Nearly all the “climate action” we’ve paid for in Australia has only reduced emissions by 3.9% in 20 years
Anthony Albanese is proud that Australia has reduced emissions by 28% since 2005, but doesn’t tell Australians that 24% of that was in land use, mostly because we let scrub and forests grow back. And now he’s talking of reducing emissions by 62% by 2035?
See: The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: March 2025 Update
The elephant in the emissions kitchen is that only one kind of “carbon reduction” has achieved anything meaningful in Australia — and it’s not wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, fugitive emissions, EVs, batteries, pink batts, LED globes, cloth shopping bags, FOGO bins, paper straws, insulation, carbon taxes, carbon capture schemes, bug burgers, or feeding seaweed to cows to reduce their farts. The only thing that has reduced our emissions in any meaningful way is land use and forestry change (which officially goes by the delightfully-bureaucratic name, “land use, land-use change and forestry,” LULUCF).
We can see why they don’t want to talk about LULUCF!
Compare these two graphs below. Not only has all the money poured into emissions reduction been trivially effective, the second graph shows why all our efforts in reducing emissions in agriculture, industry, transport and electricity are like climbing Mount Impossible.
This first graph makes it look like our obsession with solar panels and windmills has achieved something because emissions from electricity are falling. But note the net effect of emissions-cuts across seven major areas is barely 3.9%. It’s an illusion.
Australia has reduced emissions since 2005 by 28.1%, but almost all of it comes through LULUCF. Below, we see just how many billions of dollars have been “invested” into achieving nothing, but making President Xi very happy. All the flat lines on the graph are where we spent most of the money. Thus and verily, every dollar spent reducing emissions in every other area outside land use change is almost irrelevant.
Like squeezing blood from an iPhone — our cars, heaters, food and electricity systems are already efficient, finely-tuned ecosystems. It takes massive spending to eke out every tiny further reduction. But biology evolved to “reduce carbon emissions,” and removing a few bottlenecks lets the natural carbon-reduction-bio-machine rip. Five hundred million years of evolution has made chloroplast motors that can suck carbon out of the sky. If only we have 7 million square kilometers of space to suck with — oh, we do. But most of those millions of square kilometers need water and fertilizer.
Dr David Evans was the leading carbon modeler for The Australian Greenhouse Office / Dept of the Environment 1999 – 2005 and also did some contract work for them in 2007-2009 (and I happen to be married to him, both then and now). He explains that Australia leads the world in using satellite data to estimate carbon in trees, shrubs, crops, bark, mulch, roots, and soil — because it matters more to us than nearly any other nation. The FullCAM model he created takes Landsat data down to the very small resolution of 25m2 plots across our 7.7 million square kilometer continent. It’s so detailed we can identify when a large tree grows or is cut down anywhere in Australia. We can see when a firebreak is carved through forest, and when the forest reclaims the firebreak.
From Dr David Evans, Australia’s former Kyoto carbon modeler at the Australian Greenhouse Office:
Australia had to fight to get LULUCF included in the national accounts. It was important to our accounts, but it was not useful for Europe, where forests were long since cut down.
LULUCF is responsible for almost all our reductions in carbon emissions, mostly just by ending land clearing. Between 1990 and 2008, land clearing almost completely stopped in all the Australian states except Queensland and northern NSW. It has since mostly stopped everywhere. Just ending land clearing allowed Australia’s emissions in other sectors to grow as the Australian economy grew, while still allowing Australia to meet its Kyoto Protocol commitment of less than an 8% increase in net carbon emissions between 1990 and 2008. The LULUCF contribution over this period was about -23%, as I recall (as calculated by FullCAM).
But the LULUCF emission reduction graph flattens out after 2020. There is a natural limit to carbon emission reduction in the LULUCF sector. There is only so much land not-to-clear, forest to plant, and soil whose carbon we can increase by optimal management. There probably isn’t much more arable land that isn’t already farmed or used for housing, that we can reclaim. We have millions of square kilometers of arid land, but it won’t hold much carbon in vegetation or the soil without extra rainfall and fertilizer.
Once a forest has fully matured, the carbon content per square kilometer reaches doesn’t change, because the forest is in equilibrium. Old growth forests aren’t removing much carbon from the atmosphere, just storing it where it can’t interfere with infrared radiation leaving the planet. It’s only a growing forest that acts as a carbon sink. By the way, about 96% of carbon exchanges to and from the atmosphere are not anthropogenic, and are mostly not well understood. Does global warming (by any cause, e.g. space weather) increase bacterial decay, releasing more carbon dioxide as mulch etc. is broken down quicker? How much is this raising the atmospheric carbon dioxide level?
