Posts

Study Reveals Carbon Credits are a Scam!

,

A reputable study says that 70-80% of carbon credits “are devoid of integrity”. This is a market that is costing Australia roughly $5.5 billion based on carbon credit units that even the Greens agree is a scam. This is driving up prices even higher in the middle of a cost of living crisis.

It’s time to stop the corruption and cancel these ridiculous net-zero policies.

Transcript

Carbon dioxide credits are a scam and an absolute fraud, and the Greens agree with One Nation on this. Yes, you heard that correctly. It’s difficult to believe. Australians may wonder what we agree on Granted, the Greens and One Nation have come to the same conclusion for very different reasons. Nonetheless, we share the conclusion that carbon dioxide credits are a scam. They are rife with opportunities for fraud. 

The Clean Energy Regulator has issued 140 million carbon dioxide credits. At the current spot price of $35 each, this represents a racket potentially worth $4.9 billion. That’s expected to grow by 20 million credits, or $700 million, this year alone, making it $5.6 million. 

The Greens and One Nation aren’t the only ones to criticise Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs. In 2022 Professor Andrew Macintosh, environmental law expert at the Australian National University, and his colleagues published a series of papers absolutely tearing apart the ACCU system. Keep in mind that this is a $5.5 billion market that’s being fabricated, in part to give the UN income, ultimately. As usual, they enlist parasites who benefit while pushing UN policy for them. For example, the major banks. Rothschild Australia, the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch had on their advisory boards in this country at the time the CSIRO chief executive, Dr Megan Clark—a conflict of interest? 

Back to the study of ACCU carbon dioxide credits. The study was done under Professor Andrew Macintosh, who said: 

The available data suggests 70 to 80 per cent of the ACCUs issued to … projects are devoid of integrity … 

So 20 to 30 per cent may have some integrity. Remember, this is a $5.5 billion market. Here’s another quote: 

What is occurring is a fraud on the environment … 

‘A fraud on the environment’, I say to the Greens. This is what Dr Macintosh said: 

What is occurring is a fraud on the environment, a fraud on taxpayers— 

Australian taxpayers— 

and a fraud on unwitting private buyers of ACCUs … 

In response to these revelations, the government commissioned what they call the Chubb review. The government should just have been honest and called it what it really was: a whitewash, a distortion and misinformation. Actually, the Chubb review is disinformation. In the past, when Professor Chubb has been requested to provide empirical scientific data within a logical scientific point backing up claims of climate change due to human carbon dioxide, he has repeatedly failed to produce it. He has never produced it, yet he’s often advocated for it. He’s part of the climate fraud industry and has received a lot of money to push climate fraud. He has been heavily rewarded by both Liberal-National and Labor Party governments. The Chubb review, in this case, addressed nothing of substance and provided no evidence for its claims that problems have been fixed, yet the government held the report up as proof that everything’s fine. As Professor Macintosh and his colleagues outlined in their response to the Chubb review, it spent less than six pages discussing the ACCU rules, which relate to a $5.5 billion market. They say: 

The– 

Chubb— 

report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions … 

I’ll say that again: 

The– 

Chubb— 

report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions, and includes very little analysis to support its findings. And importantly, the panel does not address key questions around the integrity of the scheme’s rules. 

What use was that? This is ‘a fraud on the environment, a fraud on taxpayers and a fraud on unwitting private buyers of ACCUs’. Here is another quote: 

Bewilderingly— 

I don’t find it bewildering; it’s straightforward, as I’ve been watching this scam unfold for years– 

in its assessment of the methods, the panel does not refer to the findings of a review it commissioned from the Australian Academy of Science … The academy … found numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes. 

There were ‘numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes’. This is so typical of this government. It is so typical of the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor, pushing the climate fraud. Here is another quote: 

The— 

Chubb— 

review … acknowledged the scientific evidence criticising the carbon credit scheme, but says “it was also provided with evidence to the contrary”. Yet it did not disclose what that evidence was or what it relates to. The public is simply expected to trust that the evidence exists. 

Maybe the dog ate the evidence for breakfast. This is what the government says is assurance and integrity for taxpayer money. 

While the Greens, Professor Macintosh and I may agree on the integrity issues with carbon dioxide credits, here’s where I leave them behind: there is no reason to reduce our output of carbon dioxide or trade credits for it. Carbon dioxide credits can never have integrity because they are a scam designed to transfer wealth from the pockets of everyday Australians and their families and small businesses to the bank accounts of billionaire net zero scam artists and parasitic multinationals sucking on the financial payout from climate fraud and associated financial scams. I note some of these points. I won’t go into them in detail. The government that introduced the renewable energy target, a scam, and the national electricity market that is really a national electricity racket—it’s not a market; it’s a bureaucratic controlled entity—stole farmers’ property rights across the country so that they could comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. They put in place the first policy—not legislation—advocating for a carbon dioxide tax. It wasn’t Julia Gillard. It was the Howard government that did all these things. The Howard government laid the foundation for all of this. It went around the Constitution to steal farmers’ property rights around the country. Then, six years after being booted from office and after the Liberals and Nationals in the Howard government told us that it was all based on science, John Howard, in a major lecture to sceptic think tank in Londan said that on the topic of climate science, he was agnostic. He didn’t have the science, and now our electricity sector has been crippled because of the renewable energy target, the national electricity market and an alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies. 

