JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Australia is the Greatest Global Carbon Patsy– Is Scott Morrison the worst negotiator on Earth?

What’s the definition of The Greatest Global Pushover in the world?  How about the nation that is often the worlds top exporter of coal and fifth biggest for gas, with the biggest distances, the lowest population density, fastest population growth, in a land where electricity prices have doubled, but which has already cut emissions by a staggering 46% each while adding more renewable energy per capita than any nation on Earth. Yet we worry about being “left behind” or called a pariah?

To double the Patsy-points, we’re an agricultural nation spending billions reducing emissions of a plant fertilizer that boosts yields and crops and makes plants more drought tolerant.  Droughts aren’t getting worse (the Professors agree). Our worst drought was 100 years ago, or more likely 1,000. The worst fires were 4000 years ago. We reached 50 degrees Celsius in most states of Australia in the 1800s. Our rainfall trend is up. Our sea levels have dropped by two meters in the last 5,000 years, and the Great Barrier Reef survived just fine. The truth is that carbon is a net benefit, we’re a high energy, long distance, rapidly growing remote nation that’s already done far too much.

The hard numbers: Australian emissions have been cut 46% per capita, while the population grew 50% larger and the GDP grew 135%.

Scott Morrison might be the worst negotiator on Earth. He failed to explain our achievements, to defend Australian workers, farmers and households and the voters who voted for him, to reach a deal that’s remotely fair. Teenage girls are gaslighting him. Bullies who serve bankers, greens and China pretend that Australians past carbon dioxide reductions don’t count because we achieved them by Land Use and Forestry. Lordy — Australians grew trees.  The travesty! It only shows that the carbon game has nothing to do with the environment and nothing to do with carbon dioxide either. Do megatons of CO2 matter or don’t they?

Since 1990 — Every Australian has cut CO2 emissions by 46%

Australian emissions per capita. CO2, Graph. 2021.

Emissions per capita (grey line) are exceptional, but emissions per GDP dollar (orange line) are even better. Blakers, A., Stocks, M., and Lu, B. (2019) Australia: the renewable energy superstar, APO Analysis and Policy Observatory,  ANU, [PDF]

Australia installs more renewables than anywhere else per capita

Morrison and co are not even using the Blakers et al graph below.  In 2018 and 2019 Australians were installing renewable energy, faster than any place on Earth. Why don’t Australians know this?

Per capita, Australia (all shades of red) blitzed the field for installing renewables

Australia is more dependent on mining and resources than most other developed nations:

Fully fifty percent of Australian exports are from mining. These are the most energy intensive exports on Earth, and the world needs these resources. Someone has to dig them up somewhere around the world, yet Australians’ get lumbered with all the emissions accrued in getting these minerals out of the ground? We’ve shifted some of our Aluminium smelters overseas, and to what end? Their smelters are less efficient, carbon emissions have increased, Australian jobs and profits have gone. Who benefits from the rigged carbon shell game? Our competitors. 

Australia is not falling behind even by the normal EU-biased way of accounting

The idea that Australia lags behind is a nonsense-stick to beat good people with.  The usual way of comparing emissions reductions is per country, not per capita. This suits the EU. Even so Australia has set a similar target compared to everywhere else, which only goes to show how bad our negotiators were. A long time ago, in the first Kyoto agreement John Howard’s team negotiated an 8% increase in emissions for Australia which made some allowance for our rapidly growing population, distances, and energy dependent export industries.  Since then, Australian politicians have only managed to weekly, meekly, “join the pack” at our great disadvantage, and at the same time get harangued for not doing even more.

National emissions targets, Australia, USA, China, Canada, EU, Japan, Korea.

Australians have cut emissions by 46% each, added more renewables per capita than anywhere on Earth, all without Net Zero.

The net cost of Net Zero includes all the glorious subsidies, the extra transmission lines, the rising FCAS bill, the blackouts, the emergency demand management, the damage from surging voltages, the wasted capital expenditure, the squads of flying diesels, synchronous condensors, and the burden that unreliable energy dumps on the whole grid. In the US windpower makes gas power $30/MWh more expensive,  — the intermittent generators are vandals on the system, destroying productivity and profits of the good generators.

Coal gave us 30 years of falling prices, and renewables wiped all those gains out.

REFERENCES

Australia’s 2030 Emission Reduction Target

Nations with some of the most expensive electricity in the world

9.9 out of 10 based on 92 ratings

250 comments to Australia is the Greatest Global Carbon Patsy– Is Scott Morrison the worst negotiator on Earth?

  • #
    el+gordo

    We aren’t signing anything that is detrimental to our health and well being.

    ‘Nats alarmed by Glasgow push to change diets.

    ‘Reports of a push at the Glasgow climate summit to cut global beef production and encourage ‘plant-based diets’ would kill Coalition deal, senior Nationals say.’ (Oz)

    301

    • #
      OldOzzie

      Push to go vego to save the planet slammed as ‘green socialism’

      Matt Canavan says that a leaked climate conference document reveals the true nature of the environmental agenda.

      James Morrow

      Leaked documents showing Glasgow climate change negotiators want to get Australians to eat less meat to cut CO2 emissions have been slammed by Queensland Nationals Senator Matt Canavan as an attempt to impose “green socialism” by stealth.

      The paper, authored by the UK’s Behavioural Insights Unit, caused a stir among beef producing countries such as Brazil and Argentina when it was discovered by the BBC.

      It listed a number of suggestions for changing public behaviour including high carbon taxes on meat and portraying business travel as an “immoral indulgence”

      Leaked documents showing Glasgow climate change negotiators want to get Australians to eat less meat to cut CO2 emissions have been slammed by Queensland Nationals Senator Matt Canavan as an attempt to impose “green socialism” by stealth.

      The paper, authored by the UK’s Behavioural Insights Unit, caused a stir among beef producing countries such as Brazil and Argentina when it was discovered by the BBC.

      It listed a number of suggestions for changing public behaviour including high carbon taxes on meat and portraying business travel as an “immoral indulgence”.

      “The Glasgow conference is not about climate change. It is about political change. They want to shut down coal mines, make us all vegans and send manufacturing jobs to China,” said Canavan, whose party is negotiating a list of demands for Prime Minister Scott Morrison to take to Glasgow.

      “Now some are saying we can’t beat these green socialists, and we are best just to go Net Zero under a Liberal government. These people are just Fabian Greenies. They just want to get to socialism slower. I want to turn these train around before it’s too late. Let’s get back to a free and prosperous country.”

      “Signing up to Net Zero now because some people think it is popular would be a Faustian bargain. Perhaps it would help win the next election but what do we do for the one after that when we have no soul?”

      “I don’t know whether the Nationals will agree to Net Zero today, but I am bloody sure that we won’t sell the last cow for a handful of beans.”

      “Mushrooms have seen more sunlight than the Nationals have seen of the Liberals’ net zero plan,” he said.

      The UK government later claimed that the paper, which claimed that plant-based diets could reduce carbon emissions by 50 per cent, was published in error.

      290

      • #
        Geoffrey+Williams

        Matt Canavan is the hope of the side . .
        GeoffW

        180

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Yes he is but unfortunately the Nats have just rolled over and will support net zero , I know it’s an in principle agreement and they want to see the final draft but a done deal no less .

          60

          • #
            Ted1

            I can’t put any interpretation on this other than than that Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan got rolled.

            “Climate Change” is two things. The “science”, which is bogus, and the business, which is built on the bogus science.

            At the time of the 2013 election, a majority of Australian voters gave the Abbott government a mandate to withdraw subsidisation of “renewable” energy. However by some quirk Clive Palmer sequestered sufficient protest votes to give him the balance of power in the upper house.

            Some years earlier I read that Al Gore had secured investments of $600+ million in his CAGW scheme. By 2013 that would have increased considerably.

            When in 2014 our parliament opened with the newly elected senate, lo and behold Al Gore jetted in, and stood on the steps of OUR parliament house in company of Clive Palmer, who delivered an address telling us that the Renewable Energy Target would be “protected” from the Abbott mandate. The Palmer United Party then proceeded to do just that, and also “protected” the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government’s mad spending program, thus thoroughly thwarting the Abbott mandate.

            At this time the business of Climate Change was by no means established. The investments that Al Gore had accumulated were still operating on a gamble, that the business would get established on a firm basis supported by government subsidies. If Tony Abbott had been able to implement his mandate, that would have removed the base of the punt, and forced the CAGW scam back onto the free market, where it should always have been.

            With the Abbott mandate thwarted, the CAGW business got under its merry way. Had Al Gore not intervened, those investments he had accumulated would have been devalued by hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billons.

            I suspect and fear that the National Party’s decision today may have been made on the basis that the AGW business is now Too Big To Fail.

            It isn’t.

            100

            • #
              Ian

              “I can’t put any interpretation on this other than than that Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan got rolled.”

              I hope your interpretation of events is correct and will remain so until the Nats are no longer needed to prop up the Liberals

              11

            • #
              William

              No business or scam is too big to fail – The South Sea Bubble and the Tulip Mania are two exampes of scams that crashed and burnt, hurting many, and it only takes a loss of confidence for major businesses to come crashing down (runs on banks for example).

              10

  • #
    Robber

    That Australian Government paper on 2030 target is surprisingly well written. Pity it dates back to 2015. Is there an update as part of this secret modelling we keep hearing about?

    102

  • #
    Raving

    Nothing is easier than blaming and shaming fossil fuel producers for creating the AGW crisis, especially when it’s not your country doing the producing.

    Next up for blame is the fossil fuel consumer. Doesn’t matter if it is for metal smelting, agriculture or manufacture.

    Blameless are those countries which import electricity and items grown or manufactured elsewhere. Buying gas on the open market makes them angels. Importing wood chips for their green power stations.

    Its time for countries to look after their own responsibilies. Where they buy their energy or manufactured goods from is neither here nor there.

    Until countries face up to this reality, the green horror show will continue

    240

    • #

      “creating the AGW crisis”; what crisis??

      280

    • #
      michael hammer

      Just thinking; clearly all these extremists demonstrating and destroying property in the name of environmentalism clearly have nothing better to do. At the same time we are facing an ever increasing threat from China and need to boost our military. Lets kill two birds with one stone, reintroduce conscription for those who disrupt society by demonstrating in ways which hold the populace to ransom or willfully destroy property in the name of “environmentalism”. How did Gilbert describe it; “I’ve got a little list of society offenders who might well be conscripted and who never would be missed, who never would be missed”. sarc/

      31

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Q. Is ScoMo a climate patsy?
    A. Yes.

    COP26: India says coal will be mainstay in leaked report

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-58991207.amp

    230

    • #
      Dennis

      The Australian Government represents a small population of almost 26 million people and Australia’s economy is about 2 per cent of the world economy and is reliant on allies for defence purposes, and on foreign investors without whom growing the nation and prosperity would not have been possible, the US and the UK are the top two foreign investment sources and have been since colonisation.

      Therefore and as a Member Nation of the United Nations Australia has no choice but to participate and cooperate within reason with not only our allies but also with majority decisions at the UN. And this is reinforced by treaties and agreements signed over the past seventy years. Like the Lima Protocol Labor signed in 1975 agreeing to allow most manufacturing industry to leave Australia with encouragement by Australian Governments. Like UN Agenda 21, now Agenda 30 that covers many areas now restricting business activities: logging bans, no new dams, no exploitation of minerals and energy and seafood, etc., based on State lands being converted to UN registered National Parks, and much more effective UN controls that enable unelected UN Officials to override sovereignty of our nation.

      150

      • #
        Lawrie

        North Korea is economically smaller than us and could not give a fig about the United Nations. What is more no one bothers North Korea. Likewise Singapore that puts itself number one, two and three. We think we are important and suffer for our hubris. Morrison thinks the world listens to him but they pay more attention to Greta Thunberg.

        280

    • #
      TedM

      At least India has got some smarts.

      140

    • #
      William Astley

      India answer is honest.

      India and China will continue to use coal until there is something better that works. Climate change is the forever war. There is no solution. But the countries are spending as much money as possible on the stuff that does not work. The idea being the idiotic fake problem is so important …. any progress… is better than spending the money on say health care or schools or something useful.

      The Green scheme does not work. Regardless of the amount of money that is spent. Spending money on a scheme that does not work, does not solve or change, climate change. India and China have real problems to deal with today. Wasting money now is pointless.

      India and China’s second practical reason for not wasting money on a scheme that does not work…. India and China do not have any money to waste/burn.

      This madness is also starting inflation. When everything becomes more expensive the poor suffer. And their pain, the effect is immediate.

      The Green Scam, Covid hyper stupidity, and Biden/Dems has started hyper inflation in the US.

      140

      • #
        truth

        The very fact that China and India are allowed that special dispensation..to use coal because they will need need it at least till 2060…more recently they say 2070 to power their attempts to raise their populations up out of poverty…gives the lie to the claims the enthusiasts make for their wondrous RE.

        The truth…that wind and solar cannot power a modern nation…not even with all the props and bandaids of batteries and pumped hydro etc…because ultimately …without fossil fuels or nuclear… they’re all dependent on the weather…props and all…is something that just hangs in the ether…we know it’s so…it’s increasingly demonstrated to be so….but it’s too dangerous to the cause to acknowledge it’s so.

        Never do our leaders …the ones who are only in government because they dislodged and destroyed the honest leader via coup or stolen election…never do they deal with the realities of this whole shebang….and neither do the carpetbaggers.

        They never deal with the real live danger [if they actually believe what they claim to believe] that IF the climate and earth are in such peril…they….the Fascist cabal…. are the ones who are endangering us all by ensuring that when they license leaders of those massive populations to use coal to keep their people alive…and at the same time make sure the country that could provide much cleaner coal for that purpose …is prevented from doing so ….in doing that they ….the UN and the Global Fascists of Europe and the US…are the real live climate vandals and threat to the world….as any truthful history will record….if such a thing is even possible any more.

        50

        • #
          Analitik

          The very fact that China and India are allowed that special dispensation..to use coal because they will need need it at least till 2060…more recently they say 2070 to power their attempts to raise their populations up out of poverty…gives the lie to the claims the enthusiasts make for their wondrous RE.

          What it REALLY does is highlight the “renewables are cheaper” claim that is continually being made by the greentards. If they were cheaper, then the poorer countries would be the first to use them.

          I tried pointing this out to a “believer” a few months ago and he somehow couldn’t see the utter contradiction. It’s like trying to point out to “believer” that the fading “immunity” of the CoViD vaccines shows that they are a dead end as a “solution” unless you accept there is a conspiracy for permanent “immunity as a service”

          20

  • #
    a+happy+little+debunker

    Remember that Oceania is a net global CO2 sink.
    Not only are we reducing our actual emissions – we are soaking up the emissions of the rest of the world…

    280

    • #
      el+gordo

      During La Nina times Australia has the capacity to lower sea level and become a carbon sink of extraordinary proportions.

      https://theconversation.com/record-rains-made-australia-a-giant-green-global-carbon-sink-26646

      101

      • #
        Bill+Burrows

        EG – That 2014 article you referred to is based on a figure since corrected in the source publication – see Detmers et al. 2015 link in Table 1 in this one page summary report: https://www.keepandshare.com/doc22/112736/sampling-the-australian-landscape-for-net-emissions-under-the-pa-pdf-757k?da=y . This Table gives additional links to 3 other studies based on retrievals from 3 different satellite platforms, combined with inversion procedures detailed in the links.

