we still haven’t had a conversation with the guy.  Right?

So maybe, just maybe, we might get it but there is a chance that we may get a letter too telling us what the outcome will be.  So, when you think about it, this puts at risk our food industry exports, our mining industry exports, our gas and you think – put all those together, there’s really, I mean Queensland is the home of gas, of coal, of food.  There’s a lot on the line for the state of Queensland, but a lot online for all of us here with this.

So, I thought I would just dip into Queensland for a second and talk about what the impact of this will be if this goes the way we fear it will go for Australia. 

Malcolm Roberts is Senator for QLD – One Nation and One Nation has got, you know, they’re heading towards as many senators in the parliament as the National Party.  So their view on this matters.  I thought I’d talk to him.  Malcolm Roberts, gidday.

Malcolm ROBERTS: Gidday.  What do you mean dipping into Queensland?  Is it just before the State of Origin, Jason?

Jason Morrison: Just before it, yeah.  Just a little trip up north.  I must say …

Malcolm ROBERTS: You’re not playing psychological games on us, are you?

Jason Morrison: I’ll tell you, we’ll try anything, anything at all.  But you’ve got to think about it.  Food exports, huge Queensland.  Coal, huge Queensland.  Gas, huge Queensland.  It all happens in Queensland.  And unfortunately NSW has made itself the recipient state, because if it wasn’t for you blokrd generating all the power, we wouldn’t have enough here too.  Now that’s got nothing to do with tariffs, but it does show that these economies are fragile, and tariffs could do something.

Malcolm ROBERTS: I’m glad you mentioned energy actually.  It’s not a distraction at all, Jason – it’s fundamental to a modern economy and modern civilization.  And when we’re destroying our electricity grid, as we are across the whole of the East Coast of Australia, you know, SA, Victoria, NSW and Queensland, we are making ourselves into a very precarious position. But there is something else that needs to be added. Queensland has the potential for enormous exports of rare earths in minerals from northwestern QLD – there’s a whole area there still to be opened up and our state government for decades now have neglected the northwest. But we have got the potential for really putting Australia on the map when it comes to rare earth metals.

Jason Morrison: I should point out, Malcolm is (was) a mining engineer and I guess you never stop being a mining engineer and thank goodness he understands it because very few in parliament do, but what would be the impact of these US tariffs on the Australian mining industry, which powers this country?

Malcolm ROBERTS: I don’t know enough about the actual details of what they’re what tariffs are putting on, but I think Trump has shown throughout his life that he’s a negotiator.  He throws the cards up in the air, catches everyone off guard and then jumps in when he’s picking up the cards.  So I don’t know what he’s got in mind, but he has shown signals with other countries that he’s after rare earth metals for America to compete in the modern age.  So there’s a huge opportunity for us there.  But you know what’s really – what this is really is a wake up call.  We haven’t been given a letter.  We’ve just been assumed that we’re going to be treated like we’re still at 10%.  But they are part of Trump’s agenda to put America first.  And that’s something that our country needs to start doing.  Under Liberal and Labor, for decades, we have not put Australia first.  We’ve sold out on free trade agreements. We’ve sold out our manufacturing with the Lima Declaration in 1975, which the Labor Party signed and the Liberal Party ratified the following year in 76.  So what we’ve got to do is take a lead from Donald Trump and start putting Australia first.

Jason Morrison: So let me turn that around.  Would you support Australia having a tariff attitude?

Malcolm ROBERTS: I think we have – yes, I would.

Jason Morrison: So let’s put this practically speaking.  So we could have maybe protected the Australian car industry from where it is now, which is almost non-existent.  I mean we make buses and caravans here, we don’t make cars here, we could have actually kept one going?

Malcolm ROBERTS: Correct.  We do need to consider – you know Whitlam signed the Lima Declaration which basically transferred our manufacturing to China and other Asian countries.  That was done deliberately under the UN Lima Declaration in 1975.  The Liberals have ratified that in 76 and have perpetuated it.  Manufacturing has been shot.  It’s not only tariffs that have caused the problem.  The number one cost component in manufacturing, Jason, is not labour anymore, it’s not wages. It’s electricity by far and what we’ve done in this country with putting up UN policies, Net-Zero Paris Agreement etc, we are destroying our electricity sector.  We’ve now got – we’ve gone from being the cheapest power in the world to amongst the most expensive.  All due to the UN policies. And that is destroying our manufacturing. What we’re doing is we’re subsidising with our taxes and with electricity prices, the Chinese to build subsidised solar and wind complexes in this country.  And we’re subsidising the Chinese to do it and to run it.  And we’re then sending our manufacturing jobs to China.

Jason Morrison: It’s a really interesting point.  I think people do forget that often.  We think because this is an expensive country, our labour’s expensive versus the rest of the world, we pay big money per hour for people working manufacturing versus what other nations do, but they’re not dumb enough to put their power through the roof.  Son we’ve done both.

