Posts

No Basis for Extreme Weather Predictions

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Great. Thank you very much.

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

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

CHAIR: Thank you very much—

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

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

Senator Gallagher: Eh?

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Mine’s informed by the data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/6 Comments/by

Will Cutting Human Production of Carbon Dioxide Affect Atmospheric Temperatures?

,

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and the government claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are impacting the Earth’s climate above and beyond natural variation. The climate activists’ solution to that perceived problem is to drastically reduce the use of gas, petrol, coal, oil, diesel and the grazing of cattle, sheep and pigs.

Given that BOM claims carbon dioxide from human activity in Australia is contributing to a global situation in such a way that we must cease these activities, I asked the Bureau to provide me, on notice, with the total number of BOM weather stations such data is collected from.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the short term have continued to rise, even during the global financial crisis of 2009 and in 2020 during COVID lockdowns. In fact, real-world empirical evidence proves drastic cuts in human carbon output have no effect on atmospheric carbon levels.

I have put several questions on notice with Dr Andrew Johnson, Director of BOM, and look forward to receiving his responses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you again for being here again. You and the government claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are detrimentally affecting climate and that, as a consequence, carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, necessitating cuts in the use of gas, petrol, coal, oil, diesel and farm grazing of cattle, sheep and pigs. Given what you claim about carbon dioxide from human activity, could you please provide me, on notice, with the total number of bureau weather stations from which weather data is collected for the bureau to use, both those that the bureau operates and those that other individuals or entities operate, and, of them, the number that measure atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?

Dr Johnson: Okay. I can probably answer that now.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.

Dr Johnson: The CO2 levels for our region are measured at Kennaook/Cape Grim, north-west Tasmania. That’s one of three, I think, global baseline CO2 measuring stations. That’s where those stations measure. There
are many, many, many pieces of equipment in the field that measure local CO2 emissions for all sorts of reasons, but in terms of the global baseline station, that is at Cape Grim—Kennaook.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know how many stations you have, how many your colleagues—

Dr Johnson: We’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: And how many measure carbon dioxide levels.

Dr Johnson: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: And could you provide the locations of any other entities’ stations that are measuring carbon dioxide levels whose data the bureau relies upon for its climate reports and claims, both within Australia
and overseas? You’ve already mentioned three.

Dr Johnson: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: That won’t be a problem. Now, if you look at the document I’ve tabled—

Dr Johnson: I’m sorry, I’m not in receipt of it—I’m now in receipt.

Chair: You may want to talk to it.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. These are graphs from—the source data is Scripps institute and CSIRO. These are atmospheric carbon dioxide levels measured at those 10 points around the world. Now, it’s claimed that we need to cut the level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, and to do that we must cut carbon dioxide from human activity, correct? That’s what the claim is.

Dr Johnson: Senator, I’m not in a position to pass an opinion on that. Direct that to the department. All I can tell you is that, from our measurements of the changes that are occurring in the atmosphere, it couldn’t be clearer, in terms of the trends we’re observing, and our science—

Senator ROBERTS: I want to ask you about those trends.

Dr Johnson: And our science is very clear that the causes of those trends, to a very large extent, are human activities.

Senator ROBERTS: You claim that cutting human production of carbon dioxide will cut atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Dr Johnson: No. Just to reaffirm, it’s not our role to do that. Our role is to measure the atmospheric, oceanographic and, in some cases, terrestrial phenomena. We’ve never made such claims. All we’ve said is—

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t—

Dr Johnson: that all of these parameters are rising and that the cause of that increase, to a very large extent—a predominant extent—is human activity. That’s all we’ve said.

Senator ROBERTS: So carbon dioxide from human activity is causing a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Dr Johnson: And other emissions—methane and so on—are causing the escalation in oceanic and atmospheric temperatures.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2009, after the global financial crisis, and in 2020, during the COVID lockdowns, we experienced severe global recessions. During those recessions, energy use fell dramatically and the use of
hydrocarbon fuels like coal, oil and natural gas for transport, residences and industry was cut severely, leading to dramatic reductions of carbon dioxide from human activity. Yet, despite those cuts in human carbon dioxide production, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued to rise.