        I converted all withdrawals from the atmosphere above the Australian land mass to common units (Mt CO2–e/year). The mean flux (n=6) based on different spectral sensors/satellite platforms and 12 month ‘sampling’ periods from 2011 – 2018 is approx. 700 Mt CO2–e/yr. The above link gives more details and interpretations. Note in particular the information provided in the first para of that link.

        In a nut shell – there is a very strong indication from these evolving inversion studies that Australia is, and always has been, a net zero CO2 emitter as defined by the Climate Council, the Paris Agreement and the French themselves (See: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/en_SNBC-2_summary_compl.pdf p.2; Fig.1 p.3).

        140

        • #
          el+gordo

          Thanks Bill, keep up the good work.

          30

        • #

          Bill+Burrows

          In a nut shell – there is a very strong indication from these evolving inversion studies that Australia is, and always has been, a net zero CO2 emitter as defined by the Climate Council, the Paris Agreement and the French themselves (See: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/en_SNBC-2_summary_compl.pdf p.2; Fig.1 p.3).

          I wish it were so Bill !
          ……but unfortunately the IPCC and others interpret the wording to mean that net zero is a ballance between anthropogenic emissions, and ANTHROPOGENIC based adsorbtion systems..IE..Farming crops, CCS, New Forrest planting, etc etc.
          Carbon adsorbtion by Native forrests and fauna, Lake, sea , ocean masses etc…do not count for the Net Zero accounting.
          .. From you French Link..

          setting a target of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 within French territories, this being understood as achieving a balance between anthropogenic emissions and anthropogenic absorption of greenhouse gas, i.e. that which is absorbed by the natural environment managed by man (forest land, grassland, agricultural soils, wetlands, etc.) and certain industrial procedures (carbon capture, storage and reuse).

          00

          • #
            Bill+Burrows

            Thanks for your comment Chad. I am preparing a more informed and hopefully informed comment on your contribution. But since this thread is now dating fast I just want to catch you to let you know this more detailed comment is coming. So hopefully you will check in later today or tomorrow to look for my further reply.

            In the meantime I provide the following 4 page expanded overview from which my 1 page explainer linked above was derived [See: https://www.keepandshare.com/doc22/112735/australia-has-already-reached-net-zero-co2-emissions-7-pdf-1-0-meg?da=y%5D. The Appendices on pp.3-4 may provide additional perspectives. Be back with expanded reply soon.

            00

            • #
              Bill+Burrows

              Chad – Your point is reasonable but relates more to the initial Kyoto Protocol stance than to the Paris Agreement. Nevertheless it will be feverishly supported by green activists and agenda driven zealots, as they see the danger that ‘managed land’ poses to their dream of eliminating all fossil fuels from the world’s energy systems.

              The first big crack in the KP position arose when all sides of politics decided that the easiest way to meet our KP commitments was to effectively ban tree clearing in the grazed woodlands (mainly Qld & NSW). This was clearly a government regulation (management) decision that not only prevented huge emissions when the targeted trees were enforceably retained – but it also allowed these stands to continue thickening up, as a result of human management decisions accompanying the introduction of domestic livestock. [This appreciation was completely foreign to the Canberra boffins/bureaucrats who put together Australia’s submission to the KP discussions by the way – they believed all ‘intact’ woodland in Australia that was not being cleared to improve agricultural production was essentially pristine – supporting the same ‘climax’ vegetation structure that was present in 1788].

              The latter management decision has had a huge and continuing impact on the withdrawal of CO2 from the atmosphere above Australia and its sequestration in growing woody vegetation and as soil organic carbon (SOC). For example Qld alone has well over 60M ha of grazed woodlands and c. 84 M ha of woody plant cover in total.

              When the tree clearing bans came into effect, Labor’s CFI & the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan (DAP) quickly materialized. These had the simple aim (in various guises) of using ‘intact’, native woodland (Carbon Estimation) areas (mainly in NW NSW and SW Qld) to provide Australian Carbon Credit Units which have been mostly acquired (paid for) by the Australian government for trading purposes. Mystical terms have appeared to justify this crediting of C sinks in the native vegetation – but a prime one is “avoided deforestation”. (Or as it is tellingly described in PNG as “money belong sky” – they can’t get enough of it!).

              Of course the big hope for huge ACCU’s in the native Australian ‘bush’ is in increasing SOC. It underlies all vegetation types and the Feds are into it big time courtesy of the current DAP. This is the strongest indication yet as to what the ERF regards as ‘managed country’ – all of it -or as much as they need to offset the fossil fuel emissions no modern society can avoid or do without. Now would you count Brisbane’s population by only doing a census on the north side of its river, or Melbourne’s by ignoring all the people west of the Yarra? Of course not. But that is what many of our GHG bureaucrats have effectively done with carbon accounting in our landscape. They have only ever given the Australian and World peoples a partial view of our managed lands and a partial budget to suit the accounting ‘principles’ (??) that have just satisfied the needs of the day. It is a bloody disgrace based on self-serving memes and absolute ignorance of the fundamental ecology of the Australian bush.

              So before you get me on a long rant (!) Chad let’s just consider what is happening when we manage land. For example, I have 2 land parcels – the first supports vulnerable wildlife habitat and I cede it to the government as a wildlife reserve in perpetuity; the second area has good soils and agricultural potential and the government has leased it to me for the purposes of raising domestic livestock. So I clear all but 20% of the tree cover and plant improved pasture. Which of my parcels is managed – subject to human decision as to what it grows, what fauna and flora it supports etc etc?. And you can go through this exercise for every parcel of land in Australia. I’m sorry – it is all managed land to me and by their actions whether the land is gazetted as National Parks, native title, reserves, leasehold, freehold and so on, I can’t imagine any government of any political persuasion stating otherwise.

              But I will concede that this last position is not always readily apparent. Governments and their regulators usually only throw their weight around when it suits them. Although that is also a form of management? Lastly, could I draw your attention to what is considered to be ‘managed’ and ‘unmanaged’ land in the USA. See: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-018-0095-3 (Fig.4) and the title (read carefully) of this 2018 paper is: “Delineating managed land for reporting national greenhouse gas emissions and removals to the United Nations framework convention on climate change”.

              Hope you find these comments informative and of some use Chad. All the best.

              10

    • #

      Yes and I did my Phd at the University of Woolloomooloo where I proved along with the Cast of Monty Python that Australia is a user of CO2. All of the CO2 emitted by human activity in Australia is more than taken up by our plants, crops, trees and vegetation as well as our territorial waters…………And I have my Excel Spreadsheet modelling to prove it……..QED

      90

      • #
        truth

        And there was a research project some years ago…haven’t got the link right now …that showed that Australian soils were infinitely more efficient carbon sinks than had been claimed by the IPCC

        20

  • #
    Raving

    From the BBC. Attack piece on Austraia. Totally unfair

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57925798

    In a world racing to reduce pollution, Australia is a stark outlier.
    It is one of the dirtiest countries per head of population and a massive global supplier of fossil fuels. Unusually for a rich nation, it also still burns coal for most of its electricity.
    Australia’s 2030 emissions target – a 26% cut on 2005 levels – is half the US and UK benchmarks.
    Canberra has also resisted joining the two-thirds of countries who have pledged net zero emissions by 2050.
    And instead of phasing out coal – the worst fossil fuel – it’s committed to digging for more.

    220

    • #
      Raving

      When I see the extent Australia goes to reduce it’s carbon emissions, I am just disgusted with this green hit job

      270

      • #

        Agenda Item Number 1 at the Glasgow Comedy Show should be………How can we help Volcanoes to continue to spew out stuff that apparently changes the climate?……..Errrrrrr, and makes the Planet cooler by stopping sunlight from giving us the energy that we all need. I would love to see the modelling on all of that. No one doing it I bet………..What a load of BS !!!!!!

        40

    • #
      David Maddison

      It is an excellent propaganda technique to call coal combustion “dirty”. Then that is backed up by your standard ignorant Leftist with a picture showing power station cooling towers emitting water vapor because they are too stupid to understand the difference between a smokestack and cooling tower or what is emitted.

      CO2 is neither pollution or dirty. It is a product of combustion processes, certain geological processes and animal respiration and bacteria.

      This is one reason why the Left is at war against science. They want the masses to think water vapor from cooling towers is “pollution” and “carbon” (sic) in the atmosphere is unnatural.

      400

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        Nah D M,
        You are too generous with:
        “… because they are too stupid to understand the difference between a smokestack and cooling tower or what is emitted. “.
        I reckon they know full well what they’re doing, and see that if they use back lit steam they get a lot of blackness.
        SMH has been using that technique for years.
        Cheers
        Dave B

        70

      • #
        Maptram

        “CO2 is neither pollution or dirty. It is a product of combustion processes, certain geological processes and animal respiration and bacteria.”

        Lets not forget that fungus such as yeast also emits C02, and is used in the production of beer, wine, bread and other dough such as pizza dough

        90

    • #
      Harves

      You’ve gotta understand, per capita stats can only be used if it makes Australia look bad. When it makes us look good (as in highest uptake of renewables per capita, or greatest reduction in emissions per capita) then it’s just a denialist trick.

      180

    • #
      Dennis

      No mention that most other nations failed to achieve their IPCC Kyoto emissions reduction target and are a long way from achieving their Paris emissions targets that Australia exceeded for Kyoto and is on track to achieve for the Paris Agreement.

      And Australia is 1.3 per cent of world emissions compared to “developing nation” China 38 per cent and increasing every year by more than Australia’s total output.

      110

    • #
      GlenM

      No mention of the massive uptake of rooftop solar and investment in wind turbines. BBC like ABC is run by nincompoops. Then again we have the Canberra press corps and most of the commentariat blathering on about green hydro pumped hydro sucked hydro etc. All these ” experts ” living in their bubble.

      80

    • #
      Great+Aunt+Janet

      Did they suggest we might like to use our backyard nuclear fuel to clean up our filthy energy production? Bet not. If you claim you are frightened about C02 and you don’t look at nuclear, you are lying.

      30

    • #
      Doc

      It’s all a matter of making claims/promises of future action. The anti-Australian article is based on promises, yet the same critics would never acknowledge the reality that their own nations over the years have never fulfilled their promises. While stats can prove whatever one wants to prove, this is the message of the blog article vs the BBC.

      It’s a similar argument that renewable energy systems are marked up by their ‘labelled’ performances and never by their actual performance nor reliablility. There is more kudos in this crazy green AGW system for proclaiming ‘huge strides’ in constructing renewables systems with their label promises of function and destroying reliable ff based systems responsible for our wealth than there is in declaring the functional failures of the wind and sun renewables, all at the cost of huge subsidisation which has drawn in the carpetbaggers in industry and, yesterday, the banks.

      10

  • #
    David Maddison

    I once thought that of all countries in the world it was Once Great Britain, certain European countries, Canada or even NZ which were more committed to self-destruction than Australia.

    But now I think Australia is the clear winner.

    The Labor Party would be destroying Australia only slightly faster.

    SloMo is an enormous disappointment and is really Turnbull Lite. In the PM contest, Dutton was the conservative choice for PM but didn’t have the numbers. Far Left Bishop just ran as a distraction. Morrison came out of nowhere.

    250

    • #
      el+gordo

      Not quite, he was the Treasurer and next in line for the throne. Dutton deserves the credit for standing up to Talcum and knocking him down.

      201

    • #
      beowulf

      Morrison is no disappointment. He is entirely living down to all expectations. Anyone who couldn’t see through his lump of coal stunt and perceive him for the empty fool that he is, needs some serious help. The man is a mountain of nothing, adorned by that vacuous, perpetual smirk. I’m sure he sees himself as God’s Chosen One.

      To paraphrase and plagiarise Groucho Marx (I think), Morrison was sent to us by God, but only because God ran out of locusts.

      290

      • #
        David Maddison

        I don’t think Groucho said that bit it is attributed to him in memes both against Obama and Trump.

        E.g. https://imgflip.com/i/3in73v

        I agree with your other comments, well said.

        110

      • #
        GlenM

        An unimpressive individual in MY view. Absolutely boring to listen to with endless vacuous statements. Is he better than his predecessor? Yes, but compared to a low mark as Turdball what can be said. He has achieved little so far and it looks so into the future.

        90

      • #
        truth

        The reason the Fascist Socialists don’t care about the inequity in other countries not being blackmailed and targeted as Australia is……even though they ..like CHINA…have thumbed their noses at cutting emissions ….is that the UNIPCC Socialists meant it when they admitted that it’s not about the planet and the environment….it’s all about killing coal and gas …because coal is what stands in the way of their only real aim as Figueres spelt out…to cancel the Industrial Revolution that via coal power…brought millions of people out of poverty without the need for Marxism….and its tyrannous…murderous elites .

        When the Socialist ideology in its various iterations…has already gone to the lengths of slaughtering >100 million people around the world for its diabolical ends ….and with that still failed to impress the world with the maniacal extent of its resolve to rule ….and still failed to intimidate and terrify the democratic world with the depths of its depravity …..then such is the anti-human predatory nature of the ideology… that it has to destroy …as its last ditch means…..the only thing that would give the individuals of the world the strength and capability to lift themselves to prosperity…to solve problems…to improve the human condition… to research ….to live autonomous lives with all the freedoms that are their birthright…..has to destroy access to the plentiful…reliable…coal-fired electricity that makes everything possible….and makes Marxism redundant.

        Real human ingenuity will eventually…with the prosperity that coal provides…come up with an energy source with all the attributes of fossil fuels and more. …but that would be the Marxists’ Waterloo.

        IMO this net zero decision isn’t something Morrison has been resisting but now must fall in with due to the course of world events.

        I think he has always planned to do this….despite taking the lump of coal into parliament …which he did …not to defend coal but to defend his comrade Turnbull who at the time was in full-blown ‘hose down the conservatives’ mode to save his own miserable backside …pretending his NEG was not about killing coal…never that….when it had the death of coal built in as its indispensable plank.

        That’s why Morrison was so cagy during the 2019 election…pretending he might fund HELE coal plants…playing cat and mouse with the company that wanted to build a HELE plant in Collinsville …playing the same nefarious game with that company for more than four years now…and with the conservative Libs as he systematically purges them.

        He’s been insolently non-committal through every step of the way on this issue…..never defending Australia’s case…never ever acknowledging that it’s only Australia that will be forced into a 3rd world electricity system…trying to survive when 100% dependent on the weather…even if the green hydrogen dream could overcome its nightmarish problems.

