Posts

The UN-WEF Menu Plan for the West

,

The UN-WEF menu plan for the West is about power over the necessities of life — food, energy and water. This unelected socialist bureaucracy, with their loyalty directed to foreign power centres, are busy punishing you and the Australian economy using this made-up concept of a carbon footprint.

The truth is, our agricultural footprint in Australia does not contribute to global “emissions” — not that this would be a problem anyway. Australia has so many trees, grass and crops that every atom of CO2 and methane we produce is re-absorbed into the environment, producing higher growth and heathier soils.

During question time, I asked Senator Wong to provide the figures used to justify the Albanese Government’s nation-killing environmental policies. No sensible answer was received. This debate must be about science and data, not scare campaigns and hubris.

The war on farming is not about the environment, it’s about control. It creates a false sense of food scarcity to make lab-grown, food-like substances a profitable industry for the predatory billionaires.

One Nation will always stand up for Australia’s farmers and rejects the UN-WEF goals of food supply control.

Transcripts

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 

Senator Gallagher: Could you repeat the question? We missed the last 15 seconds of it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): Senator, I am awaiting statistics as we speak, but what I can say to you, and as someone who was the climate change minister, is that there is opportunity in agriculture to deal with climate change. As you know, for many years the National Farmers Federation had a much more forward-leaning policy than the coalition when it came to agriculture and climate change. I’m advised it’s in the order of 16 to 17 per cent. Thank you very much, Senator Watt. For the year to June 2023, the agriculture sector was responsible for 17.7 per cent of Australia’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions. 

Modelling by ABARES shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. I recall that one of the early reports I read which made me so much more acutely aware of the risk to agriculture of climate change was a report which CSIRO did many years ago, before we won government in 2007. It modelled that Goyder’s line would move south of Clare. For anybody from South Australia—and I know that would be very bad news for Senator Farrell in particular—who knows what the mid-north is like, that is a very frightening prospect. We do think it is important to look at how it is that our food and fibre producers can best adapt to a changing climate. Many are already doing so and are obviously involved in the discussions with government about climate policy. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: As the World Economic Forum were meeting in Davos last month, the United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, stated that agriculture accounts for between 26 and 33 per cent of world emissions and will account for half a degree of warming by 2050. He further stated that a warming planet will grow less food, not more, and so farming needs to be a major focus of reducing human carbon dioxide production. Minister, how do you reconcile the production of food accounting for between 26 and 33 per cent of emissions with your figure of 17.7? 

Senator WONG: There’s a different denominator, Senator. One is as a percentage of Australian emissions, and one is as a percentage of global emissions. I also am unclear from the context and detail of the quote you gave me whether or not Special Envoy Kerry was dealing with food production further downstream as well. I don’t know what he’s referring to. But I certainly agree with what he was saying about the implications for food security. 

What is also true is that not only is that a substantial issue for Australia, because it will affect our capacity to produce the levels of grain production we have, which is obviously very important for our economy, but also the nations on who this will fall most hard are those nations who have the least capacity to be resilient to this change. If you look at countries like Bangladesh— (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: The methane cycle, soil carbon sequestration and forest carbon sequestration absorb all Australian agricultural emissions, meaning Australian agriculture contributes nothing to global emissions. Minister, is the war on farming not about the environment but rather about creating a false scarcity of food to force the adoption of laboratory-grown food-like substances that predatory billionaires own for their profit and control? 

Senator WONG: Senator, there’s a lot in that question, but I want to go back to the fundamental proposition: climate change is already affecting our agricultural production now. I read to you the figures earlier: ABARES modelling shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. No, you don’t like the facts, and we know— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick? 

Senator Rennick: A point of order, Madam President: models are not facts. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, that’s a debating point. Minister Wong, please continue. 

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, I understand your views on this. I disagree with them. What I would say to you is this: if you go and talk to a lot of Australia’s primary producers, if you go and talk to primary producers in the Pacific— 

Senator Canavan interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Canavan. 

Senator WONG: or South-East Asia, the truth is that people are already experiencing the impact of climate change on agricultural production. We might want to wish it away for ideological reasons, as Senator Canavan does, but— (Time expired) 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I’m going to wait for silence. 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I’m going to call an opposition senator, so those senators interjecting are wasting her time. 

/11 Comments/by

Damn the Economy – Net Zero at All Cost!

,

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions projections? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Fredericks: Of the department? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Smart Meters … It’s No Longer a Conspiracy Theory!

,

Smart Meters cutting off your power is no longer a conspiracy theory. It’s already here! The Queensland Government reached into people’s homes to take control of 170,000 air-cons in the last two months.

Wind, solar and the demonisation of coal is destroying our once reliable power supply, turning Australia into a third world country, despite our vast natural resources.

