Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On the one hand, Australia bans the use of its own natural gas, while on the other hand plans huge gas processing and export expansion for international bidders.

We’re sending our natural resources overseas to power the economic prosperity of China, India and other nations. Then we’re buying back unreliable wind and solar manufactured with our gas and coal.

Maybe the Greens will appreciate the irony when they’re sitting in the dark without cooking and heating. Gas should be our back-up to the energy shortfalls, not the bad guy.

This war on gas is a heist under the banner of UN ‘net-zero’. The only winners are the billionaires involved with the corrupt UN-WEF “sustainability” agenda.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I thank Senator Pocock for his motion. I question why we need a dedicated export facility for the Beetaloo Basin’s natural gas. Australia has 10 natural gas export terminals—two in Darwin. Beetaloo output is expected to be huge, and much of it should be used here in Australia, not exported.

Australia’s parasitic mal-investments in wind and solar are destroying our energy generation capacity. Gas generation is essential to keeping the lights on, while commercial gas hot water and cooking are likewise essential. Everyday Australians will never accept the insane idea that Australia should stop using gas. This is despite the advertising spent on climate campaigns designed to do one thing—line the pockets of climate carpetbaggers, like those funding teal senator David Pocock’s campaign. Gas connections are being banned in new builds and existing lines will be ripped out because, at some point, we will need to recycle that copper, since world production will never be able to supply the copper needed for UN net zero.

My own building that I rent in Campbell, in Canberra, sent out a note to owners this week saying that the body corporate had been told they will need to remove the gas hot water system, rip out the pipes and remove all gas appliances by 2035. Homeowners will have to pay the bill—likely, over a million dollars all up. This is a brand-new building! What a waste.

On one hand, the green ideologues will require owners to spend tens of thousands of dollars per unit to pull out near-new hot water heating, gas lines and equipment and replace them with less efficient solutions. Then the ideologues will complain, ‘Rents have gone up!’ Of course rents are going up. Green ideology is forcing rents up by forcing landlords’ costs up. How are the climate lobby not connecting the dots here? How much more productive capacity are we going to rip out, to replace it with shiny new electric capacity that doesn’t do the job as well as gas? Never mind the environmental waste of tossing millions of stoves into landfill where they can rot beside broken and toxic solar panels and wind-turbine blades! And these people were worried about plastic straws! Please!

One gas provider proudly claims on their website that they’re banning gas to ‘save the planet’. No, you are depriving Australians of our own gas so you can sell it for a larger profit into an energy starved world market, a situation the government’s price cap on gas made worse because it made exports more profitable than domestic sales in a disrupted supply market.

Meanwhile, another energy retailer is advertising on their website—listen to this—that:

We all like to do our bit for the planet, so you’ll be happy to know you can reduce your household carbon emissions by switching from appliances running on grid electricity to natural gas.

It goes on to say that ‘gas is the perfect partner for solar’ and by connecting your home to natural gas you ‘can lower your carbon emissions by up to 77 per cent in Victoria compared to electric cooking and hot water appliances.’ Which is it? Is gas a perfect partner to solar or is it environmental vandalism?

Another energy provider’s website has a spiel about renewable gas, which turns out to be hydrogen. Hydrogen is not even a viable fuel yet as it takes huge amounts of energy to make it out of water and yet they have rebranded it already. That must be some sort of record! What a mess climate carpetbaggers have created through their green and teal shills in the Senate. What I have not heard in the gas debate at all is a major reason gas is better than electricity, and that is transmission loss. Electricity suffers transmission loss getting from the point of generation miles out in the countryside to homes in the city. Gas does not suffer a transmission loss. Factor that into energy calculations and electrification becomes an even worse idea.

We’re banning Australians from accessing our own natural resources while allowing our gas to be flogged off to international bidders at a premium just as our coal is shipped to China where it powers the solar panel and wind turbine export industry that the Greens and teal Senator David Pocock worship with no hint of irony. Meanwhile, a rapidly increasing global energy market values and prefers hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and gas. The West is deindustrialising while the rest of the world, including China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, are industrialising using our gas and coal. The war on gas is a heist of our nation’s natural resources. We’re sacrificing economic prosperity and the opportunity for advancement for all the Australians in the name of a corrupt United Nations sustainability agenda that sustains nobody except the billionaires behind it all. It is wealth transfer from we the people to global billionaire elites and global predators like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street.

One Nation rejects the electrification of Australia’s gas supply and questions the Middle Arm project. Natural gas must stay as a choice for all— (Time expired)

18 replies
  1. Bill Massie
    Bill Massie says:

    Whatever we hear from the coloured party, you can be sure it is not economically viable or sustainable.
    They have no skills in good financial management.
    Has anyone noticed when we turn on a gas appliance, the control has now to be set at a higher position to get les gas?

