Climate Nonsense Taking Over

,
https://youtu.be/4Ke2GHOrd14

Yet again, the Prime Minister is bowing to unelected overseas elites and forcing unnecessary, broken climate policies on Australia. Our entire economy and your job is at risk so that the elites can have more control and money.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul] Well Malcolm Roberts says that parliament has lost it’s way under the two major parties. He made this impassioned speech just the other day.

[Malcolm Roberts] The issue that is of utmost importance is the integrity of this parliament, the integrity of this country, the integrity of state parliaments, the integrity of the people of this country, and their jobs and their livelihoods. That is of utmost importance to our nation and I wish it was of utmost importance to every single person in this senate. But clearly it’s not.

[Marcus] Well.

[Malcolm] The issue that is of utmost importance is the integrity of this parliament.

[Marcus] There we go Malcolm Roberts. Good morning to you Senator.

[Malcolm] Good morning Marcus. How are you mate?

[Marcus] Alright thank you. You looked pretty annoyed when you made that speech just the other day.

[Malcolm] I’m very very annoyed because I’ve always been a passionate person for the honesty and for the truth. Integrity is extremely important to me and Pauline, and accountability is too. And you know the people of Australia are now paying 19 billion dollars a year in nonsensical rubbish commitments for these parasitic mal investments. Unreliable energy that’s destroying our energy sector. We went from the cheapest energy in the world to now amongst the most expensive.

[Marcus] Alright.

[Malcolm] And the typical family household is now paying an extra 1,300 dollars a year for this rubbish.

[Marcus] Okay but I’d love to know how much we’re paying in subsidies to fossil fuel industries. You always talk about how much money we’re subsidising renewable energy. What about the fossil fuel industry that’s making billions out of our resources, many from overseas corporations that pay little to no tax, Malcolm. And all the rest of it. Are there any figures for, ya know, how much subsidy we’re providing fossil fuel companies?

[Malcolm] The Greens claim that, that the Greens have never ever provided any evidence saying what these circle subsidies are. The closest the Greens have come is to say that depreciation and amortisation on our subsidies. That applies to every single industry, and that applies to the taxation system. So that’s nonsense.

[Marcus] Okay so what you’re suggesting

[Malcolm] The clear

[Marcus] Hang on you’re suggesting we

don’t pay subsidies

[Malcolm] Correct. to the fossil fuel industry?

[Malcolm] We’ll let’s get two things straight.

[Malcolm] First of all,

[Marcus] Course we do.

[Malcolm] It’s not fossil fuels, they’re hydrocarbons. They’re compounds of hydrocarbons.

[Marcus] Semantics.

[Malcolm] No no no no. No it’s semantics. It’s extremely important they’re hydrocarbons. Now what happens with the coal sector, coal fired power section I should say, coal fired power section is now subsidising the other forms of electricity. Because coal fired power sections are competing with subsidised wind and solar and they can’t compete on that basis. So their prices of coal fired power sections are going up because of that. But if you look at the basic costs of coal fired power sections, we can build a new power station in this country and generate electricity for 45 dollars a megawatt hour. 45. There’s nothing comes close. Wind and solar are many times that.

[Marcus] What about the affect that will cause on climate change in the longer term, Malcolm?

[Malcolm] There is no evidence anywhere in the world that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. And remember they’ve tried to tax us on this. And the tax was beaten by attorney Evan. One of the good things he did. Think about this Marcus.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] The production of carbon dioxide in 2009 after the global financial crisis decreased. Decreased. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased. Because nature alone determines the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We don’t control it. Second point, in the last 19 months with the COVID shutdown around the world, we had almost a depression. Yet the level of carbon dioxide reduced from humans using hydrocarbon fuels. Cars,

Power stations

[Marcus] Yep.

[Malcolm] gas heaters, has decreased. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased. Nature controls it. It wouldn’t matter how much they tax us. How much they throttled us. We will not affect the temperature. The second thing to remember is that despite the human production of carbon dioxide going up dramatically, in the last 25, 30 years, the actual temperature of the planet has stabilised since 1995. It’s been flat. It’s just natural variation, up and down from year to year. It’s been flat. So no matter which way you look at it, this is rubbish. It’s just a matter of controlling our energy,

[Marcus] Well the

[Malcolm] controlling our water,

[Malcolm] controlling our land,

[Marcus] Well okay

[Malcolm] and ripping us off in taxes.

[Marcus] Well the Prime Minister obviously doesn’t feel that way. He’s gonna sign up to net zero by 2050. He’ll drag the Nationals screaming and kicking along the way as well. And he’ll be off to Glasgow. What do you make of that?

[Malcolm] It’s another show. Another show. Look the real issue here is that we have two coalition governments vying for government. We have the Morrison Joyce government that’s currently in power as you know, and we have the Albanese Bant government. And make no mistake, the last labour government, they’ve lost so much support from their key areas that they could only govern in coalition with the Greens. And that’ll be the case

[Marcus] Whoa hold on

[Malcolm] It’ll be Albanese and Bant together.

[Marcus] No all that rubbish.

[Malcolm] The fact is that Scott Morrison has got no data. We know that. Got no data backing up his claims about having to cut down carbon dioxide from human activity.

[Marcus] Alright.

[Malcolm] What he’s doing on this is kowtowing to his globalist masters.

[Marcus] Alright I got a note here I’ll get you to comment on. It’s on the same thing. It’s from one of my listeners. Good day Marcus. Whilst the federal government dithers, bickers, and carries on developing a coherent policy for net zero emissions, the private sector is getting on with it. Rio Tinto, Big HP, the Commonwealth Bank, the CSIRO, Fortescue Metals, Mirvac, Brisbane airport, AGL, Ramsay Health Care, they’ve all pledged to slash their emissions. Atlassian’s founder says he’ll invest and donate 1.5 billion dollars for climate action. The states are all backing clean energy projects. And he concludes by saying in my view Morrison’s strategy is clear, do nothing and allow the others to do the heavy lifting. If the others succeed, as they’re likely to do so, then Morrison will take the credit. If their strategies do not work, then Morrison will not be blamed.

[Malcolm] Very very simple Marcus.

[Marcus] Hm?

[Malcolm] People, humans have a problem in that some people just follow like sheep. I challenged the chief executive officer, the head of coal division, and the chairman of BHP, several years ago, about 2014 from memory, to provide me with the evidence for their policy. They all failed. Every single, Rio Tinto failed to provide it. These people are pushing a globalist agenda. BHP you’ll notice is piling out a thermal coal because it’s mines are so damn inefficient. It’s piling out a thermal coal, steaming coal, power station coal, but it’s not saying anything about it’s coking coal. Coking coal is absolutely essential. And BHP can make money because coking coal prices are so damn high. They can’t make it in steaming coal because they’re inefficient. They’re very badly managed. I’ve challenged the chief executive officer of the ANZ bank. The head of the ANZ bank. And he can’t provide me the evidence. And what’s more, he told it’s not about evidence. It’s not about science anymore because it’s become political and the risks are too great because the globalists that are pushing this scam, and you can go back to Maurice Strong, he started this. He created this whole scam. And Maurice Strong died a criminal on the hunt from the American authority.

[Marcus] Right okay.

[Malcolm] Because of criminal activity. So this is the kind of thing we’re looking at here. And Marcus, the leadership of these companies, some of these companies, is atrocious. I can give you fine leaders who are saying it’s complete rubbish.

[Marcus] Alright.

[Malcolm] Fine leaders.

