Posts

The Australian Climate Scam: Global Control and Wealth Transfer

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impacts of Climate Change Policy Unknown

,

The cost of living is skyrocketing, energy prices are going up and the economy is getting worse.

All of these things are being fuelled by the insane net-zero climate policies both sides of government have pursued over decades.

Despite this, an independent auditor has found that the responsible department can’t actually measure how much these economy-destroying policies is affecting anything, except your wallet.

With no measurements or KPIs in place, we’re giving a blank cheque to policies that could well be doing absolutely nothing or making the country worse.

It’s time we abandon the ridiculous net-zero completely. Australians have suffered enough.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. The Australian National Audit Office report by the title Governance of climate change commitments found that you are ‘unable to demonstrate the extent to which specific Australian government policies and programs have contributed or are expected to contribute towards overall emissions reduction’—’emissions’ meaning carbon dioxide from human activity. Last estimates, you said you disagreed with that, yet you agreed with all five recommendations from the auditor, didn’t you?  

Ms Geiger: Yes, we did agree with all the recommendations in the report.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Audit Office responded to you, disagreeing, and said: … DCCEEW does not have a single, structured plan or strategy that links activities being undertaken to the achievement of emissions reduction targets … … As outlined at paragraph 2.26, DCCEEW’s monitoring of the progress of climate- and energy-related work does not include an indication of what contribution measures will make towards emissions reduction targets. Because of this, DCCEEW is unable to demonstrate the impact of its work on climate change targets, as set out at paragraph 2.28 and in Recommendation no.1. That’s the end of the ANAO statement. Do you still maintain that you can demonstrate the specific, quantifiable effects your policies have had on the reduction of carbon dioxide from human activity, despite what the Audit Office said?  

Ms Geiger: We have a range of ways that we measure the impacts of our different climate change initiatives towards the emissions targets. Ms Rowley might be able to talk through the specifics that balance both the forward projections and the contributions that particular initiatives might make to our targets, as well as annual updates of how our emissions are tracking.  

Ms Rowley: As we discussed at the hearing in February, we do have a range of ways that the government tracks the progress towards its emissions reduction targets and quantifies the impact of its most important emissions reduction policies and measures. In our February hearing, I talked you through some of the specific findings from our 2023 emissions projections report, which is one of the key ways that we track progress towards our target, and explained—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; you’re tracking progress in implementation with a projections report?  

Ms Rowley: We track both: progress to date in our National inventory report, which is published every year and reports on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from all sources across the economy—that’s a backwards look; and our emissions projections, which are based on a range of assumptions looking forward, look at what current policies deliver in terms of our expected emissions for the future, and they run out to 2035.  

Senator ROBERTS: Just for clarification: are they actual impacts of the reduction of carbon dioxide from human activity or just reductions in carbon dioxide from human activity?  

Ms Rowley: It covers all greenhouse gases, not just carbon dioxide. The projections include detail of the projected impact of some of our major emissions reduction policies and measures.  

Senator ROBERTS: That doesn’t answer the question. What would be the impact of those projected decreases, and what is the impact of the reductions to date? Do we see any difference in temperature? Do we see any difference in rainfall, snowfall, storm severity, frequency, duration, droughts, floods, sea levels? What are the specific impacts? 

Ms Rowley: If you’re talking about the impact of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate, obviously the global climate and the observed impacts of climate change are a function of Australia and all other countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. The key reports that we refer to in our work and draw on are things like the IPCC assessment reports, as well as work done domestically by groups like CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology. That looks at the impacts of climate change to date, which, as I said, are the cumulative effect of global greenhouse gas emissions. It is, I think, rather more difficult to attribute any single change in the tonnes of emissions from Australia to specific changes in the global climate, not least because it is a cumulative effect. But it is also very important to note that the cumulative effect of climate change is reflective of global greenhouse gas emissions and that, with the reduction in the global greenhouse gas emissions, the projected impacts—and, over time, the observed impacts—of climate change will be less, and Australia is contributing to that as part of the global action on climate change.  

Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like the ANAO was right. The Australian National Audit Office was absolutely correct. You cannot measure the impact of what you’re doing, and you’re not.  

Ms Rowley: I think that the ANAO was particularly interested in drawing connections between Australia’s policies and measures and Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. And, as I said, our emissions reports—both backward looking, through the inventory, and forward looking, through the projections—do seek to quantify the impact of policies and measures on Australia’s emissions. As I said, that’s just one of many things that we do to track the implementation and progress. Specific policies and measures, when they’re out for consultation, include analysis of the likely impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. For example, recent consultations on the new vehicle efficiency standard included specific analysis of the likely impact on greenhouse gas emissions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; that’s not what I’m after. We’ve already discussed that you can project reductions in carbon dioxide, but you can’t tell me what the impact will be. You claim you can. Can you please provide on notice the specific quantifiable effect of each of your policies, since you claim you have that? So let’s have that, please. Can you provide it on notice?  