Malcolm ROBERTS: Correct.  And it’s not just power – power on manufacturers, on employers and businesses, it’s the higher cost of living due to failed energy policies. The rampant inhuman – I would call it inhuman – excessive immigration in this country, which is shooting house prices through the roof, making it unaffordable. People in – we’re really screwing the lives of people in their 20’s, the young adults, the future leaders of this country, future citizens of this country are being jacked off because they’re just facing HUGE cost increases.  And electricity is a critical component in every part of our economy. And then we’ve got COVID fraud and mismanagement, which led to Pfizer and Moderna getting $18 billion in wealth transfers.

Jason Morrison: Oh, gosh, we don’t have enough time to do that.  But yeah, you’re right.

Malcolm ROBERTS: But we have looked after foreign corporations, Jason.

Jason Morrison: Over the top.

Malcolm ROBERTS: That’s just one example.

Jason Morrison: Yeah, and you know, I always think about it because people always – people in their 20’s – I have kids that are in their – 13, 11 and 9, they don’t have a vote, they don’t have a say.  And yet the decisions being made today are going to be decisions that they will pay for.  And the kids of today are being punished by the stupidity and ignorance of so many people that are electing clowns to high office.  And we’re getting basically – we’re not paying for it because they’ll be the ones that end up paying for it.

Malcolm ROBERTS: Correct.  You hit the nail on the head and the reason is because, you know, our constitution is the only constitution in the world in which the people got a vote on the constitution before it was introduced.  The only one!  And that the constitution puts the people at the top of the sovereignty arrangements in this country.  And yet what we’re doing – what we’re seeing in this country for decades under Labor and Liberal is people serving the government.  It should be the government serving the people.  Put Australia’s interests first. We need to be working to restore independence and that means freeing up electricity, stopping immigration at the moment and until we catch up with infrastructure and housing and until we can start to understand what’s really going on.

Jason Morrison: Yeah, hear, hear!  I mean, you know there will be people listening – “listen to this radical stuff being spoken” – never a truer thing has been said.  That is it!  Good on you.

Malcolm ROBERTS: Our Prime Minister has met with XI Ji Jingping four times.  Why so much effort into China?  I know they’re a big trading partner, but why so much effort into China?  What about the rest of the countries in the world, including America?

Jason Morrison: Yeah.  That’s so true.  Good on you.  Nice talking to you, Malcolm.  Thank you.

Malcolm ROBERTS: Thank you, Jason.

Jason Morrison: That’s Senator Malcolm Roberts from One Nation, who is a smart man and he’s one of these fellows when he speaks, it’s worth listening to what he’s got to say. Doesn’t just shoot from hip – you can tell he reads a lot and knows a lot. I think what we are seeing at the moment is just – it’s like they’ve pushed levers wrongly.  They’re pushing up wages, pushing up power and they’re just making everything in Australia uncompetitive at the moment, including living here. It’s just you can’t help but think there must be somebody behind them pushing the levers for them because it’s just so dumb.  And surely if you’re smart enough to get elected, you’re smart enough to know these are not smart.

/3 Comments/by

EVs Are a Sinking Ship

Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China …

Three thousand cars are rotting at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean – 800 of them electric – after the Morning Midas cargo ship burst into flames sank on its trip between China and Mexico.

The cause of the fire remains unknown, but many suspect lithium-ion batteries may be to blame.

Morning Midas burned for a week, pouring toxic fumes into the air, before aimlessly tipping over and taking her cargo of heavy metals to the ocean floor where they will leak into the surrounding water for the next century.

All the crew are safe, thank goodness.

What about the environment?

You and I could not dump these materials into the water without severe repercussions.

Meanwhile, our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his Coalition-deputy (?) Larissa Waters, have said very little about the issue to his counterparts in China.

Albanese is off on a six-day $325 billion trade trip where he has confirmed he will meet with Xi Jinping, head of the Chinese Communist Party.

The Prime Minister has not met with US President Donald Trump – leader of the nation whose defence structure protects Australia from China’s ambitions in the Pacific.

We should not forget (and neither should the Greens, who remain silent) that China’s environmental credentials include pouring concrete over coral atolls to build military bases inside disputed waters while deliberately transgressing against its Asian neighbours.

China’s neighbours are our Pacific partners, and together we rely on America to police the Hague’s freedom of navigation rules. Without an American presence in Pacific waters, China would control our critical trade routes and no doubt treat them with the same care as their history of ransoming river water in Asia as an ‘incentive’ to sign agreements.

The Prime Minister seems very keen to empower China inside the Australian economy, encouraging foreign business prosperity at the expense of our children’s careers.

While Treasurer Jim Chalmers mulls over tax reform to punish successful Australians, Anthony Albanese is all-but gushing over the prospect of Chinese cash.

‘Trade is now flowing freely, to the benefit of both countries and to people and businesses on both sides. We will continue to patiently and deliberately work towards a stable relationship with China, with dialogue at its core. I will raise issues that are important to Australians and the region including my government’s enduring commitment to pursuing Australia’s national interest.’