If a bushfire destroys a forest, in the world of international carbon accounting that’s considered “an act of God” and the emissions released are not counted on our national accounts. The national accounts are only for man-made (anthropogenic) carbon emissions. (Amusing side note: when a forest burns down, about 1% of its carbon is converted to charcoal and becomes chemically inert, thereby removing it from the carbon cycle and rendering it unable to find its way back to the atmosphere. So, in the long run, to reduce atmospheric carbon via forestry, we should be burning down forests and replanting them! Which is sort of what happens anyway in Australia — which has a remarkably high charcoal content in the soil. By the way, burning the wood in low oxygen conditions creates “char,” which is a potent fertilizer for crops. But burning down all our forests and letting them regrow just to add 1% of the emissions to the soil layer seems a bit extreme, even for today’s Greens.)
— David Evans: PhD, M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) [Stanford Uni], B.Eng, M.A., B.Sc., University Medal, [Syd Uni]
We are only a tenth of the way to our 2035 target
The Albanese government rides for free silently and deceptively on the regrowth of previously cleared land, but that has probably run out. We’ve spent billions of dollars on wind, solar and batteries, and LED globes, and insulation, and all we’ve done is reduce our emissions by 4% or so. Nothing.
The LULUCF graph plateaus at 2020. Let’s assume LULUCF has done most of what it can, and remove it from the picture. Effectively then we are aiming for 43% reduction minus the 24% already achieved by LULUCF, which we’ll assume will probably stay constant from now on. That leaves a 19% reduction left to achieve from everything else. The devastating maths is that we have barely made 3.9% of the 19% we still need to achieve by 2030, and now fatuously, we’re aiming for a 38% reduction in emissions from ever sector apart from land use and forestry by 2035.
These people are so bad with numbers, we have to ask if they are innumerate dupes or lying hacks (or both)? The 2035 target is effectively twice as high as the 2030 target, which we are already failing to achieve. We are at the point of surreal absurdity in national energy policy, and yet the suits are still smiling solemnly, as if it is not a trillion dollar fairy tale.
The Labor Government is being deceptive in hiding how brutal and expensive it is going to be to meet any of these targets. Every time they mention the 28% figure, they are lying by omission, because they won’t say that most of that reduction has nothing to do with all their renewable, recycling, battery storage, or Snowy 2.0 schemes, or school indoctrination programs and therapy sessions for climate angst.
What’s the aim of fantasy targets?
Obviously, the Labor-Green Blob doesn’t really care about carbon dioxide, or they’d be acting differently. The aim here is not to reduce carbon emissions as cheaply and realistically as possible, or they’d be honest about what works and what doesn’t.
The immediate goal of obscenely impossible targets may be as petty as impressing the UN and WEF, and winning the game to host the next COP super-junket in Adelaide in 2026 (with inevitable failure cynically hidden 4 to 9 years further down the track, when this government is long gone). But we can’t overlook the true big winners in this deal — the Blob, the Bankers, the Bureaucrats, and China, China, China.
To all intents and purposes, ridiculous targets feed dependent corporate interests who farm the subsidies, while crushing any industries that don’t need government help. It converts once-independent industries like aluminum smelting to ones dependent on big government, who have to beg for handouts just to survive, and now have a driving need to grovel before politicians, or at least, not say something that might offend them. This cripples the free market and free speech. It slowly converts the country to a communist or globalist paradise, by taking the strength away from independent industry and converting all the players into vassals dependent on government rules and decrees.
This is an existential battle for The West. Without cheap energy, we become voiceless slaves to the Blob.
REFERENCE: Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions: March 2025 quarterly update, Department of Climate Change Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW)
___________________
*UPDATE: Sky News is quoting a 27% reduction and 3%, but those figures are from the December 2024 Quarter. My figures above are the latest from March 2025.
“Bad with numbers?”
How about ignoring numbers?
260
All the boondoggle funding has resulted in the election of ALP governments. Bribes work. That is why the money was spent and continues to be spent.
Simply instill fear into the weak minded and bribe them with work with no labour, planned intent or measurable outcome.
Socialism 101.
When the money starts running out, increase taxes and reduce interest rates.
Attack the opposition for everything you are doing.
Employ the loudest.
Politics 101.
230
I just love this Cartoon =
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary
110
The quote in David’s research paper on “burning the wood in low oxygen conditions creates “char”, reminds me of my wife’s home country and our early visits there in 1992.
In travelling through rural areas which had no electricity or gas, it was common practise to see smouldering holes in the ground with a surface area of 4 × 4 metres.
The holes, several metres deep were filled with local green timber, set alight, and when the fire was going well the whole lot was covered back up with soil.
The smothering stopped combustion but allowed heat to drain smelly oils from the mass so that the resulting charcoal could be burnt in homes and kitchens without health problems.
On a visit to rural new Guinea in 1969 – 1970 I saw the use of internal fires for warmth. On return home I later read about the health consequences of this practice.
Charcoal is healthier.
The people didn’t burn the local vegetation directly but first turned it into charcoal
270
David’s LULUCF was very good but should have been renamed to get more attention from politicians. It should have been named “Land Use Change In Forests of Australia” or LUCIFA for short. Albo would have liked it to be called DELULU CF, so he could ignore that embarrassing statistic entirely.
