During this session, basic answers were provided, but little interest was shown in understanding the potential environmental catastrophe at hand. I was simply referred to the department’s submission to the fire ant inquiry. When I posed questions, Officials showed minimal interest in providing answers. They frequently redirected questions to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and appeared unaware of the gravity of the issues raised. Some of the questions were taken on notice, but I was offered little substantive information.
It was clear that they were not fully informed on their responsibilities and showed little genuine concern for environmental protection.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/YrjEBRrZRsQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-07 15:36:002024-11-07 17:03:24Officials Shrug Off Fire Ant Concerns: Little Interest, Few Answers!
As I travel through Queensland, visiting communities affected by industrial wind and solar projects, it’s increasingly evident that Greens’ politics are rife with hypocrisy and the public know it. While they present themselves as champions of the environment, they support the massive environmental vandalism involved in the push for net-zero energy.
Tops of mountains in native forests are being blown off to accommodate massive wind turbines and permanent access roads, which require blasting, are being constructed to transport enormous wind turbine blades—some over 100 meters long—around corners and up the mountain. Additionally, thousands of kilometres of forest are being clear-felled to make way for the transmission lines that will deliver the power to the cities, where Green supporters can pat themselves on the back for using “green” energy.
In reality, there’s nothing green about green energy and there’s nothing green about the Australian Greens. One Nation is the true champion of the natural environment now.
Transcript
And what do the Greens do? After finally showing their true colours as the party of Hamas; as the party of left-wing union thuggery, donations and bribes; as the party of communism; and as the party of environmental destruction in the name of net zero energy, they have a problem. Their traditional base of decent Australians concerned about the natural environment is turning away from the watermelon Greens. So here’s the Greens’ answer: resurrect a bill which was already defeated because it’s a stupid bill, and use this to pretend the Greens still care about our precious natural environment.
The intention of this bill is in the name: ending native forest logging. Regional forest agreements will be made subservient to environmental regulations which will tie logging down in the courts and bring logging to an end—end logging. All those workers, many of them fine union members, will be out of a job. It is logging that produces timber for, amongst other things, the very seats the Greens are sitting in today, right now, which were made from logged native timber—Western Australian jarrah and Tasmanian myrtle.
Putting aside their hypocrisy, it’s clear the Greens think their supporters can be gullibly convinced by a superficial virtue-signalling stunt. After all, who would oppose protecting native forests? Actually, the Greens oppose protecting native forests. Greens’ energy policies are blasting the tops off mountains in old-growth forests to erect 300-metre-high wind turbines. They’re clear-felling thousands of kilometres of forest for access roads and the power transmission lines to get the power hundreds of kilometres back to the city—thousands of kilometres, in fact, back to the city. Thousands of hectares of native forest are being permanently destroyed.
Blasting has released arsenic previously locked in sandstone into our waterways and aquifers. In the case of the Atherton Tableland in pristine North Queensland, aquifers contaminated with arsenic will eventually come to the surface in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef, through underground basins.
Unlike forest taken for logging, forest damage from net zero energy is not regrown. The access roads are required for maintenance for the life of the turbine. The transmission lines are permanent. Unlike coalmines that are remediated at the end of the mine, there’s no remediation bond on industrial wind, solar and transmission lines, so these things will be a rusting blight on the landscape for a hundred years, for the community to pay for, for taxpayers to pay to rehabilitate and for farmers to rehabilitate. The Greens are environmental vandals.
I tell you who does support protecting native forests: One Nation. We would end the environmental destruction from net zero energy measures and would restrict solar panels to built-up areas where the energy is needed. We would end any new wind turbine subsidies and instead promote vertical wind technology. One Nation will prevent logging in old-growth forests.
Regional forest agreements are an accord between the federal, state and local governments to supervise the timber industry. This means the Greens believe they know better than the state governments—all six of them—who have been managing their forests for 200 years. Aboriginals have been managing Australia’s forests for tens of thousands of years, including through the use of burning off. Each state government consults with Aboriginal communities in the development of regional forest agreements. Aboriginal voices only matter, though, to the Greens when they can be exploited to advance Greens technology and lock Aboriginals into victimhood and dependency.
Generations of ongoing development of forestry agreements, planning out supply and demand, protecting sensitive habitats and protecting old-growth forests—all that great work involving communities, industry and government is torn up and thrown away because the Greens think they know better. They are playing God, playing tsar. What an ego—and to what benefit?
The Greens are proclaiming their love of housing and promising to build more houses than anyone else. The question arises: out of what are they going to build those houses? The Greens want to shut down the Australian forestry industry, the conventional steel industry, the gas industry, the diesel industry and the cement industry. The Greens are proposing to build houses without timber, steel or concrete. Well, the last time I looked, pixie dust was not a building material. Does the CFMEU know they’re hopping into bed with a political party that would remove from the market all the materials tradies need to build a new home and build new apartment towers while also removing diesel for tradies’ generators and utes, which they now propose to tax out of existence?