There has never been—there never is—any empirical scientific data and logical scientific points that human carbon dioxide is warming the planet. There is not any from the CSIRO—I’ve done freedom of information requests and held them accountable in the Senate—nor from their publications ever. There is not any from the Bureau of Meteorology. It’s the same deal. There is not any from the United Nations. It’s the same deal. There is also no policy basis. There is no documented effect per unit of human carbon dioxide on climate factors such as air temperature, rainfall, heat waves, drought severity and frequency or storm severity, frequency and duration—none at all. There is no basis for the policy on which the carbon dioxide credits are based. There’s been no cost benefit analysis. There’s been no business case. Ross Garnaut, who produced a report for the Rudd-Gillard government, said in his report on the science that there basically was no science and he was going on the consensus. Yet he is parasitically sucking on solar and wind subsidies, driving up electricity prices and putting Australians into poverty. Remember, the money that goes to the extra costs of electricity in this country is a highly regressive tax on the poor in our country. 

In 2009 and 2020 we had two global experiments showing that human carbon dioxide has no effect on carbon dioxide levels in the air. We had a major downturn with the global financial crisis in 2008. We then had a recession in 2009. COVID hit us. It arrived on our shores—it didn’t really hit us; the government hit us—in 2020, and then 2020 was almost a depression because of the restrictions and lockdowns. In both years, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued rising unabated. Yet we’ve been told for decades now that by cutting back on human production of carbon dioxide we would see the levels in the atmosphere start decreasing and go down. We had a major reduction in industrial activity and a severe recession in 2009 and 2020. The production of carbon dioxide from human use of hydrocarbons, coal, oil and natural gas decreased dramatically, yet nothing happened. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere kept increasing. 

I asked the CSIRO why. They said that there is an inflection. I asked them for the details of that inflection, to characterise it statistically. They failed to do it. I asked the Bureau of Meteorology, and they said, ‘Senator Roberts, it would take years for that to come through.’ Here is the CSIRO saying that we’ve already seen it and the Bureau of Meteorology saying that we will see it eventually, but it will take a long while to come. You can’t make this stuff up! What the experiments in 2009 and 2020 showed is that the production of carbon dioxide from human activity will not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Once you understand Henry’s law—the quantities of carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean are 50 to 70 times more than the entire atmospheric carbon dioxide—then you start to understand why that’s the case. But not content with climate science fraud, the CSIRO is perpetrating gen cost, which is energy fraud based on bogus assumptions that have been completely debunked. Aidan Morrison has done a marvellous job; others have done a marvellous job. 

There’s no basis for this scam, this fraud, but let’s return to the fraud. A report in the 2010s said Europol found 95 per cent of carbon dioxide trading credits were suspicious. That’s easy to believe because there’s no physical basis to the measurement of reductions to carbon dioxide produced. They’re all projections. They’re all based on guesses. They’re formulae based on estimations. They were never quantified and are still not quantified. China is producing record quantities of carbon dioxide, and so are Russia, Brazil, the United States and the European Union—Australia are a small player—yet temperatures are flat and have been flat since 1995. That’s almost 30 years of flat temperatures. I urge senators to establish this inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of how taxpayer money is being fraudulently abused. 

/3 Comments/by

The Costs and Risks of Australia’s Largest Solar Project: Sun Cable

,

This is another of my ongoing questions into understanding the cost of net zero. The Sun Cable project is an insane proposal to cover 12,000 hectares of the Northern Territory with solar panels, at a cost of over $30 billion. There are multiple problems with this project, including environmental damage, power loss during transmission and site remediation once the panels reach the end of life.

These large energy companies are not required to, and don’t set aside funds for remediation. This means Australian taxpayers will end up footing the bill for billions of dollars in cleanup costs when this project inevitably fails.

Despite this being the world’s largest solar project and carrying significant sovereign risk, the Minister had no clue what I was talking about.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister, and it’s regarding the SunCable industrial solar project in the Northern Territory. Minister, please advise the Senate of the total value of guarantees and, as a separate figure, the total value of subsidies available to the project. 

Senator McAllister: I am aware that the Minister for the Environment and Water has recently provided approval for the SunCable project. This is a project that, as I understand it, seeks to establish renewable generation capability in the Northern Territory and also significant transmission capability, which will allow that generation to be used within the Australian grid but potentially also to be exported to our Singaporean neighbours. This is potentially an extremely important project. It is also one that is first of kind in the Australian context— 

Senator ROBERTS: I have a point of order, under standing order 72(3)(c): ‘Answers shall be directly relevant to each question.’ I asked about the total value of guarantees and the total value of subsidies. What are they? If you don’t know, please just say so. 

The President: I will draw the minister to that part of your question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator McAllister: The senator asks me to comment, I think, on policies that exist in the Australian context to support the rollout of reliable renewables, and of course— 

The President: Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, on a point of order? 

Senator ROBERTS: I asked about the total value of guarantees and the total value of subsidies. That’s it. 

The President: Senator Roberts, the minister barely said seven words, so let’s just hear the answer. I have reminded the minister of the question, and I will continue to listen carefully. 

Senator McAllister: The Australian government takes our advice about the future of the energy system from experts, and all of the advice that has been provided to us is that the most cost-effective form of new generation to replace the older, ageing assets that are shortly to retire is reliable renewables. 

Senator CASH: He just wanted to know what the figure is. 