Ms Rowley: I think perhaps you’re making a different point to the ANAO’s. The ANAO was interested on the impact on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from our policies and measures. You’re asking about the impact of Australia’s mitigation action on global climate change. Is that correct?  

Senator ROBERTS: No; I’m asking about what the impact is on climate factors like temperature, snowfall, rainfall, drought severity, frequency and duration. We have been told the world is coming to an end—that these things are going to happen. I would like to know the impact of your specific reductions on those climate factors.  

Ms Rowley: As I said, those are intermediated through global emissions and global action.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t provide it?  

Ms Rowley: We can certainly provide, as we have in the past, information about both the global outlook and the impact of global reductions in emissions.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one anywhere in the world, Ms Rowley, has provided the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate factor—no-one ever.  

Ms Rowley: Senator, I’m not sure that that’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you can prove me wrong, I would love to have that. If you can take that on notice, that would be great—the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate factors, such as air temperature, troposphere temperatures, stratosphere temperature, heat content of the air, heat content of the ocean, heat exchange and storm frequency, severity and duration. You pick them.  

Ms Geiger: We accept the international science on the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change.  

Senator ROBERTS: I know you do. That’s what bothers me.  

Ms Geiger: We can provide on notice further background on that. But the premise is that we accept—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not interested in further background; I’m interested in hard specific numbers that should be and must be the basis of any policy that is going to gut our energy sector. The specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate factor is what I want to see. That’s what I want to see. I’m happy for you to take it on notice. Let’s move on to the freedom of information request that I put in. The request was LEX76280 and was in relation to the Powering Australia Tracker. You redacted a single measure on page six of that document. What’s that measure, please? 

Ms Geiger: I understand that the freedom of information request was about the tracker. My colleague Dr Mitchell might have that information to hand.  

Senator ROBERTS: The one that was redacted on page six.  

Dr Mitchell: We have provided the response that explains why that line was redacted in more detail. It said that it’s redacted on the basis of cabinet in confidence.  

Senator ROBERTS: Really? Can you take on notice to provide a table with all of the policies in the Powering Australia Tracker, detailing the cost of each of them by year over the past three years and their budget over the forwards?  

Ms Geiger: We can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s move to fuel security. We covered the minimum stock holding obligations for petrol, diesel and jet fuel at some length last Senate estimates. You gave to me on notice, in SQ24000046, that the refineries may also report crude oil and unfinished stock as liquid fuel. Do you have a breakdown of how much of the reported stock holding is actually finished liquid fuel versus crude oil—not a projected conversion of existing crude into future petrol, diesel or jet fuel, but the actual quantities of the four measures, as it exists now?  

Mrs Svarcas: Just so I’m really clear, for the MSO obligation, you’re asking how much of the crude oil do we count as petrol, jet fuel and diesel?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Can you also provide to me the actual amount, right now, of crude oil as it is, jet fuel as it is, petrol as it is and diesel as it is, and not projected conversions of crude oil into those things?  

Mrs Svarcas: I will have to take on notice the projected for crude oil into those things. The MSO does allow, under the reporting obligations, for an entity to effectively say they’ve got a bucket of crude oil, and they will be converting X amount of it through their normal operations—and how much of that is going to be diesel, how much of that is going to be jet fuel et cetera. I would have to take on notice how much of the crude is crude, if you will, and how much is fuel.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’d be good. You explained previously how there’s the domestic minimum stockholding obligation for petrol, diesel and jet fuel put in place by the government then there’s the International Energy Agency agreement for 90 days of crude oil. Last estimates, you told me we were at 55 International Energy Agency days of crude oil. What’s the latest figure for that, and is all of that stock in Australia’s exclusive economic zone here?  

Mrs Svarcas: The actual figure of that today—the last report was from March 2024—is 53 days and that figure captures all of the things. It might be helpful if I describe what’s captured in that. It’s crude oil as crude oil. It’s diesel, petrol and jet fuel. It also includes other refined products. For example, the oil that you would put into your car is included under the definition provided to us by the IEA. It’s those stocks that are on land in Australia and in our domestic waters. But, importantly, the difference between the IEA days and the MSO calculation is that it does not include the product that’s in our EEZ; it’s just the product that’s in Australian waters or physically in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: So is there any double counting then?  