Dr Johnson: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: All the Scripps and CSIRO measurement stations reveal no decrease or downward inflection, just continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This real-world empirical evidence proves
that drastic cuts in carbon dioxide from human activity have no effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Making the drastic cuts is pointless and is damaging economically and socially. On notice, could you please
specify the dates, quantity and duration of any inflections or downturns on those graphs?

Dr Johnson: I’m happy to, Senator. But, very quickly—with the chair’s indulgence—the premise of your question is false. It is a well-established fact that the consequences of human activity have long lag periods
between when they occur and when they’re observed in the atmosphere. So, even if CO2 emissions were to stop today, the atmosphere is loaded, as is the ocean, and it will take centuries for that signature to work its way through; hence the urgency around the challenge to reduce emissions now.

Senator ROBERTS: How well is carbon dioxide mixed in the atmosphere?

Dr Johnson: How well is it mixed?

Senator ROBERTS: How well mixed is it?

Dr Johnson: I’m not an expert on carbon dioxide atmospheric mixing.

Senator ROBERTS: How does it vary temporally, spatially and with regard to surface cover—for example, vegetation type?

Dr Johnson: I’d have to take that on notice. I’m not in expert in those matters.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take the next question on notice as well. Given that the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over—

Senator Whish-Wilson: Could you just put them on notice now? Could it go to us, because people are waiting?

Senator ROBERTS: I want to get this to make sure I’ve got the question right for Dr Johnson. I’ll put the other two on notice after this. Given that the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the short term and without
spatial and temporal context have increased substantially, what impact has this had on global and national atmospheric temperatures? Specifically, what is the rate of temperature increase over the period 1995 to today?

Dr Johnson: Again, you’re asking me a specific question on a specific set of dates. I don’t have that number with me.

Senator ROBERTS: No, on notice. I’m happy for you to do that on notice.

Dr Johnson: If we have that data, I’ll provide it, sure.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you’ve got the temperature data. Could you please specify in your answer the statistical methods and procedures, as well as the data periods and sources of data. Could you please use the
global and national atmospheric temperature data from the following sources: from the Bureau of Meteorology, obviously, atmospheric temperature data for Australia and the world—

Chair: Senator Roberts, you can log them in writing, if you would like. And, if you’re asking for an answer, you probably shouldn’t specify where they get the data from. It would be entirely up to them if you’re asking-

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not specifying the data. I just want some alternatives because there’s variation between—

Chair: But I will speed you up, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to put them on notice.

Chair: That would be lovely.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll also be asking you for NASA’s University of Alabama, Huntsville, and RSS data.

Dr Johnson: You’d probably best direct your questions about NASA data to NASA.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.

/14 Comments/by

Nobel Prize Winner in Physics Says There Is No Climate Emergency

John F. Klauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in quantum mechanics, went public last week with the following statement – “I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.” In response, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the financial arm of the United Nations, cancelled his scheduled speaking engagements.

Silencing scientists won’t save the great global warming scam though. Top US climate scientists have correctly rubbished claims that the Northern Hemisphere’s July was the hottest month on record.

In an article published in The Australian last month, Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington, said the public is being “misinformed on a massive scale” and that there’s a “stunning amount of exaggeration and hype of extreme weather and heatwaves”.

Forests that have been overgrown and not taken care of have a tendency, when a fire is started, to burn catastrophically. When we blame climate change for this rather than environmental mismanagement, we fail to deal with the real problems.

John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alabama, which runs the official NASA satellite temperature records, says heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century were at least as intense as recent ones. In fact, the increase in temperature since 1978 is only 0.3°C in keeping with temperature trends since the mini ice age 200 years ago. Measuring mean temperatures is confounded by urban creep. The growth of cities has subjected existing weather stations to additional heat. “In central Houston, for example, it is now between 6 and 9°F warmer than the surrounding countryside, explained Prof Christy.” It’s worth noting here that large solar arrays create the same heat sink effect as creeping urbanisation.