        Never once has he acknowledged that Australia is the only nation on the face of the earth that’s being forced by its government to commit suicide as a modern industrial nation…to surrender all of its competitive advantages…to give up everything it does well…when every single one of the leaders blackmailing Australia has coal-gas-huge hydro-biomass-nuclear- plus interconnectors to neighbors who have the same…so that all of Australia’s competitors will have the security of baseload power forever plus in many cases highly-protected industries…while Australia will have absolutely none of that…we’ll be forever struggling to keep the lights on and to keep any industry going at all ….with our country covered in concrete…solar panels ….transmission pylons….synchronous condensers …volatile dangerous batteries in massive numbers…all the bandaids and safety pins required for the pretence that wind and solar can power a modern country….littering our countryside and costing us squillions that we won’t have.

        Has Morrison discussed any of this with us at all…does he ever make himself available to anyone at all except a couple of sycophants?

        He has operated in full Fabian Socialist mode …gradualism…boiling the frogs slowly till ready to deploy the Socialist hammer to ‘mould the world’.

        So I fully expect that Morrison will also cave to the Global Fascists’ next demand…that Australia open its borders to all comers..but especially to ‘climate refugees’ …which asylum-seekers will all claim to be of course.

        70

        • #
          clarence.t

          “that Australia open its borders to all comers..but especially to ‘climate refugees’ “

          But , but, Australia is the “absolute worst” when it comes to emissions and “climate action” (whatever that is)….

          … why would climate refugees ever want to move here !!

          20

    • #
      Doc

      Just let’s wait and see what he does at Glasgow. Australia has the moral right to overpromise and grossly underdeliver, emulating all those nations that hypocritically declare it a failure. Also, from what Taylor is reported to have said, it appears the ‘promise’ Australia is to make, is doing no more, as stated than what we are doing now.
      Frankly, it will take people like Barnaby and Canavan to get onto the airwaves and call out the hypocrisy of the AGW political true believers, point out what Australia has done, that it is already a nett zero nation (as per entry #5.1.1) and our people ought to hold their heads up and fight against the activists and crazy greens that have aims other than the climate as their agendas. There seems to be no political will, no backbone in most of our politicians to actually forcibly stand up for the nation, and tell it as it is. This has gone on for so long as to embolden so many Big Businesses, Social Organisations, Education system, Legal System and big banks to usurp the power of the government and begin to govern our social, economic, and international interests.

      We are losing our democracy, just as is the USA when its government ignores Constitutional law, refuses to obey the national laws on immigration and has a Supreme Court that appears to be so fearful and weak as to not function on electoral and educational matters.

      00

  • #
    clarence.t

    I’d like to repeat the two links I posted at the end of the previous post, both highly pertinent here…

    1. To all those who say there is no aim to this AGW scam……

    The truth is finally told by your bible…

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/22/we-can-save-capitalism-or-the-planet-not-both

    2. Marc Monaro exposes the “great reset..

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/23/watch-moranos-full-25-min-speech-on-climate-lockdowns-at-heartland-skeptic-conference-in-las-vegas/

    Will the general public subjugate itself to “climate lockdowns” like it has to “covid lockdowns” ?

    Will you ?

    Please watch the video, it shows what “they” have planned..

    This is not a conspiracy theory, it is their own words.

    212

    • #
      David Maddison

      The Marc Monaro video is scary.

      The Left have already conditioned people to covid lockdowns, a climate lockdown to stop producing CO2 will be next.

      And the Sheeple will roll over and accept it.

      I bet the Leftist Elites continue to fly their private jets during climate lockdowns, however.

      190

    • #
      RickWill

      The fact that there is a COP26 underlines the disconnect between action and consequence. The current attack on Australia is to attack the “problem” at its source. It is useless trying to stop people using fossil fuels when they are readily available. The better way is to shut down supply. Australia produces 19,711PJ of energy and consumes less than 4,000PJ. Australia provides half of the world’s iron ore. Shutting down Australia’s output of iron ore and energy has a huge impact on global supply chains – it is easier than trying to get China to lower aspirations.

      Lockdowns become voluntary when energy prices are so high that their only use is those sanctioned by the UN – to attend a COP meeting for example. The hoi polloi will not be able to afford to move about. I have read that the hoi polloi in the UK are already making a choice to stay fed or stay warm. This will be a growing global outcome of cutting off access to energy resources. Biden is already having an impact on the US energy supply chain. The country has become a net energy importer again this year after Trump got the USA to net exporter during his term..

      Reducing disposable income so no one but the privileged can afford to move about results in lockdown by choice. People stay at home. They cannot afford to go anywhere.

      Weather powered intermittent generators do not produce more energy in their operating life than they consume during their manufacture, transport, erection and maintenance. Their universal use would condemn humans to the sole purpose of building and operating them. All human endeavour would need to focus on building these useless monsters. Lockdowns are an automatic outcome of pushing for their universal use.

      100

  • #
    Robber

    This item should be sent to Barnaby and Angus Taylor. The Hon Angus Taylor MP was sworn in as Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction on 8 October 2021.

    141

    • #
      Lawrie

      I send everyone of Jo’s exposes to my local member, Dr David Gillespie. He often sends a personal response. I encourage everyone here to send pertinent information to their local members. They may or may not read it but someone in the office will and the news gets out. It is a slow process but one that must be implemented. Telling your friends and mentioning it at outings also helps. I ran into a group of “Nannies knitting for Climate Action” one day in town. Eventually their leader asked where I got my information as they relied on the ABC and Fairfax. I gave them half a dozen websites including Jo’s so maybe they might have listened. I have not seen them since. Many people accept the BS because they are denied real information. We need a billionaire to fund an information campaign about net zero and the rest of the crap.

      120

      • #
        GlenM

        I guess it’s the same when you ask someone why they believe in climate scaries. The general response is I don’t know or I heard it on TV. Or, I don’t want to talk about it.

        40

    • #
      Gary S

      The fact that Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction are all contained within the same portfolio speaks to their true agenda.

      70

  • #
    David Maddison

    It’s too bad we don’t have a PM like President Trump who is smart enough to know there is no problem with atmospheric CO2 and who will just say to the UN One World Government believers, “NO”. He should then get out of the Paris Accords and give the Australian people inexpensive energy again.

    271

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Peta Credlin: Covid modelling proves why climate science should also be questioned

    The modelling around Covid predicted devastating consequences for Australia that never eventuated, so could the science around climate change predictions also be wrong, asks Peta Credlin.

    Why is it that Melbourne’s liberation last Friday came on a day with almost 2200 Covid cases; yet its initial incarceration eleven weeks earlier had been prompted by just eight cases?

    Ok, vaccination rates had risen from 20 to 70 per cent in the interim.

    It’s still worth posing the question: how could eight cases be a catastrophe, yet 2200 cases be a cause for celebration; other than in a topsy-turvy world where “following the science” just means following the leader? Never has adhering to expert advice meant so many contradictory anomalies, and so much hardship for so many people.

    Even on “Freedom Day” (thank you government for giving back what was never yours to take away) people from NSW could enter Victoria and go anywhere while Melbournians were still banned from regional areas; and people were once again allowed inside each other’s homes but not inside a “non-essential” retail shop?

    It’s been clear for many months now, that while Covid posed a grave risk to people who were very old or very sick, once the vulnerable had been vaccinated, we could start to treat Covid like most other diseases because vaccinations cut the risk of hospitalisation and death by about 90 per cent. But this settled science on Covid hasn’t stopped different approaches in different states as well as clearly absurd applications of the “science”: such as the Queensland rule that briefly required mask wearing while driving a car alone; the Victorian rules that allowed coffee drinking in parks but not beer or wine, with kids’ playgrounds deemed dangerous and shut down but not the heroin injecting room; and those absurd curfew rules, with no scientific basis at all!

    In other words, not only did the same science produce very different policy responses, but supposedly “following the science” included numerous measures that were, frankly, grandstanding by premiers who’ve used and abused “health science” to score political points. But if the settled science of Covid can be exploited like this, what about the science of climate change?

    Let’s accept that the climate is changing, and that mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions are the cause. Why does it automatically follow that the fossil fuel industry must be closed down in the next couple of decades, regardless of the cost; and more importantly, regardless of the fact that most of the world’s biggest emitters won’t follow suit, so that countries like ours end up massively disadvantaged with the planet hardly better off? If it’s finally become acceptable to count the costs of endless lockdowns to prevent Covid; why can’t we also question the costs of measures to prevent climate change and ask ourselves: can it be done differently and better?

    If there’s one thing the pandemic should have taught us, it’s that modelling is only as good as the modellers’ assumptions. Initially, the expert modellers said that 150,000 plus Australians would die of Covid. To date, only Victoria has breached the 1000 deaths threshold. Even during the current outbreak, predictions of thousands of hospital admissions with intensive care units overwhelmed have been massively overblown. Either modelling exists to make astrology look good or the modellers have a catastrophe bias.

    As our government prepares to commit us to net zero emissions by 2050 on the basis of modelling that the planet otherwise faces environmental disaster; yet that net zero can be achieved without any significant economic pain, it’s worth asking why the climate modelling can be trusted when the epidemiological modelling clearly couldn’t; and why the climate “experts” are both unanimous and infallible while the health experts clearly weren’t.

    Before the last election, the Prime Minister used Liberal Party modelling showing that a 45 per cent cut to emissions by 2030 would cumulatively cost 336,000 jobs, cut wages by $9000 and slash nearly half a trillion dollars from GDP in order to label Labor’s policy as “reckless”. Now, he says that an even bigger cut will actually make us richer, but hasn’t released the modelling nor adequately dealt with the fact, as confirmed by the International Energy Agency, that much of the so-called technology to get to net zero is either unproven or hasn’t even been invented yet.

    Right now, fossil fuels provide 83 per cent of the world’s total primary energy. That’s just four percentage points down over the past 30 years, despite all the billions in subsidies for renewables. Yet if the PM is to be believed, Australia can keep increasing our coal and gas exports at the same time as the world reduces its fossil fuel dependence to just 20 per cent; and it will all be done by “technology not taxes” even though the British Treasury has estimated that achieving net zero will require a carbon price of $295 a tonne by 2050 (compared to Julia Gillard’s carbon tax of just $23 a tonne). And that’s even with Britain using zero-emissions nuclear power which we still ban here (even though it’s our exported uranium that drives it).

    On current technology, net zero means no cement, no steel, no aluminium, no air travel, no petrol or diesel vehicles and no eating beef or dairy. Yet this is supposed to be a painless transition that will make us richer, not poorer. Perhaps the experts could next model the likelihood that pigs might fly.

    220

    • #
      RickWill

      All this demonstrates is Peta Credlin’s lack of analytic skills.

      Peru, Indonesia and India are good examples of what occurs when lockdowns are ineffective. Covid death’s way beyond their ability to count them and inability to dispose of bodies respectfully.

      Russia is now a good example of opening up with low numbers of vaccinated – 30% is not enough. Cases literally skyrocketing and very little reduction in death rate compared with pre-vaccinated period – Covid deaths hit new record of 1000/day this week. Russia has 30% of the population vaccinated – WAAAY too low to get infection rate under 1. They are going back into lockdown despite having an effective and safe vaccine.

      With regard climate action – The current strategy of cutting off supply to fossil fuels is sort of working at the present time – Australia supplies annually 19,711PJ of energy or 3.3% of global total. It is not massive but enough to impact the global supply chain. Targeting Australia’s iron ore would be like the global economy hitting a brick wall so it is a better target. When a growing number of Europeans and North Americans have to make a choice between staying fed or staying warm, Trump may be viewed more broadly as a true hero and a few years ahead of his time.

      As far as the climate religion goes just know that anyone who mentions “greenhouse gasses” as something related to Earth’s climate is in desperate need of a clue. The water cycle, powered by sunlight dominates Earth’s climate. Just 18 hours of the energy transferred from ocean to land through the water cycle during December any year would power the entire human race for a year. That is not anything like the total water cycle but just the fraction that ends up on land; enough to cover the entire land area with 63mm of water but concentrated to locations like the Amazon forest, northern Australia, PNG, Indonesia, Malaysia and Congo. The idea of a trace gas causing a tipping is so laughably stupid it deserves total derision.

      84

      • #

        Covid modelling proves nothing about climate modelling and it’s silly of Credlin to conflate them. The big scandals with Covid are Antivirals and Borders. 1/ That we can’t use cheap safe drugs. and 2/ That we failed to keep ChiComm bioweapons out.

        The Left are making a few feeble attempts to conflate the two totally different topics, but the public aren’t buying them, and the right should point that out not make the same mistake.

        The public are not going to accept “lockdowns” for the climate. They aren’t scared of climate change. They will and do accept all kinds of other junk for the climate, so lets expose that.

        101

        • #

          The point where we should use the two topics together is to Redpill the nation about the media.

          If we show unequivocal truths that the media hide it shows the media is willing to actively lie for an agenda. And that works for both Covid and the Climate. Once people realize the media are dishonest self-serving ideologues on one issue, they wonder about the other issues…

          120

    • #
      michael hammer

      I listened to this report by Peta. While I agree with the thrust of her report one sentence made me very angry – “Let’s accept that the climate is changing, and that mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions are the cause. ” No I do not accept that at all. In response I would offer the following brief analysis.

      Earth’s atmosphere generates mechanical work. It raises water to high altitudes powering hydroelectric generators, while wind can blow down trees, raise waves and drive wind turbines. This is powered by thermal energy coming from the sun. The earth’s surface and atmosphere is converting thermal energy from the sun into mechanical energy which is the exact definition of a heat engine. Heat engines are very well understood, the requirements for their operation were first described by Sadi Carnot (1796-1832).

      There are 2 requirements for a heat engine which are relevant to this discussion. Firstly, 100% efficiency of conversion of thermal energy into mechanical energy is impossible. There must not only be a point in the cycle where the working fluid gains thermal energy (the hot junction) but there must also be a point in the cycle where the working fluid loses thermal energy (the cold junction). For example, in a power station the boiler is the hot junction and the cooling towers are the cold junction.

      Secondly the hot junction must be at significantly higher pressure than the cold junction. The working fluid heated at the hot junction expands as it moves from the hot to cold junction doing mechanical work in the process. At the cold junction the working fluid loses energy (cools) which means it takes less mechanical energy to recompress it back to the hot junction pressure than was release in the expansion. The mechanical work done is the difference between the thermal energy absorbed at the hot junction and the thermal energy lost at the cold junction.

      For the atmosphere, the hot junction is Earth’s surface where the surface, warmed by absorption of solar energy, in turn warms the atmosphere. The cold junction must be at a point of lower pressure and the only possibility is high up in the atmosphere. Since energy is conserved, losing energy means transferring it to somewhere colder (second law of thermodynamics) and for air high up in the atmosphere the only place colder is space. The only available mechanism of heat transfer in that case is by radiation in the thermal infrared (wavelengths between about 4 and 50 microns). Temperatures in our atmosphere preclude significant radiation at other wavelengths (Planks law). But, by definition, any gas capable of radiating in the thermal IR band is a greenhouse gas. That means energy loss to space and thus the existence of a cold junction relies on the presence of greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse gases there cannot be a cold junction and without a cold junction the heat engine that defines our weather and climate could not function. In practical terms the atmosphere warmed at the surface rises but, having risen, it needs to cool in order to descend again completing the convective loop. If there were no greenhouse gases the air could not cool and thus could not descend again.