He is taking 14 people with him to sit on an Australian-China business roundtable to talk about food, resources, banking, and tertiary education.

Strangely, pollution is one of the many things left off this ‘green’ economic agenda…

How odd.

There is no chance Albanese and his delegation will question China about recycling guarantees for the millions of tonnes of solar panels and wind turbines headed for Australian landfills every single year as industrial projects are decommissioned.

Whose responsibility is it to clean up after the Chinese Net Zero boom?

Australian taxpayers.

Who could have guessed?

Pollution is a sore spot with China. The communist empire courting our Prime Minister has made a mess of its own landscape.

67.7% of China’s water is unsafe for human contact, let alone consumption. Its air pollution crisis, much of which is from the factories that churn out ‘clean’ technology, is so severe it’s thought to kill two million people every year. China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand are responsible for 60% of plastic in the ocean – and yet the Prime Minister is handing hundreds of millions of dollars to these countries as an apology for Australia’s (factually dubious) contribution to ‘rising sea levels’.

China is not, as the UN claims, a beacon of ‘Net Zero’ environmentalism.

If anything, China’s environmental catastrophe reveals the dirty side of the so-called renewable empire. It has led to polluted rivers, destroyed sacred mountains, slave-run factories, and an export chain that includes debt-trapping vulnerable nations with loans repaid with land acquisition, the empowerment of brutal dictatorships, and even child labour in the rare-earth mines.

In China, environmental and cultural protesters who stand against the renewable energy industry are harassed, arrested, or simply vanish.

Activists in Wuhan, famous for its dodgy gain-of-function labs, demanded the Chinese government ‘give back the green mountains and clear waters’.

Their social media posts were scrubbed and the story suppressed by digital censors.

It’s a process familiar to Australians who lived through the Great Digital Dark Age of Covid where the government saw fit to issue take-down notices to Twitter and Facebook to keep vaccine-injured victims quiet. Many of these social media sites still have legacy community guidelines that warn about the ‘misinformation’ of posts sceptical about Climate Change while Australian policy is littered with clauses determined to protect the narrative of the political movement even if it means listing environmental concern as ‘dangerous’ or ‘misleading’.

Chinese activists were not exaggerating their pollution problem, and neither are Australian farmers or beachside residents furious about the solar and wind industrial projects tearing apart the serenity of Australia’s landscape.

Soon, the curse of Net Zero will touch every corner of our continent.

The Morning Midas and Net Zero monstrosities share a fate decomposing into the landscape, poisoning everything around them – abandoned by the companies and governments responsible for their creation.

A toxic legacy left for nature to remediate.

It’s unlikely the Morning Midas will be remembered as anything other than a sidenote on the next article about a sinking EV cargo ship, but the EV problem is not going away.

Cheap Chinese vehicles are being welcomed into Australia as a market disruption by a Labor government desperate to prove that EVs can be ‘cheap’.

This is despite their questionable green credentials, service standards, and quality control.

How long will EVs stay cheap as the resources used in their manufacturing double and triple in price?

Market forces are sinking EVs, while Labor, and particularly Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, remain oblivious.

They would prefer to allow TEMU-style EVs to destabilise the auto industry, causing permanent damage, for the sake of a product that may not survive given its concerning track record in other countries. This is not good for the Australian consumer, the global environment, or the industries that support the car industry which employ many of our skilled young people.

Are we going to outsource auto-workers and mechanics to a Chinese helpline that goes unanswered?

Do we really want to keep pushing jobs and skills away in exchange for a collapsing ‘green’ dream with all the appeal of algae?

What about when these cheap cars break – which they undoubtedly will – where do they end up? In landfill, sheltering under a busted solar panel? Parked beneath a derelict wind turbine? In an abandoned shed with all the plastic we are meant to be recycling?

This is not a good look for an industry that exists purely to capitalise on environmental credentials.

It is hideous.

Electric vehicles are not better products. They are a technical solution to an ideological problem propped up by government subsidies and corporate Environment and Social Governance programs.

In this respect, EVs occupy the same ideological market space as lab-grown meat.

The third sinking of a cargo ship laden with electric cars is not a one-off event.

With Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen pushing Australia toward EVs – specifically China-made EVs – we can only wonder if the next cargo ship will sink onto the Great Barrier Reef.

EVs are a sinking ship by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China

Read on Substack
/2 Comments/by

94,400 Young Aussie Miners at Risk

,

How Net Zero Threatens the Next Generation!

Nigel Farage’s unapologetically anti-Net Zero #Reform party is making headway in Scotland.

This sounds strange.

Scotland has always been a rather left-leaning, working class, union-centric nation so for Net Zero to suddenly become a defining feature of a minor-right movement is worth a second look.

The answer is simple.

Jobs.

By 2030, it is expected that 58,000 jobs in North Sea oil and gas will be gone.

Replacing them is a meagre (and as yet unproven) 29,000 jobs in offshore wind.

There’s a real and serious concern about how many of these jobs will be filled by foreign nationals, especially as this was already happening before loopholes were closed. If offshore wind cannot convert workers locally, businesses will hire internationally.