I don’t want to confuse the feelings coming from my left with facts, yet that’s what I do. I deal in facts. At last mapping, there were 131½ million hectares of native forest in Australia, which is 17 per cent of Australia’s land area, and there were 1.8 million hectares of commercial plantations, including pines and eucalypts. This is where most logging occurs, yet it’s not enough to sustain Australia’s demand for timber. There are 30 million hectares of land, most of that privately owned, which can be logged under the careful management of regional forest agreements. Last year, two per cent of those 30 million hectares were logged, meaning Australia is logging 600,000 hectares out of the 133 million hectares available, less than one half of one per cent of our native forests.
What happens when a forest is logged? Is it clear-felled, never to grow anything again? Of course not. Forestry is about renewal. That’s the whole point of regional forestry agreements. The logging industry is allowed to go in and take the productive timber, remove the stunted and useless timber and then leave that forest to regenerate for 10 years or so before returning to repeat the cycle. Habitat is not destroyed; it’s enhanced. Forests are not destroyed; they’re enhanced. Rather than helping our forests, this Greens bill will harm them.
Logging removes the fuel from the forest. It thins the trees and protects native forest from bushfires. There are huge areas of this country that have never fully recovered from the bushfires during the drought because some native forests contain so much fuel they burned like hell. What happened to the wildlife the Greens profess to care so much about? They were incinerated—agonisingly, cruelly incinerated. The damage to native flora and fauna caused in those bushfires resulted directly from restrictions on burn-offs, something sensible forest management would have mediated. They tried to, but the Greens stopped it. This is the problem with communists. They think imperious proclamations are a substitute for good government facts and data. They are wrong.
Let’s be clear: it has been illegal to log old-growth forests for the entirety of this century. I know there has been some intrusion into old-growth forests. This bill from the Greens won’t deal with that problem, though, because the intrusion is mostly coming from the construction of wind turbines, access roads, solar panels and transmission lines, which the Greens adore and love and drive. Illegal logging, logging that damages old-growth forests, must be prosecuted, and One Nation will prosecute offenders.
One Nation opposes this bill, because we are the party of the environment and we know the current system is best for the environment. As someone who has personally planted thousands of trees, rehabilitated land and protected coastlines, I know One Nation is now the party of the natural environment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ggL-SH71qjY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-09-17 15:02:412024-09-17 15:02:47One Nation is the True Champion for the Environment
What hypocrisy from the Greens – they seem to embrace environmental concerns only when it suits their political agenda. Offshore wind, the destruction of native forest for wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines and access roads are all okay as long as the net zero wrecking ball continues.
Transcript
Western Australia’s environmental protection agency has recommended that the Woodside’s Browse Basin gas project not proceed. This Greens motion celebrates that recommendation, which was based, in part, on the effect of gas platforms on migrating whales.
The Greens support offshore wind turbines off the Illawarra and Hunter coasts—turbines that are not fixed to the seabed but rather held in place by a spaghetti of cables. Those cables are likely to gather debris and provide a substantial hazard for migrating whales. This inconsistency is easily explained: the Greens are happy to use the natural environment only when it suits their political ideology. Offshore wind, the environmental destruction of native forest for wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines and access roads are all okay as long as the net zero wrecking ball continues.
The north-west of Western Australia holds 97 per cent of Australia’s gas reserves. It makes economic and environmental sense to use that resource for the benefit of all Australians—of course, not in a manner that damages the natural environment, which One Nation cares about all the time, not just when it is convenient. The canary in the net zero maze is South Australia, which no longer has base-load coal power and must rely on gas to keep the power on. The elimination of coal is disastrous enough. If the green lobby is successful in eliminating gas, then Australia would be forced into energy deficiency. The most energy-rich country in the world will not be able to provide enough energy for Australians to live without energy rationing—control of your energy use.
One Nation has introduced a bill to create a domestic gas reservation to ensure 15 per cent of Australia’s gas production is reserved for Australians. This will keep the power prices down and keep the lights on—not as low as ending this crazy ideological war on coal and nuclear power, yet it will help. Is it any wonder that the Greens oppose these measures? The Greens want everyday Australians to have less, consume less, be less and be controlled.
40 wind turbines every month. 22,000 solar panels every single day. 28,000 km of transmission lines and 48 gigawatt of batteries. That’s what the Net-Zero pipe dream requires.
These goals will never be achieved, yet the government persists in pursuing them, causing huge damage to our environment along the way. No one will take responsibility for cleaning up these environmental vandals, so Australia is on track for an environmental wasteland, more expensive electricity and blackouts.
Ditch Net-Zero – let’s bring down power bills AND protect the environment.
Transcript
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator Wong) to questions without notice I asked today relating to renewable energy.