  2. Bill Laver
    Bill Laver says:

    Malcolm, it was explained to me years ago that Australia will supply the rest of the world resources and goods designated, by whoever, to do so, and the industries and resources that will and have made Australia strong, will diminish, because some other countries have been designated to supply those resources. Every country has been designated to supply certain industry or resources and that’s that. It’s the global plan, and Australia and New Zealand are a part of it. There are economic, geographical boundaries in the world designated under The World Trade Organisation, and the UN. In fact we are test cases for the multicultural experiment which includes dismantling of the Christian Western civilisation, through political, social, media, etc and the mass immigration of other cultures and faiths into Australia.

  3. Les Catterwell
    Les Catterwell says:

    Well said Malcolm

    Hitting home runs …. And many more

    Pocock looking VERY VERY sheepish with no answers to your strong anD decisive, evidence strewn , speech …

    Keep going Malcom …. I know you know no other way

    Sarah G ….is making strong progress down south , in the chilly state

    I was , indeed fortunate to meet Sarah at the MULHOTRA venue …
    She spoke there , of course, wise words from one so young , ( and cute )…lol

    Still myself, and most I know are getting bans , left right , & centre

    And we have the ‘ wondrous prospects of the ‘ Orwellian ban on being able to speak freely and without looking over our shoulder ….in August 2023….
    I have recently made it know that I wish to obtain the legal position to these DRACONIAN plans , under their watch ….

    I know you, Senator Antic, and many other freedom fighters will NOT Allow this nonsense to be rubber stamped in our country ….

    Check with you soon

  4. John McBratney
    John McBratney says:

    Dear Senator Robert,
    Clearly you understand the disaster presently unfolding in Australia as a result of the fraudulent push for net zero. Why I ask, and I would ask you to ask the question in Parliament, do the likes of Mr Bowen et al not understand? Are they all stupid or are they as corrupt as the perpetrators of this unreliable rubbish being foisted upon us at HUGE cost to the detriment of reliable power generation. Sweden and Norway are returning to nuclear – wonder why?
    Please ask the following in Parliament: A question to the Federal Energy Minister Mr Bowen: What is your strategy to overcome the obvious flaws in solar and wind power generation that have brought most of Europe, the UK and Scandinavia to draw back from renewables and restart coal and nuclear plants. You must have a technically sound and proven strategy – do you not?

  5. Gumnut123
    Gumnut123 says:

    READ 2 days ago that the ELECTRIC cars with their 500lb battery, are causing roads in USA to have to be repaired years ahead of normal wear and tear maintenance schedules, so much for caring for the Environment.

    Did the makers of electric cars, do tests to ascertain the problems in a car carrying such a heavy weight battery would cause to….?

    • Col
      Col says:

      Hi Gumnut,

      50 gallons of petrol would weigh about 400 lbs.
      So driving with a full tank of petrol would have much the same effect.
      5 passengers would also weigh about 500 lbs.

      Cheers,
      Col

      • Tony
        Tony says:

        Hi Gumnut. My huge RV, towing a camper, has a 75ltr tank.
        75lrs of diesel weighs 65kg. 130lb.
        500lb of fuel would be around 300lts, and I dont know of any road vehicle appart from Prime Movers, that need that much.
        EV battteries are Heavy. EV vehicle tyres are heavy duty, and expensive.
        More Fact than Fiction.

  6. STEPHEN
    STEPHEN says:

    Agree. This same Rockefeller profit driven playbook is being done in the USA. THE EXCUSE WAS OF COURSE PUTIN BAD, BIDEN GOOD. The USA lifted the oil and gas export ban under Obama. This all leads to draining America first and disabling manufacturing. Rockefellers and Crown interests are going to make bank on this just as what was done during the manufactured oil embargo almost 50 years ago.

  7. Col
    Col says:

    Malcolm,

    Would you please try and refrain from using emotive and denigrating language in your future postings.
    Continued use of this form of language does not enhance your discussion points but rather points to a lack of your own belief in the claims.

    Discussion postings like “How the West was Lost” do absolutely nothing to enhance one nation’s reputation.

    But enough of the above concerns.

    There are some serious questions that must be raised to your stance against the reduction of fossil fuel usage in Australia and World Wide.

    One almost does not need to be identified. (No 1)

    1) ALL fossil fuel contain the element Carbon and when burnt to release the contained energy MUST also release CO2.

    2) The World Wide use of fossil fuels has increased in the last 200 years or so, in keeping with the increasing atmospheric CO2 level.

    3) The increasing level of CO2 emissions obviously must be greater than CO2 can be naturally removed from the atmosphere.