Bureaucrats seem to believe that all forms of energy production fall under the same portfolio and that workers can wander between oil rigs and wind farms…

The truth is, just because the two industries revolve around ‘energy’ it does not follow that those employed in the oil and gas industry can change their qualifications to work in offshore wind.

Oil rig workers are highly specialised, well-trained, and experienced. Throwing their livelihoods into the dustbin in pursuit of an increasingly dodgy-sounding ‘decarbonisation’ project is starting to turn voters away from environmental fascism.

Most oil and gas workers know they’ll be forced to retire.

This is a truth Australian Unions refuse to acknowledge.

They remain prepared to throw Australian workers under the Net Zero bus.

The UK is ten years ahead of Australia when it comes to the energy ‘transition’ – and they are in a serious mess.

Net Zero has become the failure that unites Labour and the Tories.

Reform saw the truth early, and maintained its position in support of reality, workers, and sensible energy. One Nation saw the truth years before Reform even existed as a movement.

Of all the parties in the Western world on the centre-right, we were the first to warn about the dangers of Net Zero.

There is nothing modern about Net Zero. If anything, it’s an idea past its use-by date which is starting to fester and grow all sorts of nasty things.

Under Sussan Ley and David Littleproud as leaders, the partly repaired Coalition has shied away from rigorous support of Net Zero, yet they are defending ‘climate goals’ and ‘decarbonisation targets’ with the same zeal that Treasurer Jim Chalmers eyes-off super balances.

Which is the same thing.

When the next election rolls around, we will have an agreement from the major parties that Net Zero is law and the ‘transition’ is unstoppable.

Sadly, we’ll also see voters with little understanding about the source of civilisation’s trappings telling tens of thousands of young Australians who work in the coal and gas industry that they are dirty, evil, and unwanted in the ‘modern’ world.

This is not their fault. Inner-city voters have been lied to by the whole damn system, and they often lack real-world experience to combat these cruel untruths. Nor can they see the families being hurt by green policy.

The Australian Greens, for instance, want to stop fossil fuels.

Except, of course, for the coal, gas, and oil mined and shipped offshore to generate cheap energy for China so they can make solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries used in the so-called green energy revolution.

Green energy is built on fossil fuels.

This is a wasteful way of utilising Australia’s natural resources while saddling the highly skilled men and women who mine them as the villains of history.

Well, I refuse to believe that, and I refuse to allow Australian miners to be thrown out by ideologues in Canberra chasing inner-city seats.

There are 94,400 workers in the sector under 35 and 52,600 under 30.

The Greens, Labor, the Teals, and a majority of Liberals, all claim to be against this industry and yet the truth is they want these mining jobs to be shipped offshore to places like China, Africa, and the Pacific. They want someone else to benefit economically from the creation of energy and for Australians to circle the drain of consumerism until this nation becomes so dependent that it can’t so much as manufacture the shovel to dig itself out of the mess.

This is the dirty side of carbon trading.

One Nation supports Australian workers. We do not demonise them.

Our party wants young Aussies to have the same opportunity we had to turn the natural gifts of this country’s soil and rock into cheap, reliable energy for other Aussie families – including those who live in the city.

From miners to retail workers, energy is the foundation of a safe, affordable, and prosperous country.

94,400 young Aussie miners at risk by Senator Malcolm Roberts

How Net Zero threatens the next generation

Read on Substack

This article was first published on my Substack. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, consider subscribing to get future posts delivered straight to your inbox.

/4 Comments/by

Ditch Net Zero – Deliver Savings to Australians

,

During a recent “question time” in the senate, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change about the total cost of the net zero transition. In her absence, Minister Watt responded, estimating the cost to be between $120 billion and $130 billion. However, this figure is significantly lower than other estimates, such as Bloomberg’s $1.9 trillion.

Minister Watt claims that the government’s plan is the cheapest way to meet our future power needs. Yet, he couldn’t provide a clear figure for the taxpayer money being spent on this transition.

This lack of transparency is concerning, especially when wasteful government spending is feeding inflation and the budget remains in deficit.

One Nation is committed to holding the government accountable and ensuring that Australians know the true cost of these policies. We need a government that values transparency and makes decisions based on the best interests of the people. One Nation will ditch net-zero so that we can put more money back in your pocket.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change, Senator McAllister. Minister, what is the total cost of the net zero transition? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister is away up north, so your question is to Minister Watt. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Watt, what is the total cost of the net zero transition? 

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. Yes, I’m representing Senator McAllister who represents Minister Bowen, while she’s in Townsville for the floods. Given I am the representing minister, I’m just waiting to have those figures handed to me. But I know that we have had that transition costed, and it’s in the order of $120 billion to $130 billion. That’s my understanding. Importantly, the CSIRO—an organisation I know you haven’t got an enormous amount of time for but the most reputable science organisation in the country—and the Australian Energy Market Operator, who probably knows more about the energy market than any other group within Australia, have both made clear that ensuring that we meet our future power needs with renewables backed up by gas and firmed by batteries is the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs going forward. 

