By Jo Nova
The Seismic Rift continues as conservative politics fractures over Net Zero and mass immigration.
Astonishing polls in the AFR today point to a wipe-out of the old centre-right
The message is clear, the voters on the right side of politics don’t want to pander to the climate police and they don’t want mass immigration (which is also true of some voters on the left). It ought to be a snap for the Liberals and the Nationals to figure this out and win them back, but they are not even trying.
One Nation could win a blockbuster tally of between 46 and 59 seats in the Australian Parliament. The Liberal Party would be reduced to between 7 to 21 seats and the Nationals to zero.
It’s the Blob versus The People, but the Liberals are on the Blob’s side. One Nation voters know this is a fight for the country against corruption and globalist power, and they’re hardly going to be won over by a team that says they’ll stick with the UN because they’re a bit busy to just say “No”.
What is Angus Taylor thinking?
The Coalition’s half-pregnant policy position is that Net Zero absolutely has to go, but the Paris Agreement absolutely has to stay. This leaves Angus Taylor, the head of the Coalition telling us he won’t pull out of the Paris Agreement because it’s… irrelevant? How is he going to sell that — We’re sticking to all the international agreements that don’t mean anything? If a law achieves nothing, we will leave it on the books? There is no principle here except something else is going on and the Liberals don’t want to tell us what it is.
Does he think anyone will be fooled by this?
“We will get rid of net zero,” Mr Taylor told Sky News host Paul Murray. “We’re not proposing to get out of the Paris Agreement because frankly, it’s not going to change anything we’re going to do.
Taylor doesn’t even try to explain any miniscule theoretical benefit. Like maybe we get to sell more cheese to the French? He’s so unconvincing the only point he mentioned was: “I’m not a big believer in being dictated to by any international organisation…” he said, lamely giving us a reason to get out of it.
And poor Matt Canavan looks like a turkey, because he has to eat his own words. In the past he’s said we should get out of the Paris Agreement but now suddenly, it’s just a piece of paper:
“‘Net Zero is not in the Paris Agreement at all. We signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015. Net Zero didn’t come along until years later … it’s just a piece of paper.’ — Matt Canavan to Lee Hanson from One Nation.
Senator Malcolm Roberts of One Nation explains that “No, Angus Taylor & Matt Canavan, it is not just ‘a piece of paper'”. That’s just a word game, and it’s clear the spirit and intent of Net Zero lives in there.
The monstrous reach of the Paris Agreement
By Senator Malcolm Roberts
The phrase ‘Net Zero’ was deliberately left out of the Paris Agreement, as it was deemed too politically charged. Instead, they inserted the legal definition of Net Zero into Article 4.1:
Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible … so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century…
According to Onassis, Farhana Yamin is credited with ‘getting the goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050 into the 2015 Paris Agreement’ and was a key IPCC architect. She later joined Extinction Rebellion. Even Wikipedia says, ‘Net Zero was basic to the goals of the Paris Agreement’ with the IPCC’s follow-up to Paris, the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5*C, popularising Net Zero as a short-hand for the phrase already used in the original document.
This is not in dispute by anyone except, perhaps, the Coalition, who are afraid that admitting the Paris Agreement’s role in tying Australia to Net Zero weakens their political chances against One Nation.
It’s a legal weapon
The Paris Agreement is a legal tool to pave the way to cement the intent in domestic legislation.
As we already know, groups of malcontents and foreign interests use these international agreements in lawfare as a weapon to wring out more money from the hapless taxpayer, or delay useful projects. If we have signed The Paris Agreement, they will say, and we are not living up to our own agreements, somehow, somewhere there will be an aggrieved party who will sue to win millions for their favourite island charity or grifting business.
Leaving dud legal bombs set in our legislation is inviting foreign adversaries to use them to their own advantage. China was caught funding eco-lawfare suits in the USA to sabotage American energy dominance. Do we want to make it easier?
The UN has told Australia (but not China) that digging up our own gas might be a breach of “international law”. In another instance, a Blobocrat Court has ruled that perfect weather is a “human right”. That court was the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), whatever that is — it’s more legal noise and propaganda to wade through. But each quasi legal statement gets used in a higher court, or in parliament, as a precedent, and thus the nonsense ratchets its way up to arenas that matter.
Even if the UN hasn’t succeeded yet in legally bombing a nation back to the stone age, we know it wants to.
Is any One Nation voter going to be converted by this (below)? If the Liberals keep pushing these contradictory messages which are obviously hiding their true intent, they look weak. If they are just doing this so the Liberals in Teal seats have a safety line, it isn’t worth it. Give the Teal voters the full force of the UN quagmire and failures and the fence sitters will be all yours.
This is the sort of Uniparty waffle that will lose even more voters to One Nation.
Image by Julius H. from Pixabay