    4) A question for the coal and petroleum industries:
    How does the rate of use of fossil fuels compare with the rate in which these fuels were originally formed?

    5) Now a question for your research:
    For the Greenhouse Gasses (Water vapour and CO2),
    What is the relative contribution of each gas to the overall greenhouse warming of our planet?
    You will probably be surprised to find the CO2 contribution is much greater than one would expect from its concentration of 0.04 %
    (Please note the increase in CO2 concentration over the last 200 years or so)

    6) The properties of Water vapour and CO2 as greenhouse gasses are well understood.

    7) Water vapour has been relatively constant over the past 200 years or so (a condensable gas mainly restricted to the Troposphere) while CO2 levels have been increasing (as measured) Note CO2 is not confined to the Troposphere.

    8) If, as climate change denialists claim, CO2 levels are increasing due to temperature rises; Would you please explain the mechanism for these temperature rises and the claimed effect on CO2 levels?

    Two further points to be considered.
    9) Why do you make no mention of improving efficiency in energy usage that could help reduce the problem of Global Warming?

    10) Germany’s renewable energy sources supplied 50.3% of her energy requirements for the first 3 months of this year (2023)

    My apologies for the length of this posting but these points need to be clarified before a realistic discussion on Global Warming (as measured) can be undertaken.

    Cheers,
    Col

    • Tony
      Tony says:

      A fossil (from Classical Latin fossilis, lit. ’obtained by digging’)[1] is any preserved remains, impression, or trace of any once-living thing from a past geological age. Examples include bones, shells, exoskeletons, stone imprints of animals or microbes, objects preserved in amber, hair, petrified wood and DNA remnants. The totality of fossils is known as the fossil record.

      Coal, gas, aluminium oxide and iron ore are NOT fossils.
      They are products of heat and pressure causing changes in the structure of minerals.
      Digging up copper, iron, and aluminium releases CO2.
      Easy solution….. STOP buying throw aways…New car every 5myears, New TV every 3andyears, New clothes every year, Flying overseas in a New holiday every year.
      Chaning the parliament house fitting s for NEW ones every time we change politicians.

      • Col
        Col says:

        Tony,
        The term used was fossil fuels meaning derived from previously living organisms.

        Coal passes through several ranks starting in a swamp as plant material degrading / decomposing to peat then lignite (brown coal) then bituminous coal (black coal) and finally anthracite.
        Plant remains are visible in peat and lignite, the temperatures and pressures over geological time scales degrade the visible plant structures by the time of bituminous coal formation.

        Methane gas (CH4, fire damp) is associated with coal seams.

        Petroleum and LPG are formed from the remains of marine organisms that have died at sea and become buried in ocean sediments. Again originally from previously living organisms.

        Note, all living organisms are based on the chemistry of Carbon

        Thus, when burnt for energy release, all fossil fuels release CO2.

        Geologically, coal, coal seam gas (Methane), petroleum and LPG are all considered as forming from living organisms and hence fossil origin.

        Aluminium oxide and Iron ore are of mineral origin and are not classed as fossils.
        The release of CO2 from extraction and refining of Copper, Iron and Aluminium is from the fossil fuels used in the extraction / refining processes.

        Cheers,
        Col
        PS. I agree with your brief expression of sustainability

  8. Col
    Col says:

    Malcolm,

    My posting above was placed 72 hours ago.
    In this time there have been no answers or challenges to the points I raised.
    Neither has there been any statement to the effect that research to provide any response is underway.

    Considering the above 3 points, am I to assume no one either, you, your staff or your contributors is in possession of sufficient understanding to answer?

    An even more serious question, does a lack of understanding extend to your other claims regarding viruses, vaccines, renewable energy or even Australia’s electoral protections?

    See Election Integrity FAQ (Other Recent Articles 🙂 below for an example of limited understanding and abusive replies

    Cheers,
    Col

    • Alan Vaughn
      Alan Vaughn says:

      “Why is there no answer?”

      LOL! You fool…
      Yes Col that IS (justified) ad hominem, which is all your ridiculously inappropriate & ill-informed comments are worthy of. If indeed worthy of any reply at all.

      • Col
        Col says:

        Sorry Alan.

        If the above is the best insult you can offer then you have failed miserably to offend.

        Rather than attempting to insult a questioner, identifying the “errors” in the original question would greatly enhance your own reputation.

        Until then I am still awaiting answers (after at least 260 hours).

        Cheers,
        Col

      • Col
        Col says:

        Hi Alan,
        My posting 1 July 2023 at 9:66 pm (see above) included 10 points for discussion.

        Would you please reply specifically to each point.

        Thanks,
        Col

Comments are closed.