Despite the concerted efforts of climate alarmists to control the narrative, there are growing numbers of scientists and experts who are distancing themselves from the climate pseudoscience promoted by government agencies and the media. Even Jim Skier, head of the UN climate body, says a 1.5° temperature rise is not an existential threat to humanity. There is no climate crisis.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I asked the question: Can you feel the winds of change? Leading climate alarmists are deserting their ship. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres demonstrates just how out of touch climate carpetbaggers really are. The only thing boiling dry is Antonio Guterres’s credibility. Nobel science prize winner John Clauser last week publicly stated, ‘I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.’ After saying that, the IMF cancelled his scheduled tour. Silencing scientists won’t save the great global warming scam. An excellent article in The Australian reveals two of America’s top climate scientists have correctly rubbished claims July was the hottest month on record, deploring a ‘stunning amount of exaggeration and hype’.

Cliff Mass, professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington said the public was being quite ‘misinformed on a massive scale, with a massive amount of exaggeration. He goes on, ‘In Houston, for example, in the city centre it is between six and nine degrees centigrade higher than in the surrounding countryside.’ That isn’t global warming; that is the urban heat island effect, which, by the way, is easily countered—plant trees.

John Christy, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Alabama Huntsville, said heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century were at least as intense as those recent heatwaves. This is the university that runs the official NASA satellite temperature record, the umpire of datasets, which shows an increase in temperatures since 1978 of only 0.3 degrees centigrade, on trend with temperature trends since the mini ice age 200 years ago. Even the warmer-in-chief, Jim Skea at the head of the UN’s climate body says, ‘1.5 degrees temperature rise is not an existential threat to humanity. we will not die out.’

/1 Comment/by

RESCHEDULED DATE: A Future Vision for Australia

I will be joining Dr William Bay, Dave Pellowe, Dylan Oakley and Graham Healy as a guest speaker at the Pullman Hotel, Brisbane on Sunday, 29 October 2023.

Early Bird Price: Book and pay before 5pm Friday, 7 October 2023 to receive $20.00 discount.

Book here for the “3-Course dinner” tickets: Option 1 – Includes 3 Course Dinner | Rise up Australia

Book here for “table only” tickets: Option 2 – Table Only Option | Rise up Australia

Pullman Hotel

Cnr Ann and Roma Streets

Brisbane QLD 4000

/by

Net Zero Climate Credibility is Boiling Over

The UN has dialed up its terror war against the West to ridiculous new levels. We’re now expected to believe in climate boiling.

Basic human rights are being destroyed using false data and children are being scared into thinking they have no future.

Wind and solar fail to provide baseload power and their subsidized existence is driving up energy bills. It’s unsustainable.

I’ll be saying a lot more on this shortly in my adjournment speech.

Transcript

I thank Senator McKim for his matter of urgency.

The public is waking up to the net zero war on living standards, war on freedom of movement and war on property rights.

Following public sentiment moving away from global warming ideology, the media is seeking to restore its credibility on this.

So what’s a climate carpet bagger like UN head Antonio Guterres got to do? Does he admit the scam is over and resign? No. He dialled up the hyperbole from global warming to global boiling.

This hyperbole is dangerous. It’s based on falsification of data. It’s scaring children into thinking they have no future. It’s destroying wealth and property. It’s taking away basic human rights like the right to travel and the right to enjoy one’s own property.

The warmers are desperate to save their scare from the reality of cooling temperatures and the demonstrated failure of wind and solar to provide baseload power, while driving skyrocketing unaffordable power prices, crippling families.

In tomorrow’s adjournment speech, I’ll be saying a lot more.

/10 Comments/by

Greens and Teals can’t see the wood for the trees

Native timber forestry does not harm the environment, but destroying an established 120 old industry does more harm than good to the environment and to Australian society.

How do the Greens and Teals think they’ll solve Australia’s housing crisis without wood?

Is this another one of those net zero solutions where the coal used to manufacture all those disposable ‘renewables’ is acceptable as long as its burned overseas? Perhaps the climate alarm switches off at the border where East meets West. So much for global climate solutions.

What about the jobs lost? What about the fire risks that come with shutting up forests and no longer managing them?

We’ve already had a taste of what green ideology does to our environment and it doesn’t take a genius to work out that fires need fuel.

The Greens and their climate crisis cronies seem more than happy to add that to the flaming wreck of Australian industries, jobs and the housing crisis.

These are tangible and more real than their manufactured climate fears.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak in favour of Senator Duniam’s motion. The timber industry is an essential industry to maintain Australia’s way of life.