The President: Order! Senator Cash, this is not your question. 

Senator McAllister: We take our advice from experts because we believe that Australians deserve the most cost-effective form of energy that is available to us. We can’t actually go back to doing things the way that they were done under the previous government. 

The President: Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, on a point of order? 

Senator ROBERTS: I remind the minister that I asked about the total value of guarantees and the total value of subsidies. 

The President: I have reminded the minister of the question, and I will remind her again, Senator Roberts. 

Senator HENDERSON: It’s okay to say you can take it on notice. 

The President: Order! Thank you, Senator Henderson. 

Senator McAllister: My advice is that this project has been— (Time expired) 

The President: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The project proposes to generate electricity in the Northern Territory and send it to Singapore using a 4,300-kilometre-long cable, mostly undersea. This is five times longer than Norway’s 760-kilometre Viking Link, the current longest cable. Viking Link loses 3.5 per cent of its generation through transmission loss. What percentage of the project’s Australian generated electricity will be lost in transmission to Singapore? 

Senator McAllister: The senator asks about, essentially, the economics of the project that has been approved, and what I can advise the senator is that this is a matter for the project proponent. The government’s role is not to assess the economics of this project. The minister has made a decision in relation to its environmental approvals. This is part of a broader transformation of the Australian economy. We are blessed with abundant sunshine, wind and land, with skilful engineers and skilful personnel, with a mature commercial and legal environment and with a natural electricity system that many other countries seek to talk to us about because of its strengths. These are strengths for Australian communities. They are strengths for Australian regions and they are potentially a source of significant economic opportunity for Australians living in regional communities. (Time expired) 

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The minister can’t or won’t tell me about guarantees and subsidies nor a core project assumption, so, Minister, my second supplementary question is: how much is SunCable lodging as a rehabilitation bond for the 12,400 hectares of land that will be covered in solar panels? 

Senator McAllister: The senator asks about the terms on which the approval for the SunCable project has been provided. I can tell the senator that Minister Plibersek applies the terms of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to all of the matters that come before her. This is a project proposal that intends to establish a significant source of new generation in the Northern Territory, as you indicated in your first supplementary question. 

The President: Senator Roberts, on a point of order? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is there a rehabilitation bond in place to cover the desecration of the environment? 

The President: Senator Roberts, it’s your responsibility to seek a point of order, not to re-ask your question. If you have a point of order, I invite you to make it. If you don’t, I’ll ask the minister to continue. 

Senator ROBERTS: President, the point of order is one of relevance. 

The President: I believe the minister is being relevant. She has outlined to you the approval processes. So I will ask her to continue. 

Senator CASH interjecting— 

The President: Order! Order! Senator Cash, which bit of ‘order’ doesn’t apply to you? Minister McAllister, please continue. 

Senator McAllister: The minister’s responsibility, of course, is to apply the law when a project is put before her. Since coming to government we have sought to do so in relation to all of the projects before us, but we are pleased to see new renewable projects coming online. Since coming to government, we have given the green light to more than 55 of those under the

/2 Comments/by

One Nation is the True Champion for the Environment

,

As I travel through Queensland, visiting communities affected by industrial wind and solar projects, it’s increasingly evident that Greens’ politics are rife with hypocrisy and the public know it. While they present themselves as champions of the environment, they support the massive environmental vandalism involved in the push for net-zero energy.

Tops of mountains in native forests are being blown off to accommodate massive wind turbines and permanent access roads, which require blasting, are being constructed to transport enormous wind turbine blades—some over 100 meters long—around corners and up the mountain. Additionally, thousands of kilometres of forest are being clear-felled to make way for the transmission lines that will deliver the power to the cities, where Green supporters can pat themselves on the back for using “green” energy.

In reality, there’s nothing green about green energy and there’s nothing green about the Australian Greens. One Nation is the true champion of the natural environment now.

Transcript

And what do the Greens do? After finally showing their true colours as the party of Hamas; as the party of left-wing union thuggery, donations and bribes; as the party of communism; and as the party of environmental destruction in the name of net zero energy, they have a problem. Their traditional base of decent Australians concerned about the natural environment is turning away from the watermelon Greens. So here’s the Greens’ answer: resurrect a bill which was already defeated because it’s a stupid bill, and use this to pretend the Greens still care about our precious natural environment. 

The intention of this bill is in the name: ending native forest logging. Regional forest agreements will be made subservient to environmental regulations which will tie logging down in the courts and bring logging to an end—end logging. All those workers, many of them fine union members, will be out of a job. It is logging that produces timber for, amongst other things, the very seats the Greens are sitting in today, right now, which were made from logged native timber—Western Australian jarrah and Tasmanian myrtle. 

Putting aside their hypocrisy, it’s clear the Greens think their supporters can be gullibly convinced by a superficial virtue-signalling stunt. After all, who would oppose protecting native forests? Actually, the Greens oppose protecting native forests. Greens’ energy policies are blasting the tops off mountains in old-growth forests to erect 300-metre-high wind turbines. They’re clear-felling thousands of kilometres of forest for access roads and the power transmission lines to get the power hundreds of kilometres back to the city—thousands of kilometres, in fact, back to the city. Thousands of hectares of native forest are being permanently destroyed.  

Blasting has released arsenic previously locked in sandstone into our waterways and aquifers. In the case of the Atherton Tableland in pristine North Queensland, aquifers contaminated with arsenic will eventually come to the surface in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef, through underground basins.  