[Marcus] Okay Malcolm, always good to have you on. It’s great to get your perspective on this and I’m really interested to get your thoughts once Glasgow gets underway and we start hearing more and more about

[Malcolm] Can I?

[Marcus] action on climate, yeah?

[Malcolm] I’ll issue a challenge to you Marcus.

[Marcus Laughs] –

[Malcolm] No no

No one has been able to do this. CSRO, Bureau of Meteorology, no one. The UN panel on climate. I challenge you to provide me with the specific location of the data within a causal framework, scientific framework, and that’s what determines science. That shows we need to cut our carbon dioxide. No one has been able to do that. And what’s more I’ll issue a challenge to anyone in Australia who wants to debate me on the science and on the corruption of science. Anyone.

/by

Prime Minister backstabs the people who voted for him

,

The Prime Minister has caved on an election promise. After telling Australia the truth to get elected, that Bill Shorten’s net zero target would destroy the country, he has signed up to the exact same promise. Gutless, sellout, liar, there aren’t enough words to fully describe this backstabbing of the Australian people.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (09:39): Well, well, well, the Labor Party, as part of the precursor to the Albanese-Bandt coalition government, calls this a stunt. The Labor party is exactly correct. It is a stunt. The No. 1 issue here is integrity and the Greens’ complete lack of integrity. They have never provided the empirical scientific evidence for their claims. First it was Greta: ‘We’ll rely on Greta.’ Then it became, ‘We’ll rely on the Queen.’ Now, it’s, ‘We’ll rely on the Pope’—and most of them are atheists. My goodness, what are we coming to in this country? This mob is hijacking jobs—manufacturing jobs, coalmining jobs, farmers’ jobs. This is an absolute disgrace, because they show no integrity towards the people of this country; they show no integrity towards this parliament, none whatsoever. They tell lies and they make up stuff.

We now see them calling for the science. I want the science. I challenge Senator Waters to provide the empirical scientific evidence that proves carbon dioxide from human activity affects the climate and needs to be cut. She failed to provide it 11 years ago. She ran—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, on a point of order?

Senator Thorpe: A point of order, Mr President: the senator over here has called us ‘liars’, and I think that is unparliamentary, is it?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, he was referring to the Greens as a whole. My view is that that is not unparliamentary. I will check with the Clerk to be sure, given I’m relatively new to this role. My ruling is correct. Please sit down, Senator Thorpe.

Senator Thorpe interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, there is no point of order. Senator Roberts, you have the call.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s make it clear: I did not call the Queen or the Pope a liar. I called them ‘not scientists’. They’re not scientists. But this is what the Greens rely on in the fact that they cannot provide the science. The Greens show no respect for science, no respect for humanity, no respect for the people of this country, no respect for hardworking Australians, and no respect for the farmers that they will gut with this 2050 net zero.

I also remind the Senate that it’s now day 772 since I challenged Senator Larissa Waters and Senator Di Natale in this parliament to a debate on the empirical evidence and also on the corruption of the science. I point out that there is no science that backs this up from the CSIRO, and I’ll have more to say about that next week. There is no science from the Bureau of Meteorology, none from the Chief Scientist—I can tell you a story about the previous Chief Scientist if there is time—none from the Australian Academy of Science and none from the IPCC. In fact, we had the Labor Party’s Kevin Rudd dancing around in 2007 saying 4,000 people in white lab coats endorsed his claim. The reality is that only five academics in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorsed the claim of warming, and there’s doubt those five were even scientists.

We’ll hear more rubbish from the Greens, claiming that they have science, but the one thing that they are always consistent on is that they never produce the empirical evidence to justify their claim. They see a picture of a tree frog, a picture of a koala, a picture of a dolphin, and they say, ‘This is the science.’ That’s it; it’s complete rubbish. This has been going on for 11 years, Senator Waters.

Let me point out, Senator Gallagher, that the issue of utmost importance is the integrity of this parliament, the integrity of this country, the integrity of state parliaments, and the integrity of the people of this country and their jobs and their livelihoods. That is of utmost importance to One Nation, and I wish it were of utmost importance to every single person in this Senate, but clearly it’s not.

/1 Comment/by

$19 Billion dollars a year – for nothing!

,

While the Liberal/National party tears itself apart over net-zero and Labor wants us to follow the Greens off a renewable cliff, Australians are paying BILLIONS of dollars for subsidies that are making electricity more expensive and killing manufacturing jobs. We have the best and cheapest coal in the world right here, yet our electricity prices are three times as high as China. If you didn’t know any better, you’d think it was deliberate sabotage from our gutless leaders.

Transcript

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The core issue here is integrity. We see the Nationals Party and the Liberal Party tying themselves in knots, the coalition unravelling, according to some, the coalition all over the place, according to others. Depends who we listen to. But the core issue is the complete lack of integrity from the Labour Party and the Greens. This parliament, according to Senator McAllister, has seen all manner of scrutiny. Oh, really?

I can remember Senator MacDonald up here, standing, Senator Ian MacDonald, when he was a Senator here, standing up saying that this parliament has never, ever debated the climate science. Never. So this is all being done on nonsense. In fact, the science has never even been brought into this chamber that says we need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, that we need to go to renewables. Never. Always the parliament tends to go to the second question, how do we do it, rather than should we do it?

The core question, if we’re really being faithful to and serving the people of this country and the taxpayers and the energy users who are being bled dry, is should we do this madness, not how do we do it. How do we do it comes second. The parliament too often in this country goes to the second question.

No one, no one has ever presented the empirical scientific evidence in this parliament, either House, that says carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. It is now day 770 since I asked Senator Richard Di Natale and Senator Larissa Waters a fundamental question. Where is your empirical scientific evidence that shows carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut? That’s it. They dodged it. They have never come back with the evidence.

They refuse to debate me. I asked Senator Waters this more than 10 years ago, almost 11 years ago. In fact, it is 11 years ago this month. And she refused to debate me then. Senator Waters then talked about a waste of money. Oh, really? When we’re spending $19 billion a year on this rubbish, destroying our energy sector, destroying manufacturing jobs, exporting them to China.

We send them our coal. They generate electricity using our coal after we’ve shipped it thousands of kilometres. And they sell it for 8 cents a kilowatt hour. We use the same coal here in this country, some of the best coal in the world, and we sell our electricity at 25 cents a kilowatt hour. Why the difference?

Why is it three times as much here? Because of all the renewable regulations, subsidies and climate rubbish. That’s why. Not only do we export our coal, we export our manufacturing jobs, because the number one cost of manufacturing these days is electricity. Not labour anymore. Electricity. We’re gutting jobs, throwing people on the scrap heap. No livelihoods. For nothing. Because no one has ever presented the science that says we need to do this. They run from it.

In One Nation we welcome the debate. We welcome a debate on the science. We will welcome putting both coalitions, the Liberal Nationals and the Labour Greens coalitions, under scrutiny. The policies of the Liberal Nationals coalition are so close to the policies of the Labour Greens coalitions. Where’s the difference, I ask you, other than in slightly in degree?

This is an absolute disgrace with what we’re doing to this country, what this parliament is doing to this country, what this parliament is doing to the taxpayers, what this parliament is doing to jobs of real people, everyday Australians’ jobs getting gutted. And it’s based on a lie. And Al Gore’s making out like a bandit, because the crook has made hundreds of millions of dollars out of this scam, along with several other people, academics, politicians, government agencies.

It just goes on and on and on. This has got to stop.

/2 Comments/by

The true cost of shoddy Governance

, , , , , ,

Governments have been making policy that is completely out of touch with reality or data for decades. It’s all based on political whims or looking good, not the facts or data. As a result, our country is broken.