20
The real problem we have is that when we have to replace our useless turbines China does not have to sell them to us.
Unless it’s on their terms.
What that will be is
“Blowing in the Wind”
220
China may not even be making them in 15-20 years time, they would’ve moved on to the latest scam.
150
Can you say “small modular reactor”?
50
It’s an awful lot of money for nothing.
But as it can be seen from the fact that the main beneficiaries of all this madness is China (who as an advanced nation are inexplicably exempt from CO2 emissions limits) whose dominance increases as Western economies are destroyed (except USA under TRUMP), and the subsidy-harvesting Big Green Billionaires, it has nothing to do with the trace gas CO2.
At 4 molecules per 10,000, of which only 4% of those 4 or 0.16 are attributable to humans, it must be a very magical gas indeed to pose an existential threat to the planet as claimed.
What is in fact an existential threat is the destruction of Western Civilisation that this insanity is bringing about. And it’s all engineered by the Left who in addition to destroying our energy supply are also becoming increasingly violent, dangerous and irrational.
Take notice also of all the trips Australian politicians are making to China while they mostly ignore our traditional closest ally, the USA. Our communist PM has never even bothered to meet TRUMP. Who are they loyal to?
Never in human history has a society (the West) set out to deliberately destroy itself as is happening now.
We must be vigilant.
430
I think it has happened before, but it isn’t society trying to destroy itself, it’s corrupt politicians who retain power while destroying society. This time around, it’s worse because it’s funded and promoted by an enemy – Xi Jinping’s China – who has stated that their aim is to destroy us. Xi is winning, and if we don’t wake up soon and get an honest government IMHO we will go under.
340
Our communist PM has never even bothered to meet TRUMP. Who are they loyal to?
On the contrary. The reality is that it is not Albanese who is avoiding Trump but Trump who for one reason or another, has avoided Albanese.
221
Albanese hasn’t made a serious effort even if TRUMP is reluctant to meet someone who, along with the Australian Ambassador to the US has severe TRUMP Derangement Syndrome.
TRUMP hates stupid, weak, disloyal people like Albanese but I’m sure he would still meet him for the benefit of what’s left of the alliance.
Albanese says TRUMP “scares the sh-t out of him”.
https://youtube.com/shorts/tOGvycy1Zyw
KRudd calls TRUMP a “village idiot”.
https://youtu.be/LkY5BWAdO7M
320
I’m of the opinion that, Trump knows more about Albanese, his agenda, his ideologies,& more importantly his loyalties & trustworthiness, than the media allow us to know. We must ask, why is Trump on better terms with leaders like Xi, Kim, Starmer,
Putin, than he is with Albanese / Rudd.
190
CIA would have a file and no doubt POTUS staffers would research political leaders and inform their boss
70
Who wouldn’t avoid the little commie, albo?
Trump is the greatest leader this world has seen for a long time. He makes it plain he does not suffer fools. And albo, blackout and the rest of them are fools.
It’s ironic because if you believe in the garbage idea that CO2 (and only human CO2) is bad the ideal solution is for the greens to stop exhaling since that’s nothing but CO2.
310
That is an awful amount of money David but think about this. There is the money spent directly on achieving very little but a far greater amount of money lost as productive industries can no longer operate. Then there are the businesses that could have generated wealth but, having done the sums did not proceed. Add to that the fact that due to high energy costs we have lost the capacity to produce the things we need, especially in times of conflict. With that we have also lost skills and the ability to train another generation in those skills. In fact I would guess that the money wasted on driving down emissions is a pittance compared to the wealth lost in other areas of the economy. We have vast old growth forests that decay away while we import timber for God’s sake. Fisheries that we close down for environmental reasons then import an inferior product from overseas. As Jo mentioned above we could be growing even more food and fibre if we could develop the North where there is an abundance of water that is waiting to be harvested. The environmental movement, under the guise of emission reduction is not only making us poor but preventing us from reaching our potential.
A pox on all their houses.
330
Could be worse! Saw this idiocy on X: “According to MPs who have seen a “terrifying” external threat assessment kept secret by the Albanese government for nearly three years, Australians have been given only half of the “wake-up call” needed on the threat of climate change.” Link to a thing called the Saturday Paper.
https://t.co/NSJErN6lUY
20
Hilarious 😆
50
Saturday Paper? Never heard of it, but nonetheless it appears to be a publication that would appeal to Green/Leftoid types. What a ridiculous paper. We are not in a climate crisis we are in a common sense crisis.
70
Mickey Mouse said “Arithmetic is being able to count to 20 without taking off your shoes”. Our government can’t do arithmetic even if they do take off their shoes. Scary.
240
I would be willing to bet thst our senior politicians who make these insane decisions could not write “one billion” in numerals.
I am not being sarcastic.
260
Do you suppose that they know the difference between an English billion and an American billion?