Unlike forest taken for logging, forest damage from net zero energy is not regrown. The access roads are required for maintenance for the life of the turbine. The transmission lines are permanent. Unlike coalmines that are remediated at the end of the mine, there’s no remediation bond on industrial wind, solar and transmission lines, so these things will be a rusting blight on the landscape for a hundred years, for the community to pay for, for taxpayers to pay to rehabilitate and for farmers to rehabilitate. The Greens are environmental vandals. 

I tell you who does support protecting native forests: One Nation. We would end the environmental destruction from net zero energy measures and would restrict solar panels to built-up areas where the energy is needed. We would end any new wind turbine subsidies and instead promote vertical wind technology. One Nation will prevent logging in old-growth forests. 

Regional forest agreements are an accord between the federal, state and local governments to supervise the timber industry. This means the Greens believe they know better than the state governments—all six of them—who have been managing their forests for 200 years. Aboriginals have been managing Australia’s forests for tens of thousands of years, including through the use of burning off. Each state government consults with Aboriginal communities in the development of regional forest agreements. Aboriginal voices only matter, though, to the Greens when they can be exploited to advance Greens technology and lock Aboriginals into victimhood and dependency.  

Generations of ongoing development of forestry agreements, planning out supply and demand, protecting sensitive habitats and protecting old-growth forests—all that great work involving communities, industry and government is torn up and thrown away because the Greens think they know better. They are playing God, playing tsar. What an ego—and to what benefit? 

The Greens are proclaiming their love of housing and promising to build more houses than anyone else. The question arises: out of what are they going to build those houses? The Greens want to shut down the Australian forestry industry, the conventional steel industry, the gas industry, the diesel industry and the cement industry. The Greens are proposing to build houses without timber, steel or concrete. Well, the last time I looked, pixie dust was not a building material. Does the CFMEU know they’re hopping into bed with a political party that would remove from the market all the materials tradies need to build a new home and build new apartment towers while also removing diesel for tradies’ generators and utes, which they now propose to tax out of existence? 

I don’t want to confuse the feelings coming from my left with facts, yet that’s what I do. I deal in facts. At last mapping, there were 131½ million hectares of native forest in Australia, which is 17 per cent of Australia’s land area, and there were 1.8 million hectares of commercial plantations, including pines and eucalypts. This is where most logging occurs, yet it’s not enough to sustain Australia’s demand for timber. There are 30 million hectares of land, most of that privately owned, which can be logged under the careful management of regional forest agreements. Last year, two per cent of those 30 million hectares were logged, meaning Australia is logging 600,000 hectares out of the 133 million hectares available, less than one half of one per cent of our native forests. 

What happens when a forest is logged? Is it clear-felled, never to grow anything again? Of course not. Forestry is about renewal. That’s the whole point of regional forestry agreements. The logging industry is allowed to go in and take the productive timber, remove the stunted and useless timber and then leave that forest to regenerate for 10 years or so before returning to repeat the cycle. Habitat is not destroyed; it’s enhanced. Forests are not destroyed; they’re enhanced. Rather than helping our forests, this Greens bill will harm them. 

Logging removes the fuel from the forest. It thins the trees and protects native forest from bushfires. There are huge areas of this country that have never fully recovered from the bushfires during the drought because some native forests contain so much fuel they burned like hell. What happened to the wildlife the Greens profess to care so much about? They were incinerated—agonisingly, cruelly incinerated. The damage to native flora and fauna caused in those bushfires resulted directly from restrictions on burn-offs, something sensible forest management would have mediated. They tried to, but the Greens stopped it. This is the problem with communists. They think imperious proclamations are a substitute for good government facts and data. They are wrong. 

Let’s be clear: it has been illegal to log old-growth forests for the entirety of this century. I know there has been some intrusion into old-growth forests. This bill from the Greens won’t deal with that problem, though, because the intrusion is mostly coming from the construction of wind turbines, access roads, solar panels and transmission lines, which the Greens adore and love and drive. Illegal logging, logging that damages old-growth forests, must be prosecuted, and One Nation will prosecute offenders. 

One Nation opposes this bill, because we are the party of the environment and we know the current system is best for the environment. As someone who has personally planted thousands of trees, rehabilitated land and protected coastlines, I know One Nation is now the party of the natural environment. 

/by

One Nation’s Plan to Restore Australian Farming : End Net Zero Madness

,

In this video I outline One Nation’s plan to restore Australian farming – within the 60 seconds I was allotted to debate the Nationals’ motion on the issue. 

It’s an easy solution: end the net zero madness! 

Net zero is a policy of the Liberals, the Nationals, Labor, the Greens, and the Teals. Their collective commitment to net zero is destroying farming through the death of a thousand regulatory cuts, strangling farmers with restrictions on water use, farm chemicals, fertilisers, on their soil. This is choking the life out of rural Australia in the name of reducing carbon dioxide, which helps grow the very food these net zero ideologues eat. 

In reality, net zero means net zero food, net zero clothing, net zero freedom and net zero travel. The UN and the World Economic Forum are pushing for food to be produced in near-urban intensive food manufacturing facilities producing cultural lab-grown meat, forced greens with no cell structure and bug protein. It’s time to let Australian farmers once again feed and clothe the world.  

Let’s end government driven by ideology and restore common sense to farming. 