We have to return to policy based on tested data, not Labor or Liberal’s feelings on the day.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I will discuss the cost of shoddy science that is crippling people, families, communities and our nation. One Nation has repeatedly called for and continues to call for an independent office of scientific integrity and quality assurance to assess the science claimed to be underpinning government policy and decisions. We want objective, independent scientific scrutiny that is protected from politicisation. Science is a not a label; it is hard, verifiable, reliable data within a framework that proves cause and effect logically. It is every senator’s responsibility to ensure that she or he makes decisions using such data.

I’ll give you some examples of the cost of shoddy science that has not been scrutinised. Climate policies and renewable subsidies cost Australian households via electricity costs $13 billion per year, every year. That’s $1,300 per household per year needlessly wasted. The median income in this country is $49,000. After tax, that’s around $34,000 or maybe a little bit higher. How can someone on $34,000 after tax afford $1,300 flushed down the toilet, for nothing? The additional costs of climate policies on our power bills is a staggering 39 per cent, not the 6½ per cent that the government claims. Renewables distort the low cost of coal based power and more than double the wholesale electricity price from coal’s $45.50 per kilowatt hour to $92.50. China and India use our coal to sell electricity at 8c a kilowatt hour, while we burn the same coal without transporting it thousands of kilometres and the price of electricity from the coal is three times as much at 25c an hour.

All Australians have the right to benefit from our rich natural resources. The true cost of electricity in this country would be $13 billion per year less if cheap, affordable, reliable coal production was not lumbered with policies that distort the market. We commissioned independent expert and respected economist Dr Alan Moran to calculate those figures, and he used the government’s own data. So it can’t be sensibly refuted. The government stopped presenting it in consolidated form to hide what government policy is doing to everyday Australians in our nation.

Every subsidised green energy job or so-called renewable job, from renewable or unreliable power, such as wind and solar, costs 2.2 jobs lost in the real economy. Parasitic unreliables are killing their host, the people of Australia and the people of Queensland.

We can go further, beyond raw data on energy costs, to look at property rights. Property rights have been stolen in this country in the name of the Kyoto Protocol. John Howard’s Howard-Anderson government started it with Rob Borbidge’s National Party government in Queensland, followed quickly by Peter Beattie’s government and every government since, with the exception of Campbell Newman, who failed to repeal it. Property rights have been stolen with no compensation. That is fundamentally wrong. We see it in water policy, with corruption in the Murray-Darling Basin when it comes to water trading. We see the stealing of water rights, all based on shoddy science. The whole Murray-Darling Basin Plan is based on shoddy science—political science. Instead of having science based policy, we now have policy based science, and both sides of this parliament are responsible.

Senator Carr, who I have a lot of regard for in many ways, raised COVID. We have not been given the scientific data on COVID. We’ve been given models. The scientific data which I got from the Chief Medical Officer points to a completely different picture and to completely different management. COVID is being mismanaged in the name of science. It is wrong. By the way, the costs of all of those examples I’ve given are not in the billions but in the tens or hundreds of billions, and the impact on our country’s economy is in the trillions, with the lost opportunity and the lack of competitiveness.

COVID exposed to us that our country has lost its economic independence. We now depend on other countries for our survival—for basics. We’ve lost our manufacturing sector because of shoddy governance from the Labor, Liberal and National parties over almost eight decades, since 1944. In the last 18 months, we’ve seen the Liberals, Labor and the Nationals squabbling at state and federal level, because there is no science being used to drive the plan. There’s no plan for COVID management. Each state is lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis, and the federal government is bypassing the Constitution and conditioning them to suck on the federal tit. That’s what’s going on.

Let’s have a look at the science. I have held CSIRO accountable at three presentations from them, plus Senate estimates. Firstly, the CSIRO has admitted under my cross-examination that the CSIRO has never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger—never. We asked them: ‘Who has said it? Politicians told us you said it.’ They said, ‘You’d have to ask the politicians.’ Secondly, CSIRO has admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. I’ll say that again—not unprecedented. They’ve happened before in recent times without our burning of hydrocarbon fuels.

Thirdly, the CSIRO then fell back on one thing—one paper, after almost 50 years of research, that said that the rate of warming is now increasing. That too was falsified by the author of that paper. It was falsified and contradicted by other references which the CSIRO had to then give us. There is no evidence for the CSIRO’s sole claim that the rate of temperature rise is unprecedented. Its own papers that it cites do not show that. The CSIRO then relied upon unvalidated computer models that were already proven to be giving erroneous projections. That’s what the UN IPCC relies on. They’ve already been proven wrong many times.

The clincher is that, to have policy based upon science, you would need to quantify the amount of impact on climate variables such as weather: rainfall; storm activity, severity and frequency; and drought. You’d need to be able to quantify the impact on that of carbon dioxide from human activity. The CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact on climate, or any climate variable, from human carbon dioxide.

With us, the CSIRO has repeatedly relied on discredited and poor-quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide. It gave us one of each, and then, when we tore them to shreds, they gave us more. We tore them to shreds. It has never given us any good-quality scientific papers. That’s their science. The CSIRO revealed little understanding of the papers they cited as evidence. That’s our scientific body in this country—they could not show understanding of the papers that they cited.

The CSIRO admits it has never done due diligence on reports and data that it cites as evidence. It just accepts peer review. What a lot of rubbish that is! That has been shown in peer-reviewed articles to be rubbish. The CSIRO allows politicians to misrepresent it without correction. It doesn’t stand up—it doesn’t have any backbone. The CSIRO has misled parliament. Independent international scientists have verified our conclusions on the CSIRO science, and they’re stunned—people like John Christy, Nir Shaviv, Nils Morner, David Legates, Ian Plimer and Will Happer. There is no climate emergency—none at all. Everything is normal. It’s completely cyclical weather.

Now I’ll move to the UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which has turned into a propaganda outfit and a mouthpiece and cheer squad for global policies. Politics has captured it and turned it into a massive bureaucracy that writes legislation rather than checks it. POST, as it’s called, comprises people, as Senator Carr said, ‘consistent with parliamentary composition’. That tells us straight away that it’s not independent. Instead of a body to drive legislation we want a body to vet it. Senator Carr mentioned the Office of the Chief Scientist. I asked the Chief Scientist for a presentation on his evidence of climate change caused by human carbon dioxide. After 20 minutes of rubbish we asked him questions and he looked at us and said that he’s not a climate scientist and he doesn’t understand it. Yet we have policies around this country based upon Dr Finkel’s advice. Some of those policies that I mentioned are based on his advice.

We’ve had activists, such as Tim Flannery, David Karoly, Will Steffen, Ross Garnaut, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Matthew England, Kurt Lambeck, Andy Pitman and Lesley Hughes, being paraded and paid by the government—both Liberal and Labor—and yet they’re nothing more than academic activists. None have provided any empirical scientific evidence in a logical framework proving cause and effect. That’s what has been paraded around this parliament as science for decades now. It’s rubbish. That’s why One Nation opposes this motion. It is wasting committee resources to send them off on a goose chase to adopt something like the UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

We invite Senator Carr to join us in legislating for an independent body of scientists to scrutinise government policy and decisions. Let the government put up the science upon which its policies are based and let the independent body scrutinise it. That requires a few things. First of all, it needs a team funded and set up to oppose the government’s position, and we’ll let them both go at it. Science, fundamentally, is about data and debate. We need the government to put up its science and let a team tear it apart—and be funded to tear it apart. Once that happens, and the science is dismissed, that will save the country billions of dollars. If it withstands the scrutiny, that’s good—we’ll know we’ve got a really solid scientific case. Another way is to have a transparency portal. Put the science out there and let anybody in the public domain tear it apart. If someone finds a chink, fix it. True scientists are not about protecting their egos; they’re about being open to the advancement of humanity. They welcome their own science being torn apart.