70
Back in the day, to determine if an action was effective evidence was looked for in data. Time-related data could generally be visualised with a graph (and they used to teach graphing and other data visualisation skills in schools way back when).
If you look at the atmospheric CO2 vs time graph, there appears to be no identifiable human events.
Where is the evidence in the CO2 vs time graph of this massive expenditure of money in recent decades to install wind and solar plantations?
And why didn’t anyone ask the basic question? Or make the basic observation that CO2 or the climate or planet more generally are always changing and not static as Aristotle thought? Or radiometric data that shows that very little atmospheric CO2 is of human origins?
Inquiring minds want to know.
240
Enquiring minds already know, David, as you so frequently acknowledge. The government relies on the fact that most minds are not enquiring and will believe whatever rubbish is fed to them. We know that the CSIRO is not a scientific organisation any longer, but a fully paid up member of the Blob. The general population still believe it is the CSIRO of 50 years ago when it was a world leader in research. It should join the BoM and ABC as the first orgs to be closed down or defunded for lying to their Australian shareholders. The two billion a year that would save could go a long way to making Northern Australia the powerhouse is could be.
160
‘NDIS of energy’ claim, but Anthony Albanese says no new cash
After Treasury analysis released on Thursday left out predictions on the cost to the budget of hitting the 2035 and 2050 climate targets, Macroeconomics Advisory head of research Stephen Anthony described it as the “most appalling bit of policy analysis that has ever come out of Treasury”.
Treasury did not reveal the expected budgetary cost of the Albanese government’s turbocharged climate policy but it released modelling claiming Labor’s 2035 and net-zero-by-2050 targets would lower wholesale electricity prices by 10 per cent and contribute to the economy being $2.2 trillion bigger by the middle of the century.
Mr Anthony, who chaired the independent Pricing Committee for its review of National Disability Insurance Scheme pricing, said Labor’s net-zero plan was “going to be the NDIS of energy” and the Treasury modelling was merely “set up to validate the government’s approach”.
Mr Anthony and energy economist Bruce Mountain said the government would need to spend far more on climate and energy policies than the extra and redirected $8.3bn it unveiled this week to hit the 2035 target.
170
Labor’s 2035 and net-zero-by-2050 targets would lower wholesale electricity prices by 10 per cent and contribute to the economy being $2.2 trillion bigger by the middle of the century.
The bigger bit will reflect the ten times increase in the cost of distribution of power obtained from the grid.
30
What’s happening with the Australian economy and most Western economies except TRUMP’s USA is a massive drain of all present and future prosperity which is being absorbed by ever more of this CO2 madness.
It’s like trying to fill up a bathtub with the drain plug removed.
All present and future prosperity is being drained away for the benefit of China and “green” subsidy-harvesting billionaires.
Unfortunately Australia has no effective Opposition political party (who in any case support Government policy on Net Zero) and is acting like a One Party State. And it shows.
230
The government has only one lever left to pull where it comes to reducing emissions … a price signal.
AND since demand for transport and electricity are inelastic – the price signal is gonna be very high.
170
As TdeF regularly mentions, there will soon be a 35% tax on major transport and all the top 215 companies under the “Safeguard Mechanism”.
That’s why they want us (non-Elites) to live in the WEF-inspired “15 minute cities”, rebranded in Australia as “20 minute neighbourhoods”.
The Left have always hated the freedom and personal mobility provided by the private motor vehicle and commercial jet transport for non-Elites. Now they’ll be able to destroy it.
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reporting/national-greenhouse-energy-reporting-scheme/safeguard-mechanism/overview
https://intelligence.weforum.org/monitor/latest-knowledge/8d496bec33e74bd9b0e0eaf99b9a1f8f
https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/strategies-and-initiatives/20-minute-neighbourhoods
190
Letting scrub grow back … investment in bushfire futures.
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
340
Albanese and modern Labor appear to be working for the CCP and certainly not for Australia nor Australians. If the CCP sent someone to Australia to destroy our country I doubt they could do it more completely than the current government. Albo is making Biden look like a genius.
180
Its all in the numbers!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/09/18/australia-must-double-solar-20x-more-evs-and-replace-coal-with-renewables-without-raising-energy-costs/
Perhaps that is why Bowen didn’t go into details when trying to explain how Australia was going to achieve these new 2035 targets? One interesting detail that he failed to mention was that Australia’s total electricity generation capacity would need to almost double, mainly to support the charging demand of 20 times the current number of EVs.
