Posts

The True Causes of Coral Bleaching

,

When discussing coral bleaching, the assumption these days immediately defaults to blaming mythical “climate change” instead of looking for the real cause.

There are many causes of bleaching, including changes in salinity, UV radiation, sedimentation, and pollution. Coral bleaching is a response to environmental stress, not just temperature fluctuation.

Studies have shown evidence of bleaching dating back centuries, long before any “claimed” influence on the weather was caused by humans. Coral has shown resilience and adaptability to different conditions and reefs have recovered from bleaching events for millennia.

It’s time the climate carpetbaggers were called out for their selective pseudo-science that is designed to protect their taxpayer funding. It’s time to recognise the resilience of our coral reefs and bring the tourists back to Queensland.

Speech with Annotations

Coral-Reef-BleachingDownload

Transcript

When discussing coral bleaching recently, the assumption defaults to blaming claimed human climate change instead of asking what actually caused it. Coral bleaching in simple terms is a loss of colour in coral, most often due to symbiosis dysfunction, a severing of the join between the coral polyp and the host tissue—the calcium carbonate that gives coral its white colour. Bleaching is a response to environmental stress. It has many causes, including changes in salinity, ultraviolet radiation, increased sedimentation and high nutrient levels after flooding or pollution.

Kamenos from the University of Glasgow found evidence of Great Barrier Reef bleaching in the 1600s. His paper has been contested, yet the many citations used to support his paper have not been. Hendy documented two hiatuses in coral skeleton growth, associated tissue death and subsequent regrowth in eight multicentury coral cores collected from the central Great Barrier Reef accurately dated to 1782 to 1817. This period was before humans are claimed to have influenced the weather.

Dunne recorded bleaching on the reef in 1928. Woolridge documented the bleaching caused by floodwaters carrying nutrients impacting on the reef. Kenkel found coral has plasticity to adapt to different environmental conditions and is more resilient than previously thought. Maynard found that coral adapts to bleaching by becoming more resilient. During the past 2.5 million years, there have been 40 glacial maximums and 40 interglacial periods. Eighty times, coral has had to rise or fall by up to 140 metres, and our coral reefs are still there. How resilient they are. 

Our reefs have been subjected to bleaching for millennia, and they always recover, as they did in 2022, when the Greens were telling us the reef was dead, and tourists believed them. Tourist numbers are below the long-term average, COVID excluded.

It’s time climate carpetbaggers were called out for selective pseudoscience designed to protect their taxpayer funding. Bleaching is a part of nature. It recovers. It’s cyclical. 

/3 Comments/by

The Great Barrier Reef Is Not Dying

,

I spoke on Green Senator Whish-Wilson’s motion that the Great Barrier Reef is dying — again. This fear-mongering is used to justify the exorbitant amount of money being transferred from hardworking Australians to parasitic billionaires promising to “fix” the climate. Coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef is a natural cycle. Media and politicians are exaggerating the extent of damage to the reef and in so doing, they are causing economic harm to businesses that rely on tourism for their survival.

Human civilisation and the environment are not mutually exclusive and industrial progress, supported by hydrocarbon fuels, has actually benefited the environment by reducing reliance on resources like whale oil and timber. If the Greens want a real environmental cause, they should campaign against the wind turbines that are being built across northern Queensland, which involves blowing the tops off mountains and permanently destroying the natural environment.

This is more than just aesthetics. Green energy is creating sediment that is full of arsenic, which has been locked away in the rocks for millennia. This runoff flows through underground aquifers and ends up in the ocean, poisoning the reef. The Greens are silent on this vandalism to our natural environment and make up rubbish stories about the reef so that they can “pretend” they are an environmental party.

One Nation protects the natural environment – Greens destroy it!

Transcript

Once again those who worship the sky god of global boiling are using their religion to scare the public into holding the line on the great climate boiling scam. Is it still global boiling or have we now moved to global scalding? This fearmongering, this scaring, as I’ve been explaining for many years, involves taking money from hardworking Australians and giving it to parasitic billionaires to fix the climate. 

Senator Whish-Wilson’s latest motion reheats an old, debunked scare: the Great Barrier Reef is dying. In 2016 the Washington Post ran an article titled ‘”And then we wept”: Scientists say 93 percent of the Great Barrier Reef now bleached’. In 2022 the Washington Post ran an article titled, in part, ‘Great Barrier Reef has the most coral in decades’. In 2024 they ran an article titled ‘Fatal heatwave strikes unspoiled swath of Great Barrier Reef’. It went on to say: 

Water temperature data suggests the toll of this event could approach that of 2016, when some 30% of the reef’s corals died after suffering through what were then unprecedented levels of heat stress. 

Can’t they see it’s cyclical? 