We need an independent view. The type of information, as the motion discusses, is simple. All we need is empirical scientific evidence in a framework proving cause and effect. We then need independent scrutiny, and I’ve given you two examples. That will replace policies—as Senator Carr has discussed, and I agree with him—based on ideology, headline-seeking, prejudice, opinions, looking after vested interests and looking after donors. This is what’s driving this country, and the people are paying for it. They’re paying for it through the neck, and we’re destroying our country. We need the ‘claimed’ science to be scrutinised and verified or rejected.

What a shameful, disgraceful incident we saw in this parliament just after midday today. We saw Senator Wong, Senator Watt and Senator Waters engaging in a screaming match. Not once did anyone raise empirical scientific evidence. This is day 701 since I asked the chief proponent of this climate change nonsense in the parliament to be accountable for her data. I asked Senator Waters. I challenged her 701 days ago—almost two years ago. I challenged her 11 years ago. She has never agreed to debate me. She refuses to debate me. She refuses to put up the scientific evidence. She refuses to discuss the corruption of climate science. Yet she espouses policies that will gut this country. Also, we’ve seen Senator Wong quoting a report from the IPCC. That’s not a report from scientists; that’s a report from political activists. She talks about what we are told—insert the catastrophe—will happen in the future. That’s not science. What we need is an honest debate. We need an honest debate to reveal the pure science and to hold people accountable in the parliament. We will not be supporting this motion because it will encourage politicisation.

/3 Comments/by

There is no climate emergency

,

The Greens will never stop their fear mongering about the collapse of the world. They’ve still never provided evidence that CO2 from human emissions presents a danger and needs to be cut.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to discuss this issue which, at its core—quoting from the Greens—is about ‘climate heating’. Really—about humans heating our climate!

One Nation relies upon data, facts and empirical evidence proving causation. Senator Watt relies upon ‘belief’.

Let’s have a look at some data on another issue, and that is the Greens’ claims. On 9 September 2019, I invited Senator Waters and the then leader Senator Di Natale—remember him?—to present us with the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. I also challenged them to a debate on the empirical evidence and on the corruption of science. What have we heard since? Nothing; not a thing—just more claims and more beliefs.

On 7 October 2010, I invited Senator Larissa Waters, who’s now the Greens leader in the Senate, to debate me on climate and climate science corruption. She jumped to her feet and said: ‘I will not debate you.’ Six years later, in May 2016, five years ago, I challenged her again, along with the Labor Party, and again she wouldn’t debate me. She won’t debate me because they haven’t got the facts.

So let’s go instead to someone who used to be part of the Obama administration, Steven Koonin—or should I say Professor Steven Koonin. He has written a book called Unsettled, and he says: ‘Heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900’—121 years ago. Secondly, he says, ‘the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past 50 years’. So much for warming! Thirdly, humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. These are facts. These are things that I have spoken about in the past in this chamber. Professor Koonin continues: ‘Tornado frequency and severity are also not trending up, nor are the number and severity of droughts. The extent of global fires has been trending significantly downward. The rate of sea-level rise has not accelerated. Global crop yields are rising, not falling.’ And listen to this: ‘And while global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are obviously higher now than two centuries ago, they’re not at any record planetary high. They’re at a low that has only been seen once before in the past, 500 million years ago’—as I have said repeatedly. Since all those data that Mr Koonin uses are available to others, he poses the obvious question: ‘Why haven’t you heard these facts before?’ He’s cautious—perhaps overly so—in proposing the causes for so much misinformation. He points to such things as incentives to invoke alarm for fundraising purposes and official reports that mislead by omission. Exactly!

Let me touch on the CSIRO. The CSIRO has admitted to me—we’ve had three presentations from the CSIRO—under my cross-examination that there is no danger from carbon dioxide from human activity. They’ve admitted today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. And they have claimed the rate of warming is, but their own papers reveal that that is false.

There is no merit to this matter of public urgency. We say: toss it in the can.

/by

Cost of climate policies – Productivity Commission Senate Estimates

, ,

WILL ANYONE TELL ME THEY’VE CALCULATED HOW MUCH CLIMATE POLICY COSTS?

Our commissioned report by economist Dr Alan Moran estimates that climate policies cost Australians $13 billion every year. You would think on such a costly policy area the government would have made its own estimates. Well they haven’t, not even the Productivity Commission could give me a figure or tell me where the proof that human CO2 affects climate and needs to be cut is.

Transcript

Senator Roberts, you have the call.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for being here tonight. I understand the Productivity Commission does analysis of policy sometimes; impacts, so on. Good policy in my view would be based on specifically, particularly in terms of climate change and energy policies, would be based upon specified, quantified impacts of carbon dioxide. In other words, for a given amount of carbon dioxide output from humans, it would have a quantified effect on climate factors, such as temperature. Now you’ve written reports on climate change, I believe. Have you ever identified any specified quantified link between human carbon dioxide and any climate factor? Whether it be temperature, rainfall, droughts, storms, whatever. Specific quantified impact.

So Senator, sorry, Michael Brennan the Chair of the Productivity Commission. I would have to check, it’s a while since we’ve done work that went specifically to climate change or other related policies like energy policy. For the most part, the scientific basis for the work, I think has been based on findings from organisations like the IPCC. So it hasn’t been the practise of the commission to second guess the scientific assessment made by other entities. But possibly to make a judgement about the economic policy response and how best the economic policy response might sit with that science. But as I say, it’s some time, I would have to take on notice the last bit of work we have done that was specifically on climate or a related policy and confirm that response.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you’ve not been able to identify specific, quantified impacts between human carbon dioxide and temp and climate factors.

Well, I’m really saying that it wasn’t necessarily we would not have seen that as part of our…

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. But you have to, yes. Okay. So I’m not finding you wrong for doing that, but you haven’t seen that. Have you assessed the, you have assessed the costs and benefits of policies?

I’m going to have to take that on notice because it’s a while. And I might even turn to Mr. Latimer because his history with the commission is longer than mine. It’s certainly in recent years, we haven’t done work in this area going back 10 to 15 years, possibly.

2012, we did some work on barriers to effective climate change adaptation, but we haven’t done a lot of work in this arena.

[Malcolm Roberts] Wouldn’t it be difficult to assess a policy if there’s no specified quantified link between the cause, the claimed cause carbon dioxide from human activity, and the impact supposedly?

Well, it could be potentially, but it would be, if we were to undertake work of that nature we would be taking the science as given by what we would take to be the expert scientific community.

Okay.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve had policies now going on at least 25, sorry, not in ’96, 25 years that are impacting energy, generation, agriculture, industry, transport, personal as well as business. And these had billions of dollars of impact throttling us back in our economy, especially relative to our competitors. Could you tell me, on notice, what advice you have given to governments? Not you, but the Productivity commission, has given to governments and MPs and ministers since 1996. Please, just the type of communication, the date, the type of communication, who it was sent to, and what the advice was, please?

You said it all. We can certainly take that on notice. It’ll be predominantly in the form of written reports that we will have published. That that’s our primary end for the most part, the overwhelming bulk of our communications with government.

[Malcolm Roberts] And if you could note the specific advice in there. Just a summary of that advice, please?