Which is why he intentionally neglected to mention how much these new targets would actually cost Australians. 74 Gigawatts of electricity generation capacity will cost:
Using renewables:
Capital cost (central case, 60% solar / 40% wind by energy, 8-hour battery fleet):
~USD 501 billion (range ≈ USD 301B – USD 762B) — that’s about AUD 761 billion
With only 4-hour battery storage: ~USD 365B (AUD ~555B)
With 24-hour battery firming: ~USD 1.04 trillion (AUD ~1.59T)
Using nuclear:
Low (best-case / low-cost fleet): ~USD 188 billion (≈ AUD 286 billion)
Central (plausible mid-range): ~USD 377 billion (≈ AUD 572 billion)
High (recent expensive projects / cost-overrun case): ~USD 828 billion (≈ AUD 1,259 billion)
Using coal:
New coal-fired plants would cost on the order of tens–low-hundreds of billions USD (roughly A$40–A$155 billion)
No wonder this government refused to provide any economic modelling to support their claim that the cost of inaction is so much higher than their cost of action! Every option other than renewables is cheaper!
300
I wonder how much industry and business closures contributed to the 3.9%
120
A lot, and the next big contribution will be closure of the last aluminium smelters.
After that, I suspect that hospitals and public service offices are the big emitters.
160
The hospitals will have to go!
90
I can see the ‘de LULU’ now and it’s ‘Airbus Albo’ who is the Lu Lu fruit loop.
Maybe this video clip of him will come back to bite him on the backside –
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zoDdX89zELA
60
“We can see when a firebreak is carved through forest, and when the forest reclaims the firebreak.”
And we can see when solar panels replace crops, when trees are cut down on ridgelines to be replaced by windmills, we can see when swathes are cut through native forests and national parks.
It is entirely possible that the rollout of solar and wind generation, as well as impoverishing the nation and destroying industry, might actually have increased emissions.
210
… forests and national parks for new transmission lines.
120
Because they need to destroy the planet (and the economy) to “save” the planet.
110
They don’t have the power to destroy the planet without China, India and the US on board, but they can, and intend to, destroy Australia.
100
Thanks again to Jo Nova and Dr David Evans for your efforts to try and untangle this toxic mess so beloved by Labor and the Greens.
A 3.9% decrease in Aussie co2 emissions after wasting endless billions of $ and 20 wasted years is a crime and a farce.
But in a short 2 minute video Linnea Luekin also explains the saturation of co2 in our atmosphere due to the logarithmic effect and here is that short video and within is the flatlining graph after 400 ppm.
And Linnea does provide references for her research.
Only 2 + minutes but Linnea covers a lot of ground. And a transcript is available to click on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2KozyIusg
180
BTW that flatlining graph of logarithmic co2 saturation in the atmosphere is at 1 minute 25 seconds of the video.
90
In the end it is really not about reducing emissions of CO2, for Labor and Bowen in particular it is more about ideological purity and making sure their cronies are looked after.
A pertinent question some journalists should be asking Albo and Bowen is: How much money do the industry (union) superannuation have invested in intermittent energy projects? I suspect the answer might tell us a lot about their policy direction.
220
Looking at super in general and setting hypothetical targets, government should not coerce the Funds to invest in folly.
‘The superannuation sector represents $4trillion in investments that Australians own. It is estimated that in order to reach this target of 82%, around $40billion of investment into renewable energy from investors such as Australian superannuation funds, with support from the Federal Government’s Capacity Investment Scheme, is needed.
‘This amount represents less than 1% of all assets held by super funds across Australia.’ (Future Group)
23
As I posted yesterday. Jo’s updated figures still paint a grim picture for the future of so called emissions reductions in Labour’s LA LA LU LU land…………….BTW, when was CO2 ever considered to be an emission. It’s plant food for goodness sake.
Johnny Rotten
September 19, 2025 at 9:38 am · Reply
Australia’s emissions have only reduced by 2.8% since 2005. That’s 20 years of Earth time.
The latest targets are Pie in the Sky where the Pigs might fly. LOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iynZeGtDRvw
80
I haven’t posted anything for a while now but this article is very interesting.
I don’t understand how these things are calculated but the first graph showing a total of 3.9% reduction in CO2 emissions seems about right. I imagine the roughly 20% reduction in the electricity figure is calculated based on the CO2 emissions from coal, gas, diesel and similar generators.
I don’t understand the second graph at all. How have CO2 emissions from LULUCF decreased by 200% ? I imagine that a total cessation of CO2 emissions would be a 100% decrease. Does the 200% figure mean that not only have CO2 emissions totally ceased but an equal amount of CO2 is now being extracted from the atmosphere.
Reading the article again, I think I have just answered my own question. And that would suggest that the now 200% figure will not go beyond 200% but is likely to head toward 100% or even less over coming decades.
Anybody?
50
It is make work nonsense. The linked document explains some of the complexity:
https://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpaustralialulucf211108.pdf
All this work is based on a a massive scam perpetuatied by people out to make a buck doing god’s work to save the planet.
The climate is changing – always has and always will while Earth exists. The direct role of CO2 is negligible.
What could be a side issue for this work is thinking it through:
1. Sequestering CO2 in forests is bound to be counter productive because it encourages wild fires.
2. Converting marginal land to arable land would be much lower cost than all the expenditure on carbon mitigation and add real value to Australia.