How can Labor Premier Andrews eliminate native timber production while at the same time Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is promising to build 30,000 new homes which require timber? As a famous robot once said, ‘That does not compute.’  

Native timber forestry does not harm the environment. Sensible native timber logging has been going on in Australia for 150 years, and the forests are still here, the fauna and flora are still here.

Until these Labor and Greens ideologues declared war on sustainable timber harvesting, the jobs in the timber industry were still here, the communities that rely on these jobs were still here. Not any more—Dan Andrews has done them in: no jobs in forestry in Mr Dan Andrews’s socialist state of Victoria.

The truth is native timber logging disturbs a few per cent of the total forest area every year. Logging reduces the forest fuel loads to protect us from bushfires. We also saw how badly some areas of forest burned in the deliberately lit bushfires a few years ago, some areas have still not recovered thanks to Greens and teal policies—clearly, not areas that were logged and the fuel loads removed.

One Nation stands as a strong supporter of the logging industry and a strong supporter of humanity. Timber is essential.  

/10 Comments/by

Climate Ambitions for an Unsustainable Future

I made this statement to the senate recently to highlight the insanity of the C40 scheme. This is a collaborative effort by many of the world’s largest cities which have been captured by the UN monolith and their financial backers, the world’s predatory billionaires.

C40 strives for a ‘zero-carbon future’ and of course it’s backed by those who will profit from the scheme.

In 2021, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced that 1000 city and local governments around the world have joined the ‘Cities Race to Zero’. The globalists and their mouthpiece media are supported by a captive political establishment in both the parliament and the bureaucracy.

The main outcome of C40 will be a massive increase in taxation to pay for the apparatus to police the scheme. This will require substantial reductions in personal sovereignty, taking away freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and the freedom to decide how and where you spend your own money.

C40 is about Government autocrats having more money and power, leaving everyday Australians with less. Much less.

In short C40 will regulate and tax individuals into serfdom.

The Lib-Lab duopoly and the Greens have been promoting this agenda for twenty years.

Only One Nation stands opposed to the United Nations, World Economic Forum and the World Health Organisation – all of which are dedicated to increasing their power and reducing your freedom.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I draw the Senate’s attention to C40 Cities, another campaign, from predatory billionaires who run the world, to destroy our standard of living and steal everything we own for themselves—all in the name of saving the planet. C40 Cities is a product of the usual suspects—billionaires Michael Bloomberg and George Soros, and the Clinton initiative. Sydney and Melbourne have already signed on.

As he calls on the world’s governments to do more on climate change, Michael Bloomberg is doing the opposite. In 2022, he made 702 flights in his five jets, covering 810,000 kilometres, burning 1.2 million litres of jet fuel, and, for those who are counting, producing 3,200 tons of carbon dioxide. Bloomberg’s No. 1 destination was not the Sudan or Afghanistan, where his money might actually help people; his favourite destination was the Bahamas.

Here are the top end C40 targets for 2030, just seven years away. There’s cutting steel and cement use 56 per cent. There’s increasing the number of people in each building 20 per cent—and the Reserve Bank governor recently made a similar comment. There’s eliminating—yes, eliminating!—meat consumption and dairy consumption. There’s limiting buying new clothes to three new items a year—three; that’s three pairs of undies. Food waste is to be reduced 75 per cent, mostly from homes. We’ll shop once a week, buy our allocated ration from bulk displays and eat everything we buy or starve until our next allocated shopping day. There’ll be programmable digital currency to ensure compliance.

These rules are for you, for us, not for the elites and their nomenklatura, their henchmen in the media, academia, the bureaucracy and politics. The rules never apply to the people who make them.

One Nation stands opposed to serfdom. One Nation works for freedom, basic rights and free choice.

/2 Comments/by

How the West was Lost

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/18 Comments/by

Australia turning into a spiderweb of high voltage transmission lines

,

It’s estimated that 28,000km of power lines will be required to help the government’s net-zero pipe dream.

In many places, these powerlines are being proposed over prime agricultural land with the owners having their property compulsorily resumed.

I spoke in support of a inquiry to give affected landowners a voice as the government bulldozes over them on their way off the wind and solar cliff.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to acknowledge the people in the gallery. My brothers and sisters in Queensland amongst the rural sector were at a property rights conference just last Friday. The stories about the so-called green power—wind and solar—are well and truly horrific.  