Mrs Svarcas: No, there’s no double counting. There’s a difference between a vessel that is in Australian waters—how it’s included in the IEA days—and stock that is in the EEZ that is counted in the MSO days. It might also be useful, if you’ll indulge me, to explain the difference between the measures that we have in place so that you can get an idea of what we use it for. As I described, the IEA days are one single calculation of all of the fuel and fuel products as defined by the IEA. We also have our consumption cover days. They’re the days that we report every month publicly, and you’ll find those on our website. They are a measure of how long the stock will last. So they give us a really good indication of what we’ve got every month, and how long, based on average consumption, that will last. That’s all publicly available. Then we also have the MSO, which is slightly different, and the purpose of that measure is to set that minimum stockholding obligation to give us the insurance policy of making sure, from our perspective, how much fuel, liquid fuels and things we should have in Australia should there be a market disruption. So the purpose of each of those reportings is slightly different, which is why what goes into them—what we count and how we count them—is also slightly different, because they have different purposes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to the numbers that you’re going to give me. Our strategic reserve—  

CHAIR: If you’ve finished that line of questioning, we will need to rotate. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve just one more question on strategic reserve. You told me at last Senate estimates that Australia has sold all of the oil reserves in the United States’ strategic reserve?  

Mrs Svarcas: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels—nearly two years ago—in June 2022. That hasn’t been reported anywhere, as I understand it.  

Mrs Svarcas: No, I believe it was publicly reported. I’ll be happy to table that report.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did anyone at the department announce that the 1.7 million barrels had been sold?  

Mrs Svarcas: Like I said, I believe it was. I’m happy to be corrected if my evidence is wrong but I do believe it was made public at the time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/5 Comments/by

Labor Proposes to Tax the Shirt off Your Back

,

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary question?

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

I move: 

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

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

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

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

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

Question agreed to. 

/9 Comments/by

Rally in Canberra Against Reckless Renewables

, ,

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

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

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

/2 Comments/by

Wind Scam Unravels as Projects Fail

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

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

It’s time to look again at clean coal.

Transcript

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

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

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

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

/12 Comments/by

No Basis for Extreme Weather Predictions

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Great. Thank you very much.

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

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

CHAIR: Thank you very much—

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

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

Senator Gallagher: Eh?

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Mine’s informed by the data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/6 Comments/by

CSIRO’s GenCost is Just a Wind and Solar Fairy-tale!

Politicians keep telling Australia that “wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy” while they force Net-Zero down our throats. As proof, they point to a CSIRO document called GenCost, which supposedly estimates the cost of different types of electricity. Yet, it doesn’t estimate the costs of electricity today.

GenCost uses a whole bunch of assumptions that are favorable to wind and solar to claim they will be the cheapest… in 2030. GenCost doesn’t even include the cost of transmission, one of the largest expenses for wind and solar. Huge transmission costs are the reason wind and solar projects are sitting stranded in the outback connected to nothing. This is the same CSIRO that seemingly knows nothing about Snowy 2.0, which has blown out from $2 billion to over $20 billion for the project and associated infrastructure. They forecast the cost of pumped hydro storage will average less than a quarter of the current estimates for Snowy, the pumped hydro that’s actually being built.

To say I don’t trust CSIRO have the right answers on the actual cost of “renewables” is an understatement. The claim that wind and solar are the cheapest is simply a lie that ignores storage, transmission and intermittency. GenCost is just a fairy tale about the future, not an impartial analysis of what wind and solar costs today.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Welcome, Professor Hilton. I will put some questions on notice about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human production. I would like to question the expert spokesman on GenCost.

Prof. Hilton: We are delighted you are asking questions about GenCost. One of the greatest challenges facing Australia is the transition of our energy sector. I am proud of the contribution that the GenCost report makes in this area. The report has been generated annually since 2018. It has evolved over time to take account of the changing technology landscape and the availability of new data. I anticipate that the report will continue to evolve.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to get to the heart of some of the issues that I see with GenCost. What was the cost first budgeted for pumped hydro energy storage Snowy 2?

Mr Graham: I might take that on notice. I am aware of the recent update to the cost, but I don’t have the original figure on me.

Senator ROBERTS: The original figure was $2 billion. What is it currently budgeted at?

Mr Graham: It is in the order of $12 billion.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct. How long are the tunnels for it?

Mr Graham: I don’t have that on hand.

Senator ROBERTS: It is 27 kilometres. How much of the tunnel have they bored so far in the last year, or just over a year?

Mr Graham: I am not tracking that measurement.