      The lapse rate in our atmosphere is created and maintained by convection. Without convection it disappears and, with, time the entire atmospheric column would end up at a uniform temperature (a vertically isothermal atmosphere). Without the air movement caused by convection there would be no wind. Water vapour also could not condense because condensation requires losing energy and without greenhouse gases there is no way for it to do so, hence no clouds would form. Without condensation the entire atmosphere would become saturated with respect to water vapour and then net evaporation would also stop. Without convection there would be nothing to raise surface dust and what dust was in the atmosphere would eventually precipitate out so the air would become extremely clear. In short, there would be no weather, no clouds, no wind, no rain no dust. Without clouds, dust or greenhouse gases (a transparent atmosphere) the average insolation at the surface would be very similar to the insolation in near space averaged over the rotating globe ie: around 340 watts/sqM (not the current 234 watts/sqM). The surface would radiate this back out to space as close to a black body giving a global average temperature of 278K or +5C. (Stefan Boltzmann equation)

      As an aside, it is also worth noting that, without the possibility of radiative heat transfer (no greenhouse gases), when the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, heat can be transferred to the atmosphere by convection which is fast, but, when the surface is colder there is a temperature inversion precluding convection and thus only allowing to atmosphere to transfer heat to the surface by conduction which is extremely slow. As a result, the temperature of the atmosphere rises to close to the maximum temperature of the surface not the average temperature of the surface.

      While the average insolation would be 340 watts/sqM the actual insolation at any point on the surface will vary with latitude, season and time of day. In the tropics, for example, insolation would reach around 1340 watts/sqM at noon and down to of course zero at night. The actual surface temperature would vary as insolation varies, with the degree of change depending on the thermal time constant of the surface. Our own observations of just how fast beach sand or a concrete path or even dry ground heats up on a summer’s day tells us this time constant, at least on land, is very short compared to Earth’s 24 hour day – typically less than 1 hour. From the Stefan Boltzmann law, at 1300 watts/sqM noon tropical temperature would be close to 116C while night time temperature would be far below freezing. 116C is above the boiling point of water but large bodies of water have far longer time constants so would not reach these temperatures. Away from the tropics it would not be quite as extreme but even at latitude 37, insolation at noon in summer is around 1200 watts/sqM corresponding to 110C, while insolation at noon in midwinter is around 620 watts/sqM corresponding to 50C. The situation would be similar to the surface of the moon which reaches 127C during the “day” and minus 173C during the “night”. Although because the lunar day/night is longer than Earth’s (28 days vs 1 day) the result on Earth would not be quite as extreme.

      A practical example much closer to home is a closed car out in the sun. It heats up because convection and evaporation are inhibited (although not entirely suppressed), similar to the situation without the atmospheric heat engine that is our climate. The temperature inside the car can easily and rapidly rise above 70C, which is why there are laws against leaving children in closed cars.

      Of course, all this is hypothetical, after all we do have greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. So, is the analysis significant? Well, yes it is, for two reasons. Firstly, even though the claimed warming impact of greenhouse gases, derived by applying the Stefan Boltzmann equation without feedbacks, is 33C, the actual impact is more likely to be around 9 degrees – due mainly to cloud shielding. This suggests feedbacks in our climate are negative not positive as claimed by warmists.

      Secondly; it’s far more major effect is to reduce the high temperature extremes and increase the low temperature extremes. In short to significantly moderate the daily and seasonal temperature excursions, making the climate more equitable. Yet the climate models claim the incremental impact of rising greenhouse gases will have exactly the opposite impact, exacerbating the extremes. If the incremental impact of a parameter is in the opposite direction to the total impact, it means that at some point there has to be a point of inflection, a point where the action of the parameter reverses. What would cause that for our climate and which side of the point of inflection are we currently at? Why would not the small incremental greenhouse gas impact due to rising CO2 further moderate the extreme temperatures even if it caused a small rise in “average” temperature? And would such a change really be catastrophic or even disadvantageous?

      Further, once a greenhouse gas concentration reaches the point where absorption at the line centre saturates, the incremental impact of further increases becomes logarithmic. The major greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, water vapour 1st and carbon dioxide 2nd, are both many doublings beyond saturation. If the cumulative total impact of all greenhouse gases is 9C of warming how could one doubling CO2 concentration alone give rise to incremental warming of 3 – 4.5 C.

      80

      • #
        Ian

        “I listened to this report by Peta. While I agree with the thrust of her report one sentence made me very angry – “Let’s accept that the climate is changing, and that mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions are the cause. ”

        I think you may find Ms Credlin is now conforming to the News Corp’s backflip on Climate Change.
        https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-news-corps-new-spin-on-climate-change-169733

        20

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Strange I heard her say it as a rhetorical question .

          10

        • #
          John+R+Smith

          – “Let’s accept that the climate is changing, and that mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions are the cause.”

          Yeah, ok, but so what?
          (Besides the fact that changes in climate would be overwhelming the result of long term orbital mechanics and solar phases.)
          Other animal activities and emissions never count?
          Volcanic activity?
          Ocean mechanics we have no clue about?
          The occasional space rock traffic?
          For Jupiter’s sake, one thing is not ‘causing’ ‘climate change’.
          This whole thing is unspeakably dumb.
          Human navel gazing.

          10

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Australia is 14th in the world by country, and 14th in the world on a per capita basis. If you consider total emissions then Australia is 14th again. So it does not matter which metric you choose Australia is more polluting than average.

    Spin all you like, they are the facts.

    149

    • #
      David Maddison

      Carbon dioxide is not pollution.

      420

      • #
        Dennis

        And it’s not Carbon is it, but is often spoken about as Carbon.

        250

      • #
        Peter+Fitzroy

        Rubbish, David, it is a by product which is dumped into the environment – that is the very definition of pollution

        227

        • #
          clarence.t

          ps.. It is the absolutely epitome of recycling !

          Round and round it goes, sustaining all life on Earth.

          181

        • #
          Great+Aunt+Janet

          Do you like nuclear powered energy Peter? No C02 problems.

          100

          • #
            Peter+Fitzroy

            Certainly the current technology, particularly the smaller self contained units are underestimated in relation to the energy mix, I will use your backyard to dispose of the waste, if that is OK

            118

            • #
              Dennis

              During the 1970s a nuclear physicist then working for the CSIRO explained to a group of people how easy it would be to store nuclear waste, depleted material, in Australia safely for as long as necessary given the vast open and unused lands we have here, even within the Woomera prohibited entry area of SA.

              He said one space the area of a football field with holes about the diameter of timber poles that carry electrical cables in suburban streets drilled into the ground would store canisters of nuclear material from world sources for many years of dumping. And then open a new dumping area, and another as needed.

              Former PM Hawke supported a nuclear dump for an Aborigine Land Council near Daly Waters in the NT and pointed out that rental income would benefit the local people.

              The other nonsense commentary I laugh at is about who wants a nuclear power station near their backyard.

              Obviously for the bright people power stations are outside of city suburbs and towns and located along the electricity grid in open country which is where nuclear fuelled power stations would also be built.

              140

              • #

                Exactly and whatever happened to SYNROC which was going to neutralise the nuclear waste?……………

                20

              • #
                Ken+Stewart

                When anyone asks would we want nuclear waste stored in our backyards just remind them that nuclear waste is currently stored in every hospital with an x-ray department.

                10

        • #
          michael hammer

          I think it is you citing rubbish Peter. The definition of pollution is not “a by product which is dumped into the environment”. The definition of pollution is “the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects.” So the question is; does CO2 have harmful or poisonous effects. It is a mandatory requirement for plant growth is that poisonous? It allows energy loss to space from the upper atmosphere which is a necessary requirement for Earth to have weather at all (see my comments 11.2)is that a harmful or poisonous effect? It aids the weathering of carbonate rocks leading to carbonates in the oceans which marine animals use to make their shells, is that harmful? The biosphere annually recycles 20 times as much CO2 as all mans emissions, is the biosphere cycling pollutants. All the fossil fuels were once part of the biosphere when the planet was far more verdant than it is now. So was Earth at that time massively polluted? Funny that it was so green while so polluted.

          80

          • #
            Peter+Fitzroy

            in industrial processes like coal power it is the economic definition which takes precedence, and since it is cheaper to dump CO2 that is what is done.

            CO2 is poisonous at relatively low levels, and bad health effects are noticed at 1000 ppm )which is common with unflued gas heaters as an example

            The last time C)2 was this high humans did not exist – so your harmful statement is bollocks

            018

            • #
              David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

              P F,
              Sounds like you haven’t identified the difference between CO and CO2. Best do a check up on your basic chemistry.
              Cheers
              Dave B

              120

            • #
              clarence.t

              “CO2 is poisonous at relatively low levels, and bad health effects are noticed at 1000 ppm’

              That is just a low-end misinformation… ie a lie. !

              CO2 is not harmful at any level even up to 5000ppm or even more.

              Certainly not at any level it could reach in the whole atmosphere.

              1000p-2000pm is regularly found in bedrooms in the morning, in enclosed rooms etc..
              so your “harmful” statement is complete bollocks.

              No-one suffers from it at all.

              CO2 is not “dumped”, it is released into the atmosphere where it will do the most good.

              80

              • #
                michael hammer

                We can go further Clarence. CO2 becomes toxic to humans at 4% which is 40,000 ppm. That’s just a tad higher than the current 400. Greenhouses often are artificially raised to 1000 ppm. Food is often packaged in the “toxic” CO2 gas – wow who would have thought. In fact there is a current shortage of CO2 which is impacting on food supplies. I agree Peter needs to understand the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Who would have thought a “toxin” could green the Earth – plants must be so perverse or maybe they simply have not been reading the environmentalist literature. Do we need to translate it into “tree”? /sarc

                40

            • #
              clarence.t

              At least you are not still trying to pretend it causes atmospheric warming.

              Changing tack to say its “dangerous to humans” at any possible atmospheric level is also a tactic which will end in complete failure.

              50

            • #
              clarence.t

              btw, another fact for you to digest..

              If an office or room full of people, has insufficient ventilation to allow CO2 to build up to 1000ppm+ for a period of time, it is not the CO2 that causes problems, its all the other chemicals that also build up.

              All those “olfactory” hydrocarbons ;-), perfumes, fabric and material out-gassing, ozone from printers etc etc.

              Not to mention bugs and viruses…

              That is the reason ventilation is so important.

              CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it, except as an indicator.

              A submarine with scrubbers and air filters can reach 8000ppm with zero harm to the occupants.

              60

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                To use that most modern of words, thrashed to its limits by the Get Vaxxed or be Doomed bank of New York:

                there are “multiple” comments above which respond so calmly and scientifically to the unscientific junk statement.

                Well done first responders.

                Not knowing the difference between CO and CO2 is just soooo Grettanesque!

                Even the Koalas must be laughing.

                40

            • #

              Industrial processes are responsible for 3-5 % of the annual increase of CO2 worldwide.
              CO2 is increrasing since the end of of glaciation and the respective warming causing it.

              00

          • #
            Ian

            “So the question is; does CO2 have harmful or poisonous effects.”

            Depends on its concentration. High levels can kill. But then raid ingestion of too much water can also kill

            20

            • #
              Ian

              Apologies “raid” should read rapid

              30

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              You seem to be unaware that too little CO2 in the human bloodstream is the prelude to death in many older people who pass aware naturally.

              Perhaps check out a bit more Neuroscience and Psychobiology?

              10

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              The most dangerous atmospheric gas might surprise you: it’s Oxygen.

              30

        • #
          Mark+Allinson

          ” … the very definition of pollution.”

          Can you explain why commercial horticulturalists pumps tonnes of this “pollution” into their plant production facilities to double or triple the yield?

          Can you name another form of pollution which when added to then plant growing process increases the yield?

          Do you refuse to consume produce exposed to such high levels of “pollution”?

          100

          • #
            Peter+Fitzroy

            Nice assertions, but it does not change the definition.

            In your example – does the producer of the CO2 pollution (a coal plant) get paid to supply a greenhouse?
            Sure – ever heard of night soil
            What a stupid statement, how would I know?

            011

            • #
              clarence.t

              “how would I know?”

              Its patently obvious that you don’t.

              They actually pay for tanks of CO2 for use in real greenhouses.

              That’s how valuable it is.

              CO2 is not pollution in any sense, it is a totally necessary part of the carbon cycle and has been in short supply for a very long time.

              Even now, a doubling or more of atmospheric CO2 would be nothing but beneficial to life on this planet.

              70

            • #

              The big question here is, whose statement is stupid. You won. 😀

              20

        • #
          sophocles

          Rubbish yourself PF: it’s an End Product — a necessary and important one. If it wasn’t released into the environment, you would no longer be alive.

          There isn’t enough of that specific End Product in the atmosphere. It needs to be tripled to make a healthy environment.

          40

        • #
          clarence.t

          Rubbish PF,

          is not “pollution”

          It is an absolutely essential trace gas that all life on Earth relies on for survival.

          Without it the carbon cycle would not operate.

          Next you be saying that oxygen, which is a by-product of plant photosynthesis, is pollution.

          50

    • #
      David Maddison

      Peter, do you drive an electric car and is it recharged with your own solar panels or do you recharge it from mostly coal generated electricity from the electrical outlet?

      Is your home off-grid or do you use mostly coal generated electricity?

      360

      • #
        Peter+Fitzroy

        I’m assuming the your drive a 12 cylinder car, have all the lights, heaters, air con, appliances etc on all the time. You could actually argue the point instead of this garbage, but then critical thinking is not your superpower

        016

        • #
          clarence.t

          PF’s answer is…

          “No. I don’t drive an electric car that I charge only from solar panels”

          …and yes, he is still totally reliant on coal fired electricity from the grid.

          60

    • #
      clarence.t

      Yep, AGW is all spin..

      Thanks for that. 🙂

      Maybe you are walking up to the fact that it is all one great big con. !

      CO2 emissions have no effect on the climate.

      That is the number one fact.

      212

    • #
      el+gordo

      The term ‘on a per capita basis’ is designed by China, allowing them to keep on building coal fired power stations. Its politics and stinks of hypocrisy.

      140

      • #
        Harves

        It’s also useful when attacking countries like Australia whose emissions make not a blip on a global scale because of our small population. But we are definitely not allowed to use it to talk up our world leading renewable uptake … on a per capita basis.

        150

      • #
        clarence.t

        I wonder where we are on a “per area” basis 😉

        80

      • #
        Peter+Fitzroy

        and what is your metric? per square furlong?

        015

        • #
          clarence.t

          Totally irrelevant !

          CO2 emissions are a big plus for all life on Earth

          Every species on Earth depends absolutely on atmospheric CO2 for food.

          51

    • #
      Harves

      “Australia is 14th in the world by country, “
      What does this even mean?🙄

      180

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        When Peter F. uses a word it means just what he wants it to mean (at that particular moment).

        What he doesn’t want to discuss is what would happen if we unilaterally decided to stop mining coal and iron ore, stopped exporting natural gas, and agricultural products like beef, non-organically grown wheat, barley, rice etc. And importing oil and petrol and manufactured goods.
        If ScoMo wants to make a really big impression he should announce this at Glasgow, although I don’t know if he would get out of the room alive.