Transcript

How would One Nation restore Australian farming—explained in the 60 seconds the Nationals have allocated me? It’s easy: end the net zero madness. Net zero is a policy of the Liberals, the Nationals, the Labor Party, the Greens and the teals. Each committed to destroying farming through the death of a thousand regulatory cuts, strangling farmers with restrictions on water use, on farm chemicals and fertilisers and even on their soil. This is strangling the life out of rural Australia in the name of reducing carbon dioxide, which fertilises the very food these net zero ideologues eat. 

Net zero really means net zero food, net zero clothes, net zero freedom and net zero travel. We’ve been told by the UN and the World Economic Forum that food will be produced in near-urban intensive food-manufacturing facilities producing cultured laboratory meat, forced greens with no cell structure and bug protein. Allow Australian farmers to once again feed and clothe the world. It’s time to end government by ideology. 

/by

Net Zero Policies Fuel Rising Cost of Living

,

The cost of living continues to skyrocket out of control.

This government is pouring fuel on the fire with its net zero policies making everything in the economy more expensive. The true scale of how crazy their plans are is apparent with some simple figures. Yet this government is ignorant to the damage they are causing.

Fix the cost of living and bring down inflation – ditch the net zero plans.

Transcript | Part 1 – Question Time

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. For every 100 megawatts of installed coal-fired power station capacity, the production of electricity average is around 95 to 98 megawatts. For every 100 megawatts of installed solar and wind generation capacity, though, the actual production of electricity average is just 23 megawatts, with wind itself being just 21. This means that to achieve design capacity, more than four times the installed rated capacity is required—almost five times for wind. Minister, is this included in Labor’s transition costs?

Senator McAllister: Thanks very much for the question, Senator Roberts. In terms of costings, we take the advice of the experts. We’ve had this conversation more than once, in fact, in the context of estimates and in other forums. AEMO works through a range of scenarios and configurations for the National Electricity Market and makes an assessment of the optimal pathway to meet our energy requirements at the optimal cost. They do consider, of course, the capacity factors of the different options that are available to us. There’s actually quite a lot of work to do. The truth is that we inherited a mess in the energy system. When we came in, the average wholesale energy price was $286 a megawatt hour—

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

Senator ROBERTS: Point of order on relevance: standing order 72(3)(c) says that answers shall be directly relevant to each question. Can we get on to whether or not Labor is aware—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, as I’ve reminded other senators in this place, make your point of order but don’t follow it up with a statement. The minister is being directly relevant to the points of your question. Minister McAllister, please continue.

Senator McAllister: Thanks, President. As I was saying, we came to government with a lot of work to do because the previous government had 22 energy policies, all of which failed. None of them landed. During the period when they were in government, four gigawatts of dispatchable capacity left the system and only one came on. We actually need to take steps to sort that out, because the previous government was repeatedly warned by the market operator that a failure to deal with the impending closure of coal-fired power stations was going to cause a reliability problem. We have sought advice from the experts at the market operator to help us design the policy settings that will actually allow us to replace that exit in capacity. It’s a lot more than anything that was ever delivered by the people opposite. The very great shame is that, for a person who I know seeks to represent people in Queensland, you show an odd lack of interest in the opportunities that come about as a consequence of making and facilitating these investments, which have the potential to bring jobs and new industry to the communities that you claim to care about.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: During morning and evening peak hours, for every 100 megawatts of installed solar and wind generation capacity, the actual production of electricity averages just 10 megawatts. This means that achieving design capacity requires 10 times the installed rated capacity. Minister, what impact does this massive additional cost have on solar and wind installation capital costs and on electricity prices?

Senator McAllister: Senator, your question actually omits a really important part of the advice that we received from the market operator. The advice that we received—and it’s based on very significant economic modelling and engagement with a whole range of market participants and experts in the energy system—is that the optimal configuration of technology for a future grid involves renewables, firmed by storage, including batteries, and supplemented by gas. That’s the plan that has been recommended to us, and the policy settings that we’ve put in place are designed to allow investment in those kinds of technologies to be brought forward. As I indicated in my answer to your primary question, there is a problem because there was an extended period
when the lack of certainty in the policy settings of the previous government meant that the necessary investment didn’t take place, and we are taking steps to remedy that problem.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: A modern coal-fired power station is expected to last 60 years. Solar panels and wind turbines are expected to last 12 to 15 years—at most, 20. Over the 60-year life of a coal-fired power plant, the combination of wind and solar cobbled together to replace a single coal plant will need to be replaced four times. Minister, when will Labor release its system cost of the 2050 grid system?

Senator McAllister: As the senator would know if he’d examined the Integrated System Plan, it does include a costing for the capital costs associated with building the grid out to 2050. So the answer is: it is released and updated on a regular basis by way of the Integrated System Plan. That’s the basis on which we establish our policies to deal with the transition that’s underway in the electricity system. The truth is that it is underway, Senator Roberts. I know that that is a proposition you don’t agree with, but in just two years we’ve seen a 25 per cent increase in our national grid in the cheapest and cleanest form of energy that there is, which is reliable renewables, and we’ve ticked off enough reliable renewables projects to power three million homes. Those things matter. Establishing a clear pathway for the electricity supply that’s necessary to meet the needs of households and businesses is an absolute priority for this government and should be for every other government as well.

Transcript | Part 2 – Take Note

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the cost of the net zero wind and solar transition.