Hang on. Wasn’t that 93 per cent? No. That’s just the mainstream media scare figure used at the time to appease their owners: the same predatory billionaires that profit from the global boiling scam. It was never an accurate figure, never credible, yet the Greens repeatedly peddled it. 

In summary, the reef had a serious bleaching event in 2016, and within a few years the coral extent was back to normal. By the way: the first scientifically recorded bleaching was in 1926. Scientific records show that bleaching has been a natural part of the Great Barrier Reef cycles and other reef cycles for millennia. That is fact. This is not some esoteric discussion. These Chicken Little claims from the Greens have consequences. Scare stories about the reef dying cause tourists, including international tourists, to cancel their holidays on the Great Barrier Reef, destroying livelihoods in Great Barrier Reef communities on the Queensland east coast. People instead go to a country where the politicians are not scaring off the tourists. Jobs are lost every time the Greens use the Great Barrier Reef as a political football. There’s not even any science behind their claims. 

At times the reef can be a naturally fragile ecosystem. We know that. Certain naturally occurring events can impact it. The greatest danger for the barrier reef is flooding. Tropical cyclones dump fresh water into a river catchment system that carries rainwater hundreds of kilometres onto the Great Barrier Reef. Freshwater plumes kill saltwater coral polyps, and the event is declared a bleaching event—all natural, all cyclical, quite common. 

What did we have three months ago in Queensland? A severe flood event—entirely natural. What do we have now? Coral bleaching—entirely natural. Don’t take my word for it. Please read James Cook University’s article titled ‘Back-to-back cyclones and flood plume impacts on the Great Barrier Reef’, which confirmed freshwater coral bleaching was recorded along the reef. 

Now the climate boiling scammers are trying to blame this on natural climate variability, so let me give you the inconvenient truth about that. I want you to reference the study titled ‘Great Barrier Reef study shows how reef copes with rapid sea level-rise’ from the University of Sydney website. I’ll publish the link. To quote from the study: 

Using unprecedented analysis of 12 new drilled reef cores with data going back more than 8,000 years, the study shows that there have been three distinct phases of reef growth since the end of the Pleistocene era about 11,000 years ago. 

It goes on to say: 

‘We wanted to understand past reef resilience to multiple environmental stresses during the formation of the modern reef,’ said the lead author Kelsey Sanborn, a PhD student at the School of Geosciences at the University of Sydney. 

It continues: 

The study was an international collaboration published in Sedimentary Geology, which revealed a period around 8,000 and 7,000 years ago when the reef growth slowed as it was exposed to multiple stressors, including likely increases in sediment and nutrient flux on the reef. 

I wonder what could cause the sediment and nutrient flux that damaged the reef 8,000 years ago. Well, it can’t be coal fired power stations, it can’t be internal combustion engines or people living in freestanding homes on quarter-acre blocks, and it certainly couldn’t have been air travel. What could it be? Of course, I have it, eating meat! That’s it! If the local Aboriginal population had just stopped eating red meat and instead grew soybeans, those tropical storms would not have dumped nutrient-rich floodwaters onto the reef. 

Study co-author Associate Professor Jody Webster said: 

We need to understand the past in order to predict the future. This paper and Kelsey’s broader research examine how sea level, surface temperature, sediment in the water, nutrient influx and energy inputs into the reef system affect its vulnerability to environmental change. 

It goes on: 

The reef system survives because of a delicate balance these environmental factors. 

All natural.  

Whenever the balance of the reef is disturbed, a bleaching event occurs. It’s entirely natural. It’s in a symbiotic relationship with other organisms. There’s no doubt that when an unusually hot day corresponds to an unusually low tide, the reef will bleach, and it will bleach from a cyclone event and many other disturbances. That reminds me, I went scuba diving with some media off Keppel Island. We said, ‘See the corals recovering from a cyclone.’ The journalist said, ‘But you haven’t seen the real bleaching a thousand kilometres north.’ There was a thousand kilometres of reef between where we were, with the healthy reef, and their claimed bleaching event. They just ignore the healthy reef. 

For the Greens to use mother nature to promote their climate change scam is wrong—it’s utterly wrong. For reef researchers to pretend reef damage is due to climate boiling and then ask for more money to research climate change is wrong. It’s dishonest and it’s scientific fraud. The truth is that the ocean is warmed primarily from the sun, with a secondary contribution from geothermal activity—fact. The atmosphere—the thing being blamed for heating up and bleaching the reef—only warms the top millimetre or so of the ocean surface. That’s not enough to cause any harm and, by the way, we can see that in the seasonal impact. 

The climate boiling scammers can blame their sky god of warming all they like. They can demand large homes, big cars, aeroplanes, cattle, sheep, clothing, cheap power and so much more be sacrificed on the altar of their climate boiling beliefs. Saying a lie does not make the claimed science real. Repeating a lie doesn’t make the claimed science real. Our weather patterns are normal—entirely natural—and so are the patterns on the reef.  