80
The answer is clearer in the original source of those two graphs, starting at Page 11 here:
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/quarterly-update-australia-national-greenhouse-gas-inventory-march-2025.pdf
“Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) – emissions have decreased by the largest margin of any sector since June 2005 (195.8%; 150.6 Mt CO2-e) due to reductions in land clearing and native forest harvesting, increases in plantations and native vegetation, and improvements in soil carbon on agricultural lands;”
How they determine those numbers is based entirely on estimation, relying on algorithms agreed under the Kyoto Protocol:
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/national-greenhouse-account-factors-2025.pdf
What is intriguing is seeing what is included for estimating CO2 emissions, and also what is excluded. Have a look at the Scope 1 emission factors for CO2 in Tables 4, 5, 8 and 9, and note what categories are set to zero!
30
We can go on a hate fest towards our politicians. But we have been badly served by our public servants and government scientists. Going back to some of the original UN agreements it should have been easy to excuse Australia. Proof – just get out a map of Australia noting its large biosphere and compare to our low population. Then add that Australia resides in the southern hemisphere, which is a total co2 sink. But no, our representatives had to have a huge dose of FOMO. Then to justify our adherence, the junk statistic of per capita emissions was used.
100
Peta Credlin also talked to ex PM Tony Abbot about this co2 emissions lunacy last night and I just wish we had him as leader today to take the fight to Labor.
The demand must be that we get rid of this Net Zero madness and once again have BASELOAD energy security and therefore National security.
Anything else is just more hateful, treasonous nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxDqrRC2SMA
170
Good interview. I liked the selfie with Charlie Kirk.
60
…..and in the last 20 years our population has increased by c 30% – just think, if we were ruled by Australians we would have had a rational immigration policy and arrived at the same irrelevant Co2 number with little sacrifice or expense.
70
Australia’s Future Under Net Zero Fantasyland. led by Labor PM Albo (On the Public Teat My Whole Life) & His Trusty Sidekick Blackout Bowen, Summed up by today’s Johannes Leak The Australian Cartoon!
120
Captures it perfectly.
80
Johannes is brilliant!
10
So where are the conservative politicians who can clearly explain and sink this monumental boondoggle?
PS: If you ask me, the Blobsters just hate rich primary industry workers and tradespeople.
80
Not if you count the CO2 produced in China that went into making all the stuff bought with the billions.
The whole scam is an illusion and a few people are waking up to that fact.
I wonder how Blackout will reflect on his ministerial career pushing this massive waste of resources.
Those at CSIRO should do the honourable thing and all leave to pursue useful employment.
Shut down their ABC and contribute 1% of the funds to Sky News Australia and JoNova to continue their good work. Our taxes paid for this interview:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-17/left-wing-influencer-hasan-piker-discusses-the/105786198
Their ABC is prepared to plumb the dregs of society to find Trump haters. The organisation has no moral compass. You can idea of how nasty this person is in the last minute or so as he tried to deflect from what he stated.
171
we should take our lead from China, who have a plan and are ahead of their targets on the way to net zero in 2060.
020
BS as usual.
And the Plan is………..What?
World domination I guess.
130
Why are they building two coal power stations per week if wind and solar is the “cheapest and most reliable form of electricity production” as the anti-energy lobby keeps telling us?
140
Perhaps the Chinese have a word for “reliability” and include it in their design specs??
30
Sarcasm, right?
100
have a plan and are ahead of their targets
Based on the reporting of statistics from China????
10
Peter, do you struggle with basic mathematics? Or were you born yesterday, and so have no knowledge of the historical details of the Paris Agreement?
China has never participated in setting any CO2 emission reduction targets, either under the original Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Agreement. In fact, it was one of the few countries that adamantly rejected being forced to set any targets at all during the Paris CoP, forcing personal intervention by Barack Obama himself, which ultimately saw the IPCC accept that no developing countries needed to set any targets until after 2030.
That’s why, as others have hinted, China’s CO2 emissions have skyrocketed over the last decade, on the back of a vast program of electrification that has built hundreds of new coal fired power plants across China.
As for Net Zero, China made no further commitments at the Glasgow CoP in 2021. They haven’t even agreed to a target date of 2050, making some ambiguous comment about perhaps thinking of reducing their emissions by 2060, but only after they get to 2030.
And the rest of the world agreed with the fiction that China is still a developing country. This despite having the second largest economy in the world, being one of the permanent UN members of the Security Council, based on the number of nuclear warheads it has, not to mention its nuclear power stations, its space program, having the largest military force in the world, etc etc.
But then, some people have no ability to ask the right questions. A win for Chinese propaganda perhaps?
70
The bottom line is this: Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere can never reduce our atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability .
C02 causing GoreBull Warbling is a physical impossibly.
No! It’s not “less than we calculated”,it’s in fact a physical impossibly.
Seriously! You want to scrabble in their Cat scat infested sand pit!? Because that’s what you are doing with the “C02 causing warming,but less than advertised, drivel.