In question time I asked the government how their insane net-zero wind and solar pipedreams were progressing. Here is what Labor’s energy minister Chris Bowen’s plan requires for the next eight years: 40 large wind turbines every single month, each with 100-metre concrete foundations, a massive turbine and huge blades atop a 300-metre tall steel tube; three days to erect the crane on each site; days to install each turbine; two days to dismantle the crane and move it to the next place; 22,000 solar panels every single day for eight years; 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines carving up national parks, prime farmland and the environment; plus 48 gigawatt hours of batteries. Predictably, the construction of wind and solar is nowhere near these targets. The government’s targets are physically and financially impossible.
While the targets will never be achieved, this government will do huge damage trying. Farmers and landholders are being conned into having these environment-killing wind-and-solar installations on their land. With the promise of some short-term money, farmers let these predators onto their land. Little do these landowners know, they are now responsible for disposing of the toxic wind turbines and solar panels at the end of their short life when the company that instals them inevitably goes broke or abandons them.
Every coalmine, however, is legislated to pay a rehabilitation bond for each hectare of land disturbed. The mining company pays upfront. The money is held until the mine ends and restores the environment to its original state. The bond is then returned. Wind and solar companies don’t pay any rehabilitation bond. Thousands of landholders will be stuck with useless wind turbines and solar panels on their property that they will have to pay to remove. Prevention is better than cure. Anyone can see this scandal coming, yet the government won’t take action to prevent it. It just sits there causing this catastrophe. The government protects its billionaire wind-and-solar mates living like parasites off subsidies Australian electricity users and taxpayers will continue to pay. Government screws it up; taxpayers pay.
The wind and solar billionaires are going to leave a trail of environmental destruction across the country. Coal mines, which are unfairly demonised, have to pay an environmental bond before they put a shovel in the ground. When the mine is finished, that money is used to restore the land to how it was before the mine was ever there. Unlike coal, wind and solar do not have to pay environmental bonds.
We’re going to be left with a toxic wasteland of old wind turbines and toxic solar panels that no one will have the money to clean up. Wind and solar aren’t going to save the environment, they’re going to ruin it.
Transcript
CHAIR: Thank you. We’ll take it on notice. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to continue with the questions that I was asking before. Minister, the purchases of COVID injection doses were, by any measure, excessive—a cost of $18 billion—yet we have only used 37 per cent of Pfizer, 26 per cent of Moderna, 25 per cent of AstraZeneca and one per cent of Novavax. Why did we buy 267 million vaccines for a population of 27 million people?
Ms Fisher: I think that Professor Kelly went through some of the rationale for the COVID purchasing arrangements earlier. But just to recap, I think the most important consideration at the time was to ensure that every Australian would have access to COVID-19 vaccines. Given that it was a new vaccine and a whole new disease, it was necessary at the time to have a portfolio approach to our purchasing, so we had a number of vaccines purchased, and we needed to make sure that they were all going to be safe and effective and that we’d have enough of each of the vaccines to cover the population. I would note that, in terms of the vaccine program, purchasing is carrying through into the future as well. Some of the vaccine numbers that you gave are those that are currently going through the system. Also, we have an acceptable level of waste for the program, which we look into to make sure that it’s an effective and efficient use of public money.
Senator ROBERTS: According to my simple calculations, 267 million vaccines equate to 10 vaccinations for each individual; and that number also covers people who didn’t want to be vaccinated, so it’s even more than 10 person, per Australian, per baby.
Ms Fisher: I won’t question your maths but, going back to my comment about having a portfolio approach— noting that different vaccines, according to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, have been recommended over time for different groups, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine—it was necessary to have some flexibility in the purchasing arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Were all of the 267 million doses delivered to Australia?
Ms Fisher: Were they, at what time period?
Senator ROBERTS: Have they all been delivered?
Ms Fisher: No. Some of them continue to arrive through our advance purchasing agreements.
Senator ROBERTS: How many have arrived and how many are yet to arrive?
Ms Fisher: Due to commercial sensitivities and the secrecy provisions in the contracts, I’m not able to answer specific questions relating to specific vaccines around that. I am able to tell you how many we purchased of the different vaccines and some of the uptake that we’ve had overall, which is that 71 million vaccines have been administered over the last few years.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s about a quarter of what we bought.
Ms Fisher: Yes, so far, but there are more coming every day.
Senator ROBERTS: So, because of commercial sensitivity, you’re refusing to tell us how many have been delivered?
Ms Fisher: Yes, to date.
Senator Gallagher: And because of the requirements of the contract, the agreements, with the companies.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, Ms Fisher is ‘required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested’, and I’ve requested the number of vaccines that have not been delivered.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t know what you’re reading from there but—
Senator ROBERTS: The standing orders.
Senator Gallagher: within the standing orders, there are also provisions for things like commercial in confidence. But we can tell you how much has been our expend. We can go through how many have been purchased from each company, and I would imagine we could answer by saying that the agreements are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the contract, for example. That’s the transparency, but there are still legitimate reasons before committees that matters remain commercial in confidence or security in confidence for a range of different reasons.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, there’s no privacy, security, freedom-of-information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and Ms Fisher and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. So, if you want to seek indemnity from providing that then you have to submit such a request to the committee.