I wasn’t too far off the mark. AEMO’s integrated system plan found that the net present value under a step-change scenario towards a renewable based system is $122 billion. Of course, that’s significantly lower than the figure it will cost for Mr Dutton’s nuclear program. As I said, people as reputable in this country as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator have both found that it’s not just environmental benefits that we get from meeting our power needs through renewables going forwards but it’s actually the cheapest way we can do so as well. That’s the direct answer to your question—it’s $122 billion. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Let me make the question easier. Minister, how much taxpayers’ money is the government spending on the net zero transition across forward estimates? 

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I don’t have a figure just for the forward estimates, being the next four years. But, as I said, the cost of delivering our power network into the future under the government’s plan is $122 billion in net present value terms. 

Now, I know there is another plan out there. But is it really a plan, or, as Senator Canavan revealed, is it just a political fix? Whatever it is, that nuclear plan from Mr Dutton costs $600 billion. We know that means that power prices will go up by about $1,200 per household per year. And we know that, to fund that $600 billion that is required for the nuclear program, Mr Dutton will have to put in place very big cuts to things like Medicare, energy support, cost-of-living relief, housing, pensions and all manner of other things to fund the most expensive form of power you can provide. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Bloomberg has put the cost of Australia’s net zero transition at $1.9 trillion. One Nation uses a consensus figure of $1.5 trillion. Across forward estimates, the budget is in deficit. Wasteful, undisciplined government spending is feeding inflation. And you can’t even tell me how much will be spent on net zero across the forward estimates. Minister, will you at least give an undertaking to table, on the first day of the March sitting, the figure for the total cost of the net zero transition, including the forward estimates? 

Senator WATT: Well, I’ve already provided the figure of $122 billion. I’m not across the Bloomberg estimate that you cite, Senator Roberts, and I’m certainly not across the One Nation consensus figure. I assume that’s a consensus between you and Senator Hanson—you’ve had to sort of thrash that one out between the two of you and arrived at a consensus of $1.5 trillion! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: I’m happy to answer Senator Watt’s question. 

The PRESIDENT: Perhaps some other time, thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator WATT: Maybe James Ashby was in there as well, with the calculator going, working out a consensus figure. And I certainly don’t know what assumptions underpinned the One Nation/James Ashby/Senator Hanson/Senator Roberts consensus figure. But the fact is that the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs into the future—as cited by AEMO and the CSIRO, our most eminent scientific body—is at a cost of $122 billion. That is the cheapest way we can meet our power needs, which I think is a very good reason for any government, no matter what their political party, to pursue it. 

/4 Comments/by

Exposing the True Cost of Net Zero

,

What is the true cost of the net zero transition? Minister Watt had previously provided a figure of $122 billion, but this figure was significantly discounted and left out substantial elements of the cost, which Frontier Economics estimates to be over $650 billion. One critical omission was the cost of behind-the-meter power, which involves taking power from people’s wall batteries and electric vehicles.

When I pressed for details, Senator McAllister reiterated the government’s reliance on expert advice from AEMO. However, bombshell freedom of information documents revealed that AEMO was instructed by the government to take net zero as a forced assumption, despite claims of independence. This raises a crucial question: could an even cheaper grid be built if we ditched net zero?

The reality is that Australia’s electricity prices have never been higher, despite increasing installations of wind, solar, and batteries over the past 20 years. South Australia, the wind and solar capital of Australia, has seen spot prices averaging $200 per megawatt hour for the last quarter. It’s clear that the current approach is pushing Australia into poverty.

One Nation is committed to exposing the truth and advocating for policies that prioritise the well-being of Australians. We need a government that is transparent and accountable – one that makes decisions based on the best interests of the people, not political agendas.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. On Monday, Minister Watt provided a figure for the cost of the net zero transition to the economy at $122 billion. AEMO discounted the $500 billion cost by 7 per cent a year, producing a figure of just $122 billion. This left out substantial elements of the cost, which Frontier Economics puts at over $650 billion. There was no allowance for behind-the-meter power, where you go in and take power out of people’s wall batteries and EVs. Minister, what is the cost of this behind-the-metre cost to households and businesses that you have left out of the net zero costs?  

Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts yet again asks for more detail— 

Senator Cash: Yes, give us more detail! 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

Senator McALLISTER: when questioning a publication that is in the public domain— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! This is Senator Roberts’s question. He’s entitled to a response, and the minister is entitled to silence. Minister McAllister, please continue. 