        180

      • #
        Peter+Fitzroy

        read the post, that is the definition that Jo prefers

        111

    • #
      Raving

      Cut out those mineral and agricultural products and the per capita basis falls. Cut out the immigration and net zero is easier to achieve. Nice cheat to blame resource exporters for their carbon usage in export.

      100

      • #
        Harves

        According to UN logic, if Australia completely destroyed our agriculture industry and imported 100% of our food, we would be the poster boys (or any other gender) of the climate change movement.
        In the same way California has concluded that somehow banning local production of fossil fuels in favour of importing Russian oil is somehow better for the world.
        These people are fools.

        150

    • #
      Neville

      Peter we are in the SH so we are a NET co2 SINK.
      The CSIRO tell us this is the case via their Cape Grim GHG site at Cape Grim Tassie.
      Please WAKE UP to yourself and THINK before you YAP.

      81

      • #
        Peter+Fitzroy

        And…
        The problem is global after all.
        Are you suggesting we should be a free rider?

        011

        • #
          clarence.t

          Don’t worry, PF.. your free-rider comment is totally irrelevant and irrational..

          There is no atmospheric CO2 problem, global or otherwise.

          CO2 is not a problem in the global atmosphere all it does is enhance plant growth, which is a good thing, not a problem..

          Think of the koalas and every other animal on the planet that totally relies on plant growth to survive.

          We could actually do with more of it.

          It is totally beneficial to all life on Earth.

          There is absolutely no reason to do anything about releasing less of it.

          61

          • #
            Ian

            It would seem you are out of step with most voters

            “The Coalition has slumped to its lowest level of support in three years as Scott Morrison prepares to attend the Glasgow climate change summit armed with a commitment to meet a 2050 net-zero emissions reduction target.

            It comes amid growing community support for action on climate change, with most voters saying the goal of reducing emissions should be a greater priority for government than keeping energy prices down.’

            https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/newspoll-support-slumps-as-scott-morrison-leaves-for-glasgow/news-story/ebc8d809824deda8446ad7066d8f3a47

            Or are you the only one in step?

            02

            • #
              clarence.t

              The slump in Liberal votes is because they have become no different from Labor.

              The big winner will be the Unite Australia party, because they give the realist someone to vote for.

              The emissions reduction meme has been sold for so long, and so hard, that it is all people who don’t bother looking, know about.

              It relies on public ignorance… and there is plenty of that about.

              20

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                clarence:
                No. The Liberals have changed their policy from promising that Father Christmas will shower the voters with goodies, to one in which the Fairy Godmother will arrive in her coach with father Christmas inside it.
                Labor is still relying on the old Easter Bunny claim and the Greens have included the Tooth Fairy in their claims.

                10

            • #
              clarence.t

              “It would seem you are out of step with most voters”

              So what, why would I even care ? !

              I choose science based reality over perpetual brain-washing.

              20

          • #
            tom0mason

            Yes clarence.t,

            The global effect of a small to moderate increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has been the greening of the planet. The ONLY verified global effect.

            Thus far NO drawbacks have been identified except the increasing stupidity and hysteria from some very ignorant humans.

            60

        • #
          Raving

          And it’s high time to stop playing this as some global game.
          …. unless of course you have ways to twist the arms of your buddies in China

          Didn’t think so

          60

    • #
      Mal

      He’s gutless wonder
      Rolling over to the rent seeking financiers and big business, banks at the expense of ordinary australians
      We expect this from Labor and the greens not the liberals and nats

      30

  • #
    David Maddison

    By profoundly stupid and ignorant green/Left advice the Australian Government sees “green hydtogen” (sic) as the future.

    Since it will be a coal to hydrogen process, the CO2 produced will need to be sequestered on a massive scale while the hydrogen is used domestically or exported.

    It would be more efficient just to burn the coal and sequester the CO2 directly.

    Plus hydrogen is a very difficult fuel to handle, it leaks a lot and has to be handled at cryogenic temperatures and special metallurgy is required for its containment. It is OK for rockets but even then it’s avoided where possible. Hence Space X using liquid methane or kerosene not LH2.

    Australia, you’ve done it AGAIN!

    270

    • #
      clarence.t

      I want to see the Government build a new gas-fired power station in Kurri (for hydrogen purposes 😉 )

      … then say.. ok, we have done our bit, that is your “subsidy” towards “hydrogen”…

      … the rest is down to business enterprise.

      That way we get a boost to grid electricity, because like wind and solar, hydrogen energy can never exist economically without taxpayer subsidies.

      111

      • #
        Dennis

        It might help if you checked the approval process for most ventures, in this case gas fired power generators and being the State Government. State Governments are responsible for electricity supply and they are responsible for the changes to supply including privatisation resulting from the sale of State assets.

        So when the Federal Government announces a project like gas fired power generators that is subject to State processing and planning approval, they therefore approve renewables business ventures.

        When a Federal Government decided that a Snowy Mountains Hydro Electricity Scheme was a good plan it took over ten (10) years to gain the cooperation of State Governments before the Project could begin.

        30

        • #
          clarence.t

          Don’t worry Dennis,

          I am well aware of the approval process. It was the idea I was liking.

          More grid electricity, and those people who “believe” that Hydrogen is the future, get to waste their own money, not the taxpayer’s.

          51

          • #
            beowulf

            I thought they were already going ahead with a gas plant at Kurri on the ALCAN site. That was the last I heard, not that it means much when they make empty announcements regularly. That was part of the Liddell trade-off at one stage.

            AGL was also supposed to build a gas plant at Kooragang, but that seems to have evaporated into the ether too and Liddell is in its death throes. 2022 is almost upon us.

            Shame that the NSW “Liberal” government can’t put someone into the energy portfolio who is isn’t a Green in all but name.

            70

            • #
              el+gordo

              The government is underwriting a gas fired power plant to support the renewable zone and there are also plans for pumped hydro further north along the Great Dividing Range, just in case. Its a big expensive battery.

              20

            • #
              clarence.t

              Once Liddell closes, that is when the proverbial will hit the rapidly rotating blades.

              I wonder how Sydney will cope with erratic blackouts ..sorry.. I mean, load shedding !

              50

              • #
                beowulf

                Yes, I hope they apply proximal priority to power consumers when the supply runs low — those of us who live closest to the generators get first dibs on the power running past our doors.

                Should put Sydney well down the list, starting with the toffiest-nosed suburbs.

                30

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Is that the one that will use 5% hydrogen?
        The limit with current gas turbine technology as the higher ignition temperature of hydrogen wrecks the blades.
        When NASA launches a liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen fueled rocket, some of the hydrogen is ‘wasted’ as coolant to control surfaces.

        30

    • #
      Harves

      Similarly, I recently pointed out to a ‘green’ acquaintance who was defending biofuels, that given burning coal produces fewer CO2 emissions than burning wood for the same energy output, why don’t we just burn coal and plant the equivalent number of trees? Instead of burning inefficient wood and regrowing trees? He had no logical answer … other than to say that biofuels aren’t his first choice.

      110

    • #
      Tel

      We have had suggestions on this blog, for many years, that Australia work towards a coal to hydrocarbon process producing transport fuels, which would dovetail nicely with nuclear powered electricity generation. Liquification of coal has a long history, and it’s well understood.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction

      Coal to hydrogen is silly and pointless, other than as an intermediate step towards making hydrocarbons. You will note from the above link than both China and the USA are already doing a whole lot of this work.

      From a carbon accounting perspective, if Australia used more coal inside the country and exported less, then the result is carbon neutral (same coal mined, but different customer). The current coal market is massively distorted because China and India can happily burn Australian coal and count that against Australia’s CO2 total, but Australians are outlawed from using our own resources. It’s the nuttiest system ever.

      The only way it would make sense is if the Commonwealth insisted that coal can only be exported to countries with similar solar and wind energy percentages as Australia. Then they would be howled at for market interference … but it’s really only levelling up the system based on existing interference. The whole renewables schtick is one big wall of market interference.

      100

      • #

        Tel
        October 24, 2021 at 9:58 am ·

        From a carbon accounting perspective, if Australia used more coal inside the country and exported less, then the result is carbon neutral (same coal mined, but different customer). The current coal market is massively distorted because China and India can happily burn Australian coal and count that against Australia’s CO2 total, but Australians are outlawed from using our own resources. It’s the nuttiest system ever.

        Tel, That is NOT how the current emissions accounting works.
        All the coal we export is counted in the emissions from the country it is burned in.
        ……not the exporting country.
        This has been questioned and confirmed several times.

        00

        • #

          However the CO2 emitted in Australia from the mining and transport of that coal which is used overseas is counted as an Australian emission, right? So by the very nature of our chief industries we are emitting CO2 on behalf of other nations.

          60

        • #
          Tel

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

          I’m not holding up Wikipedia as the fount of all knowledge, but on “Left” topics they at least will display the commonly held view (if you lean to the Left).

          Sorting by 2018 numbers, Australia is number 14 and all the oil exporting nations are high on the list. The main difference being that Oman, Saudi Arabia, etc don’t care where they sit on the list, while Australia does.

          Wikipedia has a source citation “Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR)” which they provide a link for. I dug around and got this report here.

          https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/booklet/Fossil_CO2_emissions_of_all_world_countries_booklet_2020report.pdf

          Sure enough, all the countries like Saudi Arabia are listed with a large and growing “Power Industry” and the icon is a little electricity tower. Same with Oman, UAE, etc … but are those countries known for their electricity industry?

          That document gives a very vague explanation of their methodology, but I’m still convinced about the exports, because I compared Singapore (a large energy importer, but highly industrialized nation, with no rooftop solar to speak of and no windmills) against Australia and CO2 per capita in Australia is supposedly almost double that of Singapore. Do you believe that could happen without including exports?

          Here’s another one: I checked Kuwait and I note that their “Power Industry” dropped almost to zero in 1991 … hmmm, that must have been the time that Saddam Hussein invaded and set fire to their electricity generators … oh wait, it was the oilfields he clobbered, they lost their oil exports that year.

          10

          • #
            Tel

            I checked Hong Kong compared to Australia, and the “Power Industry” totals for recent years. Australia’s total is listed at 200 Megatonne of CO2 per year from the EDGAR report, while Hong Kong’s total is about 25 Megatonne of CO2 per year.

            Why do they use Megatonne not Teragram? I don’t know, people just hate SI units I suppose.

            Anyway, the point is that Australia cannot possibly have 8x the electricity generation of Hong Kong … it’s got to include exports.

            10

          • #

            Tel,.. it doesnt matter what Wiki states, or how you check emissions by country,..
            The fact is that the IPCC count CO2 emissions from fuels like Coal, Oil, Gas, etc. IN THE COUNTRY IT IS BURNT IN..
            not the supplying country !

            10

            • #
              Tel

              The political situation is influenced by what’s visible.

              If all the CO2 “worst offenders” list keep putting Australia up as some kind of terrible polluter, then that’s what people will believe. If you can find a link buried at the bottom of teh IPCC website explaining how they calculate the values then sure I will read it … but I doubt many others will go into that.

              Most people see a list on Wikipedia, and that’s it … Australia bad … Wiki says.

              00

              • #

                Tel, ..
                ..i am not about to do your homework for you, so either carry on under the illusion you have, or put some effort in to establish the true facts.
                I have been there and have no intention of immersing myself in ipcc documentation again for your benefit !
                But here is a snip from an article i was reading which sums it up…

                little attention has paid to trade in unprocessed (or unburned) fossil fuels, which shifts responsibility for emissions from fossil fuel exporting nations and companies to the middle-consumers (the states and companies involved in producing emissions using these fuels for power or manufacturing). How convenient for the beneficiaries – countries such as Australia, Canada, the Russian Federation, and Saudi Arabia.

                https://theconversation.com/why-australia-must-stop-exporting-coal-9698

                00

    • #
      GlenM

      Twiggy- not the slim model from the 60s, has a set of gleaming eyes set on this green hydro for his and fellow rent seekers. Scam of the highest order that thankfully is recognized by astute people here.

      60

  • #
    Dennis

    “Scott Morrison might be the worst negotiator on Earth. He failed to explain our achievements, to defend Australian workers, farmers and households and the voters who voted for him, to reach a deal that’s remotely fair. Teenage girls are gaslighting him. Bullies who serve bankers, greens and China pretend that Australians past carbon dioxide reductions don’t count because we achieved them by Land Use and Forestry. Lordy — Australians grew trees. The travesty! It only shows that the carbon game has nothing to do with the environment and nothing to do with carbon dioxide either. Do megatons of CO2 matter or don’t they?”

    Of course most of the left leaning Australian media won’t report it but I have read and heard about PM Morrison travelling overseas and pointing out that Australia is one of the few signatory nations that not only achieved but exceeded Kyoto Agreement emissions target, and is now on track to achieve Paris targets. The Australian Government was denied offsets or credits for the Kyoto success, the goal posts were moved which clearly indicates that the IPCC unelected officials are as UN Official Christiana Figureres admitted in October 2015 using their climate hoax to attack capitalism (free enterprise free market) and destroy it, or the developed nations that have become prosperous because of it.

    PM Morrison attended the last G7 Meeting as a guest, our media claimed that he was ignored by POTUS Biden, but after the PM returned to Australia we learnt about the historic defence arrangement discussed and agreed up, AUKUS. The PM also discussed the Free Trade Agreement between the UK and Australia that has been in discussion since before Brexit was achieved, and was pushed by the UK PM to include net zero emissions in that Agreement which he refused to do, he said it was not a trade issue.

    61

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Meanwhile Boris Johnson is getting agitated because he has suddenly realised that the Glasgow Climate conference may be a flop, just like the previous 25, none of which resulted in any reductions in CO2 emissions.

    160

    • #
      Harves

      No wonder he’s worried; if it’s a flop we’ll only have another 10 years to do something before there’s no polar bears …

      150

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        They will likely emigrate to Scotland as the Arctic gets too cold.
        There were a number of cases of fishamen in kayaks reported seen in Scotland during the Little Ice Age, but none of polar bears as far as I am aware. They were numerous enough in Iceland for their skins to be used as floor coverings in the churches.

        100

        • #
          David Maddison

          https://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%201600-1699.htm

          1613: Inuit (Eskimo) found in kayak near Hull, eastern England

          In 1613 a dead Inuit (Eskimo) was found drifting in his kayak in the North Sea, outside Hull. This particular kayak had a skeleton consisting of bones (Mikkelsen 1954).

          80

          • #

            But it will not be flop, even if CO2 emissions don’t change at all, because it was never about CO2 anyhow. It’s a junket for thousands to reward them for their faith. It will screw “Net Zero” commitments “on a record level” from a few nations, be hailed as a “Turning Point” in history, give us “hope” for a new future, and hudnreds of sympathetic meaningless headlines. And India and China may be coerced into saying they too will agree to do nothing for years but sometime in the distant future beyond the lives of all political careers, they intend to aim for Net Zero.

            See how this works? Judge it as a marketing exercise for a giant network sales team, not as science conference or as anything about CO2.