Senator Gallagher: If you’re insisting that we provide that, I can refer the matter to the minister for health to make a public interest immunity claim, and I’m happy to do that.
I’ve been closely watching the progress of the Coomera Connector Stage 2 project between the Gold Coast and Brisbane. Original proposals included plans to completely bulldoze sensitive wetlands that were brought to my attention by community members at Eagleby. After the previous Estimates, meeting Minutes revealed that the Queensland Government wanted to advance the environmental approvals through a secret, non-public pathway rather than what’s called a public environment report (PER).
There are still huge environmental impacts from the proposed route, while a suitable alternative is available just a few kilometres away. I’ll be watching for the imminent referral that will detail the full extent of these environmental impacts to the Eagleby community.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. This is about Eagleby and Coomera Connector 2 up in Queensland. Can you please provide an update on any progress of an EPBC referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2?
Ms Parry: We can. We’ve just got officials coming to the table.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Mr Edwards: It’s my understanding that we have not yet received a referral for that stage of the Coomera Connector.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s from the Queensland government?
Mr Edwards: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: In the meeting minutes you gave in SQ24-000073, you mention the potential likelihood that the referral would have to be subject to a public environment report—PER. That would be usual for a project with this level of complexity, public interest and controlling provisions. Did Queensland’s Department of Transport and Main Roads preference bypassing the PER and have the project dealt with only by referral information?
Mr Edwards: They don’t actually get to dictate the assessment approach.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s under your authority, is it?
Mr Edwards: That’s right They refer it and we look at things such as complexities you’ve mentioned and determine what we believe is the right assessment approach to take.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any further expectations on when you expect a referral to be made?
Mr Edwards: I’ll just ask my colleague Mr O’Connor-Cox.
Mr O’Connor-Cox: The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads are aware of their obligations and they have indicated to us that they will refer. I can’t give an exact date about when that referral might occur, but my understanding and best guess would be that it would be a matter of weeks.
Senator ROBERTS: Imminent?
Mr O’Connor-Cox: Imminent.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you provide any minutes of any further meetings you’ve had with transport and main roads Queensland on Coomera Connector 2 on notice?
Mr O’Connor-Cox: I can take that on notice. I’m not aware of any further meetings, but I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I can’t be an expert on every topic—none of us can be—so pardon my ignorance, but in the answer you gave in the previous minutes, what’s an offset site and what’s an advanced offset site?
Mr O’Connor-Cox: After a proponent has avoided and mitigated impacts to matters of national environmental significance, there might be still a residual impact, and they’re required to offset that. They go to a site that has comparable values and they protect that site and improve that habitat, to square the ledger if you like, to compensate for the residual impacts that they have.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s an advanced offset site?
Mr O’Connor-Cox: An advanced offset site would be one where they’ve commenced work before the approval is granted and they can then claim credit for the improvements they have made prior to the approval.
Senator ROBERTS: Under what conditions would they start work before approval?
Mr O’Connor-Cox: That would be something that’s before the approval. It wouldn’t be something we condition. They would then do that on their own volition and do so at their own risk, I guess, because they haven’t been granted an approval where we’ve said ‘Yes; that’s the appropriate offset.’
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, so they’re just taking a risk that you will approve it with the right conditions, so they’re starting work early.
Mr O’Connor-Cox: I should add I’m very much talking in the general sense. I haven’t been involved in any of those discussions. It’s likely that discussion was around the prospects or potential rather than us getting involved in any detailed discussions about any actual advanced offset site. But generally that’s how it works.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not raising a flag up the pole for everyone to start work without permission—I can see Mr Knudson shaking his head vigorously.
Mr Knudson: No, advanced offsets don’t have a negative impact. It’s basically taking actions to improve environmental outcomes and then using that, as Mr O’Connor-Cox talked about, to balance the ledger later on. ‘I’ve already done this beneficial action in terms of an offset, therefore any residual impacts can be dealt with by something I’ve already secured in an offset.’ That’s the point of an advance: you’ve done it in advance of the impact.
Whether it’s called “under seabed injection of carbon dioxide” or any other ridiculous name, this latest carbon capture scheme is really just about making climate scam billionaires even richer. It’s all in the name of ‘Net Zero’ with exactly zero known about the consequences.
The fake environmentalists can’t leave nature alone – just like the koalas being euthanised to make way for wind turbines, or the damaged solar panels leaking toxic heavy metals into waterways.
Net Zero lunatics are once again intending to harm the environment to save it. Yet it’s all for nothing. We DO NOT and CANNOT, in any way, significantly affect the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide over and above the natural variation.
As seen throughout history, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not determine temperatures. In addition, increased industrialisation does not herald increased carbon dioxide, nor does a global lockdown result in a cut.
Australia must ditch the United Nations World Economic Forum, the net zero pipe dream and all its insane offshoots, including the Environment Protection Sea Dumping Amendment Using new Technologies to Fight Climate Change Bill 2023.