Only One Nation will stop the Net Zero insanity and bring back cheap power bills.

/22 Comments/by

2023 Year in Review: Net Zero Lunacy

With the most wind, solar and batteries on the grid than ever, Australian power bills have never been higher.

For over a decade and almost everyday in the Senate since being elected, I have been fighting the net-zero scam.

I’ll be fighting even harder next year.

Watch some of my speeches about this issue here at https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/?s=net+zero

/15 Comments/by

Proposed Pumped Hydro at Cressbrook Dam

Thank you to the residents west of Cressbrook Dam who took the time to tell me their concerns about a proposed pumped hydro at the site along with huge clearing proposed for associated transmission lines.

Pumped Hydro is another scam only necessary under the net-zero pipe dream.

All of the environmental destruction this project would cause is unneeded if the government simply allowed Coal and Nuclear to power the country.

/1 Comment/by

Net-Zero Pipe Dream is Killing the Environment to “Save It”

I’m standing in the middle of an 80 metre wide, kilometres long clearing made for power lines, and these are small ones.

The net-zero lunatics are planning on bulldozing straight lines through national parks, koala habitat and forestry for tens of thousands of kilometres to connect up the many dispersed wind and solar projects to the grid.

Thousands and thousands of square kilometres will have to be cleared, and that’s before anyone clears land for the solar and wind stations.

The net-zero pipe dream is truly killing the environment, “to save it”.

/by

Natural Carbon Dioxide Experiment Proves the Real Inconvenient Truth

In 2020 the world conducted one of the largest global experiments ever seen.

Countries across the globe completely shut down their economies, locked everyone in their houses and stopped industrial production on a scale never seen before (and we hope to never seen again).

This unprecedented reduction in human activity and the burning of hydrocarbons should have been a climate activist’s dream – none of that pesky carbon dioxide being put into the air!

Yet through one of the largest industrial shutdowns the world has ever seen, the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air kept going up. It didn’t even deviate at all.

The question has to be asked, if the response to COVID – shutting down almost everything – didn’t even make a dent in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, what will?

The answer is that nothing the net-zero climate lunatics tell us to do will make a difference. Human production will not affect the level of CO2 in the air over and above natural variation.

Anyone trying to tell you differently is selling a scam.

/by

Perfect Storm of Government Incompetence

Labor’s failed management of the economy caused by insane Net Zero spending has resulted in the skyrocketing cost-of-living crisis that’s causing financial suffering in everyday Australians. This is callous behaviour from government.

We must confront the fact that the Net Zero fairy-tale is the biggest single cause of the economic downturn. Australians are seeing the result of this government’s pursuit of Net Zero goals in every aspect of life right now. If even the Bank of England accepts that fact and former Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello, along with Australia’s Reserve Bank have all publicly acknowledged Net Zero is inflationary, then the Albanese government needs to sit up and take notice.

End the Net Zero madness now.

Transcript

As the servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I agree with this matter of public importance from Senator Hughes. I’m not sure about ‘triple whammy’. Perhaps a more appropriate term is a perfect storm of government incompetence and callousness. Food essentials are dearer because successive Liberal-National and Labor-Greens governments have taken water off farmers to give to kill trees, driving up the price of irrigation water and, with them, the price of food. Profiteering from Coles and Woolworths is not helping. Both have just booked record profits on behalf of their foreign owners, including BlackRock and Vanguard. Real wages are falling—five per cent in the last year alone. Yet the inflation we’re currently experiencing is on the heads of the previous Liberal government, who, along with Labor, Greens and teals, destroyed the economy to control people and transfer wealth during COVID, in the process printing so much money that inflation was the inevitable result, as I said over and over across 2021 and 2022. 

Interest rates were always going to rise from an artificial low of 0.1 per cent. The reason they’ve risen so quickly and so high is on both sides of this chamber. The largest single cause of our economic woes is the net zero fairytale. Today even the Bank of England accepts that net zero is inflationary. Former Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello and Australia’s Reserve Bank accept that net zero is inflationary. When baseload power is replaced by fairytale weather-dependent power, energy costs rise. The sun and the wind are free, true. The materials to capture that very low density energy are not. That’s why the cost per unit of energy is so high. Australians are seeing the result of net zero in their mortgages or rent payments, at the shops and in their utility bills. Money doesn’t go far enough to pay for the net zero fairytale, yet this government continues down that path regardless, despite the financial suffering this is causing everyday Australians—callous behaviour indeed. 

/3 Comments/by

Labor Has Form on Making Life Harder

When the ANZ CEO, the outgoing Chair of the Future Fund and the Reserve Bank all tell us that immigration and the net zero transition are inflationary, the Government should stop and listen. Instead they are pushing ahead with a massive arrivals program that is causing inflation and making life harder for everyday Australians.