If the Greens want to be useful, they should campaign against wind turbines—the installation of which requires whole tops of mountains being blown off mountains across northern Queensland right now, disturbing sediment and arsenic that flow through underground aquifers and winds up on the Great Barrier Reef, making these natural flood events even worse. One Nation care about the natural environment because we value the natural environment. That’s just one of the many reasons why we oppose wind turbines in pristine bushland and, for that matter, near human beings. We oppose industrial solar on farmland and on bushland. We oppose national parks being carved up for power lines, especially the Snowy 2.0 abomination. And we oppose land clearing of old-growth forests for any purpose, including grazing. One Nation is now the party of true environmentalism. And the Greens? Well, they’re the party of promoting the political agendas and the pockets of parasitic billionaires over the best interests of the natural environment. The Greens peddle the United Nations World Economic Forum’s antihuman agenda, which is in turn based on a lie—a false assumption. That lie, that false assumption, is that human civilisation and the environment are mutually exclusive. That is the opposite of reality. 

The reality is that, for human civilisation to have a future, we must have a healthy natural environment. History over the last 170 years shows that the health of the environment depends on human civilisation because industrial civilisation minimises human impact on the natural environment. What has human civilisation produced that is so beneficial for the environment? High-energy, low-cost, ultrareliable hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. Before these hydrocarbon fuels, humans needed whale oil for lighting, killing whales. Before these hydrocarbon fuels, heating and cooking needed timber from chopped down trees. The area of land in the developed continents covered by forest over the last 100 years has increased by 30 per cent because we’re no longer chopping down trees to cook and to heat. The best friend of whales and the best friend of forests is hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. 

As a servant to the fine people of Queensland and Australia, I cherish human progress. I cherish human flourishing. I cherish hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. I admire human progress and human initiative. I appreciate human progress. 

/4 Comments/by

Disinformation From Labor on Nuclear Energy Costs

,

The Labor Albanese Government is destroying proven, low-cost coal power plants under the guise of “retiring them” and replacing this stable, secure, safe and affordable power with land-grabbing solar and wind installations which are proven now to be unreliable, environmentally-damaging and expensive.

If Labor’s ideology means that it won’t consider new generation coal, which China and other countries are busy putting in place, then why doesn’t it consider the nuclear option? Is it so blinkered that it refuses to see the data from around the world which demonstrates nuclear as a proven reliable, stable, secure, safe, environmentally-responsible and affordable source of power?

Why is Labor being dishonest about this? Are the solar schemes and subsidies so important to their mates that they would sell out the regular working Australian families for their mates at the WEF? What happened to the party of the workers?

Transcript

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. The government has ruled out adding nuclear electricity to our energy mix based on the government’s calculations showing a higher cost of nuclear energy as against wind and solar. Minister, can you please inform the Senate of the levelised cost of generation of wind, solar and nuclear that informed the government’s position? 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will just remind you that questions need to go to ministers, not assistant ministers, so I’m directing the question to Minister Gallagher. 

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): Thank you for the question. The advice the government has—and I think this is understood by everyone who’s been following the energy discussion—is that nuclear energy is very slow to build. It’s the most expensive form of new electricity generation. It cannot beat renewables, which are the cheapest, fastest and cleanest form of new electricity generation. The analysis that was done showed that there was a significant cost burden. Our position is about cost. We are looking for the cheapest form of energy generation, which is renewables, which includes wind and solar. Australia obviously has a very significant comparative advantage when it comes to that form of energy, with more sunlight hitting our landmass than any other country. We also don’t have a workforce to support that nuclear energy generation. So the time involved means it would be decades before anything became operational and it would do nothing to reduce the energy costs for Australian households and businesses in the meantime. 

So our position—and I think there is a lot of support for that position—is that this transition to renewable energy is the quickest and cheapest path as we shift away from fossil fuel generation. That is the path that the government was clear about before the election. That is the path that we are implementing under Minister Bowen’s and Minister McAllister’s leadership, leading for the government, and we will continue on that path. We will leave the nuclear energy debate for those opposite to convince people of. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the figure for nuclear based on real-world data from the 440 nuclear power stations around the world or even from the last 10 stations completed in the last few years? If not, on what is it based? 

Senator GALLAGHER: As I understand it—and I will see if there’s anything I can provide—the government analysis that looked at the cost of nuclear energy was looking at how to replace the retiring coal-fired power station fleet. That figure resulted in about a $25,000 cost impost on each Australia taxpayer, based off 15.1 million taxpayers. So, according to many of the experts in the energy field, it’s more expensive, going to take decades to build and, in the meantime, will do nothing to reduce the power costs of households, which are clearly going to benefit from the shift to renewable energy generation and technology. That is the path the government will continue on because we are focused on cost of living and a sensible and orderly transition away from fossil fuels to new forms of energy. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The government is using a figure for the cost of modular nuclear power that’s not based on any real-world data. Rather, it is mere speculation about a type of generation that doesn’t exist. 