Transcript
As a servant to the fine people of Queensland and Australia, I want to ask a question. If you want a perfect example of how insane the UN’s net zero pipedream is, look no further than this bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. Why? We’re going to spend billions on pulling natural trace gas out of the air and then spend billions more to try and inject it under the seabed and hope it stays there. Science and nature show that it cannot.
You may have heard of the concept of carbon capture and storage, commonly abbreviated to CCS. The climate activists claim we need carbon capture and storage to save the world. That’s a lie. I’ll get to that later. But no-one really talks about what storage means in these schemes. It seems our government and bureaucrats and our opposition don’t want to talk about the details, because anyone who explains carbon dioxide storage out loud will immediately realise the concept is stupid and dishonest.
One might think that a bill titled ‘environment protection sea dumping’ would be an amendment saying, ‘You can’t dump things in the sea to protect the environment.’ Think again! The fake environmentalists have decided that the best way to protect the environment is to dump stuff in the sea. Just like the koalas being euthanised to make way for wind turbines or damaged solar panels leaking toxic heavy metals into waterways, the United Nations net zero plan again involves killing the environment to save it.
Carbon capture and storage can be summarised by the following steps: carbon dioxide—a harmless, colourless, odourless, tasteless, natural trace, atmospheric gas that is generated from the burning of materials containing carbon atoms, including digesting food in animal guts and including our own guts, burning trees and bushfires and burning coal in power stations to produce among the cheapest forms of electricity available for human progress. In the case of carbon capture and sequestration or storage, carbon dioxide is captured at the point of production. Carbon dioxide is transported then via ship and/or pipeline to a storage location. The carbon dioxide—wait for it—is injected underneath the seabed via drilling for storage, theoretically permanently. It’s theoretically permanent because there is no guarantee that the carbon dioxide will stay there.
History is full of episodes of spills where companies couldn’t contain the oil they were drilling for. Natural leakage from reservoirs has been the case for nature since time immemorial. Even if it were necessary to bury carbon dioxide—and it’s not—there’s no guarantee it will stay there after being hit by some type of undersea seismic activity or even a very common underocean earthquake.
It’s worth remembering that carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04 per cent of the Earth’s atmosphere. Human beings are responsible for just three per cent of the annual production of carbon dioxide, and Australia contributes just 1.3 per cent of that three per cent. Yet the net-zero advocates tell us that, if we take a fraction of our carbon dioxide and pay an oil-drilling company to dump it in the ocean by injecting it under the seabed, we can save the world. Wow! Amazing! Obviously it’s a bloody lie, an absurd lie.
Carbon capture and storage is just another scheme designed to make some multinational companies rich at the expense of Australians, and you lot are falling for it, while adding huge costs to power bills that will needlessly continue increasing, killing standards of living and raising the cost of living needlessly. That’s what gets on my goat—you’re doing it wilfully.
The second part of this bill deals with allowing permits for research into ocean fertilisation. Ocean fertilisation is an untested, radical experiment with our planet’s natural environment. It involves dumping elements like iron, nitrogen or phosphates into the ocean in the hope that stimulated phytoplankton will take more carbon dioxide out of the air. They’re shutting farms down in Queensland, where I come from, because they say farmers are putting too much nitrogen into the ocean.
One Nation supports research—scientific research, empirical data driven research. We’ll never make any progress unless we test new ways of doing things. Research must be balanced though between the potential risks and the potential benefits. When it comes to ocean fertilisation, an untested form of geoengineering, the potential risks are too great and the benefits are non-existent.
Let’s be clear what we are talking about here. Ocean fertilisation is the wholesale dumping of chemicals into the ocean with the intention of creating systemic changes to the ecosystem, creating unplanned systemic changes to the ocean—unknown. Unintended consequences are almost guaranteed. If it works, we have no idea how a huge systemic change will affect the environment and the ecosystem. The potential risks are unquantifiable and frightening.
The supposed benefit—sequestering more carbon dioxide out of the air—is negligible. We do not need to remove more carbon dioxide out of the air. Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of vegetation on this planet. No-one has been able to prove to me that human produced carbon dioxide affects temperature more than natural variation does, because they can’t provide that evidence. Ocean fertilisation has huge risks and no potential benefits. It should be opposed.
I’ll sum up this bill for the Australian people. The UN’s net-zero lunatics are yet again saying they need to kill the environment to save it. The Greens; the teals, including Senator David Pocock; the Liberals-Nationals; and Labor all blindly sign up and hurt families, industries and national security. Australia must ditch the United Nations World Economic Forum net-zero pipedream and all of its insane requirements, including the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. One Nation will be opposing this bill designed to enrich predatory globalist billionaires who donate to the Greens and the teals. Every senator, by the way, should do the same—oppose this bill.