Senator ROBERTS: It is 150 metres. It has been bogged for about a year. When was it initially scheduled for completion?

Mr Graham: I don’t have that on me.

Senator ROBERTS: It was 2021. What has that blown out to now?

Mr Graham: Around 2029.

Senator ROBERTS: Earlier; 2028.

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, the official is indicating to you that he is happy to accommodate your line of questioning. However, detailed questions about the project details for Snowy Hydro are best dealt with in the environment estimates. I know you addressed these kinds of questions to Mr Barnes, the CEO of Snowy. You might direct questions to CSIRO which they can assist with. You mentioned your interest in the GenCost report— you might get better answers about that from the official.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. They are now estimating the cost of the transmission infrastructure—which was left out of the original package—at $10 billion for it to be connected to the grid and be useful. That now makes it up to $22 billion for 2,200 megawatts of pumped hydro energy storage, which is $10 million per megawatt, or $10,000 per kilowatt. We won’t even get into the fact that it is only forecast to put out that capacity for an average of 26 minutes a day. What is the cost per kilowatt of pumped hydro you provided in GenCost?

Mr Graham: The Snowy 2.0 project is incredibly unique. It was approximately 170 hours duration for 2 gigawatts originally, but it is higher than that now: 2.2 to 2.5.

Senator ROBERTS: It is 2.2.

Mr Graham: No other project on the books in Australia that we are looking at has that type of profile. In GenCost we report pumped hydro projects more in the order of 12 to 48 hours, that kind of duration, which is
nowhere near the 170 hours for Snowy 2.0.

Senator ROBERTS: What is your capacity?

Mr Graham: We have a table in GenCost with a series of figures on the cost of pumped hydro. I’ll get the exact data for you.

Senator McAllister: Are you asking what role Mr Graham performs—

Senator ROBERTS: No: what is the cost per kilowatt-hour of pumped hydro you have provided in GenCost?

Mr Graham: I didn’t bring that table with me. I’ll have to get back to you with that on notice. That cost isn’t related to Snowy 2.0. It is related to other projects, which are much smaller.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I understand. In GenCost, what would it be, roughly? I won’t hold you to it.

Mr Graham: It is of the order of $2,500 a kilowatt.

Senator ROBERTS: Snowy 2, which is a real-life project that is not even finished yet, is $10,000. GenCost is built on modelling based on assumptions projected out to the future; is that correct, broadly?

Mr Graham: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: We don’t know from GenCost what it would cost to replace our coal-fired fleet with solar and wind today, and all the transmission lines and back-up storage. How useful is GenCost?

Mr Graham: We made the decision to focus GenCost on new-build generation and storage and some hydrogen technologies. There are other processes for, and reports that deal with, transmission. We don’t deal with
transmission. GenCost is designed for people to calculate the cost of building and replacing existing generation. But you can’t go to GenCost necessarily to look at issues around transmission.

Senator ROBERTS: Some of your opponents argue that GenCost is detached from reality. If we look at Snowy 2—I am not implying that you have anything to do with Snowy 2—right from the start, Minister, the
decision to build Snowy 2 was made without a cost-benefit analysis, and with a heavily redacted business case that could not be scrutinised. You have acknowledged that you are basically building models based on
assumptions and projecting them into the future. I don’t think the government has anything on what is going on right now. Is that right, Minister?

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I might get the official to revisit the evidence he has just provided about the way the calculations are developed for understanding the cost of hydro because I don’t think it is as you have described.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we have major solar and wind installations, industrial complexes, which are not connected to the grid. This is the level of planning that is going on at state and federal. They are not connected but they have been paid for, and I think that they are earning revenue. That is the reality.

Senator McAllister: I am not aware of the particular projects you are referring to, but they are certainly not things this agency can assist you with.

Senator ROBERTS: My question to you is: something that is projected into the future based on models and assumptions now is divorced from reality, and we need to know the cost now. Why are we embarking on this
journey with so much uncertainty?

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, you are asking me about energy policy. We have talked about it earlier in the week. We consistently have advice from a very wide range of sources—

Senator ROBERTS: Can you name some of them?

Senator McAllister: about firmed renewables being the lowest cost form of new energy in the Australian context. When AEMO looks at what is required to replace all of thermal generation that is coming to the end of its life over the next decade, they try to model—because they need to—the transmission that will optimally connect the optimal configuration of new generation. That AEMO work is not principally led by CSIRO. CSIRO have a capacity to contribute; I think the official can speak to the ways they do. I don’t wish to frustrate your efforts to have this discussion, but it is not in this portfolio.

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Minister. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

Cheaper Electricity Bills Anyone?