Government senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! 

Senator McKim interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKim! Senator Roberts has the right to ask his question in silence, and I will ask senators to respect that right. 

Senator ROBERTS: The government’s data is based on speculation about a type of generation that does not exist and completely misrepresents the cost of nuclear power. The government is spreading misinformation again. Minister, why didn’t the government use the real-world data from 57 conventional nuclear power stations currently under construction around the world, and why is the government not being honest about nuclear? (Time expired) 

Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept the question that Senator Roberts has put to me. We are providing information to the community, and that information is that renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build generation technology. That is clearly a fact. 

We have also done some analysis, and I think you will find it hard to find any expert that says nuclear isn’t expensive or isn’t going to take too long to build, including how you generate a workforce around this and the time it will take to do that based on the work that we need to happen now. We can’t delay this for decades. The transition was already delayed for a decade under those opposite, with 22 failed energy policies. In 18 months we have been getting on with it. We are in that transition. We will focus on renewables as the lowest-cost form of energy generation that will help households with those cost-of-living pressures. (Time expired) 

/15 Comments/by

Climate: The Movie

This Martin Durkin movie deserves your attention. Durkin also made ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ 17 years ago and faced significant backlash. Since then, there hasn’t been a major production that questions the “climate science” or our approach to climate change.

Regardless of your stance on “catastrophic” climate change, this movie raises important questions about democracy, free speech and the “science”.

Interestingly, the film has been shadow-banned on YouTube, which highlights the censorship and control over discussions on climate change.

/13 Comments/by

Labor Threatens New Tax on Clothing

,

I spoke to Alexandra Marshall of Spectator Australia on the outrageous tax that is being floated, which will impact those on smaller incomes and families.

The Environment Minister, Tania Plibersek, has warned the fashion industry to turn its back on the concept of fashion that encourages people to buy too many new clothes. This idea is straight out of Chairman Mao’s China where everyone dressed in the same uniform, reducing the need for clothing to just a few sets of clothes.

This is your future under the most radical government in Australian history, who are actively promoting the World Economic Forum’s war on clothing under the guise of ‘saving the environment’, but really they just want us to have less.

Minister Plibersek is trying to justify their levy on clothing by saying it will create a ‘Green Fund’. Based on flawed science, this tax on clothing comes just after the WEF suggested on its website that people wash their clothes less often — you will wear old clothes and be dirty. This is literally what the WEF thinks of us. It’s impossible to be “happy” about this out of control, UN agenda followed loyally by this government.

One Nation opposes any new taxes. For the Prime Minister to even consider more tax on clothing shows how out of touch he is.

Spectator Australia

Subscribe

Watch

ADH TV
/4 Comments/by

Uncomfortable Net Zero Truth Bombs Dropped on the BBC

,

Award-winning journalist & author, Peter Hitchens, exposes the Net Zero absurdity straight to the face of George Monbiot on BBC Question Time.

“…we didn’t just close down our coal fired power stations, we blew them up, we were so certain we were right to do so. At the same time, China even as we speak is building the equivalent of two new coal fired power stations a week. India has a vast expansion programme of coal fired power stations…”

“If you want to live in a country with Net Zero, if you where nobody can afford to heat their house where people have incredibly expensive and non functioning heat pumps inflicted on them, if you want lots of people to lose their jobs because there’s no energy, if you want to be cold all the time… then carry on believing that the demand to go for Net Zero… is intelligent and thoughtful.”

/7 Comments/by

Smart Meters and Remote Control Air Cons

,

At Senate Estimates I asked the Australian Energy Regulator if they were concerned that there seems to be increasing control over people’s electricity and access to electricity. It seems to be a case of “see no evil” at the Energy Regulator after hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders had their air-cons remotely throttled by the Government.

As the grid gets more unstable because of net-zero policies the government needs more control over electricity use to avoid damage to infrastructure.

One Nation will oppose this WEF inspired control dystopia at every turn.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. I have a question about the emergency backstop mechanism from the Queensland government’s Department of Energy and Climate. It’s implemented in Queensland and it allows the government to turn off people’s solar panels at will. A lot of people in Queensland were shocked when the government reached into their homes and controlled their air conditioning units 170,000 times in the last two months. Now we’re finding out the government can turn off people’s solar panels as well. I don’t understand why the panels on someone’s house would have to be remotely cut off, even for self-consumption. As the regulator, do you have any data on how many of these generation signalling devices have been installed in Queensland under this emergency backstop mechanism and how many are installed nationally? 

Ms Savage : Is your question about smart inverters? 