With this so-called transition, both major parties are artificially increasing the cost of energy, pouring fuel on the inflation and cost-of-living crises. Labor and the Liberals planning to run the grid on net zero is trying to smash a square peg into a round hole.

In question time I used simple, proven facts and figures to show these plans are ridiculous. It comes down to something called ‘capacity factor’. That describes how much electricity we actually get from various types of power stations. A coal-fired power station runs at nearly a 95 per cent capacity factor or higher. That means, if we install a 100-megawatt coal-fired power station, on average, including downtime for maintenance, we get about 95 megawatts out of it over time.

Wind and solar are far lower. Their average capacity factor is just 23 per cent. That means that to replace 100 megawatts of coal-fired power we need to build 400 megawatts of wind and solar. Even if we do this massive and costly overbuild, it’s not guaranteed that wind and solar power will be available when we need it. At peak hours, morning and evening, when most people turn on devices and appliances, the capacity factor of wind and solar is just 10 per cent. We’re up for 1,000 megawatts of wind and solar to replace each 100 megawatts of coal-fired power, plus the billions of dollars in batteries and the tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines.

A coal-fired power station lasts 60 years—four times longer than wind and solar, which must be replaced after 15 years or so. That’s another four times the expense for solar and wind, making it a total of 4,000 megawatts to replace each 100 megawatts of coal power—40 times more expensive.

This supposed plan is not a plan; it’s lunacy. It’s costing trillions of dollars. This insanity and deceit are driving up the cost of living. Only One Nation will stop subsidising large-scale wind and solar to bring down power bills for all Australians.

Question agreed to.

/by

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

The Andrew Gray Podcast: Are We Being Lied To?

,

I joined Andrew Gray on his Podcast – Healthy Leadership Mentor where we discuss many topics including the many ways the Australian people are being deceived.

👉 Subscribe to his Newsletter: https://andrew-gray.ck.page/profile

🎙️ Subscribe to his Podcast: https://healthyleadershipmentor.buzzs…

/by

Government Crack Down on Petrol and Diesel Cars

, ,

If you enjoy your petrol or diesel car, the government is trying to make sure you won’t be enjoying it for long.

Looking through this word salad I got from the Department, the reality is the government is placing fines on manufacturers who sell too many petrol and diesel cars. Australians prefer cars that are useful for a weekend of camping, spacious enough to fit the whole family, and capable of doing long road trips without frequent refuelling or needing to stop to recharge.

The government thinks you’re enjoying your cars too much and is going to forces manufacturers to progressively phase them out, leaving only useless electric vehicles available.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Can I turn to cars and utes, as mentioned by Senator O’Sullivan. Car makers must comply with regulations that you are about to introduce. They must also comply with customers’ needs. My understanding is that the demand for sedans—for example, a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic—is decreasing, and the demand for the corresponding SUV—which in the case of Toyota would be a RAV4 or a Honda Civic—is increasing dramatically. The SUVs are heavier, they’re more utilitarian, but they’re preferred. But they chew more fuel and they produce more carbon dioxide—which to me is not a problem, but anyway. How does that affect the manufacturer? On the one hand they have a government that says, ‘Decrease the size of the car, the weight and the fuel efficiency.’ But customers say, ‘No, do the opposite.’ The customers don’t think in terms of carbon dioxide because they know it’s crap.  

Ms Purvis-Smith: As I mentioned in a previous answer, manufacturers are able to make commercial decisions as to what their fleet looks like. The standard looks at their whole fleet. There are a range of ways that manufacturers can meet the standard. I think Mr Kathage went through this before. I’m not sure if you were here. He could go through that again. If they get credits in one year they can hold them over to meet debits they may get in a following year. They can also trade credits. They can look at the fleet, change the fleet and make commercial decisions about what they import into the country and offer consumers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before Mr Kathage does that, perhaps you could tell me: if customers want SUVs over sedans, will that company be penalised? 

Mr Kathage: I can point you to appendix A of our impact analysis, where we set out the sales volumes of various types of vehicles. Your question is actually quite difficult because, as Ms Purvis-Smith mentioned, there’s actually quite a lot of things that vehicle suppliers can do to improve the efficiency of the vehicles they sell and their fleet overall. The first thing I’ll mention is that there are changes to the vehicles themselves that they can make—improving the aerodynamics, changing the drive train— 

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. But an SUV compared to a sedan—they can make improvements on both but the SUV will chew more fuel and is heavier—full stop, end of story.  

Mr Kathage: That’s right. So one of the features of the policy is to include a few flexibility mechanisms. The first one is to include two targets. One target is for passenger vehicles and a higher target for light commercial vehicles. The second flexibility mechanism in the scheme is to adjust the limit by weight. So you might have a Toyota Kluger, for example, which will have a particular mass in running order. Therefore, the target for that vehicle or the fleet of vehicles—that weight—will be adjusted. The third thing is that in any given year a vehicle supplier might bring in too many vehicles that are too polluting. They’ve got two years after that point to bring what’s called their ‘initial emissions value’ down to zero. So they do have some time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Looking at electric vehicles, for example, this policy, these regulations, are to make petrol and diesel vehicles less attractive and to make electric vehicles more attractive. That’s clearly what’s going on. But the efficiency of resources in electric vehicles is quite low, because the vehicles are inherently heavier, as Senator O’Sullivan said—needing heavier brakes, more resources; heavier suspension, more resources; heavier components all through, more resources. So we’re actually driving an economy to use less efficient vehicles and less efficient use of resources. That doesn’t make sense to me.  