Senator McALLISTER: Thanks very much, President. I can inform Senator Roberts, as I have in the past, that the government’s approach is to rely on the advice of experts, and the experts at AEMO conduct intensely detailed, publicly available, engaged work with a community of experts to cost the transition for our power system to 2050. I will say that they provided information publicly again and again and again saying that the cheapest path to 2050 to meet our electricity system requirements lies in renewables firmed by batteries and other forms of storage and by gas. I will say, though, Senator Roberts, that the approach we take, which is to listen to the experts and provide significant amounts of detail in the public domain for scrutiny, is quite different to the approach taken by your party. I have checked the One Nation website. You’ve actually done some policy work over the summer. There were 88 words worth of policy on energy and energy prices previously on the One Nation website; it’s down now, I understand, to 33 words or thereabouts. It used to say that you were committed to building low-emission, coal-fired power plants. You’ve now moved to a new variation on this, which says that you’re going to change the NEM rules to incentivise coal- and gas-fired power. But I make this point: to your credit, it’s a deal more detail than those opposite have provided. The people opposite have proposed a risky nuclear system which they cannot find an expert willing to back. It is $600 billion worth, on the taxpayer tab, with no plan for how to pay for or deliver it— 

The PRESIDENT: The time for answering has expired. Order! Senator Ayres, I have called the chamber to order. That includes you. Senator McKenzie! I think I’ve called you to order enough times this question time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister—rely on experts, eh? Bombshell freedom of information document show that AEMO was directly instructed by your government to take net zero as a forced assumption, despite your claims AEMO’s process was not independent of Labor’s political agenda. It’s true, isn’t it, that an even cheaper grid could be built if we ditched net zero, but your government told AEMO they could not look at that. 

Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts misunderstands the process that AEMO goes through. AEMO has and has been very clear about the process they undertake to work through the issues associated with replacing and fixing up the mess that was created by those opposite. When those opposite left office, the average wholesale energy price was $286 a megawatt hour. Just like we inherited a 6.1 per cent inflation rate, which they don’t take responsibility for, they won’t take responsibility for the mess that they left either. They know exactly what was going on. Prices were going up, and what did Mr Taylor do at that time? He went off to the Governor-General to make arrangements to hide that price increase from the Australian people before an election. What a disgrace. There is a lot of work to do to resolve the mess that was bequeathed to the Australian people by those opposite, and we are up for it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you talked about Liberal policy; I want to know about Labor policy. Australia has been installing more and more wind, solar and batteries onto the grid for 20 years, and electricity prices have never been higher. South Australia, the wind and solar capital, has spot prices averaging $200 per megawatt hour for the last quarter. When will you admit the truth—that your net zero is pushing Australia into poverty? 

Senator McALLISTER: That statement is simply incorrect. The prices that are reflected in the way Australians experience their bills are not to do with the spot price. They are an average price from all of the prices that are experienced within the National Electricity Market. The truth is that renewables remain the cheapest form of new generation. We’ve got a lot of work to do. These guys managed the electricity system—or mismanaged it—for over a decade. There were 22 policies. Four gigawatts of dispatchable generation left the grid; only one came on. That actually causes a problem that requires resolution. When we left office, prices were very, very high. There was no plan at all, and our government is working through the necessary steps to put in place the generation to secure Australia’s interests into the future. 

/3 Comments/by

Net Zero Destroys, It Doesn’t Deliver

Australia’s political class is not putting Australians first.

The Nationals and Liberals are more interested in fighting each other than actually putting forward something that will benefit the country – cheaper power and cheaper groceries by ditching Net-Zero.

Interview with @empactnews

Transcript

Australian leaders, to be good, to be effective, have to put Australia’s interest first. That is the theme that drives Pauline and myself.

You know, Pauline has a very simple political philosophy. Is it in Australia’s interest?

David Littleproud’s net zero, it’s his baby, is not in Australia’s interest. It is counter to Australia’s interest. It is death to Australia’s energy sector, death to manufacturing, death to our environment with solar and wind turbines destroying the environment.

You know these people are pushing up solar and wind to protect the planet while killing the environment. I mean, this is insane. On environmental grounds, on farm and food security grounds, on economic grounds, on energy grounds. Every which way we look, this is rubbish. And to make it worse, it’s all based on the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull.

You know there is no evidence to back it up.

/4 Comments/by

$2.15 Billion in Subsidies: The Hidden Costs of “Cheap” Renewables

,

During the last Senate Estimates, I questioned ARENA about their massive spending of taxpayer money. The numbers are staggering – they’ve now committed $2.15 billion in subsidies to supposedly “cheap” renewable projects.

Despite claims that solar is “the cheapest form of electricity generation in history,” Australians’ power bills tell a different story. The reality is they don’t account for all the extra costs of firming, storage, transmission lines and general unreliability. This is what happens when government agencies focus on pushing unreliable renewables instead of ensuring affordable power for Australian families.

We used to have some of the cheapest electricity in the world, but these massive subsidies and failed green energy policies are driving up costs for everyone.

The net zero fantasy is already hurting our regions, ruining small businesses, and driving up the cost of living across Australia. It’s time to ditch these wasteful subsidies and return to reliable, affordable power.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever think about how much taxpayer money your agency has spent on net zero policies, only for power bills to continue to get more expensive? 

