Posts

One Nation is the True Champion for the Environment

,

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Ditch the Net Zero Nonsense!

,

We need to protect the environment from the absolute destruction that is being inflicted on it by wind and solar projects.

It’s time to force these projects – that are pushed by billionaires – to pay in advance for the environment they are disturbing and commit to restoring it. In reality, they’ll never commit because they know the damage they are causing will take millions to repair.

Let’s ditch the net-zero nonsense before we’re left with zero environment for our children.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Unlike with coalmines, there’s no obligation for industrial wind and solar sites to rehabilitate the land. The cost of pulling down wind and solar sites is left completely with landowners and farmers who have no idea what they’re signing up for. Minister, does your wind and solar plan rely on saddling farmers with the entire cost of disposal, or will your government legislate rehabilitation bonds for wind and solar projects?

Senator Wong: Senator, what I would say to you is that there has been a lot of investment and a lot of interest from Australians, in terms of both investors and landowners and landholders, to be part of this transition. It is true that there are a lot of challenges associated with it, including investment in transmission, which is one of the reasons why the government is working on both increasing the flexibility of the system and also ensuring that more capacity is delivered across the country. For example, our Capacity Investment Scheme has delivered over 32 gigawatts of capacity. We’ve had the largest ever single tender for renewable energy, which is currently open for bids.

In relation to your issues, I don’t have advice on— (Time expired)

/by

Greens Support Offshore Wind Despite Risks to Migrating Whales

,

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. 

/6 Comments/by

Solar and Wind Lack Regulation on Toxic Waste

,

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.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; I’d like the data. 

/by

“That’s not my job” Lemmings Driving us Off the Net Zero Cliff

,

No one in government will take responsibility for the net-zero plan going wrong. Mr Parker who heads the Clean Energy Regulator is paid over $630,000 a year, yet he admits that even if catastrophic errors in claims about Net Zero are brought to his attention, he would do nothing about it. No-one on the panel were prepared to answer questions about your right to receive reasonable power bills or to continue to enjoy a standard of living better than a third world country.

Minister McAllister points out that the department is only responsible for the “broad settings” and that other institutions are there to simply follow their tasks under legislation.

Only One Nation is prepared to face up to the UN-WEF Net Zero agenda and pull the plug on the nation killing scam invented by predatory globalists.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. First of all, thank you for being here. Can I ask whether you take any responsibility for assessing the cost of trying to run the grid on wind and solar? 

Mr Parker : No, Senator, we don’t do that kind of work. Our job, as defined by statute, is to administer various programs in the climate space, but not that one. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Do you do any analysis, measuring or modelling on how much wind and solar actually cost once you include the necessary firming or integration costs, the storage and additional transmission? 

Mr Parker : No, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your job is just to pursue the legislative targets? That’s your statutory job? 

Mr Parker : That’s broadly right. It is in an unofficial space somewhat broader than that, because we have insight, if you like, into industry trends and what’s going on through our liaison with industry, and we are able to feed those views into the policy process. 

Senator ROBERTS: When you say, ‘trends’ what do you mean? They aren’t cost trends. 

Mr Parker : No. We have some information on costs but, as I said, we don’t model those. The sorts of information which we look at are developments in the markets for the relevant carbon instruments, the quantity of investment taking place and so forth. We have an insight into that from our on-the-ground work. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t raise the alarm bells over whether chasing net zero for the energy grid is practically feasible or how much it’s going to cost to get to 2035 with solar and wind powering everything? 

Mr Parker : No, that’s a policy question; we don’t get into that. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t test AEMO’s Integrated System Plan at all—there are so many acronyms aren’t there?—to see if it has any flaws? You don’t analyse GenCost from CSIRO to see if there are any faulty assumptions? 

Mr Parker : We’re familiar with all of those reports, but it’s not our role to critique them, if you like. 

Senator ROBERTS: As the national regulator for this type of energy, even if it were brought to your attention that there are fundamental flaws in the foundational documents for this whole plan, like the Integrated System Plan or GenCost, you wouldn’t or couldn’t do anything about it. It’s not your responsibility? 