            100

            • #
              KP

              Yes, I just watched the movie about Enron last night, very much ‘The Wolf of Wall St’, and it was obviously a version of the whole global warming fiasco.

              Just sell sell sell, then take the money and run before it all collapses and quickly move onto the next scam.

              People are not any wiser than their ancestors getting sold a pig in a poke..

              10

            • #
              John+R+Smith

              I’m around a lot of educated progressives (ugh!).
              They are shockingly uniformed about science, policy, history or politics.
              Their main state of mind is guilt.
              Woke progressivism is a neo pagan religion.
              A death cult really.

              Cortes writes about meeting Montezuma.
              Monte took him to the top of the main temple, to a room that was covered in flies and stinking blood, with a stone bowl full of rotting human hearts.
              Monte, says, “this is where we sacrifice to our god,”
              Cortes replies, “we have a Lord that sacrificed himself for us.”
              Neil Young wrote a song about it, ironically titled “Cortes the Killer”.

              The political leaders you complain about are not concerned about effective policy, they want sacrificial penance.
              Especially if the guilt can be cleansed by the sacrifice of the unimportant.
              That’s what the Great Reset is.
              Deja vu all over again.

              30

        • #
          beowulf

          During the Big Freeze, in early colonial America around Minnesota there were what appear to be polar bears reported by the settlers. They called them Yellow Bears because their white coats were stained by vegetation. Read that years ago in some obscure document.

          60

    • #
      Dennis

      UK Unions realise their jobs are at risk from net zero emissions agenda and are preparing to go on strike to protest about COP26 in Glasgow.

      It’s a pity the Unions everywhere didn’t stand against the UN 1975 Lima Protocol agreeing to transfer manufacturing industry and jobs to developing nations over time.

      80

  • #
    OldOzzie

    How You Can Help Destroy The Green New Deal With Six Little Words

    Yes, the battle against the insane electric car policy and the whole Green New Deal can be won, using just three little words.

    Well, to be exact six words, and here they are:

    Solar Panels Don’t Work At Night

    As an alternative energy engineer, I had the misfortune to work with solar electric panels occasionally. They are an environmental nightmare.

    First of all, after 25 years of use, they become unrecyclable toxic waste.

    That’s right, they stop working after 25 years or less. And what is left is a hunk of toxic metals embedded in glass that can not be recycled.

    First of all, dear friends, what are we going to do with the millions and millions of solar panels after they stop working? There will literally be mountains of them.

    Secondly, they are hazardous waste, highly toxic. Mountains of toxins.

    Thirdly, the land on which they were placed is no longer suitable for agriculture. Or for people to live on. Toxins from the solar panels and the associated mechanical and electric equipment will have leached into the soil for 25 years.

    Thus, when more farmland is needed to grow food, the massive areas covered by solar panels are not a candidate.

    If it is true that CO2 is a danger to the planet (which it isn’t), then consider this. Making a solar electric panel produces more CO2 than the panel will ever save.

    220

    • #
      Dennis

      Solar energy, best operating conditions of panels on clear and cooler days between the hours of 10.00 am and 2.00 pm.

      As Tony from Oz reported here some time ago;

      Real Capacity Factor Solar: 17.5% and wind 28.5%

      (AEMO CP rating is 30-35.00%)

      140

    • #
      RickWill

      First of all, dear friends, what are we going to do with the millions and millions of solar panels after they stop working? There will literally be mountains of them.

      Before they get to this point there will be a significant industry recycling them. In the USA, 99% of all lead acid batteries are recycled now. Was not the case 50 years ago when they were just dumped. That includes the plastic case and sulphuric acid. US has a huge industry in steel recycling that is at the heart of the steel making industry.

      When you think that all the materials that are used in solar panels started life as dirt they are already in a highly refined state by comparison with where they start.

      Recycling panels will become big business. All those valuable materials available for the cost of separating them.

      Longevity and ease of recycling are the two ingredients that would make solar panels and batteries sustainable. The original commercial solar panels are still working after 60 years. If solar panels were made to last 50 to 100 years and similar for batteries then they would be economic against existing sources of energy like gas and coal.

      I have both Chinese made and European made solar panels and the plastic in the Chinese panels has faded after 10 years. I expect they are being sun affected. Panels still work to rating but there is obvious deterioration of the plastic. That could affect the water sealing.

      The aluminium rails and stainless brackets that my panels are mounted on will outlast the timber trusses they are mounted to.

      Wind turbines are a different story. I think the cost of recycling the materials in wind turbines will be a difficult exercise. The blades are already going to land fill in big quantitities. The offshore structures will become challenging to dismantle as corrosion makes them unstable.

      01

      • #

        RickWill
        October 24, 2021 at 12:25 pm ·
        Recycling panels will become big business. All those valuable materials available for the cost of separating them.

        Longevity and ease of recycling are the two ingredients that would make solar panels and batteries sustainable. The original commercial solar panels are still working after 60 years.

        ..
        Panel recycling is already a busness, but like solar installations, it is only viable as a “subsidised” effort. Whilst most recycling generates a revenue stream from the value of the materials recovered, ..with PV panels the cost of recovery exceeds the value of materials, .
        The only way of recovering the rare metals etc is by high temp furnace’s.which are expensive to run….hence why recyclers charge $10 /panel to recycle.
        Where are these 60 yr old pV panels (1960 ?) that are still working ?
        There are cars 60 yrs old that are still working …but
        PV panels are just like Cars, ..after 8-10 years they may still work, but are outdated tech, reduced efficiency and superceeded by higher output systems.
        Few installers will consider repairs or additions to a system that old and will at best only charge a minimal amount to remove it and replace with current tech panels and inverters.

        30

  • #
    Neville

    Thanks for your efforts over the years Jo and this is a very good update one week out from the Glasgow idiocy.
    BTW have you ever tried to contact Bolt or Rowan Dean, because I’m sure they miss out on a lot of the detail shown in this post?
    I can’t understand why you or David haven’t been interviewed in OZ over the years and particularly at crucial times like this?
    Certainly the last 50 years stand out as the best time to be alive and by a long way.
    The Earth is GREENING and life expectancy and wealth is at an all time high and Human population has more than doubled.
    Again thanks for your hard work and one day I hope you can look back with satisfaction, because you had the guts to tell the truth about the greatest con and fra-d trick in history.

    161

    • #

      Neville
      October 24, 2021 at 8:00 am ·
      Thanks for your efforts over the years Jo and this is a very good update one week out from the Glasgow idiocy.
      BTW have you ever tried to contact Bolt or Rowan Dean, because I’m sure they miss out on a lot of the detail shown in this post?
      I can’t understand why you or David haven’t been interviewed in OZ over the years and particularly at crucial times like this?

      Neville,.. Jo has appeared on Sky several times to pass expert input on various issues related to CAGW etc., but its always risky to expose yourself to TV contrived “sound bites” and edited interviews.
      I suspect Jo probably has contact channels to supply relavent info to those in positions to use on such programmes.

      30

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Speaking of Pollution look at the skies of Los Angeles in this WSJ Video and compare to the skies of Sydney

    https://www.wsj.com/video/series/on-the-news/what-america-supply-chain-backlog-looks-like-up-close/388D6F02-5BCD-43AD-A3EE-B945F7373983

    30

    • #
      Annie

      I hate to tell you this, but I have just had a couple of photo’s, one taken within the last hour or so, of a beautiful blue sky in Los Angeles!

      30

  • #
    David Maddison

    If you think wind and solar is a disaster just wait until we have a hydrogen economy as per government policy.

    https://www.industry.gov.au/policies-and-initiatives/growing-australias-hydrogen-industry/hydrogen-energy-supply-chain-pilot-project#:~:text=Hydrogen%20is%20a%20priority%20low,chain%20from%20Australia%20to%20Japan.

    Hydrogen is a priority low emissions technology for Australia.

    The Australian and Victorian Governments are supporting a world-first project to produce hydrogen in Victoria and export it to Japan. The Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain Pilot Project tests the supply chain from Australia to Japan.

    70

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Vikki Campion: Australia is facing huge issues if nuclear is not included in our energy mix

    The only way Australia can sign up to net zero, without economy-crippling blackouts that will force First World Australia onto back-up diesel generators, is small modular nuclear reactors, writes Vikki Campion.

    The Glasgow Climate Conference, COP26, is set to be the Free Tibet and Kony2012 of the 2020s – here we go on another quest to save the world. ADHD-suffering social justice warriors forget each fad almost as quickly as they hit the retweet button.

    Remember Free Tibet? Tibet’s not free, but where are the flags, bumper stickers and movies as superstar Hollywood activists found shiny new issues to hashtag?

    What about Kony2012? Joseph Kony, the Ugandan war lord, who believes he is a spokesman of God, indicted to The Hague for crimes against humanity, is still at large with his army of kids. But where did the millions of retweets and hashtags go?

    While Cop26 proudly tweets 100 leaders will set on Glasgow for the talk-fest, China and India, who together make up a third of the global population, won’t be there. Nor will Russia who make up 4.76 per cent of global emissions.

    Without them, Cop26 will come up with a slogan just as meaningful as Free Tibet or Kony2012.

    The irony is China is the biggest beneficiary of Cop26 because by not attending, they position as forerunners of the new global world order, they are buying our critical infrastructure and soon they will be the major supplier of our supposedly green energy in the manufacture of solar panels which are going to our landfill as households promised 15-year roof systems find they only work for seven.

    At least China showed up to Cop15 when PM Kevin Rudd sent a bigger delegation from Australia than any other western country, where the brilliant assistance to our bilateral relations was our PM calling the Chinese “ratf–kers” – a slogan he did not need 95 advisers to come up with. Poor countries are going to Glasgow, not to be pressured into energy poverty by climate activists in rich countries, who get hot water when they turn on the tap – a luxury millions do not have, but to collect on previous promises of wealthy countries funding $US100 billion for climate mitigation.

    Nigeria, whose national electricity grid collapsed 132 times between 2013 and 2020, where blackouts are a daily occurrence, where one in three live in energy poverty, who have the largest gas reserves in the world, and a soaring population, are being told to leave their gas in the ground and buy Chinese solar panels.

    Who is COP26 to tell developing nations they cannot use the same natural resources the same way they did to build their roads, schools, hospitals and stability? The Nigerians are going to Europe in the grip of an energy crisis caused by the lack of baseload power, a wind drought, and early winter with not as much sun, all relying on French nuclear to keep the lights on, just as a damning UK Treasury report released this week said lower-income households will suffer, while the impact of the transition to net-zero is “highly uncertain” and will depend on “technological progress that has not yet occurred”.

    The only way we can sign up to NetZero, without economy-crippling blackouts that will force First World Australia onto back-up diesel generators, is small modular nuclear reactors. NSW Nationals will revisit nuclear post-election after One Nation’s Mark Latham’s bill in the Upper House this week to lift a 35-year-old law to ban uranium mining and nuclear drew support from everyone but the Greens and Green-infused Labor members.

    They helpfully cited economists are not backing uranium mining. Yes, because it is banned. It is a unicorn of an investor who will funnel coin into illegal activities. Even Labor staffers told ICAC it was “unusual” that an Aldi shopping bag full of cash was allegedly delivered to party headquarters by a Chinese billionaire, but perhaps some members need a refresher of how legal investment looks.

    Among Labor’s points in the Upper House debate, which mirrored eerily similar monologues in the House of Representatives this week, were claims “renewable energy is now cheaper and more efficient than nuclear power”.

    Please, show us a solar panel that works in the dark. It is easy to see what the next scare campaign will be. Soviet 1960s technology melting down, when the reality is we use nuclear to manufacture medicine in Australia already, and it is an ideological leap, not a technological one to land it.

    The fear of nuclear is like the fear of chemtrails from jet planes. We are the third-largest uranium exporter in the world. We dig it up in South Australia, semi-process it, drive it on a truck through town, put it on a ship, but we cannot use it here. It’s like saying we can grow cattle but not eat steak.

    Chernobyl was used for power and plutonium for making atom bombs. It was not a small modular reactor, 4.5m wide and 7m high, transported on a truck. We know nuclear works 24/7, and the only reason we don’t have it was our collective legislative panic post-1986 when we fell for the last anti-nuclear fad. For the federal Nationals, who won marginal Queensland coal seats on Senator Matt Canavan’s anti-Bob Brown campaign, signing NetZero without nuclear could be a suicide note of the conviction politician.

    The Nats, still trying to mollify Kyoto, where the government flogged farmers’ trees and broke out the champers, cannot have a sequel at Glasgow. This week, the federal Nationals party room spent hours deliberating a NetZero deal that should have been simple: Not without nuclear

    100

    • #
      Harves

      “Please, show us a solar panel that works in the dark.”

      Or a solar panel that has been manufactured using only renewable energy … including mining the raw materials?

      Or a wind turbine installed on concrete that was made without fossil fuels?

      Or an aluminium smelter that can run 24/7 entirely on renewable energy?

      Fitzroy? Anyone?

      220

  • #
    David Maddison

    You know something is badly wrong with coal to hydrogen if even Greens are worried about it…

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-12/hydrogen-from-coal-production-begins-la-trobe-valley/13241482

    First hydrogen produced from Latrobe Valley coal generates export hopes, emissions fears

    ABC Gippsland

    By Jarrod Whittaker

    Posted Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 6:15amFriday 12 Mar 2021 at 6:15am

    SELECTED QUOTES SEE LINK FOR REST

    The consortium has produced the first hydrogen at a plant at the Loy Yang mine, south-east of Traralgon, and plans to transport it to Japan from the Port of Hastings in a specially designed ship later this year.

    The $500 million Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain (HESC) project involves creating hydrogen gas at the plant and refining it for transport.

    Hydrogen is touted as a clean energy source with a range of uses including in fuel cells and powering vehicles.

    The project is in its pilot phase, and because producing hydrogen using coal creates greenhouse gases, it will not commercialise it unless it is able to capture and store the emissions.

    Announced in April 2018, then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull attended the launch of the project, which received $50 million each from the Victorian and federal governments.

    [..]

    Announced in April 2018, then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull attended the launch of the project, which received $50 million each from the Victorian and federal governments.

    Professor Alan Finkel, the Commonwealth’s special adviser on low-emissions technology, said hydrogen was part of a “world-changing transition”.

    “Hydrogen is part of the future transition that around the world economies are going to go through towards zero emissions,” he said.

    “The world’s going to need a lot of hydrogen, and so the more ways we can get that hydrogen the better.”

    [..]

    ‘Very, very versatile’

    A member of the consortium behind a project to export hydrogen made from brown coal says hydrogen exports have the potential to create large numbers.

    Jeremy Stone from Japanese electricity provider J-Power said the pilot project had created about 400 jobs in Victoria and could create “thousands more” if it was commercialised.

    “Hydrogen is a very, very versatile fuel so it can be used to make energy, electricity, but also can be used as storage, can be used as transportation, it can be used in industry,” Mr Stone said.

    “In full production, this project would save around about 1.8 million tonnes of CO2 per year, which is the equivalent of the emissions of around about 350,000 cars.”