Mr Miller: Senator, that doesn’t occupy much of my time. We’re working on innovation to help lower the cost of the core technologies that go into lowering power bills in the long term. And, as you would appreciate, this innovation cycle takes a while. We’ve obviously seen the success of solar PV, which was maybe written off many years ago, but has come through as the lowest cost form of generation in history, as we’ve noted in past conversations. I’m very confident, actually, that wind technology, solar technology and battery technology, which is coming down the cost curve rapidly, combined at scale will actually reduce energy costs for Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is your job to bring down power bills or give money to solar and wind energy? How much does the Australian Renewable Energy Agency currently administer in deployed capital in terms of loans or equity stakes? 

Mr Miller: The objects of ARENA, the agency, are set out in the act. They are to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, increase the supply of renewable technologies and support Australia’s decarbonisation emissions reduction objectives. You’d be aware that we’re a granting agency, so none of our funding is provided through debt and equity. It’s all through the provision of grants. In some circumstances, those grants are recoupable based on performance of the projects, and we make that decision on a case-by-case basis. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How much did ARENA issue in grants in the most recent year? 

Mr Miller: I can get you that in a minute or two. My colleague Mr Faris could probably find that number in the pack. When we think about the progress of our work in terms of project projects, we look at approval rates, which is the key milestone for ARENA when I, under my delegation, or our board, or the minister— 

Senator ROBERTS: Getting a project to approval stage. 

Mr Miller: When we provide an approval, we then, in most circumstances, are working through to a contract, which ultimately lands to be grant money flowing. But that can take months and years in some cases. But I think in the last financial year we provided approvals of $497 million, and I think in the year before it was $540 million. So, per our annual report: funds approved in 2023-24 total $445 million, and contracts written, which is a later stage, were $392.5 million in that financial year. 

Senator ROBERTS: So what did you call your key measurable indicator? 

Mr Miller: Approvals. Well, it’s one of many, but, yes, that’s an important one. 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you categorise as an approval? 

Mr Miller: An approval is a decision by the CEO, the board or the minister, with respect to their relative delegations, to provide funding to a particular project in that amount. 

Senator ROBERTS: Approve the funding? 

Mr Miller: Approve funding, yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what your total budget allocation is over the forward estimates, the next four years? 

Mr Miller: That will be in the PBS, and we will get that number for you if we can. Otherwise, we’ll take it on notice and provide it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that located in one area? Are all the different components of the money located in one area? 

Mr Miller: It’s an aggregation of various programs and funding pools that we have been provided with by the government over time. Well, let me say governments because we were well supported by the coalition government a number of years ago, and have been even further supported by this government. But it relates to what we call our baseline funding, which is the money that is provided to ARENA where ARENA’s board, essentially, is the primary decision-maker on policy and programmatic objectives. And then, in addition, there are about a dozen programs that ARENA is running, with specific funding amounts, and with specific instructions through the policy instruments, and we’re managing all of that through the funding. But it all gets amalgamated, ultimately, into the forward estimates amounts. So I’d be very happy to read you the figures in the forward estimates for each year, revenue from government, if that would help you. The current year’s revenue from government is $425 million. The budget for next year is $709 million. The year after that, it is $735 million. Then we’re at $1.1 billion, and then we’re at $1.117 billion for the final year of the forward estimates. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s a lot of money. 

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ever since ARENA came on the scene—when was that?—you’ve been issuing grants and loans in solar and wind. Have people’s power bills actually got cheaper? 

Mr Miller: It’s not my jurisdiction to talk about power bills, but we came on the scene on 1 July 2012, and as I— 

Senator ROBERTS: In 2012? 

Mr Miller: Yes, 2012, and, as I mentioned before, we don’t do loans. We do grants. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t do loans—well, issuing grants then. So you’ve been spending billions of  

dollars, and power bills have gone up. 

Senator Ayres: Well, Senator, you should— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking Mr Miller. You don’t need to— 

Senator Ayres: Yes, and I’m entitled to drop in from time to time. It’s one of the inconvenient bits of  

estimates for senators who ask questions. If you go and talk to your constituents in the main street of a country town somewhere in Queensland— 

Senator ROBERTS: Which is what I’ll do. 

Senator Ayres: Yeah, I know. We saw you beaming in. But if you talk to them and then listen to the answer that they give you—engage in a conversation—what you’ll find is that many of them have solar technology on their roofs, which substantially decreases their electricity costs. 

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I actually was talking to a shopkeeper yesterday, and she said— 

Senator Ayres: Fascinating as that is, I am just going to keep answering your question. 

Senator ROBERTS: power bills have gone up tremendously. 

Senator Ayres: That is technology that was invented in Australia. All of the IP in solar panels all around the world—it’s Australian, right? It’s something that we should be proud of as a country—invented here, substantially reducing costs for households, with some of them earning a quid because they are under residual agreements. 

Senator ROBERTS: Without your subsidies, without your energy relief, the costs would be higher than ever. 

CHAIR: Okay. And we are running out of time. 