Now I turn to the bill’s underlying premise. I’ll go through the carbon dioxide reality. We’re exhaling it. Every one of us in this chamber is exhaling it. Every human and every animal is exhaling it. When we breathe all animals, including koalas, multiply the concentration of carbon dioxide 100 to 125 times. We take in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at 0.04 per cent and we exhale it at four to five per cent. We increase the concentration 100 to 125 times.
Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on earth. This is a fact sheet on carbon dioxide. It’s just 0.04 per cent of the Earth’s air—four-hundredths of one per cent. It is scientifically described as a trace gas because there’s bugger all of it. It is non-toxic and not noxious. Senator Hanson-Young called it toxic. That is straight out wrong! It’s highly beneficial to and essential for plants. Greenhouses inject the stuff into greenhouses to stimulate the growth of plants. In the past, when carbon dioxide levels on this planet were four times higher than today—and they have been 135 times higher than today, naturally, in the fairly recent past—it has resulted in earth flourishing as plants and animals thrive with the benefits of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless, tasteless. It’s natural. Nature produces 97 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced annually on our planet. It does not discolour the air. It does not impair the quality of water or soil. It does not create light, heat, noise or radio activity. It does not distort our senses. It does not degrade the environment nor impair its usefulness nor render it offensive. It’s not a pollutant. It does not harm ecosystems; it is essential for ecosystems. It does not harm plants and animals; it is essential for plants and animals. It does not cause discomfort, instability or disorder. It does not accumulate. It does not upset nature’s balance. It remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it back into plants, animal tissue and natural accumulations—and oceans. It does not contaminate, apart from nature’s extremely high and concentrated volumes close to some volcanos, and then only locally and briefly. Under rare natural conditions, when in concentrations in amounts far higher than anything humans can produce—that we can dream of producing—temporarily due to nature, that’s the only time it can harm. It is not a pollutant.
As I said a minute ago, in the past it has been up to 130 times higher in concentration in our planet’s current atmosphere than today. It’s not listed as a pollutant. Prime Minister Gillard invoked the term ‘pollutant’, ‘carbon pollution’—it’s not even carbon. It’s carbon dioxide; it’s a gas. President Obama then copied Prime Minister Gillard on his visit to Australia during her tenure. That’s where we got ‘carbon pollution’. It doesn’t exist. So koalas exhaling carbon dioxide are polluters.
We do not control the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We couldn’t even if we wanted to. In 2009, after the global financial crisis, and in 2020, during the COVID mismanagement, we caused severe recessions around the world. In 2009, we actually didn’t have one in Australia because we were exporting coal and iron ore, but, nonetheless, there were global recessions in 2009 and 2020. All of a sudden, the use of hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—decreased dramatically. Exactly what we’re being told to do by the teals, by the Greens, by the Labor Party, by the Liberal Party and by the National Party. What happened to the level of carbon dioxide outside in the atmosphere? Did it start going down? No. Did it even inflect slightly and decrease the rate of increase? No. It continued increasing. Why? Because nature controls the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
According to the UN IPCC, the fraudulent climate science mob, the oceans of the planet contain 50 to 70 times the amount of carbon dioxide in dissolved form than in the earth’s entire atmosphere—50 to 70 times as much than when you invoke Henry’s law of chemistry, which has been known for a couple of hundred years, and the level of carbon dioxide in the air depends on the quantity dissolved in the oceans and varies with the temperature of the oceans because solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans varies with temperature. In the annual graph of carbon dioxide levels, you can see the seasonal variation in the Northern Hemisphere and in the Southern Hemisphere. Carbon dioxide levels follow the temperatures of the ocean, especially the sea surfaces. We do not significantly in any way affect the level, and we cannot affect the level over and above natural variation due to nature.
The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not determine the temperature, unlike what the Greens, the teals, Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals are telling us. There has been massive increase in human production of carbon dioxide from China, India, Brazil, Europe, Russia, Asia and America, yet temperatures have been flat—flat!—for 28 years. Not warming; not cooling; flat. The trend during the massive industrialisation during the Second World War and the post-war economic boom saw temperatures from 1936 to 1976 fall. Over 40 years of massive industrialisation, the longest temperature trend in the last 160 years was cooling. Remember the predictions that we were going to be in for an ice age? In the 1880s and 1890s in our country, temperatures were warmer by far.
Variation in everything in nature is natural. There’s inherent natural variation within larger cycles of increasing and decreasing temperature, rainfall, drought cycles and storm cycles. The CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the United Nations have failed to show any change in any climate factor, just natural variation. It’s not climate change; it’s climate variation. Every uptick is heralded as catastrophic and every downtick is silently ignored.