Mr Kathage: I’m sorry; what was the question? 

Senator ROBERTS: The question is: are you aware that that’s happening? 

Mr Kathage: I’d probably say the purpose of the new vehicle efficiency standard is to improve the efficiency of new vehicles. It’s not to drive a particular type of vehicle or particular type of outcome, except for reduced emissions. That’s the purpose of the policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: You talked about reducing emissions. Have you done any work on the life cycle production of carbon dioxide from a diesel and a petrol vehicle, compared to the electric vehicle— 

Mr Kathage: We have— 

Senator ROBERTS: Particularly right through the mining sector as well, because there are extra resources that need to be mined for an EV. 

Mr Kathage: Yes, we have. We included some evidence in our impact analysis, which is now published on the Office of Impact Analysis website. Section 4.2.1 sets out a range of different estimates that have been made. The first one is from our own Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics, which finds that while manufacturing an EV may produce more GHG emissions than an internal combustion engine, that is more than offset after about one year if the vehicle is charged from renewably sourced electricity—that is, home solar—and two years if charged from the grid using a mix of electricity generation sources. In that section—I won’t read it all out—we do have, I think, four other sources that support the same contention.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s an assumption there that they’ll be using renewables—solar and wind. That’s a big assumption. Thank you, Chair. 

/5 Comments/by

Climate Bureaucrats Squirm When Questioned in Senate Estimates

,

Watch as these climate change bureaucrats deflect and squirm when trying to answer basic questions about what their department has been doing.

This session looked at why they sold millions of barrels of oil held in the United States and Labor’s new tax on petrol and diesel cars. Like always, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is completely out of touch with reality while trying to tell you what you can and can’t do.

Abolish the net-zero goals.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Can we just continue with this strategic reserve? So Australia sold all of the oil reserves in the United States strategic reserve?  

Mrs Svarcas: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels, around June 2022?  

Mrs Svarcas: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was the sale amount? $220 million?  

Mrs Svarcas: I would have to take that on notice. I don’t have that in my folder.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who was the oil delivered to?  

Mrs Svarcas: I would have to also take that on notice, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much was paid in seller’s fees, commissions or whatever it is? 

Mrs Svarcas: I’m happy to break that down for you on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much is the continuing empty lease in the US strategic reserve costing?  

Mrs Svarcas: We do have an ongoing contract for that. I will, again, come back to you with the leasing costs on that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all I had there. I’d like to move to the ute tax, please.  

CHAIR: I think you’ll find it’s not called that, Senator Roberts. 

 Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?  

CHAIR: We don’t have such a thing. Would you like to refer to the correct program?  

Senator ROBERTS: Your new car tax.  

Senator McAllister: We don’t have a new car tax, either.  

CHAIR: No new car tax?  

Senator ROBERTS: You know what I’m talking about.  

CHAIR: How about you just say it, Senator Roberts, so we can get the right people to the table.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know the new fees for petrol and diesel vehicles.  

Senator McAllister: It’s possible you’re referring to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.  

CHAIR: Yes, that sounds a bit more familiar.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s another way of saying it. Minister, why were you so secretive about it? You passed it under guillotine with no debate. Yet again, another bill with no debate.  

Senator McAllister: The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard brings Australia into line with the very significant majority of the international vehicle market. It’s a policy—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Minister. The people of Australia elected your government to govern. They didn’t elect the United Nations World Economic Forum, the United States, Great Britain, or other global players. They wanted you to govern this country—not on behalf of others.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, could you allow the minister to finish answering the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Chair.  

Senator McAllister: The government was very clear and we had extensive public discussion about the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. I believe there were Senate hearings, although I did not participate in them. We discussed it here in the estimates forum and also in the neighbouring committee at the last estimates hearings as well. Officials can talk to you about some of the public consultation that took place, including the position papers that were released. And senators had many opportunities to express their opinions about this particular policy initiative through the course of the Senate’s work.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we don’t need to debate anymore in the Senate?  

Senator McAllister: We do need debate in the Senate, Senator Roberts. These were important—  

Senator ROBERTS: Second reading, third reading and committee stages?  

Senator McAllister: I thought you had asked me a question.  

Senator ROBERTS: I am! But I was continuing—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to ask you again to allow the minister to answer the question you have just posed and to not speak over her.  

Senator McAllister: The government’s view was that this was an important reform, and that there was some urgency to this reform. It was a reform that had been proposed under a previous government, during a previous parliament, and not progressed. The consequences of that were that Australians continue to pay more than they need to at the bowser because the vehicle fleet in Australia is less efficient than it could be, because the range of vehicles available to Australians is considerably less than we expect it will be under the standard. We think it’s an important policy. We wanted to progress it, and we judged that there was a majority of support in the Senate for that, so we brought it on for consideration.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re afraid of letting the people participate through their views, expressed through senators in debates in second reading and third reading and committee stages, and assessing amendments?  

Senator McAllister: I wouldn’t characterise it like that at all. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, are you aware, with an increasing amount of smart metres being installed—despite some people saying they don’t want it—and electric vehicle charging happening overnight offpeak, that’s when coal-fired power is supplying most of the electricity. So there’s potentially going to be an increased demand on coal-fired power stations as petrol and diesel vehicles are set aside in favour of electric vehicles. So you’re actually increasing the carbon dioxide intensity of energy.  