,

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) assures me that as Australia has very good sunshine and solar energy is the cheapest form of energy on the planet, we can expect to have cheap electricity. That’s nonsense because they don’t take into account all of the extra costs of firming, storage, extra transmission lines and general unreliability. Any Australian who looks at their electricity bill knows solar isn’t cheaper.

I was even more surprised to learn about the agency’s support of solar in renewable iron and steel manufacturing on a massive scale. The idea of such energy intensive industrial process being powered by cheap solar, which is currently too expensive and unreliable for Australian households, is pipe dream stuff.

This government is driving Australia off the cliff and is in the drivers seat essentially saying – “It’s not my job to think about the cliff, I’m just driving the car.” The idea of a net zero future with wind and solar providing base-load power and creating “green steel” is not real.

The net zero pipe dream is a nation killing fantasy that is already hurting the regions, ruining small business and driving up the cost-of-living all over Australia.

/4 Comments/by

Net Zero Wind Turbine Destruction Unmasked

We are witnessing permanent environmental vandalism under Labor.

I spoke today on the Green’s motion to increase the rate at which net zero policies are turning our natural environment into wind and solar industrial landscapes.

A year after Kaban wind turbines turned pristine Australian bushland into an industrial landscape, the heavy machinery is still crushing the rock that was bulldozed and blasted off the top of mountains in the Atherton Tablelands to make way for wind turbines. Rock that is releasing arsenic into the environment with unknown consequences.

Koala habitat has been taken, and while the Greens talk frequently about saving the koalas, they pick and choose which koalas they care about.

This vandalism must stop.

At the end of a mining operation, the mine can be filled in and remediated. In fact, legal contracts require it. Not so with the destruction created by wind and solar. There is no replacing a mountain top after it has been blasted off and bulldozed to make way for wind turbines.

Transcript

One Nation joins Senator McKim in mourning the current environmental damage as a casualty of destructive net zero climate policy. We do, though, disagree on who’s responsible. As we speak today, heavy machinery using diesel engines are still crushing the rock that was bulldozed and blasted off the top of mountains in the Atherton Tablelands to make way for wind turbines. A year after Kaban, when turbines turned pristine Australian landscape into an industrial landscape, the crushers are still going. There was that much destruction. That act of environmental vandalism disturbed arsenic in the rock, released into the environment with an unknown cost to our flora and fauna and to humans.  

Koala habitat has been taken. While the Greens talk frequently about saving the koalas, they pick and choose which koalas they care about. The Morrison government refused the Lotus Creek wind installation because of the amount of koala habitat the industrial landscape would remove. The Albanese Labor government reversed the decision and approved the creation of another industrial landscape holding 55 turbines. Native habitat protecting biodiversity included the masked owl, the magnificent broodfrog, the sarus crane, the red goshawk, the northern greater glider and the spectacled flying fox—and the devastation is just starting. Mount Fox will have 193 of these machines—these destructive wind turbines; Chalumbin, 94; Windy Hill, 20; High Road, 20; and Mount Emerald, 37. This is in just 300 kilometres of pristine North Queensland mountain range. 

At the end of mining, a mine can be filled in and remediated. Chopping the top off beautiful mountains and cutting 70-metre-wide roads into a mountainside to bring in the wind turbines on diesel powered trucks is permanent environmental vandalism. 

/by

Humans Not Responsible for Increases in CO2

I spoke briefly in the Senate about climate science. The data really does speak for itself.

Only 12% of the increase in CO2 between 1750 and 2018 was man-made.

That’s much too low to be the cause of any claimed global warming.

Nature controls carbon dioxide levels, not humans.

Transcript

I want to talk briefly about climate science, because we’ve seen COVID science has been smashed. Earlier today, I promised to talk tonight on why the climate change cult of doom and their rebranding to ‘climate boiling’ is scientific nonsense. Let me do that now using my favourite thing, empirical scientific data, by referencing a peer reviewed paper titled ‘World atmospheric CO2, its 14C specific activity, non-fossil component, anthropogenic fossil component, and emissions (1750-2018)’, published in Health Physics journal in February 2022. It’s a long title, but it saves the phone calls from fact-checkers. This paper used caesium-14, or 14C, to analyse carbon dioxide in the atmosphere across the period from 1750 to 2018: 

After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” … The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. … These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming. 

The fundamental basis of the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been found by analysis of atmospheric gases to be completely wrong.

Nature, as I’ve said many times, controls carbon dioxide levels.

Correction: The speech was written referencing the type of dating as caesium-14. The correct word is carbon-14.

/28 Comments/by