We’ll see what we can do. Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. Thanks. Thanks Chair. That’s all.

/by

Clean Energy Finance Corporation is going backwards – Senate Estimates

, , ,

The CEFC holds $10 billion of taxpayer money to be used on wasteful green projects. They are meant to get a healthy return for splashing your cash at renewable pipe dreams, but their profit has gone down by 30% in a year.

All of this is to supposedly cut down on harmless CO2, which you and I breathe in and out all day. The fact that the CEFC exists is just another example of how green-left this apparently conservative government has gone.

Transcript

Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you chair. Could you tell me what is clean energy? Just a quick preliminary question before we get into it.

Well, ideally Senator clean energy is one that is doesn’t produce emissions.

[Senator Roberts] Emissions of what?

Emissions of carbon dioxide or their equivalent is how we would, I guess broadly considered clinically. I mean, it’s not a technical term, but in the, in the general parlance.

[Senator Roberts] So, what’s dirty about carbon dioxide?

Well.

[Senator Roberts] ‘Cause you’re exhaling it right now.

Yeah. I mean, it’s omnipresent around us. I appreciate that, Senator. But what we’re about is is trying to decarbonize the Australian economy in the electricity sector and the ag sector and infrastructure and property and so on. So that’s, that’s what we’re about. And part of that is investing in renewables which are of course, clean energy.

[Senator Roberts] So there are a few leaps there we’ll, we’ll ignore the leaps. But if we look around inside this building and outside. Everything that we see in here has come from the use of energy and human progress over the last 170 years has been due entirely to the ever decreasing cost in real terms of energy except for the last 25 years, since 1996 where the costs have doubled and in fact more than doubled. So we’re reversing human progress on the basis that carbon dioxide is a dirty gas, correct?

In fact, power prices during the day in many states of Australia are extremely low today, and in some cases have been negative. So I don’t know if that is always the case.

[Senator Roberts] Wholesale prices and consumer prices, especially for families have increased dramatically in the last 25 years. So let’s get onto the clean energy finances claim. This is quote, we invest to lead the market operating with commercial rigor to address some of Australia’s toughest emissions challenges in agriculture, energy generation and storage infrastructure, property, transport and waste with $10 billion to invest on behalf of the Australian government. We work to hope that’s the people we work to deliver a positive return for taxpayers across our portfolio. So the clean energy finance corporation is normalised surplus. What some people might argue is a kin to a profit from operations. Excluding extenuating circumstances in 2019-20 was $100.5 million compared with 143.6 million the year before. Isn’t that a disappointing decline? And do you expect a recovery?

We’re very proud of our economic record, Senator and the you know, the operating surplus that we produced last year we think is, we think is a significant achievement. In fact, when you take away from that operating surplus net operating circles the cost of government funding we still produce a profit for the Australian taxpayers. So we, you know I think what we’ve done investing successfully across all those sectors that you mentioned it has been a terrific achievement.

[Senator Roberts] So what does it return? I would calculate it as about 1%.

Well, it depends how you, how you look at it. Senator we, we’ve directed by the government to try and achieve a portfolio benchmark return across across the whole portfolio. And if you look at our sort of cumulative return through to 31 March of this year our return is approximately 4.63%. So I, you know, I think that’s a that’s a very positive return.

[Senator Roberts] Okay. Secondly, the clean energy finance corporation impairment provision at 30th of June, 2020 was $121.1 million compared with 59.7 million in the previous year. So that’s a 100% increase and it represented 5.1% of loans and advances at amotised cost compared with 2.3% in 2018, 19. So it’s more than doubled.

Remember it’s a provision, senators. It’s no, it’s not a loss or right off of any of our assets. And we’re pleased to say that we have negligible losses in our portfolio across the course of the eight years that we have been, we’ve been investing. The increase is a reflection of some of the, you know, some of the challenges that we have taken into account in relation to wind and solar projects and the challenges with grid and marginal loss factors and curtailment. So to be prudent and conservative, we did increase in payment provision substantially last year. I’ll maybe get my CFO.

Senator, I might also just add that one of the factors that we were considering back in August when we were wrapping up the June financial year end was that everybody was projecting at that point that we were headed into a recession. And if you’re headed into a recession, your probability of default on loans will increase. So we prudently put extra money aside to provision for that event. Fortunately, with hindsight now we did not head into a recession. We were back on the way out and we’re, we’re experiencing growth now. So that prudent provision that stood there at that point in time was not needed because we did not suffer actual losses. That was just a provision —

[Senator Roberts] So the 5.1% includes the provision?

That was all provision. So it was purely a statistical calculation on the probability of default. If we had low electricity prices. We were headed into a recession and really the property market as well. People are looking at that and saying, we’re not quite sure what’s going to happen with valuations in property. And so we had to prudently provide for those things fortunately, not required in hindsight.

[Senator Roberts] Okay. Thank you. What are your projections for impairment over the next five years?

Over the next five years, it’s actually spelled out in the budget papers and I can give you that exact number but effectively we’re not projecting an increase dramatically in the provision. So if we look at, I’m on page 166. The budget papers, and we provide in there on about halfway down the page, write down an impairment of assets. There’s in the budget year, 45 million. Now that’s a combination of two things. There’s about 20 odd million dollars of true impairment provision that we allow for. And about 25 million that we’re providing in the event that we have to invest at suboptimal rates to provide some stability in the grid. One of the things that’s factored in here is the grid reliability fund. We expect that we will have to invest equity. In some cases that equity may be at less than market rates. So instead of a concessional charge, it ends up as an impairment charge. You write it down to the fair value. Now that’s to make sure that the grid can cope with the, the ongoing changes to the generation nature.

[Senator Roberts] So how much have you on another question, how much have you written off in terms of lost capital and foregone interest?

Over the entire life of the corporation? I think from memory it’s like, it may be as high as 800,000. We can take it on —

[Senator Roberts] No, it’s, it’s a bit immaterial in the scheme of the scale of the CFC.

It’s lifting the signal. I’m going to give the call to send it to McAlester.

Okay.

[Senator Roberts] Everything that you’re putting money into has a subsidy. It can’t stand on its own merits. Aren’t you lending money out and expecting to get it back?

We, I mean, as you know, as we’ve discussed all our capital expected capital has been returned with the expected income. And, and I’m not sure about your statement there that everything that we’ve invested in is is receiving a subsidy. You know, we’ve a very broad investor, right? From large scale projects to, as I say, in property you know, even, you know, things like the build to rent sector and venture capital and clean technologies. And so I, you know, I’m not sure why you think that all all the sectors and all the companies and projects we’ve invested in would be receiving subsidies.

Senator, I’m Simon Avery, head of government stakeholder relations might be of some assistance there under our act. And this goes to the question you asked earlier about a definition of clean energy technology. The three heads of definition are renewable energy technologies energy efficiency, technologies and low emissions technologies. And so while as you point out renewable energy technologies may have some subsidies. For example, through the renewable energy target for most of the energy efficiency technologies there’s no subsidy involved. And in fact, over the life of the CFC, I think we’ve we’ve made about $9.1 billion worth of commitments. And there would only be about $55 million worth of concessional subsidy that CFC has itself offered 55 million odd over 9.1 billion of lifetime commitments is a drop in the bucket.

[Senator Roberts] So last question chair, the energy minister, Mr. Taylor has cited publicly the Bloomberg graph on investment per capita in various countries around the world in solar and wind. And Australia has double the per capita investment of any other country. Number two country, I think is America. It’s with just over double with six times China’s investment in that, even though they make all of our solar most of our solar panels and wind turbines. So other than providing still further assistance wind and solar. How does this funding encourage private investment in Australia’s renewable energy sector when the evidence suggested that we’re already over investing and bringing bringing quite damaging consequences to us as we’ve heard?