People are just starting to wake up to the blight that is coming upon this country. And it’s not just the city people paying for power; it’s rural landholders and farmers losing their land, losing their livelihoods and losing their health. The social, economic and moral impacts are enormous and devastating. And the anti-human Greens are responsible.  

I want to compliment the farmers who have come here today. Thank you so much, because what you’re showing is democracy in action. You’re putting pressure on the people down here in this chamber. We are paid by these people. We serve them.  

Recently I was in the wonderful Widgee community to listen to people about the Queensland government’s plan to destroy their national park and communities in order to build a high voltage powerline. Electricity transmission has become a controversial topic in recent years. The UN’s 2050 net zero—next to zero—needs a huge spend on wind turbines and solar panels, inevitably located in the bush and requiring tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to bring the power all the way to the cities. 

Long transmission lines were not needed when coal power kept lights on and fridges running, lifting our beautiful country into a period of prosperity and stability. 

The woke Left—the socialist Left—are destroying what works and replacing it with a short-lived, unscientific exercise in feelings. Net zero will need $50 billion spent just on transmission lines, every cent of which will come out of the pockets of everyday Australians and electricity users, including manufacturers. Queensland Premier Palaszczuk’s plan for a big battery in the Pioneer Valley calls for peak generation of five million kilowatts of electricity to be delivered into a 275-kilovolt transmission line. It’s absolute insanity, deceit and arrogance. Premier, where’s the costing on the several thousand kilometres of additional lines necessary to carry that amount of power into the grid without melting the wires? Are you forgetting that melted wires is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that was less than one per cent of the Pioneer project? 

It’s a fact that Katherine Myers from Victoria addressed the Property Rights conference in Gympie on the weekend. She told us that 80 per cent of solar and wind in western Victoria is not connected to the grid. You guys have blown that money and now you’re wanting to tear up farms to get it to the cities. Once wind and solar wear out, which takes only 12 years—and that’s the reason they’re called renewables, by the way—and taxpayers become jack of this ruinous drain on public finances the bush will be left a wasteland of glass, toxic chemicals, rusted steel towers, concrete and fallen wind turbines full of oil and dangerous chemicals. Do you know why they’re called renewables? Because you have to renew the bloody things every 12 years. In the space of building one power station you need to build four generations of solar and wind. That’s why they’re renewables. 

Wires melting is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that’s less than one per cent of the Pioneer project. Nothing stacks up—nothing. Their owners are Bahamian shelf companies and Chinese shelf companies, which have no intention of remediating this inevitable environmental disaster. Who will be left with this legacy of blown toxic panels and wind turbines? You will be. That’s why we need this inquiry to explore this issue. 

One Nation stands opposed to green vandalism underway in rural Australians’ backyards just so that wealthy, ignorant and uncaring inner-city anti-human Greens and teals can feel better about their inhuman energy consumption myths. Why do the Greens hate nature? Let’s look at their track record. They chop down trees to make way for steel and fibreglass monuments to the sky god of warming, who is celebrated with religious fervour by people who think themselves too clever for religion. Tens of thousands of hectares have been cleared and devastated for electricity interconnector easements. It’s a permanent scar across the landscape for no reason.  

The seabed is marked with two new interconnectors to get hydropower from Tasmania to energy deficient Victoria. Suicide is what’s going on with the Victorian government. They’re suiciding their state. Productive farmland and native grasses are covered in a carpet of glass and silicon reflectors. The sea is supposed to shine, not the countryside. Productive land is dug up as a graveyard for expired wind turbine blades. There’s strip mining of the seabed for rare earth minerals to make EVs and big batteries. Beautiful natural lakes in China are polluted with toxic chemical run-off from the processing of rare earths. The Greens look the other way with this environmental vandalism because ignoring environmental standards is essential to bring the price of solar down so that they can claim the price of solar is falling. 

This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. So there’s China’s environmental standards and the health of the locals, but who cares about children being devastated? Our beautiful bird life is sliced and diced in wind turbines across the country. If oil were the culprit, they would never shut up about birds. But with wind turbines: ‘Shoosh. No-one mention the dead birds.’ 