Mr Parker : It’s not our role within our statutory remit to do anything about it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Parker. I only ask, because almost every climate related agency I’ve ask, whether it’s supposedly justifying the mad switch to solar and wind or whether it’s actually implementing the policy says, ‘It’s not our job to consider the big picture.’ I’m not arguing that you’re shirking it—I’m not at all. I’m just confirming that you don’t do it. We could be driving off a cliff here and everyone is saying, ‘It’s not my job to think about the cliff, I just drive the car,’ because you’ve been appointed as the driver. Does that terrify you? 

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, you’re now— 

Senator ROBERTS: Does it terrify you, Minister? 

Senator McAllister: You’re now asking the official about his feelings and you’re asking me about my feelings. I can explain to you the policy position of the government, the policy arrangements in the government and the responsibilities. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is responsible for the broad settings in relation to the energy market. They’ve been here this morning, answering questions from senators about the approach they take to policy development for the settings for the energy system. There are other institutions, as you’ve observed, that have either advisory or regulatory roles. The CER is one of them and they’re here and able to answer your questions about the task that they’ve been given under legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr Parker and your team. Thank you, Chair. 

/by

Taxpayer Funded Storage Batteries

,

The Australia Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) will be using your money to partially fund batteries costing $2.7 billion.

These batteries are 2 gigawatt, which sounds impressive, until the officials confirm they will last only 2 hours out of the whole day. Compare that to a 2 gigawatt coal-fired power station that can be run at 95% capacity factor or 23 hours a day.

We’ll get much cheaper power per gigawatt-hour if we just use coal, abandon the net zero lunacy and all of it’s expensive requirements like grid-forming batteries.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. My questions go to the cost, capacity and suitability of large-scale battery storage. I’m going to reference the Large Scale Battery Storage Funding Round from 2022. ARENA put $176 million of taxpayers’ funds into eight batteries, with a total of two gigawatts of dispatchable power. That was in the media release from Chris Bowen on 17 December 2022. For how long could those batteries dispatch that full two gigawatts of power? 

Mr Miller : On average, across that portfolio of eight batteries it’s approximately just over two hours at full power. 

Senator ROBERTS: Two hours at— 

Mr Miller : Full power. 

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total of gigawatt hours that those batteries represent? 

Mr Miller : I think that 4.4 gigawatt hours is the total. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Have all eight of the batteries been constructed? 

Mr Miller : Not yet. They’re under construction—at least half of them are under construction. Some of them might have been completed—a couple of the earlier ones. We announced quite recently that the AGL battery has actually doubled in capacity since we announced the funding. They’ve chosen to increase the capacity by two times. And there are another three or four that are still to be announced as reaching financial close and construction. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many have been built? 

Mr Miller : Do you have that? 

Mr Kay : Yes. Two are currently in advanced construction— 

Senator ROBERTS: So none have been built? 

Mr Kay : None are operational at this stage, but there are two that are in advanced construction and others that are at various stages of planning and preconstruction. 

Senator ROBERTS: So there are two at advanced stages of construction and no others under construction? 

Mr Kay : Yes, that’s right. 

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total cost of those projects—well, they’re still underway. What is the total cost now envisaged to be? 

Mr Miller : As you suggested, correctly, ARENA’s commitment was $176 million. Mr Kay might have the precise number for the capital costs of those batteries, but I recall that our grant sizing was about seven per cent of the cost of the batteries—a substantial cost, in the billions of dollars, for those eight batteries. 

Senator ROBERTS: So we’ll just have to work out the total cost by dividing by seven or eight and multiplying by 100. Something on that media release intrigued me in preparing for today—that media release from 17 December 2022. It talks repeatedly—at least three times—of ‘grid forming inverter’ technology. What is ‘grid forming’? Or is that just a mistake from ‘grid firming’? 

Mr Miller : No. It’s correct language. Grid forming means that those batteries have the capability to provide very high frequency support to the energy system. So you would know that the energy system operates at 50 hertz, so 50 cycles a second. That ability to keep the grid operating at 50 cycles a second is traditionally provided by spinning generators from coal and gas plants. 

Senator ROBERTS: Hydro, nuclear— 

Mr Miller : Not nuclear; we don’t have that in Australia. 

Senator ROBERTS: No. But nuclear can provide it. 