Yeah. I mean, there’s a couple of things in there, Senator, I mean, remember of course, Australia is a world leader in rooftop solar. So, you know, they’ve kind of in excess of two gigawatts of rooftop, solar is is installed each year at the moment in this country. So that accounts for some of the, you know the per capita figures that that you cite in terms of, you know, attracting, you know the use of the private sector and why isn’t that investing well, the good thing is that that we have been creating in private sector investment over the course of, of our life at the CFC and for every dollar that we have, in fact invested we have credited in $2.40 of third party capital. So part of what we’re about is, is coming into, you know into projects, you know, supporting companies and we at the same time are trying to attract in the private sector be they Australian banks, international equity, you know large scale infrastructure funds and so on. And so we’re about bringing in the private sector and you know, not creating any more now.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, chair.

/by

Unreliable renewables killing our power grid – Australian Renewable Energy Agency Estimates

, ,

Even the energy minister has admitted he is scared for the future security and stability of our grid because of the rapid influx of renewables. Climate activists continue to falsely claim that wind and solar is the cheapest form of energy.

It’s a lie. When you take away the billions of dollars in subsidies coal is still the cheapest form of energy.

Transcript

[Senator Fawcett] Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for attending today. I’d like to ask questions on three topics. Firstly, prices, reliability and stability of the electricity network and supply. Secondly, hydrogen. And thirdly carbon dioxide storage. So firstly on prices, reliability, and stability. In your recent report on 14 large scale wind and solar projects in which ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation invested, it says that you “Played an important role in accelerating the early development of the large scale solar industry in Australia and the integration of utility scale renewable energy generation in the national electricity market.” Could you please confirm or correct these specific findings amongst others? Firstly, negative pricing impacts increased significantly in 2020, particularly for Queensland projects.

Senator, I’m not paying attention to the energy markets closely enough to answer that question.

[Senator Roberts] Okay. Secondly, initial project forecasts consistently underestimated curtailment and residual losses, while capacity factors were generally overestimated.

Again, Senator, that’s a report I’d have to go back and have a look at to answer that question.

[Senator Roberts] Third one, incorrectly assumed adequate transmission. And fourthly, the regulator says power cannot be fed into the grid because of instability.

Sorry, what’s the question there?

[Senator Roberts] The regulator, could you confirm or correct whether the regulator says that power cannot be fed into the grid because of instability problems in the grid?

Senator, what’s the context for that?

[Senator Roberts] Well, these are the reports. This is a report in which ARENA and Clean Energy Finance produced on 14 large scale wind and solar projects.

I would need to refresh myself in the report to answer the question.

[Senator Roberts] I’ll just make the statements and maybe you could comment. The fifth point: Frequency Control Ancillary Services costs were both a significant expense and a major operational challenge for several projects. Although this reduced from 2019 to 2020, as Frequency Control Ancillary Services prices have fallen and several projects implemented sales forecasting. And the last point: the failure of critical equipment, especially failure of inverted power stack and the lack of market readily available spares were a major operational challenge for asset managers. Have these, and similar projects, contributed to the instability of electricity market over recent years?

Senator, I don’t believe so.

[Senator Roberts] Snowy Hydro seems to agree. They’re warning us that the transition from a stable base load power from coal is a fact and it’s going to be fraught with risk.

Well, Senator, as the penetration of renewables increases, those issues need to be addressed. The storage and the reliability of the system. You’re asking about the past, have they in the past, and I’m not sure that those projects have caused any instability, as you suggest.

[Senator Roberts] The estimated costs of Frequency Control Ancillary Services, lot of acronyms here isn’t there, for unreliables was initially estimated, about 20 years ago, at just 1% of the cost of electricity. This is before we got onto this transition. It’s not significant cost in coal gas, nuclear and hydro, yet with the unreliables, the wind and solar, it’s now around 8 to 9%. Is that a factor in your plans?

Senator, what’s unreliable?

[Senator Roberts] Wind and solar.

Variable renewables?

[Senator Roberts] Yes.

Right.

[Senator Roberts] So the cost Frequency Control Ancillary Services is now around 8 to 9%.

Senator, I’d have to go and check the market for you and get back to you. I’m not close to those numbers on a daily basis.

[Senator Roberts] Okay, so if you could take it on notice then, the cost of Frequency Control Ancillary Services in aggregate, across electricity sector, and also for wind and for solar, typically, are you aware that the Minister for Energy himself recently admitted, quite publicly and strongly, his fears about future prices, his fears about unreliability, and his fears about grid instability?

Yes.

[Senator Roberts] Aren’t these inherent flaws in unreliable wind and solar, that are not present, or are negligible, in coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear?

Senator, it’s very possible, technically and economically, to build a system with renewable energy that is reliable, safe, secure, low emissions, and low cost.

[Senator Roberts] But not base load power.

Ultimately, all of that combined gives you base load power because if you balance your wind and solar effectively, with pumped hydro, with batteries, gas generators, as the case may be, you can create base load power.

[Senator Roberts] Has anyone done it anywhere in the world, as a nation?

Senator, we’re well on our way to doing it in Australia.

[Senator Roberts] Okay. Coal, gas, hydro, nuclear in other countries, and formerly in our country, were they reliable base load power sources because they provided stability, reliability, and high energy density. Now, as I see it, and from what I’ve read, unreliables like wind and solar have very low energy density. That’s what makes them inefficient. That’s fundamental basic physics. They’re inherently high cost of making solar panels and wind turbines because of the high resource consumption. It takes for a kilowatt hour of coal, it takes about 35 tonnes of steel. For the same in wind, it takes about 543 tonnes of steel. So inherently higher cost, higher energy used in making them, and much more land needed for solar, and higher energy intensity in manufacturing. So to me, it just seems that the basics are not sound. I’d like your views

Senator, I’ll take solar for example. The technology I know a little bit better than wind. ARENA hasn’t funded any wind technology in our history. Solar has an energy payback of between 12 and 18 months, and the panels last for 20 to 30 years in the field. And the International Energy Agency has come out and said that solar PV is the cheapest form of energy ever, in the history of the world. So those themes from the International Energy Agency, and the things that we’re seeing, are aligned. We think that wind and solar combined with those other technologies to balance the system will give us a very cheap, stable, low emissions energy system, contrary to your perspective.

[Senator Roberts] So if for a given amount of energy needed from a solar panel, we need about three of them to take care of feeding a battery for taking us through the night, and also for days of poor weather. So is that factored in, or just the single solar panel? Because they’re the figures I’ve seen.

It’s the whole system, Senator.

[Senator Roberts] Yeah, I’d like, could you give me a breakdown of those, please? Because I don’t believe them. The breakdown of those costs.

Of what costs?

[Senator Roberts] Solar.

What would you like to know?

[Senator Roberts] I’d like you to compare a solar to a coal-fired power station, base load power. Battery, the number of cells you need.

Well, I’ll take it one question at a time. A solar farm built today can cost in the range of $40 to $50 a megawatt hour as its output. A coal station that you would build today would be at least double that, if it was a HELE coal station. And you’ve seen the prices for gas. We know that gas generators need at least $100 a megawatt hour, and an open cycle, and open cycle gas station to produce profit. So, solar at 40 to 50, and wind at about the same range, is cheaper than other forms of electricity generation today.