    Jeremy Stone believes there is a lot of potential in the technology.(ABC Gippsland: Jarrod Whittaker)

    The consortium’s plan is to use the Victorian government’s carbon capture and storage project, Carbon Net, to store the emissions.

    Carbon Net is investigating the feasibility of storing greenhouse gas emissions in Bass Strait and last year drilled its first test well.

    Mr Stone said there were 20 carbon capture and storage sites in operation across the world and more were in development.

    “Carbon Net, which is very close by here and Gippsland, would be the perfect place to safely store that CO2 underground,” he said.

    But there are doubts about whether carbon capture and storage is viable and whether hydrogen produced from coal has a long-term future.

    Environment Victoria campaigns director Nick Aberle said the world wanted hydrogen which produced no emissions, and the best way to do that was to make it using renewables.

    “The challenge that this [HESC] project has is trying to get rid of those greenhouse gases, because turning coal into hydrogen produces enormous amounts of greenhouse gases — as much as burning the coal, essentially,” he said.

    “Our understanding is that even your best-case scenario, this project at a commercial scale wouldn’t be able to capture all of the greenhouse gases.”

    Dr Aberle said carbon capture and storage was a “mirage” which had “been 10 years away for decades”.

    Nick Aberle is sceptical hydrogen produced from coal has a long-term future.(Supplied: Nick Aberle)Welcome jobs potential

    The HESC project’s launch came just days after Energy Australia announced it would close the Yallourn coal-fired power station in the Latrobe Valley in 2028, four years early.

    Yallourn’s closure will result in the loss of 500 jobs and it will become the second Latrobe Valley plant to close after Hazelwood shut down in 2017.

    Committee for Gippsland chief executive Jane Oakley said the hydrogen industry’s potential offered hope to the region amid the job losses.

    “It’s encouraging and it will make us very buoyant in terms of the potential that it has to offer,” Ms Oakley said.

    “The export opportunities are pretty significant, and jobs [it creates] in turn will be really encouraging for the region to see this sort of industry evolve.”

    60

    • #

      David Maddison
      October 24, 2021 at 8:16 am · Reply
      You know something is badly wrong with coal to hydrogen if even Greens are worried about it…

      And even more so if Malcolm Turnbull is involved in a key position !
      …( re the Twiggy Forrest “Forrest future Industries” appointment )

      20

  • #

    The UN wants a tax on red meat. I wonder what their slogan will be? “Throw another bean sprout on the barbie”?

    100

  • #
    David Maddison

    Can any opponent of atmospheric carbon dioxide point to any measurable climatic effect or effect on atmospheric composition the transition to intermittent energy has actually had?

    Please only quote honest numbers in accordance with the Scientific Method, not numbers that have been altered to prove a political point such as practiced by Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology and others.

    110

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      G’day D M,
      Just thought I’d put in a reply to say hello, as I doubt there is anyone who has data to meet your challenge.
      Cheers
      Dave B

      00

  • #
    Rick

    Hmm… so where is all this “free energy” that renewables were supposed to give us? So far, all I’ve seen is rapid increases in the cost of electricity, gas, car fuel and coal.

    All the bruhaha from the duck-squeezers about a brave new low carbon, cheap power, renewables-driven economy has turned into a nightmare of deprivation and ever-rising expenses.

    80

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Nationals demand net zero guarantees be ‘set in stone’

    Joe Kelly – Canberra Bureau Chief

    Nationals Deputy Leader David Littleproud has revealed the Nationals have asked for guarantees to be “set in stone” to prevent future governments from heaping the costs of a net zero emissions target onto the shoulders of regional Australians.

    Mr Littleproud also revealed that Scott Morrison had responded to the Nationals list of demands in which the minor Coalition party set out what it wanted in return for supporting a net zero emissions target by 2050.

    He said it was possible a resolution could be reached on Sunday.

    Speaking on Sky News, Mr Littleproud said that the Prime Minister had provided feedback on the list of demands to Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce after receiving it late last week.

    Mr Littleproud said the response from Mr Morrison would be canvassed in a crucial Nationals partyroom meeting to be held on Sunday afternoon.

    “The Deputy Prime Minister and I will be sitting down today before the meeting to work through that response in recognition of what we put to the Prime Minister in allaying some of our concerns, mitigating some of our concerns,” Mr Littleproud said. “It’s been a very respectful process.”

    “We will work through that today. I think there are still some discussions happening between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister.”

    Mr Littleproud said it was only a week ago that the Nationals Party had been able to examine the government’s technology roadmap which sets out how innovations and new technologies could reduce emissions over time.

    “We’ll hopefully get to a resolution one way or another today,” Mr Littleproud said.

    Mr Littleproud declined to set out what was in the list of demands, but revealed the Nationals were most concerned about putting in safeguards to prevent future governments from turning on the regions.

    “What we have tried to do is work within the existing policy frameworks, so we are not trying to reinvent the wheel … but to put in safeguards against future governments that may come in and turn the tables on regional and rural Australia because it’s politically expedient to use us as the whipping boys again.”

    Mr Littleproud said the list of demands had input from all Nationals MPs although the MPs did not get to see the final wish list before it was submitted to the Prime Minister.

    “The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that he wanted this to be a tight policy discussion. That will obviously be shared with them today around what was in our document,” Mr Littleproud said. “The wish list is exactly what the members and senators asked for … we were trying to be pragmatic about this.”

    “There was concern about future governments and future governments turning those tables on regional and rural Australia … We are the last line of defence and unless there is someone like us there to make sure that we get this right, then invariably we get done over.”

    “That’s why we want to make sure that that’s set in stone. That future government’s don’t turn around on us and rip that out from underneath us and they have an arbitrary approach to this where they just say ‘we’re going to tell farmers how to manage the landscape’.”

    The Australian reported last week that the Nationals’ demands included a socio-economic safety valve and regular reviews of the impacts of a net-zero by 2050 target on jobs and industries.

    Mr Littleproud also declined to say whether The Nationals were pushing for the prohibition on nuclear power to be lifted but argued it was necessary to inform the Australian public of its benefits.

    “Our job is to educate before you legislate,” he said. “I think if we can get the electorate to understand that the technology of nuclear (power) has changed, then that’s obviously something down the track.

    “But at the moment the electorate isn’t there … What we went to the Prime Minister about was more around safeguards and mechanisms within existing policy settings to protect regional and rural Australia.”

    Mr Littleproud said there was a “lot of speculation” about what a socio-economic safety valve would look like. “I’m not going to divulge that,” he said. “That is disrespectful to my party room and the Prime Minister.”

    50

  • #
    David Maddison

    Apparently someone at Their ABC didn’t understand that plants are a net absorber of CO2.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-18/plant-respiration-co2-findings-anu-canberra/9163858

    Plants release up to 30 per cent more CO2 than previously thought, study says

    Posted Fri 17 Nov 2017 at 9:56pmFriday 17 Nov 2017 at 9:56pm, updated Wed 22 Nov 2017 at 4:41am

    This is the disclaimer at the above link.

    Editor’s note November 22, 2017: This story was amended to emphasise that plants are a net carbon sink and they absorb more carbon dioxide than they emit. The ABC acknowledges a previous version of the story was unintentionally misleading and did not represent the research findings in an accurate context.

    70

    • #
      Ross

      There was the classic Andrew Bolt question. Which goes like this ” After doing all this climate change abatement policy in Australia by how many degrees will if affect world temperature”. A question which should always be asked of our “leaders”. The other question I would like asked. ” Do you understand how plants grow?”. If they don’t know the answer to that question or have a basic grasp of photosynthesis then you know they’re clueless. ScoMo should be asked that question right now.

      80

  • #
    David Maddison

    What proportion of people do you think even know the oxygen and carbon dioxide cycle i.e. animals breathe oxygen and plants carbon dioxide?

    The Left have been at war against science for decades now, I suspect that a good number don’t know.

    120

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Australia wants to go broke via woke
    Sunday, 24 October 2021
    From Matthew Canavan

    We are out of step with the rest of the world who are building coal fired power stations.

    Why are we lagging behind?

    A. The pusillanimity of your mates in the Labor/Liberal club mate. Go Woke, Go Broke.

    70

  • #
    Furiously+Curious

    Come on guys, we have to get on the side of the Angels. When I saw Goldman Sachs, Blackrock, Citi Group, Bank of England, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, and Barclays Bank, have got on board, and are backing the narrative, with billions of dollars of their own money, I was staggered by their altruism, and will dedicate myself to their cause. Just out of the goodness of their hearts, Blackrock have been suggesting to countries, that they should be entrusted with their Sovereign Wealth and pension funds, so they could point them in the right direction, to excellent third world investments. Has there ever been a greater example of more selfless motives? Such examples of social concern, and unselfish generosity, are bringing tears to my eyes!

    70

    • #
      C.+Paul+Barreira

      It brings to mind Shylock’s great speech that included “If you prick us, do we not bleed?”, and so on—oft-quoted by Bart Simpson. But, still, he wanted that pound of flesh.

      30

  • #
    PeterS

    As I stated many times, Pm Morrison is either a clueless fake artist or a deliberate and evil liar. Hard to tell which but in the end it makes little difference. Under normal circumstances I would recommend he has to go but today there is no one available to take his place by the party. The party itself is screwed. It’s for that reason it should not longer be voted for, just as the ALP and Greens should not be voted for. Trouble is most voters are still asleep, clueless or simply on the side of evil. It will have to take a real catastrophe to wake enough people up to the reality. That’s where we are heading.

    70

    • #
      el+gordo

      If the Nats roll over we could join the anarchists.

      Don’t blame the voters, an informed electorate and not just an opinionated one, is the backbone of a good democracy. Blame the MSM for spreading half truths.

      31

      • #
        KP

        Blame the stupid for believing the MSM!

        I think its the fluoride in the water finally having that IQ-reducing effect.

        20

    • #
      Dennis

      PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET

      “We are the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, or PM&C for short. Our role is to provide fresh thinking and sound advice to government.”

      The public service employees above.

      Of course the manager of Cabinet business is the Chief of Staff and can also be called Cabinet Secretary, for the Abbott Government 2013-15 Peta Credlin.

      Cabinet Ministers and Prime Minister make decisions after discussions and vote, obviously the more support a Prime Minister has in Cabinet and with other Members of Parliament the more can be achieved. Prime Minister Abbott for example had a slim majority and related difficulties having proposals passed by Cabinet.

      As for the people, the voters, I agree that most are asleep, apathetic and clueless in the majority. The United Nations has for seventy years been working to gain power over member nations via treaties and agreements (and other terminology covering binding arrangements) and in my experience very few respond when facts are presented, so as the politicians used to say it’s “the hip pocket nerve” that motivates. Whatever else is other people’s business.

      10

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        G’day Dennis,
        Please don’t ignore the nasty feature of our voting system for the House of Representatives, where you have to number every box to register a valid vote.

        That means you even have to put a number against some you think are absolutely unsuitable. And further, that you can’t put 2, or more, people last. So the voter often has to try and select someone who is the least worst option to nominate before the absolute losers.

        Difficult in many electorates at least some of the time. And a travesty of our “democracy”.

        Cheers
        Dave B

        10

    • #
      el+gordo

      On this issue the CSIRO fully supports the concept of Net Zero, how can we discredit the organisation?

      00

  • #

    What I can’t figure out is that there surely must be people in Government who KNOW that we just cannot do without all of that coal fired power, and that renewables just CANNOT supply the electrical power that is required ABSOLUTELY.

    And yet, they desperately try not to tell the people, just comfortably going along thinking it will all be ‘hunky dory’.

    Someone will have to come out and tell the truth about it sooner or later, and we’re almost at the point where it has to be said now.

    Imagine the backlash if they just continue down this road, and the blackouts and power rationing start, which they inevitably will if they shut down coal fired power.

    The ones we still have operational now are virtually ancient, and every one of them is required just to keep the Country in electrical power.

    And here, that backlash won’t just be against the political party in power (Federal or State) when it does happen.

    It will be against every politician who just stumbled along without even bothering to find out.

    The excuse of ….. “hey, I had no idea.” just won’t wash, because that’s their [email protected] job ….. to find out the facts and then act on it.

    That time is fast approaching.

    All the rest ….. EVERYTHING, is just talk!

    Tony.

    180

    • #
      Dennis

      From: Michael Smith News website –

      “seeker of truth said…

      The big financial institutions of the world are the ones carrying out the dirty work of the UN in forcing countries to reduce their carbon emissions to achieve zero emissions by 2050 and have coal fired power stations cease production by 2040.

      In Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia, where a total of 33 new coal fired power stations are being built, the Asian Development Bank in cahoots with UK insurer Prudential and others are proposing to buy existing coal-fired power plants across Asia to buy and retire them well before the end of their life cycles and replace them with clean energy.

      They won’t be buying the ones currently being constructed in Vietnam and the Phillipines and Indonesia as the asking price would be too much.

      “We have not settled on a precise size [financially], but would expect the pilot to acquire several coal-fired power plants at a minimum,” ADB Vice President Ahmed Saeed told Nikkei Asia.

      The large Hong Kong based banking company HSBC is also in on this proposed venture.

      “HSBC is also part of the initiative which involves scouring the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia for coal-fired power plants to close a decade or more early.

      The initiative was first reported by Reuters this month. BlackRock and Citi are also working on the scheme, according to the report. The companies did not respond to requests for comment.”

      It seems that the financial institutions are prepared to spend billions of dollars to achieve the result they are after.

      “The bank has not set a budget, but estimates begin in the billions. The partners are keen to prove that coal-plant takeovers can work so they can be applied in developing countries addicted to cheap fossil fuel.

      They could obtain about 20% of funds from governments and institutions, though this number may change. The remaining 80% or so could be raised through equity and debt at prevailing market rates, Saeed said.”

      https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Environment/Climate-Change/Philippines-and-Vietnam-coal-fired-plants-to-retire-in-ADB-led-plan

      These enormous financial institutions are going to make a killing out of clean energy. They are not in this low zero carbon emissions climate for altruistic reasons. They can see that they can make a killing in financing these new clean energy producers, especially if governments are to foot much of the bill.

      [I drink with a bloke here in Indonesia, young British high-finance turk.

      His job seems to be touring Indonesia to have his photo taken shaking hands with high-level officials, usually in front of a river. Another photo-opp – seated behind a fancy desk signing something with government people.

      His merchant bank is extracting squillions in return for talking, taking photos and writing about Green Power and Zero Emissions.

      He’s very entertaining on the grog, openly admits it’s all bullshit and is exclusively about the UN/World Bank/IMF money.

      One day I might get him on the record.

      MPS]”

      …………… politics & money !!!

      10

    • #
      Ross

      It’s all a charade Tony. Window dressing. Just before the next federal election, ScoMo will announce a case study to investigate the building of a new HELE coal plant in Qld. Or maybe Hunter or Latrobe Valley. Wherever he thinks he might get more votes. By bet, it would be Qld. Because it was those votes that got he and the LNP over the line last time.