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I will ask some of the officials to talk you through the expectations that we have for demand on the grid. But the Integrated System Plan, which is produced by the AEMO, includes demand that is predicted to arise from the introduction of greater numbers of electric vehicles into the Australian fleet, along with a range of other changes. It also, as you know, shows a very significant shift to renewable energy, so the emissions intensity of the National Electricity Market is expected to decrease over time, of course.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, are they like the projections where you told us we would be having lower power costs, and instead we’ve got far higher?  

Senator McAllister: Do you want to talk about the issue that you originally asked me about, or do you wish to move on?  

Senator ROBERTS: I just wanted to know what your projections were like and how accurate they are.  

Senator McAllister: The Integrated System Plan is a long-established piece of analysis undertaken by the Australian Energy Market Operator. Officials at the table can talk to you about the expectations there and any other information we have of that expected demand on electricity.  

Mr Ryan: To start with, I’ll talk about some of the different charging solutions we’re seeing and what impact that’s having. ARENA, who I know will be appearing, will certainly be able to tell you about some of the investment and some of the innovations they’re looking at in charging. You’re right, a lot of charging is done at home—80 per cent, we think—but that’s not just from the grid. A lot of those people—not all, but a lot of them— actually have batteries that charge and store solar energy from during the day. So when they’re charging overnight—it might be from a battery but it also might be from the grid—note that the grid is slowly decarbonising as well. So that’s increasing, day to day. There are other innovations where we’re seeing EV charging being provided at places people visit on a regular basis, whether that’s at carparks during the day or the workplace during the day, whether it’s at the kerbside, at the local gym, at the movies—places where there’s charging, more and more. Sometimes that’s in the evening, but a lot of the time that’s during the day. So we’re seeing some innovation, and there’s certainly been funding—not just from the Commonwealth but from the states and territories—to develop that innovation and look to maximise the solar in there. The last thing I’d say on the projections is that I do know that they take into account the grid and the impact on the grid for the uptake of EVs. So they are in the figures that are provided each year when they do the projections.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—  

Mr Fredericks: Senator, sorry; could Ms Rowley just give you 30 seconds on that, because it is quintessentially the answer to your question about how all of the emissions impacts are brought to bear.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.  

Ms Rowley: In relation to the annual emissions projections, we look at the change in the vehicle fleet, including the uptake of electric vehicles, which is helping to reduce the direct emissions from transport. But we also take account of the electricity required to meet the growing share of electric vehicles. Just by way of example, for 2030, in last year’s emissions projections, we estimated that there was a seven-million-tonne reduction in transport emissions and a one-million-tonne increase in electricity emissions to meet that additional demand from electric vehicles, so the net effect in 2030 was an estimated six-million-tonne reduction in Australia’s emissions, taking into account both transport and electricity.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure, but I remind you you can’t tell me the impact on climate of that, so you’re basically going with a policy of spending money but not realising the benefit. Minister, do you still maintain—  

Ms Rowley: I would note that the new vehicle efficiency standard is projected to save consumers money and reduce the impact of things like health costs on the Australian economy.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question?  

CHAIR: Last question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you still maintain, Minister, that punishing manufacturers of petrol and diesel vehicles won’t reduce the number of petrol or diesel cars available to Australians?  

Senator McAllister: Senator, I don’t accept that characterisation of the policy setting.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Chair. 

/by

One Nation’s Vision Promises Growth and Prosperity for a Secure Future

,

Inflation, unemployment, mortgages, rents, and the cost of living—including energy and grocery prices—are all on the rise.

One Nation policies promise growth and prosperity for everyone, ensuring a secure future.

Transcript

The response from Treasurer Jim Chalmers to yesterday’s increase in the inflation rate was, ‘There’s more work to be done.’ Oh, really? I would think the Treasurer has done quite enough already, thank you very much. Inflation is increasing, unemployment is increasing, mortgages and rents are increasing, the cost of living—including energy prices and grocery prices—is rising, and building costs are increasing. Bankruptcies are at a record high, with construction companies heavily featured. GDP per person is falling, and the economy as a whole is almost in the red.  

Taking these indicators together shows that Australia is in the early phases of stagflation, the scourge of the Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke governments. A One Nation government would immediately reverse the economic mismanagement of recent Liberal and Labor governments. We would grow Australia out of stagflation. We would shut down the department of climate change, withdraw from the UN Paris Agreement and rebuild our energy infrastructure with the lowest-cost power generation: hydro, coal and nuclear. We would terminate environmental and economic vandalism coming from pumped hydro and offshore wind by refusing industrial wind and solar generation on productive farmland and in native forests. We would take the government’s jackboot off our farmers’ throats and support our agricultural sector to once again feed and clothe the world. 

We would immediately freeze the issue of new permanent visas and review the skills list, to ensure those who arrive have the skills we need to support economic growth, and we would send home some people who are currently on resident visas. We would build Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, build a national rail circuit and a national shipping fleet, and push steel parks at Abbot Point and Port Hedland. We would close down insane pumped hydro projects and green energy subsidies. We would use the east-west rail line to support Aboriginal communities, mining and agriculture across the Top End and Central Australia. 

The government can only offer stagnation and decay. One Nation policies, though, represent growth and prosperity for all, for a secure future. 

/by