Senator ROBERTS: It’s about smart meters that are cutting off air conditioning units and cutting off solar panels. 

Ms Savage : There is a backstop mechanism that’s been put in place through the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council, which I don’t know if the department wishes to comment on. Essentially, it’s to avoid situations of what they call minimum demand, where you might have— 

Senator ROBERTS: Minimal demand? 

Ms Savage : Minimum demand problems. It’s where in system operation you might have so much solar in the system— 

Senator ROBERTS: Like the middle of the day. 

Ms Savage : That’s right. South Australia is where it’s been most acute. You might have so much that you can’t keep a stable minimum generation load in place. Solar is turned off during those emergency situations to ensure that you can keep that minimum stable generation load. I’m not aware of the figures that you’ve just quoted around the number of times it’s been done in Queensland, so I’ll look to my colleagues, Ms Jolly or Mr Duggan, to see if they can assist. 

Mr Duggan : I was going to ask if you could give us a sense of where those figures came from, Senator, because I hadn’t heard them before. 

Senator ROBERTS: I can get back to you on that. It was widely reported in the press last week. 

Ms Savage : It’s not consistent with my understanding, so I think we’d need to see the figures. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We’ll get them to you. Under the National Electricity Rules, what remedy or compensation is available to a homeowner if their solar panels are turned off remotely and they suffer some kind of damage because of that? 

Ms Savage : Again, it’s not an area of the AER’s responsibility. I’m not sure whether there are compensation payments in place—I don’t think there are. 

Mr Duggan : I think having access to the information that you’ve got would help us out enormously, but, to me, the direction of the question is more one that goes to AEMO’s management of the grid. I suspect they would be operating that part of the system. If we can get the information from you, we’ll endeavour to work with those— 

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t the Australian Energy Regulator oversee the whole lot? 

Ms Savage : Yes, but not necessarily the way in which the system is operated, and that’s a system operation question. We make sure people comply with the rules. One of the things the Australian Energy Regulator is doing is working with the network companies to do what’s called flexible export limits. This is to ensure that you have a greater opportunity to optimise the solar system across the whole grid so that we’re not seeing solar panels being turned off unnecessarily. Did you want to add anything, Mr Cox? 

Mr Cox : No. I think that’s basically right. At the moment, solar panels, as you mentioned, are turned off to preserve the stability of the grid. It’s a fairly rigid arrangement. Perhaps a more flexible arrangement would allow people to export more frequently at times that are convenient to them, and that’s something we’re exploring with the various network businesses. 

Senator ROBERTS: You used the word ‘acute’ and talk about ensuring a stable minimum generation load. These things—solar and wind—have introduced a hell of a lot of management issues, which adds costs and risk to the system. 

Ms Savage : I think they add cost and risk at times through the day, but they’re also at times free. From that perspective, we see a lot of negative prices—in South Australia and Queensland, in particular—through the middle of the day, which lowers overall average prices of the system, but at other times of the day there are costs to manage the system. Ms Jolly has just reminded me that we do have the export services network performance report, which looks at how the networks are and how much solar energy is being exported into the grid. That report might be useful to you too. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you send us that, please. 

Ms Savage : Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: You may not be able to answer this question, but you’re the overseer. How many air conditioners have been installed with remote demand management systems under the PeakSmart program in Queensland? 

Ms Savage : I wouldn’t have access to that data. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would you be able to get it on notice? 

Ms Savage : I don’t think we would have that as an agency; that sounds like a Queensland government program. 

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re overseeing the national. 

Ms Savage : We oversee the bits that are within the national electricity law and rules. State based programs usually are done through state based legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS: So they can operate independently? 

Ms Savage : If the states have their own legislation, there will be elements that will operate through that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you concerned that there seems to be increasing control over people’s use of electricity and access to electricity? 

Ms Savage : In Queensland there has been direct load control of air conditioners and pool pumps for a very long time, for more than 20 years. From that perspective, it is not a new thing in Queensland; it has always been a part of the system operation in Queensland. 

Senator ROBERTS: What about other states? Is it increasing? 

Ms Savage : We would have to look at the numbers. I don’t have the numbers in front of me. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you get them on notice, please. 

Ms Savage : Ms Jolly, would we have those numbers? 

Ms Jolly : I’m not sure. They may come from the distributors who run those programs autonomously. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you how many smart meters have been installed in Queensland? 

Ms Savage : I probably know how many smart meters there are in Queensland. We are at about 47 per cent in Queensland. Is that right? We’d have to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. Forty-seven per cent of households have smart metres? 

Ms Savage : We looked at this last week, so I’m trying to remember what the answer to that is. But I think that we’re heading into that territory in most of the jurisdictions now—up towards the high 40 per cents. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there anything in the National Electricity Rules that enshrines the right of a customer to refuse a smart meter? At the moment many of the programs have opt-out clauses, but my question is whether there is anything in the Electricity Rules that will stop an electricity company if they decide to try to force someone to take a smart meter, to make it mandatory. 