      30

      • #
        Dennis

        Regardless of what the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament, Prime Minister and Cabinet decide the State Governments together with Local Government Councils must be supportive because they control planning permission and other steps needed for a new project to proceed, and then even if approved can be delayed for years by leftist and other Greens activists through court appeals.

        20

        • #
          Ross

          Which means any plans for nuclear will also be cactus as well.

          10

          • #
            Dennis

            Until the Labor and Greens Opposition support the lifting of the legislated ban against using nuclear energy in Australia it cannot proceed

            10

            • #
              KP

              Under Covid Emergency Legislation… anything can be done!

              Ol’ Horseface across the Tasman had no qualms about over-riding legislation she didn’t like.

              10

    • #
      sophocles

      and that 420ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is one third of the concentration the plants are evolved for.

      As the Grand Solar Minimum progresses, the coming cold is going to severely stress food supplies.

      60

      • #
        Dennis

        As the delegation from China explained at the IPCC Copenhagen Conference during 3,600 years of civilisation in China there were three warmer than present day periods in history and each warmer period resulted in greater prosperity as the yields from food crops and others increased.

        30

    • #

      TonyfromOz
      October 24, 2021 at 12:27 pm · Reply
      What I can’t figure out is that there surely must be people in Government who KNOW that we just cannot do without all of that coal fired power, and that renewables just CANNOT supply the electrical power that is required ABSOLUTELY.

      That may well be Angus Taylor. ?
      He has said that Australia will still be using coal generation into the foreseeable future, as ther is no viable option to maintain a functional grid supply.
      He has also said that Australia will not be adopting policies that cripple heavy industry or agriculture etc.
      I believe he is going to COP 26 and will be making a presentation. .?

      40

  • #
    Ross

    To answer your question Jo – yes probably. The term “Scotty from Marketing” was distasteful when I first heard it last year during the NSW bushfires, But now , I’m thinking it is more and more apt.

    20

    • #
      Dennis

      It was Labor Party created but check the PM’s work history and he has never worked in marketing, he has held senior managerial positions including in tourism and involved in advertising campaign approvals submitted by marketing executives and/or consultants.

      00

  • #
    Neville

    We should never forget that….
    There is no climate CRISIS or EXISTENTIAL THREAT and here’s the proof……
    The Human population reached 1 billion in 1800 and life expectancy was under 40. And that life expectancy never improved during the previous 200,000 years. Of course a much smaller global population during that time.
    The next doubling of Human population ( to 2 billion) occurred in 1927 or just 127 years.
    The next doubling occurred in 1974, or 47 years. That’s to 4 billion people.

    The next doubling will occur in 2022 when we reach 8 billion people and that has taken just 48 years.

    And with those rapid increases in population over the last 220 years the human race today is wealthier and healthier than at any time over the last 220 years and YET we have added another 7 billion people.

    Also the Human life expectancy has rapidly increased from less than 40 years in 1800 to 73 years in 2021.

    And the last doubling to 8 billion saw life expectancy increase from 58.5 years in 1974 to 73 in 2021.

    SO WHERE IS THEIR CLIMATE CRISIS OR EXISTENTIAL THREAT OR EMERGENCY OR APOCALYPSE? Obviously the reverse is true. SO WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS SO CALLED CRISIS MEETING IN GLASGOW AND WHY HAVEN”T THE SO CALLED SCIENTISTS CRIED FOUL ON THEIR BS AND FRA_D TRICK?

    https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/life-expectancy

    70

  • #
    Dennis

    Sky News 8.00 pm Monday evening, why Australia needs nuclear generators.

    30

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Just to add I’m currently at the lallal wind farm in Victoria with the wind at 18kph and it’s standing still with blades barely turning.

    Is this the future they gloat about?

    90

    • #
      Dennis

      Yes, and it’s getting cheaper as well.

      [sarc]

      50

    • #
      David Maddison

      The windmills will be drawing power from the grid to slowly turn the blades to avoid Brinnelling the bearings and in cold countries they draw power to prevent the blades icing up and throwing chunks of ice 400 metres or more.

      Thankfully we still have coal power to keep the windmills turning and to provide synchronous power to keep the grid stable and synchronised.

      Windmills actually depend on proper power generators like coal, gas or nuclear to keep working.

      50

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Why Australia Could (And Should) Become A Major Nuclear Power Producer

    Australia is a country nearly the size of the continental US with a population of about 26 million people.

    It is a country with vast open spaces. Most of its population is found on its east coast in New South Wales and Queensland, some population centers in Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territories and on the island of Tasmania. Most of the larger populations in these areas are in a few cities and their suburbs with lots of open space between them in many places.

    The largest electricity grid goes down the east coast and loops over to South Australia. There is another one in Western Australia, albeit a smaller one than on the east coast, and then an even much smaller one in the Northwest Territories. These grids are not connected.

    Why is this important for nuclear power?

    If we are thinking about big reactors, they can only be deployed in areas where the market can support them. If we are thinking about small modular reactors, SMRs, then there are other uses for smaller cities in less densely populated areas.

    Australia is energy-rich. It is the largest coal exporter in the world. It’s one of the major gas exporters, and previously even was the largest LNG exporter in the world. It has massive wind, solar, geothermal, wind, tidal, and wave energy potential. It has significant hydroelectric resources, but recent droughts have put those into question. Given its low population and vast energy resources, about 2/3rd of its energy production is exported. It is an increasing net importer of oil and refined oil products. Oil, however, is a weak spot in Australia’s energy security and resilience.

    Australia’s primary energy consumption is overwhelmingly fossil fuels. About 80 percent of its electricity is still from fossil fuels, with black and brown coal dominating, but renewables have been growing in importance, especially since 2008.

    Overall electricity generation grew nicely until a flattening out also in 2008. It is still growing, but not nearly as quickly as it once was. There are considerable differences in fuels and methods used to produce electricity across its territories and states. New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland use mostly coal. Western Australia is dominated by gas. South Australia uses mostly gas and a much larger percentage of renewables than any other area. Tasmania is mostly hydropower. The Northern Territories is almost dominated by an even mix of gas and oil. Except for South Australia, renewables are not a large part of electricity generation elsewhere in the country.

    Hydropower has been part of the energy mix in Australia for a very long time. Solar and wind really started to take hold and grow only in the 2000s. Bioenergy is a small percentage, but not entirely insignificant. Overall, for the country, coal use in electricity has been in decline. Natural gas and renewables have been increasingly used in electricity generation.

    In terms of energy production, Australian coal has been on a steep growth path for some time. Oil has been in decline. Natural gas has grown greatly in recent years. In the overall big picture in energy production renewable energy is a coat of paint on top of the others. Coal dominates energy production and natural gas is a far second.

    The main use of nuclear power is for electricity. However, the only nuclear reactor in Australia is in Sydney. It is a tiny 20 MW reactor that makes nuclear isotopes for medical purposes. Nuclear power can be curative in a medical sense. Many know this from personal experience.

    Nuclear power is controversial in Australia. Importantly, “Nuclear power production is currently not permitted under two main pieces of Commonwealth legislation—the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (the ARPANS Act), and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). These Acts expressly prohibit the approval, licensing, construction, or operation of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility. There is also a range of other legislation, including state and territory legislation, which regulates nuclear and radiation-related activities.”

    There are also state and territory laws strictly regulating it, and in some cases, such as in Victoria, it is outright banned. So, there are many legal levels with hurdles for nuclear power.

    Australia has the largest known reserves of uranium on the planet. It is the third-largest exporter of uranium. Yet is has no nuclear power plants to produce electricity

    60

    • #
      Geoffrey+Williams

      No nuclear power plants here in Australia is completely insane.
      Why one asks? The answer is mass indoctrination by a criminal minority !!
      GeoffW

      30

      • #
        Dennis

        Supported by both sides of politics in the Federal Parliament who voted for legislation during the Howard Government terms (1996-2007) to ban nuclear energy with the one exemption being the ANSTO Reactor at Lucas Heights, Sydney.

        And bans on mining most of Australia’s Uranium deposits also remain in place via various State Governments, the same fools who support unreliable energy businesses.

        10

  • #
    Paul G.

    When one considers the fact that no one has come up with any evidence that CO2 is harmful to humans, at present levels, or up to 4000 ppm as used in real greenhouses, why should we limit CO2 emissions at all? Add to this the data over the last 41+ years of lower troposphere satellite temperature measurements showing a global rise of 0.13 C/decade, and a little more over land of 0.18 C/decade. These trends are hardly enough to be concerned about, especially as the plots vary as much as a whole degree C over a few years, and with no indication of the rate of change increasing – almost flat for seven years.
    So there is no real need to limit CO2 emissions, no real need to aim for Net-Zero-Carbon by any date, no need to spend trillions of any currency to achieve Net-Zero or on any renewable energy systems!!
    It not so strange that a couple of centuries ago, windmills went out of fashion when steam power became available for mills, then later electricity replaced steam in industry! Are the new wind-farms all that reliable when continuos power is required?

    80

    • #
      clarence.t

      Not only that, but coal is carbon that was once in the all-important carbon cycle that keeps all life on Earth alive.

      It was accidentally buried, and that carbon needs to be returned to the shorter term carbon cycle where it can be of some use to the planet and all its inhabitants..

      30

  • #
    Mal

    He’s gutless wonder
    Rolling over to the rent seeking financiers and big business, banks at the expense of ordinary australians
    We expect this from Labor and the greens not the liberals and nats

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    Once Australia commits to “green” hydrogen, it will make windmills and solar seem like sensible ideas by comparison.

    80

  • #
    Destroyer D69

    Not a negotiator at all! More like a piddling puppy on its back !!!IMCO, anyhow.

    30

  • #
    Beertruk

    I am not sure if it is just me or not, but it seems that it is the people who were whinging when the PM was on holidays in Hawaii and not in Australia when the bushfires started are the same whingers saying the the PM HAS leave Australia and go Glasgow for the ‘ruinable energy’ grifter fest.

    30

    • #
      Dennis

      It’s convenient to mix Prime Ministerial duties and responsibilities when your a leftist, and never allow facts to get in the way of political spin.

      Bushfires are another State area of responsibility, State Emergency Services (SES) in NSW includes Rural Fire Service (RFS) and is funded via State Budgets and a State Cabinet Minister is responsible for the SES. Federal Government contributes with funding grants and following a request from State Government can mobilise Australian Defence Forces (ADF) personnel and assets to assist the State SES. During the seriously bad but by no means the worst ever bushfires that started in late 2019 the Prime Minister was away overseas on planned leave with his family, the Deputy Prime Minister was in charge of Federal Government business supported by other Cabinet Ministers.

      10

  • #
    Anton

    Jo – use your blog to get a political party started. It will either win power or frighten the big parties into changing their policies in order to keep their votes.

    20

    • #
      another ian

      Jo might not have much spare time left over after running the blog

      30

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        At a personal level, I think we’d all miss her if she went into politics, but if that is where she’d like to be I think it would be worth considering joining Craig Kelly’s UAP which has the advantage of increasing public awareness and good funding.
        Best wishes either way, Jo.
        Cheers
        Dave B

        30

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s Chris Kenny on Sky News “Outsiders” this morning talking about Nuclear Energy. His program is on Sky News at 8 pm tomorrow night and if you can’t watch Sky News you can listen to the programs live audio at the link below.

    Here’s the 5.5 minute link of Outsiders this morning and below that is the Sky News audio link for Monday night at 8 pm. That’s 8 pm daylight saving time for people not in NSW or Vic. Here’s todays link to Outsiders.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciROM724vcE

    And here’s Sky News radio link for Monday night’s Chris Kenny Nuclear Energy special.

    https://www.iheart.com/live/sky-news-radio-8319/

    20

  • #
    Neville

    Many links to verifiable data that proves we are living in the very best of times and definite proof that their so called Climate Crisis is just more BS and fra-d.
    And their Glasgow idiocy should be reserved for delusional fools, con merchants and carpetbaggers.
    BTW I copied this from comments at WUWT last week. But I have linked to similar data over the years.

    Already looking sustainable to me –
    Agriculture yields are up- https://ourworldindata.org/yields-and-land-use-in-agriculture#yields-since-1960.
    Poverty has decreased- https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts.
    Life expectancy has increased- https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy.

    Deaths from weather related disasters have declined- https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disaster-death-rates?time=1900..2018.
    planet and deserts are greening from the increase in CO2- https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/

    50

    • #
      clarence.t

      Neville,

      Your 5 links are the very things the green agenda wants to counter.

      Everything they ask and want to achieve, would reverse those positive trends in crop production, living conditions, life-expectancy, survival against natural disasters, and also slow down plant growth.

      Human prosperity and well-being of the planet in general must be destroyed.. that is their aim.

      50

    • #
      Ronin

      Obviously increased agriculture yields, decreased poverty, increased life expectancy are absolutely NOT what the elite want for us humans.

      10

  • #
  • #
    clarence.t

    OT.. diesel powered trains being used rather than electric in UK.. because of costs. 😉

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-energy-prices-crisis-rail-diesel-b1937543.html

    10

  • #
  • #
    Curious George

    Is Scott Morrison the worst negotiator on Earth?
    Never underestimate America. John Kerry is so much better.
    Recently he flew to Beijing for a Zoom meeting.

    70

  • #
    Neville

    Another easy way to prove how wonderful the climate is today and I mean ALL AROUND THE WORLD.

    Today urbanisation is increasing all the time and at present is 55% worldwide , but could reach 70% by 2050. And the percentage of Farmers required to grow our RECORD crops is falling all the time. Here’s the info at the link for the entire world.

    Of course TODAY urbanisation in wealthy OECD countries is 80%+ , like Australia and NZ, Nth America, the EU etc.

    “Map showing urban areas with at least one million inhabitants in 2006. Only 3% of the world’s population lived in urban areas in 1800; this proportion had risen to 47% by 2000, and reached 50.5% by 2010.[45] By 2050, the proportion may reach 70%”.[46

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File:2006megacities.svg

    10

  • #
    Neville

    Don’t forget the Biden donkey told us we could feel “Climate Change in our bones”?
    This is the level of idiocy that we’re up against today and this is the type of delusional fool that will have the most influence in Glasgow.
    Unbelievable but true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wXe-GanTh0

    10

  • #
  • #
    Neville

    More about the German energy disaster as prices SOAR AGAIN. But it looks like this will be the likely recommendation to follow after Glasgow COP 26.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/24/german-energy-prices-going-through-the-roof-supply-tightens-as-leaders-botch-energy-policy/

    20

  • #
    JR

    Ha Ha! I told you so, about five years ago. All you Reaganouts covered your eyes, to Liberal (Party) to see.

    For what it’s worth Morrison is a spineless neoLiberal shill, not a poor negotiator. And Joyce has gone soft since he started porking his secretary.

    00

  • #
    Ronin

    SCOMO is suffering from FOMO.

    00

  • #
    Ronin

    The world is suffering from an idiot induced energy crisis and the clowns are going to Glasgow to sign us up to more of the same.

    00

  • #
    CHRIS

    COP 26 = SIT 26 (SIT = Snouts in Troughs). Over 2500 “delegates” attending, spending how much? Led by that Old Fart, Prince Charles and the truant Thunberg… what a joke!!

    00