Senator Ayres: They are substantially benefiting from that technology. Now, it’s different for different households. Our job as a government is to make sure that the lowest-cost technology is in the system, and also to make sure that more of those Australian inventions are commercialised here in Australia and manufactured in Australia, and Mr Miller and ARENA’s work is to make sure that more of that technology is commercialised in Australia, and they’re doing a very good job indeed. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your policies are driving up prices 

/7 Comments/by

Price Hike: The Cost of Green Energy Policies on Australian Power Bills

,

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike – between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we’ve been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up!

I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning – they recently added “emissions reduction” to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn’t have been approved before – they couldn’t name a single one!

The truth is clear: We’ve gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren’t accidents – they’re the direct result of failed green energy policies.

Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signalling that drives up costs for families and businesses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The default market offer for electricity prices is going up yet again. You published a draft notice, I understand, contemplating rises between 2.5 per cent and 8.9 per cent. For 20 years, Australians have been told that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy, yet electricity prices are going up again. Mr Oliver, are you seeing any kind of indications in the bill stack that show you will be able to actually cut the default market offer for electricity prices in the near future?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few different components, as you mentioned, in that stack that go to comprise the default market offer. It is ultimately, of course, only the benchmark offer that’s applicable to standing offer contracts. That’s less than 10 per cent of customers in most regions. Most pay less, of course, because they’re on market offer contracts, which typically sit under those default levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is representative, isn’t it?  

Mr Oliver: Not representative, no. I’d say it’s more of a safety net. So it’s more at the upper end of what most consumers would pay. For example, a customer might not have gone into the market, not shopped around for a market offer, and might be on a standing offer contract. As I say, that’s generally less than 10 per cent. But the vast majority of consumers pay less than the default market offer price. Indeed, the ACCC put out a report in December last year as part of their electricity price monitoring saying that roughly 80 per cent of consumers could pay even less than they are today if they continue to shop around.  

Senator ROBERTS: So do you see any signs of the default market price coming down?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few key components. The biggest variable is wholesale cost. Network costs are reasonably steady year on year. Retail costs have gone up, at least in our draft decision this year, but we’re still studying those. In terms of the wholesale cost component, we have seen over the last year some high-price events in the spot market, some volatility in the spot market. That is continuing to put upward pressure on the forward contract market, the prices that ultimately are responsible for setting a lot of the wholesale energy cost. They’re difficult to predict year on year. We don’t necessarily see them continuing to increase. If market conditions alleviate, that wholesale cost can potentially come down. We will, of course, look at those again more closely before we put out our final decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: My next question was going to be this, but I think you’ve answered it: in the data you’re seeing, is there any realistic hope that electricity prices can go back down to what they were five years ago under the current policy settings?  

Mr Oliver: Well, it’s a question of time. We don’t anticipate that kind of decline between now and the final decision. But there are obviously plans in place to continue the rollout of renewable generation and other forms of generation as well across the energy market, across the NEM, and, as we see more of that generation capacity coming into the system, that will alleviate pressure on wholesale costs. There’s work underway at the moment to look to orchestrate and utilise all of the consumer energy resources that we have in the system at the moment—20 gigawatts of rooftop solar, for example, which could be utilised more effectively to also bring down those wholesale costs as well. There are various ways. It’s a number of pieces that need to be looked at to do that. But yes, all of those trends will, over time, see the wholesale cost of energy come down.  

Senator ROBERTS: So those trends will help reduce the full bill stack?  

Mr Oliver: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions reduction was recently added to the national electricity objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. Can you provide an example of a project that went ahead after the emissions objective was added that would have been rejected under the previous objectives, or a project that was prioritised higher?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one specific project that would meet that criterion. We would probably need to take that on notice to see if we could identify one. It is, as you described the objective quite correctly, one that has a number of different facets. So, whenever one is making a decision that requires the application of that objective, it’s about weight and deciding how various things are taken into account. What the amendment does is say quite explicitly that one of the things to be considered is emissions targets and objectives that are enshrined in policy and legislation, but that doesn’t necessarily point to a project which then gets up that might have otherwise failed. I can’t think of one now, but we might take that on notice as well, just to confirm that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you had four factors: quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. You’ve had added now emissions reduction. So you can’t see any project that has been brought forward because of emissions reduction at the moment?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one now. I’m glancing at my colleagues and they’re not nodding either, but we’d perhaps take that on notice just to see. It may well be that the answer would be that there’s no project that would meet that specific criterion. It affects other things of course, in terms of proposals for expenditure in a network proposal, for example. There might be a stronger case for investment in a particular area that might otherwise not have been as strong a case. But those are very complicated and multifaceted decisions where you’re looking at a lot of different things.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the relative weights of those now five criteria? 

Mr Oliver: We don’t do it in any specific quantitative sense. If, for example, it is an expenditure proposal, we would be looking at the driver behind the proposal, why the network, if it is a network project, says that they wish to undertake that expenditure, who they’ve consulted with, which of the objectives they’re trying to meet, and whether they’re doing it at the most efficient cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/3 Comments/by