Ms Savage : I think I’ll need take that on notice as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: It seems like there is increasing power over people’s use of electricity. I’ll just ask a few questions; you may not be able to answer these. It is about the emergency backstop mechanism website. The government says that the emergency backstop mechanism ‘is an important step in supporting Queensland’s transition to a more coordinated electricity system’. Is the electricity system becoming more coordinated, controlled? 

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, we’ve canvassed this a few times over the course of the day. It’s very difficult for officials to answer questions about documents when we don’t know the provenance of the documents or the dates they were published or we don’t have the document in front of us. Are you able to table that or perhaps provide us with a web link? 

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. It was a website, last updated 12 December 2023, from the Department of Energy and Climate in the Queensland government. 

Senator McAllister: I see. So it’s a Queensland government— 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Senator McAllister: I’m not sure that the Commonwealth government can answer questions about Queensland government programs. The AER may have information for you, but there are limits on what we can discuss in this forum. 

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, Minister. I’m just looking at what the Queensland government is saying about the ‘more coordinated electricity system’ and I thought that that might come under the Australian Energy Regulator. 

Ms Savage : I would probably say that an electricity system must be coordinated—it has always been coordinated—because you have to have instantaneous meeting of supply and demand. That’s why you have a system operator to make sure that you’ve got generation resources available when people demand it. That level of coordination is fundamental to ensuring that we can keep a stable voltage waveform in the system. The physics of that demands it. To answer your question, it has always been a coordinated system and it will need to be remain a coordinated system. 

Senator ROBERTS: It says it’s becoming ‘more coordinated’. 

CHAIR: On this notion of the national energy grid and the role of the states, I think what we’re probably tripping over here is the situation where there is a national plan and the states each have a set of responsibilities. How they then roll out those responsibilities is sometimes done in the state and not necessarily part of the purview of— 

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. I’m trying to find out whether or not you have any role in that or any information about that. 

Ms Savage : I’m happy to try and answer your questions. They’re just not necessarily directly in my patch, but I’ll help you however I can. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s about all I had. You’ve already answered the last one I had. 

/by

Damn the Economy – Net Zero at All Cost!

,

I questioned the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment & Water (DCCEEW) about a recent report from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). The report was critical of the department.

The report from ANAO on Governance of Climate Change Commitments states that the DCCEEW CANNOT demonstrate the extent to which specific policies and programs have contributed, or are expected to contribute towards emissions reduction.

We are turning our entire economy upside down to chase this net-zero lunacy and no one can even say if it’s going to do anything.

Even though it was reported that the department agreed with all five ANAO recommendations, the Minister and staff, in response to my estimates’ questioning, said that they do not agree with ANAO’s findings and read out a long list of projections and guestimates.

I asked again for evidence of human-induced climate change and was told the government is committed to the United Nations 2050 Net Zero. I will continue asking about a cost-benefit analysis on Net-Zero, which appears not to exist. And finally, I will request how much this new Labor Department for Climate Change is going to cost the Australian taxpayer.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The Australian National Audit Office said in January—this is from its own report: 

DCCEEW reports annually on progress towards targets, however is unable to demonstrate the extent to which specific Australian Government policies and programs have contributed or are expected to contribute towards overall emissions reduction. 

I find that incredible. We see that solar and wind have taken Australia from lowest cost electricity providers to amongst the highest. There are dramatic impacts on cost of living and adverse effects on inflation and grocery prices. Everything is impacted by energy and electricity, including security and international competitiveness. I’ve just come back from North Queensland, where I’ve seen massive destruction of the environment up there. Some of the large solar and wind projects in Western Victoria and in North Queensland are not even connected to the grid, but we’re paying for them. At your behest, the government is completely upending our entire economy. You are destroying the cheap power grid we had. You’re going to make it nearly impossible to buy a new Toyota Hilux. You’re trying to force everyone into electric vehicles. You’re spending $20 billion on Snowy 2 and you can’t tell anyone whether anything the government has done has actually made a difference. I think that is because it hasn’t made a difference. What quantifiable difference have these solar and wind and other so-called policies made? 

Mr Fredericks: Senator, if it’s okay with you, I might take up the ANAO issue. There was quite a detailed response from the department to that. If it is okay with you, I might ask Ms Evans to give you a response. 

Senator ROBERTS: A response to the ANAO findings. I would also like to know the quantifiable difference these policies have made to our country. 