I make this offer to the Greens: come camping with me. Let me show you the beauty of this amazing countryside and then perhaps then you will be less likely to chop it down; cover it in glass, steel and concrete; pollute it; and lock it away so nobody but a chosen few can appreciate the beauty. One Nation is now the party of the environment. 

/7 Comments/by

Australia Council happy to waste 7% more of your money to virtue signal

,

Everyone’s power bills are going up, which made me wonder why the Australia Council was happy to make their power bill 7% more expensive for no reason at all.

Despite the same power coming through the plug (probably from a coal fired power station) the council elects to make their bills 7% more expensive so they can buy “green power”. What a scam and a waste of money.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I want to follow up on something we discussed last time. You may recall that last estimates we had a conversation about your power bills.

Mr Collette: Yes.

Senator Roberts: A lot of people are talking about power bills these days.

Mr Collette: They are.

Senator Roberts: This is estimates, and one of the purposes of estimates is to assess how you are spending taxpayers’ money. That is what I want to revisit. Firstly, thank you for your detailed response, when you took my question on notice. That was SQ 23-003317. I hope all of the Public Service takes notes from you about how questions on notice should be answered. We appreciate it.

Mr Collette: Thank you.

Senator Roberts: In that answer, you said that you elect to add the green power product to your power bills. That is totally optional. You opt in, and you take extra money from the taxpayer to pay that expense. That is making your power bill 6.8 per cent—say seven per cent—more expensive than otherwise. Whether you opt in to pay the extra for green power or not, the same power comes through the same plug, probably from a coal-fired power station. But you are choosing to waste taxpayers’ money on this optional expense that makes no difference to what is turning the lights on. How much did you pay for green power over the last year?

Mr Collette: I will have to take that on notice, unless my colleague has the answer.

Mr Blackwell: I don’t have it.

Mr Collette: We will try to come back to you with an equally exemplary response.

Senator Roberts: Good, thank you. I don’t expect this of you, but do you have any guess as to what your power bill is?

Mr Collette: I would not like to guess, no.

Senator Roberts: Can you also tell me how much you expect to pay this coming year?

Mr Collette: I can’t tell you that, but I will certainly get that information for you.

Senator Roberts: You were established under legislation; correct?

Mr Collette: We are.

Senator Roberts: So I assume you have been established with the objective of funding the arts.

Mr Collette: Yes, we have, investment and advocacy.

Senator Roberts: Investing in arts and advocacy on behalf of the arts. Thank you, that is clarifying. What part of your objectives enables you to waste an extra seven per cent a year on a core component, power, when it is literally the same power coming through the plug whether you pay the extra expense or not?

Mr Collette: What part of our objectives? I think the Australia Council—Creative Australia to be—does have sustainability goals, and we try to exemplify those, which are important to the sector that we serve as well. Given that we invest in the sector, and we advocate for the sector, I think this is generally respected by the arts and creative industry.

Senator Roberts: I think you are wasting taxpayer money and that should be cancelled. Would not that money be better spent on the art that you are supposed to be funding?

Mr Collette: There is always a cost to investing in servicing the art that we are funding, and I think you will find that this is significantly respected by the sector.

Senator Roberts: The point is that you are spending an extra seven per cent on a key component—

Mr Collette: I understand that.

Senator Roberts: Same plug, same power.

Mr Collette: I understand that. But there are different kinds of value as well.

Senator Roberts: I am not arguing with you on that point.

Mr Collette: So this would be a small contribution to social and environmental value that is respected by the sector, and I am sure if you ask their general view on whether we should save whatever the sum is—seven per cent of our power bill, and I confess I don’t know our power bill as I sit here—you would find very broad support for what we do.

Senator Roberts: I think there is a lot of ignorance—and I am not singling you out; I think it goes right through the community—about this green power, because the same power comes from the same place through the plug, regardless of whether you pay that seven per cent or not. So I would like to know what benefit you get from that seven per cent.

Mr Collette: I will take that on notice and come back to you, once I understand the argument that I think you are making—that there is actually no difference in this power. I need to satisfy myself on that argument and then we can come back to you with a response.

Senator Roberts: I am pleased to hear that. Thank you.

/3 Comments/by