Remember, those who claimed, on the basis of empirical experiments, that C02 causing Gorebull Warbling was scietifically impossibly were right.
The Internet record is permanent. Did you support “C02 causing warming, but less than we thought”.
So not sorry.
If you supported the crazed idea that adding radiative gases to our radiatively cooled atmosphere could ever reduce our atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability,
Well, I’m no “Atlas”, but I’m shrugging, and so are many unjabbed.
91
Spot on Jo. Here is a quote from Senator Robert Hill (then Minister for the Environment) – “Reducing land clearance in Queensland would be one of the cheapest ways for Australia to lower its overall greenhouse emissions” (‘Rural Weekly’ 29 September 2000).
I stood with Senator Hill on a highpoint on the Clermont to Alpha Road in Queensland sometime before that media utterance. The party included a ringer who had worked on ‘Surbiton’ station over the previous 40 years & he pointed out that when he commenced work you could see the homestead downslope 30 km away. The eucalypt woodlands had thickened so much that on the day of our visit you could not see for more than 100 m in the homestead’s direction.
This visit/inspection of Queensland’s grazed woodlands came about because, while I understood the Australia Clause in the Kyoto Protocol conditions, I was persistently pointing out to the Australian Greenhouse Office that our grazed woodlands were becoming denser and increasing in tree biomass and hence carbon content. This implied that if we were to honestly measure net emissions from the landscape, we should be measuring withdrawals of CO2 from the atmosphere as well as CO2 additions to it.
But the situation was incomprehensible to our Canberra boffins. They assumed that all our grazed woodlands represented climax vegetation in a steady state. I told them they were delusional. Then I was asked to show an ‘expert’ from the Bureau of Resource Sciences what this thickening was all about. She arrived in the deep north in due course, and I thought I had shown her enough examples of woodland thickening to convince even a secondary school student of its reality.
But nothing changed. By this stage the AGO had convinced itself and our clueless politicians that they had found a miracle solution to Australia’s GHG emissions ‘problem’. In effect what Senator Hill was later essentially saying to urban Australia was Canberra’s answer to this dilemma – don’t you worry about your GHG emissions, we’ll impose regulations on Queensland’s graziers to meet the country’s Kyoto commitments. And the politicians followed the bureaucrats’ instructions and banned tree clearing, while ignoring landscape sinks, in most of Queensland and eventually over most of Australia. Poor fellow my country.
120
“It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that carbon dioxide, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”
(Edward Ring, Editor, EcoWorld 2008)
110
Neo Communism Australia
https://www.skynews.com.au/insights-and-analysis/labors-slide-into-neocommunism-is-becoming-increasingly-noticeable-as-it-marches-australia-towards-an-unenterprising-future/news-story/778575b021df856a6c4c0899c7265bcc
60
Thanks for posting.
30
Since their plan is to keep increasing their emissions until 2030, being ahead of it is easy.
30
The other thing worth thinking about is that the carbon reduced by our tree planting is not in any sense “measured” – it is really just estimated. That is full acknowledged in each quarter’s governmental report…
…but it’s estimated by the same clowns who do their climate modelling. Who knows how accurate that is? I don’t, but if CSIRO say that’s what it is, my starting point would “pull the other one, it’s got bells on it”.
My final question is: The government simply must know these things – just why does Old Blackout WANT to cripple the nation?
Coukd it be that they see that as a small price for a few years in the Big Chair (and a lifetime on WelfareGoldTM
70
Of course it is estimated, but I happen to know that there was a serious effort to do it carefully based on field data from different types of fauna. Australia was fighting to get global acceptance for their carbon accounting, so they didn’t want to be slap-dash, or overestimate anything.
I was there when the leading carbon modeler was given the best-in-the-world competitor product (from the Netherlands, I think) and was astounded at how simplistic it was.
The biggest flaw as far as I can see is no one really knows or even attempts to do lakes, rivers, and oceans.
140
Exactly. Australia’s Continental Shelf waters are a CO2 sink.
Viv Forbes has made the case many times.
The ‘Labourious Partee’ are loonies.
70
FWIW
“Leak on Bowen.”
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2025/09/leak-on-bowen.html
20
In the UK all of our reduction in the emissions of the harmless gas Carbon Dioxide has been through closing down our manufacturing and then importing goods from other countries mainly China.
40
True. But the mechanism is to make electricity so expensive that you cannot afford to make anything. What ended slavery and created wealth was cheap coal power. Now only China is allowed use cheap coal power. The UN says so.
50
Yes, well… you can’t have slavery in Communist China can you.
Hence they need to have coal fired power.
Don’t believe me?
Ask the Uighers.
40
It’s all nonsense. Humans cannot change CO2. Look at the graph of CO2 for the last 50 years.(ignore the usual text). It’s a straight line!