[Senator Roberts] So why is it that everywhere in the world, as the as the proportion of solar and wind increases, the cost of electricity in that nation increases dramatically.

Senator, I haven’t seen the figures that you’re talking about. You say every country in the world that’s done it, I’ve not heard-

[Senator Roberts] I’ve seen several graphs from independent sources showing, looking at it from your view, the more solar and wind increase, the higher the cost of electricity.

You’re welcome to share that with me. I can have a look at it.

[Senator Roberts] So One Nation commissioned Dr. Alan Moran, who was a First Assistant Secretary of the Industry Department, a First Assistant Commissioner of the Productivity Commission, and Deputy Secretary of Energy in the Victorian government, to report on the cost of climate and unreliables. Apparently, those figures used to be consolidated once but they’re no longer consolidated. Excluding the costs of transmission, expenditures on Snowy 2.0, and cost of market operator interventions, Dr. Moran has estimated the annual cost in 2018-19 over renewable energy subsidies and support at $6.9 billion. This estimate was made from publicly available information in state and federal budget papers and from regulatory authorities. So all from the governments. It comprises Commonwealth expenditures, the cost of Commonwealth subsidy schemes, and state expenditures and subsidy schemes. Do you agree with Alan Moran’s estimate of 6.9 billion?

Senator, I’m not aware of his work.

[Senator Roberts] Do you have any idea of the extra cost of solar and wind on top of the additional, on top of ordinary electricity costs?

Senator, those figures are readily available. And I think one of the things that gets missed when looking at that figure, for example, the subsidy figure, as you call it, is the benefit that the renewables have provided the system in terms of lower costs, as you’ve pointed out, you know, it has been pointed out that the effect of having wind and solar in the market is to suppress prices. And I think we can see that in today’s market. So I think you have to be fair and look at the benefits or the impact of renewables on a holistic basis, rather than just looking at the subsidies, which were necessary to get solar and wind, for example, to the point where they are the cheapest form of energy generation. And I think we’re seeing the benefit of that in today’s electricity prices, which are at record low levels, I think.

[Senator Roberts] Are you aware of the study in Spain that says for every so-called green job created there are 2.2 jobs that could have been created had they stayed with coal-fired power station?

Senator, I’m not aware of that study.

[Senator Fawcett] Senator Roberts, you’ve had a pretty good run. How much more do you have?

[Senator Roberts] I’ll ask one more question on this topic, and perhaps we can come back if there’s, if I’ve got time afterwards.

[Senator Fawcett] We’re already well over, in terms of our schedule. I’m keen to move on to Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

[Senator Roberts] What is the effect of these unreliables, wind and solar, compared with the Prime Minister Gillard’s Labor carbon dioxide tax? Do you have any idea?

Sorry Senator, I’m not quite clear how to even answer that question.

[Senator Roberts] Well, I’ve been told that an estimate is that the cost of the Gillard carbon dioxide tax is about half the cost of these extra wind and solar costs on our energy sector.

Senator, I’m just not sure. I can’t answer that question as you’ve put it.

[Senator Roberts] I’ll put the questions on hydrogen and carbon dioxide sequestration on notice.

Thank you.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, Chair.

/by

Government has no idea how much renewables cost – Clean Energy Regulator

, ,

This government already funnels billions of dollars into renewable energy projects. As huge as that cost is, there is an even bigger silent one: the cost of complying with green regulation.

I was shocked that the Clean Energy Regulator, with a $75 million budget, has never made an estimate of just how much that cost is to business and Australians.

Transcript

Senator. So Senator Roberts, you have the call.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for attending tonight. First of all, what’s clean energy?

[David Parker] Senator, as the Clean Energy Regulator, we have a range of legislation that we’re entrusted to administer and the relevant bits of clean energy are defined in that legislation.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what are they?

[David Parker] Oh, there’s a range. Charlene, would you like to have a go at that?

[Charlene Thompson] Charlene Thompson, Executive General Manager, Scheme Operations Division. So Senator, as part of our administration of various legislative schemes, we are entrusted with looking after the two aspects of the renewable energy target. Which includes the large scale renewable energy target and the smaller scale target. And I believe the eligible technologies under that Act include solar, PV, wind power, I think there’s some bio methane in there as well. So, those things are essentially eligible activities or technologies that attract the incentive provided by the renewable energy target.

[David Parker] So there’s one other, which is heat pump hot water.

[Charlene Thompson] That’s right, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, what was that?

[David Parker] Heat pump hot water. So, it’s the new hot water systems. Rather than having, you know, electricity go through a resistive heater or a gas heater. You have a heat pump on like a reverse air conditioner, which puts heat into the water. They’re more efficient, use less electricity.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s defined as clean, is defined in the regulations, which you have to enforce?

[David Parker] Well, for our purposes, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. The purpose of the agency is listed as being accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. I think that means carbon dioxide. Any such goal must be tempered by the costs this entails. The Regulator administers a range of programmes, including the Emissions Reduction Fund, the Renewable Energy Target, and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. The Regulator has a budget of about $75 million. Is that about right?

[David Parker] That’s about right, yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s generally recognised that the costs imposed on business by regulations is considerably in excess of the direct costs of the Regulator itself. So, more than your $75 million. Have you estimated the cost of compliance by businesses as required by the government’s regulation review guidelines?

[David Parker] Well, in terms of our existing regular regulation, no, we haven’t done a survey, but let me say, as a matter of culture, we take it as one of our duties to reduce the cost impact of the legislation that we administer. And I think it would be fair to say that we have a good record in that.

[Malcolm Roberts] How do you do that? And what kind of examples can you give me?

[David Parker] Yeah, Okay. So I can give you a range of examples. So, let me take one in the small scale renewable energy space.

[Malcolm Roberts] Small scale?

[David Parker] Small scale. So, this is solar panels on roofs, for example. When that scheme was originally conceived it involved people filling out lots of forms. The forms were shooting out all over the place and eventually winding up at the Regulator. Then we’d have people look at the forms, that would take some time, obviously filling in forms and moving information around the various parties in the industry would have a cost. As one of the innovations that was co-developed with industry, we now have a process called the Solar Panel Validation Arrangements. I won’t go into all of the details, because that will take some time, but broad broadly speaking, what it means is that the installer takes out their telephone. There’s an app on that telephone. They take a photo of the panels, where they’ve been installed. Before and after, so that you can see that it’s been done. That’s an Andy Ford measure. Takes a photograph of the relevant barcodes on the panel. So we know what panels are there. And then, you know, essentially you press submit information. So, it goes through the network, the web, to the various people involved, and it quickly ends up in our shop, for the purposes of validating the install and providing the Renewable Energy Certificates. That data essentially just goes directly into our systems and doesn’t require very much human intervention at all. And so that reduces the time taken to do this. And I could give you a range of other suggestions, like that.

[Malcolm Roberts] So a new scheme is coming in, the Corporate Emissions Reduction Transparency Report.

[David Parker] Yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] And it seeks to gather and codify information from all companies rather than the 2,500 presently covered in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. The scheme was open to public comment until 19th of March, 2021 in a government media release of 19 February. At 28 days, seems a bit short. Was this part of the regulation impact statement procedure required by the government? And have you estimated the paper burden costs of the scheme?

[David Parker] Well, let me just correct some of the facts that you stated. It’s not a requirement to all companies. It’s a requirement for us to set up a framework, which we’ve done. It’s a voluntary arrangement.

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s an opt-in.

[David Parker] It’s an opt-in.

[Malcolm Roberts] Strictly speaking, it’s an opt-in.