What’s driving this political scam, this climate fraud? Ignorant, dishonest and gutless politicians are enabling scammers making money from it. Consider John Howard. In 2007, I sent him a letter of appreciation for his role as Prime Minister before I started researching climate. During his term, he introduced the National Electricity Market and the Renewable Energy Target, the first emissions trading scheme policy for a major party, and his government stole farmers’ rights to use their property. He admitted in London in 2013 that he was an agnostic on climate science. Then we have parasites like Holmes a Court, Twiggy Forrest and Turnbull keeping it alive, relying on the subsidy. What’s keeping it alive? Teals such as David Pocock and Greens such as Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Hanson-Young, invoking fear and doom, yet never providing the logical scientific points and empirical scientific evidence. I encourage people to watch their speeches and see the dearth of scientific evidence.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/HSzDihp5YA4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-23 15:50:462023-11-23 15:50:50Killing the Environment to Save It, Again – Sea Dumping for Net-Zero
The Queensland government is proposing a highway through pristine wetlands that could make flooding on the Logan River even worse.
As the residents of Eagleby showed me on Tuesday19 September 2023, an alternative route is available just a few kilometres up the road. That option wouldn’t require filling up the Eagleby Wetlands, host to migrating birds and the rare Latham Snipe, with soil.
Government likes to pretend they care about the environment, yet they’ll completely ignore it if it means a flashy press release.
Questions have to be asked whether Transurban has influenced the route and connection point to maximise customers to their toll road.
Media
The government is compulsorily resuming land and literally filling in wetlands for the Coomera connector when an alternative is available just up the road.
At huge expense to the taxpayer, this plan needs attention and questions asked.
Senator ROBERTS: And if the first answer is positive then it will be even quicker! Thank you for being here so late as well. Are you familiar with the Coomera Connector stage 2 in Brisbane?
Mr Copp: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You are—thank you. Are you in possession of the business case for the Coomera Connector stage 2?
Mr Tucker: We assessed the business case for stage 1 of the Coomera Connector but we haven’t received a business case for stage 2.
Senator ROBERTS: Why hasn’t the stage 2 business case been published?
Mr Tucker: That would be a matter for the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Have they discussed it with you at all?
Mr Tucker: I would have to take that on notice. We have regular engagement with Queensland, but I don’t recall a recent conversation on that particular project.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you do that, please? My understanding is that the Commonwealth government may be tipping hundreds of millions of dollars into this project, so I’m wondering why the public can’t see the business case.
Mr Tucker: I’m not aware if a business case has yet been finalised. We will assess it once it’s submitted to us.
Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t received it at all?
Mr Tucker: No.
Senator ROBERTS: No requests for funding?
Mr Tucker: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We’re very concerned about flooding of human habitat, and flooding and destruction of wetlands—triggers to the EPBC Act, and for migratory birds in particular. That’s all I have, thank you, Chair.
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here tonight. My questions are to do with the Coomera connector stage 2 freeway project in Brisbane. What is the status of the Coomera connector stage 2 with the department under the EPBC Act?
Mr Edwards: At this stage, that project hasn’t been referred to us for assessment under the EPBC Act.
Senator ROBERTS: Where is the public environment report for Coomera stage 2?
Mr Edwards: Again, I’m not able to comment. I don’t have the project referred to me for assessment.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve had no contact at all with the state government on this project?
Mr Edwards: That’s not what I said.
Senator ROBERTS: I know it’s not what you said. I’m asking you.
Mr Edwards: We’re certainly aware that there’s some work being prepared.
Senator ROBERTS: By the Queensland state government?
Mr Edwards: By the state government. We expect that there may be a referral sometime soon, but, unfortunately, I don’t have details of that.
Senator ROBERTS: What information does the department have in regard to the impact of Coomera connector stage 2 on the estimated 299 bird species in the Eagleby Wetlands?
Mr Edwards: I don’t have any information about that.
Senator ROBERTS: None at all? Our information is that Coomera connector stage 2 has seven potential EPBC triggers in terms of sensitive fauna and flora. What triggers or potential triggers has the department been made aware of? None at all?
Mr Edwards: The only contact we’ve had is a pre-referral meeting. There would have been a conversation, in general terms, about the types of impacts that may be in a referral document. What we do in those meetings is refer people to the relevant statutory guidelines and other things that they’ll need to consider in preparing the referral.
Senator ROBERTS: In preparing their submission to you?
Mr Edwards: Yes, that’s right. It’s more of a general exploration conversation about how to set up a good referral when it does come.
Senator ROBERTS: Did they mention migratory bird species?
Mr Edwards: I don’t have any information about the content of that meeting, but, if it were a likely impact, we’d generally run through threatened species, migratory species and Ramsar if that were relevant.
Senator ROBERTS: Flooding of humans?
Mr Edwards: Sorry?
Senator ROBERTS: Flooding of humans?
Mr Edwards: No. I don’t regulate impacts from—
Senator ROBERTS: Diversion of rivers?
Mr Edwards: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any chance of getting the contents of the discussion on notice?
Mr Edwards: We would only have been talking about the controlling provisions under the EPBC Act. It includes threatened species, migratory species and Ramsar if that were relevant.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there any minutes for that meeting?
Mr Edwards: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Please see if we could get a copy.
Australia claims a very large part of Antarctica as our territory. Despite this, China is muscling in, refusing to sign treaties and building 5 research bases in the Australian Antarctic territory. To add to the worries, Australian Government has back-flipped on its plans to build a strategically important, all-weather runway at Davis research base.