And it shows there is zero impact of all of human and non human CO2 activity in the dramatic half century with CO2. No sign of CO2 changes from WW1, WW2, Atom bombs, Bushfires, 2020 lockdown, anything at all. While from 1900 fossil fuel emissions has gone up exponentially 3500%. Even humans breathing out CO2 went up 800%. (1 billion to 8 billion)
The whole concept of atmospheric CO2 being determined by an elaborate dance between oceans and trees and humans and phytoplankton and whales and fossil fuel emissions is obviously nonsense.
Over 26 years NASA did a similar spectrometric scan for leaves, but not just Australia, the whole planet. In summary they determined that between 1988 and 2014 tree cover went up 14%. But so did CO2! Which means CO2 exactly determines tree cover. Trees have zero impact on CO2. But CO2 determines how many trees there are! Even in desert areas.
Consider that the amount of highly soluble CO2 in the oceans is 50x that in the air. So if the oceans released only 1% of their CO2 in 250 years, atmospheric CO2 would go up 50%. Even very slight warming would do that or ocean currents or both. That’s all that has happened. Except Al Gore wanted to the US President in 1988 and the UN jumped on the bandwagon as did the WMO. And in 37 years, no one has proven CO2 is man made, the fundamental conjecture of Al Gore.
It’s not just the wholly fossil fuel CO2 increase which is a hoax, it’s the very idea that man can change CO2 which is in very rapid constant and huge exchange with the oceans. Just like O2 so that fish can breathe. And all life breathes.
The idea that the elected Australian Federal Government can control Australia’s weather is past ridiculous. That control of CO2 is presented as a practical and even profitable exercise is doubly nuts.
And it is beyond amusing that our Prime Minister is already resiling from any promise real or implied to make electricity cheaper. Or that buying 5 million Chinese electric cars will fix the problem. So why is he spinning such a ridiculous story? That is the only question. Motive.
90
I started commenting when I checked how much fossil fuel CO2 was in the air. Which is simple because it is not radioactive where all CO2 is very slightly radioactive due to cosmic rays, one molecule in a trillion but with a half life of 5740 years, it permeates all living and once living things. And it was measured 2.03% in 1958. and published in the Royal Society. No one had any idea that in 1988 the idea of an entirely man made CO2 increase would become the most important scientific fact in modern history. Even though it was known to be wrong.
More recently it has become obvious that all this talk about multiple significant sources and sinks in a very complex CO2 exchange system is also rubbish. NASA confirmed that. The only significant dance going is the vast and very rapid exchange between the oceans and the little bit in the air. So fast CO2 is a near constant within 1% from pole to pole, year to year. This rapid exchange was confirmed accidentally by the H Bomb blasts which doubled atmospheric C14 in 1965. All that extra C14 is gone now along with all the atmospheric CO2 from 1965. And we have an exact measure of the half life of CO2 in the air (5 years) as we saw the whole exchange process in real time, like a medical tracer.
It is interesting also that the dilution of radioactive CO2 by fossil fuel CO2 is now 0.0%. It’s such simple arithmetic. Dilution from fossil fuels was -2.03%. Addition of new C14 to the atmosphere was 2x. Which diluted by 50:1 is +2% and the horizontal asymptote of the e-kt graph is 0.0%. This is the C14/C12 level of the last few million years. Everything fits perfectly, so the whole exchange is well documented by what must be the world’s biggest accidental experiment.
80
Total annual human contribution to atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuels has just reached 1%. And atmospheric CO2 is only 2% of total CO2. So the entire world combustion of fossil fuels increases total CO2 annually by 0.02%. Big deal.
Of the world’s countries only the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand care about this. 5% of the world’s population. In my opinion because all the scientists work for their leftist governments and keep their heads low. It’s just a ridiculous made up fairy tale from Al Gore, the closest thing in my life to Chicken Little/Henny Penny, ‘the sky is falling’. Supported by now millions of freshly minted ‘climate scientists’, not meteorologists. And all the people making trillions from it, especially China.
But if someone is really prepared to believe that Albanese, Bowen and Chalmers can control Australian weather if we pay $500Billion, I hope it’s their money, not mine. I want my old cheap, simple, reliable, adequate, commandable coal power back please. Just like China.
120
And I note that former Greens leaders Dr Bob Brown and Christine Milne in Tasmania are now both demanding that the creation of ecologically devastating wind farms should be subject to local approval. The closest thing to legalized NIMBY I have ever heard. And shows how our political leaders at heart do not care about anyone else. So Albanese promises Australia will be spared Climate Change. And Greens leaders say they should not be affected personally and that NW Tasmania can be left out. Not their problem.
100
By shuuting down native forestry in all but 2 states labor governements have further reduced the ability to increase LULUCF carbon storage in long life wood products tasken from those forests. To make matters worse the lack of local timber products is being replaced with imported wood products from forests that are not well regulated and some of which are being cleared permanently for agricultural crops, oil palm, rice, etc. The locked up local forests are trapped in a bushfire cycle that simply returns them to year zero for carbon capture with no appreciable gain other than David’s 1% for char. Overall its a lose/lose outcome.
00