Ms Evans: I will answer both. In the first part, the department disagrees with the finding that you read out from the ANAO report. We do, in fact, have quite a comprehensive way of reporting on policies and programs and what they contribute to our emissions reductions, which Ms Rowley will be able to take you through in a moment. With regard to the overall outcomes, you can see that—in fact, it is part of the same answer—in our annual national greenhouse gas inventory and all of the results that come from that there is a definite decline in Australia’s emissions over the period that we’ve been looking at. Again, Ms Rowley can give you the specific details on that. I think we are up to about 24 or 25 per cent below 2005 levels at this stage. All of those policies that you were referring to have contributed to those reductions in emissions, which are contributing to a global response to climate change. Ms Rowley will take you through the very substantial way in which we track our policies and programs. 

Ms Rowley: Thanks you, Ms Evans. The ANAO was essentially seeking measure by measure modelling and tracking the impact of every policy over time, which we consider is neither practical nor efficient given that different policies and measures interact, particularly as the policy mix changes over time. They are also impacted by structural changes in the economy. However, we evaluate the impact of policies and programs on emissions during their development. That is part of the public consultation on the design of the policies ex ante, so ahead of time. In general, we prioritise policies that are going to have a material impact on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. That analysis then becomes part of the cost-benefit analysis to inform government decisions. 

In terms of reporting on progress, this occurs through a number of channels. The department and government report progress against the 2030 target transparently and independently through channels such as the Climate Change Authority’s annual progress report, the minister’s annual climate change statement to parliament and Australia’s annual emissions projection report. As Ms Evans said, we also report on Australia’s actual emissions over time each year through our national inventory report and every quarter through the quarterly update. Both the inventory— 

Senator ROBERTS: Just a minute. So what you’re saying, as I understand it, is that various other entities report on this? 

Ms Rowley: Other entities, including the independent Climate Change Authority and the department through its work on the national inventory and the annual projections. 

Senator ROBERTS: But they actually report on aspects of it—bits of it, not the whole lot? 

Ms Rowley: No. Particularly documents like the emissions projections, which are one of our signature reports— 

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions projections? 

Ms Rowley: Emissions projections. It’s an annual report. It tracks and projects Australia’s progress towards its 2030 target. I could use that as an example to illustrate how we look at the impact of specific policies. The 2023 projections, which were published in December last year, include detailed analysis of the abatement arising from some of the government’s key mitigation policies. For example, the safeguard mechanism reforms are estimated to deliver just over 50 million tonnes of abatement in 2030. The projections report provides detail, including the projected mix of onsite abatement and the use of credits over time as well as how that policy impact is distributed across the different sectors, which are covered by the safeguard mechanism. It also includes details of the Australian carbon credit unit scheme, estimating that it will grow from delivering 17 million tonnes of abatement last year, 2023, to 30 million tonnes in 2033. Again, the projections provide reports on the types of projects, price forecasts and the sectoral split of activity. 

With the additional measures scenario, which is also part of that 2023 projections report, there are reports on the potential impacts of some of the policies that are still under detailed design and development. For example, the government’s 82 per cent renewable electricity target is supported by measures such as the capacity investment scheme and the Rewiring the Nation program, which is estimated to deliver 21 million tonnes of abatement in 2030. The projections report provides detail across the different electricity grids covered by that target. It also provides quantitative estimates for the fuel efficiency standard for new vehicles, which the government is currently consulting on. Whilst that was a relatively stylised analysis given that the policy is still being designed, we estimated that would deliver a net six million tonnes of abatement in 2030. 

Senator ROBERTS: That is a lot of alphabet soup. Thank you. The point is, though, you have no evidence. The ANAO is not convinced you have any evidence. You can’t demonstrate how a specific policy has made any difference to the production of carbon dioxide from human activity. That is not me saying it; that is the ANAO. 

Ms Rowley: Senator Roberts, you will recall that Ms Evans noted that the department disagrees with that finding. As I outlined, there is a range of analytic work and public reports that the department and other entities across government conduct to ensure that there is a careful analysis of the emissions implications of key policy reforms that have a material impact on Australia’s emissions. I have given you some examples of that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know whether you are aware of it or not, Ms Rowley, Ms Evans or Minister McAllister, but no-one anywhere has been able to provide me with a quantified specific effect of cutting carbon dioxide from human activity on climate. What basis is there for tracking policy when there’s no fundamental foundation for it anyway? So is anyone able to tell me the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of the climate specifically in a quantified way? How are you able to track that when there’s no basis for it? 

Senator McAllister: There are two things. One is that this is a well-worn path between you and me. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yet, Minister, I still haven’t seen that. 

Senator McAllister: Perhaps I can answer. It is a source of fundamental disagreement. You do not accept the science that human activities— 

Senator ROBERTS: Correction. I do accept the actual empirical scientific evidence. 

CHAIR: Okay. Let’s not cut across each other. 

Senator ROBERTS: I want to make sure the minister doesn’t— 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, there is a difference of opinion here, a difference of interpretation of which science is whose. Can we stick to asking the questions and listening to the answers? You can probe it as much as you like. Let’s keep it civilised here. 