This opens the door for China to do it instead, further eroding our claim to Antarctic territory.
The decision came from the minister for environment which begs the question, have we let China take a strategic win because we were a little bit worried about the penguin’s feelings?
Transcript
I think the last stretch.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here tonight. Minister Sussan Ley recently made a decision to not proceed with the building of an all-weather runway at Davis research base in Antarctica. What level of consultation did the Minister have with the Department of Defence and what advice was received prior to making such a decision, which many see as retrograde?
Senator, I can probably assist with that. That was a decision taken by the Government. There was extensive consultation with a range of departments and indeed I and Mr. Ellis personally, were in discussions with the Secretary and the CDF and others on that matter before it was considered by Government.
I understand Defence were pushing it.
I think the view taken by the Government was that the combination of the very significant environmental impact, the proceeding with the airstrip, would do together with the very sizable cost, ultimately meant that proceeding with a project that would not provide results for another 15 or 20 years was not viable. However, there are a whole range of other ways that we are very confident we’ll be able to ensure continuing and indeed expanded presence in Antarctica.
Was the Minister aware of the likelihood of China then building the strategically important runway, thereby enhancing its claim for a portion of the Australian Antarctic territory when the Australian Antarctic territory is renegotiated, or even sooner, because China is not a party to the Treaty?
A full range of geopolitical and other considerations were available to government in taking the decision, Senator.
Is the Minister aware that China has already built five research bases within the Australian Antarctic territory to enhance its future claim?
The answer is yes, we certainly are aware. I’ll let Mr. Ellis answer as to the number, but certainly we’re aware that China, and indeed a number of other countries, have established bases in the area claimed by Australia.
Does this mean that environmental issues, such as the comfort of penguins can be used to negotiate, to negate issues of national security to the detriment of all Australians? You mentioned that, you mentioned the 15 year time span for the return, I’ve just come from the Australian Rail Trade Corporation and they’re talking about a 30 year timeframe.
Some of these projects do involve a long period of time, Senator. But the answer is that we are very confident that the right decision was made, taking into account all of the factors and, as I’ve said, indicating that Australia’s is continuing presence. Our scientific research, our expeditionary exploration are second to none and we’ll continue over the decades ahead.
So is this yet another example of the short-term strategy visions that have dogged Australian antarctic policy, antarctic policy making us a pushover for the Chinese Communist Party?
I wouldn’t agree with the premise of any of that Senator, Australia very significantly ensures that we are a strong player in the international system that focuses on Antarctica, on CCAMLR and Australia, through investments, such as the Nuyina, which we’ve just been talking about at 1.8 billion dollar investment together with all of the other activities that Mr. Ellis and our hundreds of staff, both in Hobart and in Antarctica undertake, we believe that we are very much ensuring Australia’s interests are protected and advanced.
Perhaps a question to Senator Hume. The Chinese Communist Party just rolls over weak leaders. They see in Australia a country that is handed over its sovereignty to many UN agreements, destroying our energy, for example, our property rights, UN policies gutting our culture. These get no respect from the CCP and I think it makes us targets. So, was this the best decision to make at a time of heightened concern about the expansion as policies and aggression of the CCP? Especially as what they’re doing to us in trade.
I don’t necessarily agree with the premise of your question, Senator Roberts, but what I will say is that Australia in no way will be ceding any of our territory. The decision that was made was always gonna be contingent on a final investment decision next year and careful consideration of the environmental impact, economic investment and broader national interests. Australia feels that it’s particularly important that all nations place the Antarctic environment at the absolute centre of their decision making, and respect to the Treaty system. And the government is now considering further investments in our scientific research and environmental programmes in Antarctica. That include to continue to create jobs and investment for Tasmania, as the international gateway to East Antarctica.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/i7qAk-SNtnM/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-02-17 13:34:102022-02-17 14:13:22Government opening the door to China’s bullying in Antarctica
This afternoon I opposed a motion from the Greens asking for more money for climate research for the Antarctic.
Transcript
[President]
Senator Roberts.
[Roberts]
Seek leave Mr president, to make a short statement.
[President]
Leave is granted for one minute.
[Roberts]
Thank you Mr.President. One Nation will not be supporting this motion. The antarctic is a largely untouched and entirely spectacular natural wonder which needs and deserves proper scientific investigation and research.
Every dollar wasted on research in claimed human caused climate change in the antarctic, steals research grants from genuine geologists, paleoclimatologists, biologists, glaciologists and other scientists doing real scientific investigations. This chamber is the house of review.
When will the Senate demand a review of the science into claims of human induced climate change that has tax payers funding billions of dollars a year with no environmental or economic benefits?
Today, Mr. President, is day 278, since I first challenged The Greens and Senators Di Natale and Waters to provide the empirical data and framework proving carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut and to debate me on climate science and on the corruption of climate science. Thank you Mr. President.