Mr Miller : In theory, yes. If we had that, it would provide it. But, in Australia, that’s provided by coal, gas and hydro. And, in the absence of coal and gas, what we need is resources to do the job of keeping the grid at that 50 hertz frequency, keeping the system stable, providing the right voltage waveform, and also being able to what’s called ‘black start’—have the grid commence operation from nothing—and that is not a service that traditional batteries without grid forming inverters can provide. What the grid forming inverters provide is the ability to form the wave signal of the grid and stand up the grid without any other support. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, correct me if I’m wrong, I’ll just put it into simple language, coal, nuclear, hydro and gas are all synchronous power generation sources, and they’re stable. Whereas, solar and wind are asynchronous and need something added to make sure they’re stable and produce 50 hertz. 

Mr Miller : That’s a fair lay representation of the scenario. Correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I also was intrigued to notice that Minister Bowen’s press release on 17 September 2022 said: 

Over the past decade, we saw policy chaos cause a reduction of 3GW of dispatchable power in the grid, enough to power over two million homes. 

What was the cause of that loss of 3 gigawatts? He’s saying that it’s policy. But was that specifically coal fired or gas fired exiting? 

Mr Miller : I haven’t delved into those numbers. I’m sure they are correct; but I wouldn’t be best placed to comment on generators entering and exiting the market. I’d refer that question to Minister Bowen if he [inaudible] it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Who do I refer it to now to take on notice? 

Senator McAllister: Senator, over the period in question it is the case that 4 gigawatts of dispatchable generation capacity left the system and only one was constructed to replace it, or commissioned to replace it. I do not have the source document for that fact, but I have examined it before and I can assure you that it’s possible to obtain it, so I’ll take that on notice and get back to you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Last question, Chair. Mr Miller, in your opening statement you say in financial year 2022-2023 ARENA approved $544.1 million—that’s over half a billion dollars—60 projects valued at over $3.5 billion, representing the agency’s largest value of funds approved in a single year. How many of those funds were deployed on investments that were needed because of solar and wind? In other words, are they additional costs to solar and wind? 

Mr Miller : As a general statement, ARENA hasn’t supported to any material degree wind projects. Wind has been commercial since the agency [inaudible] 

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, I wasn’t clear in my question. I didn’t mean that you’re investing in solar and wind; I meant that you’re investing in technology or equipment that is needed because solar and wind, for example, is unstable. Or are they to supplement solar and wind? 

Mr Miller : If you take those battery projects, for example, which would have fed into that number of $544 million, absolutely, clearly one of the things we were trying to do in that program is provide supporting technology to allow further penetration of solar and wind. So that kind of work, plus the work we do on grid integration—one of our key priorities—would be to support increasing shares of solar and wind energy. Ultimately, all of the technologies we support are in the furtherance of increasing the renewable energy penetration and competitiveness in Australia. So even the hydrogen work that we do—while I couldn’t characterise it as being needed to support solar and wind; it is a technology set that relies on increased penetrations of cheap solar and wind to provide the energy source to make the hydrogen. So it’s ultimately all related to renewable energy supply and competitiveness. All of that funding would be [inaudible] 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for a very clear answer. So these are additional costs that are needed for solar and wind. I wonder if gen costs from CSIRO incorporates them—that’s not for you; that’s just a wonder. 

/by

Power to the People – The National Rally Against Reckless Renewables

, , ,

Renewable energy is facing failure on a number of fronts, not least of which is merit. Engineers and energy regulators – even those who were once enthusiastic about solar panels, wind turbines and batteries – are showing signs of nervousness. The lights are flickering. The costs are mounting. And globally, raw materials are running short.

Read the full article here: Power to the people: the National Rally Against Reckless Renewables | The Spectator Australia

/4 Comments/by

The Malcolm Roberts Show with Steven Nowakowski

Steven Nowakowski, cartographer, author, nature photographer, environmentalist, and former pro-wind and solar advocate joins me on the Malcolm Roberts Show.

Steven was a Green activist until 5 years ago when he saw firsthand the impact of wind turbines on the natural environment at Mount Emerald, at a pristine plateau of remnant forest full of endangered flora and fauna. Steven’s eye witness experience of the sacrifice of mountain tops for wind factories changed his mind. Steven speaks from the heart. He has a genuine passion for biodiversity and wild places.

If you want to know more about what we’re not being told about the delusional Net Zero targets, this interview is eye-opening. Steven exposes the ‘renewable’ energy sector, its costly failure, and how its impacting the lives of communities and natural ecosystems.

/5 Comments/by

Killing the Environment to Save It, Again – Sea Dumping for Net-Zero

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. 

/6 Comments/by