The cost of net zero has been estimated by Net Zero Australia at $1.5 trillion. We are only a few hundred billion into that, so strap in, life is going to get harder still. Labor advertise themselves as the party of the worker but life for workers is harder under Labor.

The tragedy is that we already had a great electricity capacity and the world’s most affordable, reliable electricity. ALP/Greens/Liberal/Teal globalist puppets are tearing that down and building a worse option – weather dependent power.

One Nation will reverse this immigration and energy net zero perfect storm of financial and social mismanagement. We will reverse this perfect storm of dishonesty and stupidity.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I draw the Senate’s attention to remarks on Monday by ANZ Chief Executive Officer Shane Elliott. He said: 

Australia’s massive green energy transition and immigration boom will further boost rising house prices. 

Lending regulations have made this the most challenging lending environment in 30 years. 

The 30 years reference is to Labor Prime Minister Keating’s 17 per cent interest rate nightmare. Labor has form on making life harder. These remarks are confirmation the government’s insane levels of arrivals are one cause of the inflation that’s hurting everyday Australians. The outgoing future fund chair, Peter Costello, warned Australia’s runaway immigration levels represent ‘an enormous adjustment for the property sector and the Reserve Bank’s inflation fight’. 

Why is Labor, once called the party of the worker, pursuing an immigration policy that is creating high inflation and harming Australian workers so badly? Australia did not vote for high immigration, and Prime Minister Albanese has no mandate for this insanity, this inhumanity. Nor was the Prime Minister forthcoming in the last election about the true cost of net zero. Net zero Australia puts the cost at $1.5 trillion by 2050. If life feels hard now, we’re only a few hundred billion into the $1.5 trillion. Buckle up, this is going to hurt! 

The tragedy is that we already had a great electricity capacity and the world’s most affordable, reliable electricity. And you globalist puppets are tearing it down and building a worse option: weather dependent power. Insane! As Shane Elliott asked, is this the society we want, where people can’t get a home loan or get a loan to start a business? Labor’s answer is clearly yes. That’s what life under Labor means—no home, no business, no future, no energy. 

One Nation will reverse this immigration and energy net zero perfect storm of financial and social mismanagement. We will reverse this perfect storm of dishonesty and stupidity and callousness. 

/1 Comment/by

Cut Immigration Not Investment in Badly Needed Infrastructure

Treasurer Jim Chalmer plans to cut infrastructure spending at a time when Australia needs to increase its productive capacity.

I make the point that by investing in productive capacity, Australia can increase its productivity and avoid the supply chain shortages which drive up prices of goods.

If the Treasurer is hunting for spending cuts, he need look no further than the federal and state subsidies amounting to $10 billion per quarter. That’s $4 billion more than before COVID.

One Nation knows how to fight inflation. Cut immigration, ditch the UN Net Zero pipe dream, build productive capacity and infrastructure, and stop creating inflation in the first place. The Reserve Bank printed $500 billion out of thin air in response to COVID and now we are seeing the consequences.

Australia does best as a productive nation. Let’s get back to basics and allow Australians to prosper.

Transaction

The coalition is correct to point out the lunacy of Treasurer Jim Chalmers’s comments that he may cut infrastructure funding to fight inflation. The best way to fix inflation is to increase productivity, including through productive infrastructure and productive capacity. In fact, the best way to fix inflation is to make sure it doesn’t happen in the first place. That means stopping the Reserve Bank from creating $500 billion out of thin air and dropping it from helicopters as they did for Scott Morrison in the response to COVID. Never again. That means stopping the record level of net immigration, estimated at 500,000 this year—half a million! That means pulling back on the 2.3 million visa holders in the country right now who are adding pressure to the housing crisis, driving up demand, driving rentals up and driving inflation. 

To the Treasurer, if you’re looking for spending cuts to fight inflation, look at subsidies. Australian federal and state governments are still handing out $10 billion in subsidies per quarter—$4 billion more than before COVID. Treasurer, if you really want to cut some infrastructure to fight inflation, cut any money you are putting toward wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro, like Snowy 2.0. That’s the dog in New South Wales, by the way. That will have a double positive effect, taking the heat out of house construction prices and dropping power prices, which contribute to almost every other product in the country. 

Let’s get serious about fighting inflation. Here’s how you do it: cut immigration; ditch the United Nations net zero pipe dream; build productive capacity and productive infrastructure, like ports, dams, railways and power stations; and don’t create inflation in the first place, printing money out of thin air in electronic journal entries as the Reserve Bank has admitted. Get back to sound basics that enable the productive capacity of Australians to prosper. 

/7 Comments/by