[David Parker] Well, whether you call it strictly speaking or want to go to the issues about companies who’d want to opt in and why, it’s formally an opt in arrangement.

[Malcolm Roberts] So is this scheme proceeding?

[David Parker]A scheme is still in the process of development. You told quickly the story of the proposal being put out for consultation, we’ve got quite a substantial amount of feedback from industry about that. In essence, if you like, the scheme is about moving reporting from and this is itself, a simplification, moving reporting under the search process to the extent that companies opt in, moving that from gross emissions. Which is the arrangement under the so-called NGERS Reporting, National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System over to a net story, if companies wish to opt in. And companies, as part of that, will be able to tell their story about how they’re proposing to reduce their net emissions position.

[Malcolm Roberts] So when you talk about emissions, you’re talking about carbon dioxide?

[David Parker] Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

[David Parker] Or equivalent.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry?

[David Parker] Or equivalent.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, methane. You’re not talking about nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, particulate or any of the real pollutants.

[David Parker] Well, nitrous oxide is a relevant gas that’s covered. So, anything that anything that’s covered, yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it covers real pollutants too? Now it is an opt in programme, as you said. Yet it’s likely, it seems, that green activist organisations will use it to target those companies that initially choose to opt out. To not opt in.

[David Parker] Well, look, I think that remains to be seen. I wouldn’t speculate on how we will use, who might opt in at this stage. I mean, it’s very early in the process. I mean, it’s quite clear that the way climate change issues are being thought about has moved quite clearly into the net space as opposed to the grey space. And so, what this report does is intended to align with that shift.

[Chair] Roberts again, I’d like to hand the court over to Senator Davidson. You can ask two more questions, if you’d like. Then we’ll pass it over.

[Malcolm Roberts] Can you offer information regarding the compliance costs for business?

[David Parker] Look, it’s difficult to say. It will depend on how a company chooses to opt in, on what basis. Whether that’s an equity basis or a basis that comes directly out of the NGERS arrangement. So it’s one of these things, which is quite difficult to say at this point in time.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, last question, if the large scale renewable energy target has been achieved, and I’m told that we have achieved it, why is there a positive price to the renewable energy target subsidy target itself? When any such price is possible only if the regulatory measures are in place requiring retailers to incorporate this energy in their supplies. So if we’ve already achieved it, why are we driving more subsidies to achieve even more?

[David Parker] Well, the price of Large Scale Generation Certificate, so let’s just focus on that, for the purposes of discussing the question. So, the legislation sets a statutory target of 33,000 gigawatt hours. And a couple of things to observe. So there was a statutory target through time, but also a mechanism embedded in the legislation to permit, in technical terms, arbitration. Not arbitration, but arbitrage between the years, pardon me. And there is still some obligation that remains to be met, should a company wish to, right? They’ve taken so-called default arrangement out of that. They could redeem those payments for a certificate. So there’s some sort of old demand. And the other point is that that target is not the only demand that’s there in the market. So, it’s possible for people to voluntarily surrender certificates if they wish. And there are some schemes which also connect into the scheme, such as Green Power. Where, if people wish, they can sort of tick the box, I’m using term somewhat pejorative, but choose to purchase low emissions energy from the energy retailers. And I won’t go into all the details, but that also flows through into an LGC demand on top of the statutory target. So prices are hitting down. We expect them to hit down further, but in terms of where they go over time, as some of those things that I’ve explained with them work themselves out. Where the price heads over time, there there’s a range of views about that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.

/by

People don’t want wind turbines in their backyard – Senate Estimates

, ,

I questioned the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner at Senate Estimates. This is one the dozens of climate related agencies that the government pays for in their never-ending pursuit of renewables.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you chair. Thank you, Mr. Dyer, for being here with us.

[Mr. Dyer] My pleasure.

[Malcolm Roberts] The data shows the large project subsidy is around $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide and that’s close to $40 per megawatt hour. If the large scale renewable energy target has been achieved, which is what we’re told why is there a positive price to the renewable energy targets, certificates effectively subsidy when any such price is possible only if the regulatory measures are in place requiring retailers incorporate this energy in their supplies. So if we’ve achieved the target, why is it still there?

[Mr. Dyer] It’s a fantastic good question, but it’s not my area of expertise overall or roles I’m the ombudsman effectively for renewable energy and transmission. So it’s not, one I can comment on

[Malcolm Roberts] Are you the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner?

[Mr. Dyer] It’s formerly the National Wind Farm Commissioner.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah the National Wind Farm Commissioner, okay. So the history of manufacturing, the history of farming, the history of just about any service if it’s dealt with closely and evaluated closely then managing a process is most productive and efficient when variation is minimised. So what we’ve got now is an increase in variation of supply from electricity, and that’s the most crucial sector. So the sector that determines our manufacturing success, our agricultural success, our processing success, the quality of life, the affordability of energy is now being driven by increasing variability through wind and solar which have notoriously variable, energy supplies. Is there any thought been given to that? That’s inherently more expensive.

[Mr. Dyer] Senator, my role is to help work with communities and proponents and governments to help the rolled out of projects to occur in the country around the country. I don’t set the policy about what should be put out there on a pathway to help resolve concerns.

[Malcolm Roberts] Do you have any concerns from citizens as I do from our constituents that we’re supposed to be doing all of this stuff, transitioning to unreliable energy because of climate yet, we’re transitioning to the two things that are make us even more dependent on weather and climate variability, seems insane to me. Do you have any constituents as I do who are complaining about that?

[Mr. Dyer] Most constituents, the complaint to us, very supportive of renewable energy, but just don’t want one in their backyard.

[Malcolm Roberts] Why is that?

[Mr. Dyer] Because of the perceived impacts of the visual amenity noise, property values, of fire risk and a whole range of things that might to be tabled to our attention.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s low vibes, low frequency vibrations in particular?

[Mr. Dyer] Yes. There have been a body of complaints about what’s called infrasound.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. Yeah. I’ve heard them of people in severe pain, trauma almost due to it. Has any study being done on the impact of wind turbines on energy and Earth’s atmosphere and the effects of that wind turbines taking energy out of the atmosphere.

[Mr. Dyer] Not to my knowledge.

[Malcolm Roberts] It might seem very minuscule but then you see labor’s carbon dioxide tax was introduced to cut the number of carbon dioxide molecules in air from one in 5.7 million produced by humans to one in 6 million. So that seems very minuscule too but we’ve got a whole industry and the decimation of other industries based on a theory that when in reality nature is shown to control the level of carbon dioxide in the air. So no studies have been done looking at the effect of taking energy out of earth’s atmosphere and out of the earth’s winds that you’re aware of. I’m not aware of any either.

[Mr. Dyer] No, there’s been theories around that. Wind turbines might cause frost because they take the wind out of the sail, so to speak. And the top here that might protect vineyard from causing frost could be at risk. But when we’ve dug into those research matters there hasn’t been any substance to them.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. So wind sources of power are not reliable. They’re unreliable, they’re costly inherently so because they’re very low density energy they’re unstable in terms of they’re being asynchronous. When they’re added to the grid, they increase instability. They’re scattered, which increases transmission costs. They have limited life sometimes as short as 10 to 15 years then I have an environmental legacy with massive burials in Wyoming for example. I don’t know what’s going to happen in Australia. Is anyone talking about those issues?

[Mr. Dyer] Decommissioning is certainly a big topic at the moment as we come to end of life of many wind farms around the country and who pays, who is accountable, what is the disposal, disposal mechanism for things their blades is a hot topic. Thank you very much Mr. Dyer.

/by