Senator McAllister: To assist Senator Roberts, I will put my answer in different terms. This government does accept the science that human activities are inducing global warming. That presents a threat to human systems and the biodiversity that our human activities depend upon. I understand from comments you’ve made previously, Senator Roberts, that is not your position. But that is the government’s position. As a consequence, we are committed to reducing Australia’s contribution to anthropogenic emissions to 2050. That is a position that, as I understand it, is bipartisan. I believe that remains the position of the coalition as well. It is the basis on which we are also committed to that by way of our participation in the processes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

Senator McAllister: The second point I wish to make is that this is not a feature of the ANAO’s assessment of the department. The question the ANAO sought to answer was whether the department is using its resources well to meet those emissions reduction targets. The evidence that has been provided to you by now Ms Evans and Ms Rowley goes to the way that the ANAO engaged with that question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Can you tell me or anyone in the department, because you are driving this, the cost per unit of carbon dioxide decrease to our economy? What is the cost to individual Australians? I have never seen a cost-benefit analysis or a business case for this ever. No-one has ever said that they’ve done that. 

Ms Evans: We might take on notice to put down a response that adequately reflects the costs and benefits of climate action in Australia. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Evans. Specifically I would like to know the cost per unit of carbon dioxide decreasing. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to rotate the call. 

Senator ROBERTS: I would also like to know your total annual budget, please. 

Mr Fredericks: Of the department? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Fredericks: Okay. We’ll take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Natural “Extreme” Weather IS NOT Climate Change!

Weather events bring destruction to Australian communities every year.

These severe weather events have been a part of Australia’s landscape for hundreds of years and a feature of this continent for millennia.  

Way back in 1908, Australian poet Dorothea Mackellar in her famous poem “I Love a Sunburnt Country” accurately described our country using the term “of droughts & flooding rains”.

The mouthpiece media has sold Australians a lie — that these weather events are “unprecedented”. They are not.

Great floods of 1852 and 1853 at Gundagai

The mouthpiece media is complicit in a worldwide con to claim there is a “climate catastrophe”. If they admit that severe weather events have happened in the past, this kills the fake “climate emergency” narrative they’re pushing.

The reality is weather events that were more severe can almost always be found in Australia’s weather records. Evidence of even worse weather events is available in weather records and news reports since the 1870’s and in stories or geological signs over the centuries prior to the 1870’s.

Credentialed scientists writing peer-reviewed journal articles have pointed out that severe weather events have not been increasing. For going against the “climate catastrophe” narrative with data and facts, they were hounded down, unjustly vilified and often censored and silenced.

The fact that these weather events aren’t increasing in severity or frequency doesn’t mean their effects are any less destructive. All weather is normal. Apart from areas of extensive clearing such as in Africa, humans have no effect on weather.

The sun and our solar system drives and determines weather. When short term narratives are employed, it appears abnormal (which is how the media scares people about “climate change”). When we look at the longer-term cycles we find Earth is repeating similar weather.

As a country, we can use minimisation and adaptation to ensure natural extreme weather events cause less destruction. For example, stop building more houses on floodplains.

Herbert River, Far North QLD

These real solutions to helping minimize destruction are not being talked about while the mainstream media continues to push their fake “climate catastrophe” narrative.

Well-meaning Australians are being caught up in these lies as the media claims almost every single weather event is due to “climate change” instead of the truth that it’s just natural variation.

On floods especially, One Nation’s policy of building more dams across the country will help mitigate the effects of future rain events and capture that water for productive agriculture and town use through drought periods that inevitably follow.

Solutions are available. We just need them to be focused on reality and common-sense incentives instead of fraudulent “climate change” narratives that only help the parasitic climate billionaires get richer.

/12 Comments/by

FOI Reveals Department of Climate Change Visual Disinformation Campaign

This mega wind factory was always going to be an eyesore for Illawarra. It’s the first in the world to be proposed on such a huge scale so close to a major residential area. It’s also a major recognised whale migration path and scientists are still studying the negative effects of offshore wind turbines.

Quite rightly, the residents are concerned about the future of their pristine coastline and marine life for a project owned by foreign interests.

These are official government illustrations of what a proposed off-shore wind facility, or minefield, would look like off the coast of Illawarra, NSW.

Freedom of Information (FOI) documents reveal the government department even added haze to the turbines in the original photos (these photos have had contrast added to account for this effect).

The Department of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water called local concerns about the visual effects “misinformation”.

Looking at the government’s official illustrations, those concerns seem valid to me.

Dr Neryhl East Speaking with Chris O’Keefe:

Scientists say many questions remain about impacts on the oceans and marine life …

As the US begins to build offshore wind farms, scientists say many questions remain about impacts on the oceans and marine life – USC News & Events | University of South Carolina

/7 Comments/by