In terms of The Blob, the deepest darkest forces of power, the ones that scare even The Bankers, are surely the spies with guns, especially if they are unaccountable, politically biased spies with guns.
For four years since the January 6 Capitol Hill riots, the FBI has refused to say how many agents it had in the crowd, even to Congress, or even to the US President. Now we find, after the denials, there were 274 plain clothes agents there on the day. Donald Trump says “Wow: A radical Left Democrat Scam.”
It puts a whole new meaning to the term “insurrection”. Hundreds of paid agents, armed, and pretending to be protesting the same government that paid them to be there?
Let’s not forget that the main outcome of the Capitol Hill riots was to draw attention away from a critical Senate debates about irregularities with the 2020 election. (Many Republican senators who has promised to object to the certification of Joe Biden withdrew their objections after the riot). It would also be a useful (if awful) tool to imprison nearly 1,000 protestors and thus terrorize and deter people on one side of politics from protesting.
And then there were people who yelled and incited others like Ray Epps, — “We need to go IN to the Capitol” — were never arrested, and never jailed. And we still don’t know why.
The FBI secretly deployed more than 250 plainclothes agents to the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot, an operation so disorganized it unleashed searing frustrations among many of the FBI’s rank-and-file that the bureau had lost its core competencies to “wokeness” and allowed its employees to become “pawns in a political war,” according to an after-action report kept from the public for more than four years.
Not surprisingly, doing something so politically biased, so unAmerican, was bound to test the more patriotic FBI staff, who protested in anonymous complaints to the “after action” team. That 50 page report has just been turned over to the House Judiciary Committee:
Scores of FBI agents and personnel – many from the bureau’s premier Washington field office (WFO) – sent anonymous complaints to the after-action team detailing how agents were sent into an unsafe scenario without proper safety equipment or the ability to identify themselves readily as armed officers to other police agencies, the report obtained by Just the News shows.
“The FBI should make clear to its personnel and the public that, despite its obvious political bias, it ultimately still takes its mission and priorities seriously,” one employee wrote in a stinging review. “It should equally and aggressively investigate criminal activity regardless of the offenders’ perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations; and it should equally and aggressively protect all Americans regardless of perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations.”
That agent urged FBI leaders “to identify viable exit options for FBI personnel who no longer feel it is legally or morally acceptable to support a federal law enforcement and intelligence agency motivated by political bias.”
These agents were deployed in plain clothes and with guns, yet they had no way to identify themselves to the police and no safety gear to protect themselves. What were they doing there, and why was this a secret for so long?
And the bigger question is just how close the most powerful democracy on Earth is to being a sham in the control of an unaccountable shadow government? Purely hypothetically, if the FBI chiefs had compromat which gave them control over one presidential candidate (like say, his son’s lap top) — they might feel inclined to boost his chances of getting elected, and to cover up any illegal boosting they might have done. The question is not whether this scenario is possible, because it self-evidently is possible, but to ask if it happened, “What would stop that?” The media? The Watchdogs?
Like — PBS News December 2024?“No undercover agents on the scene” says report from the Justice Department, knocking down yet another fringe conspiracy which turned out to be true.
The US Justice Department was the watchdog which took three years to not-find 274 agents. What kind of justice is that? The Blob kind…
Experts are wrong: After 58 years of emissions — disaster losses in Australia stay the same
Australia’s National Climate Risk Assessment dropped on us last week like the perfect propaganda-bomb — inducing headlines about our horrifying climate future, starring photos of flooded houses. But the data shows the only horror-show is the state of Australian science at the CSIRO.
The report predicts that climate change will cause $40 billion in disaster losses each year by 2050. But Professor Roger Pielke Jnr points out that the numbers come from the Colvin Review which “says no such thing”. The Colvin Review merely projects disaster costs will increase due to population growth, not “climate change”. As Pielke says “For a formal government assessment this is, at best, incredibly sloppy.” (He doesn’t add, especially when hundreds of billions of dollars depends upon it.) He expects that people relying on this report might “feel hoodwinked”. (We do).
Climate Change is not increasing disaster losses in Australia
Despite every fire, flood and spring tide being blamed on climate change, insurance costs for disasters haven’t increased in nearly 60 years, apart from what we’d expect due to inflation and population growth. Pielke got the data from the Insurance Council of Australia, and adjusted it using GDP data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to produce this graph (below). He finds there is “no trend”.
Where is the crisis?
Humanity produced eighty percent of all the emission we’ve ever produced in the last 58 years, (1,400 billion tons of carbon dioxide) yet in Australia losses due to natural disasters haven’t changed as a proportion of our economy. Here in the land of droughts and flooding rains, it is business as usual.
Our population has grown from 11 million to 27 million, with more homes, farms and factories just waiting to be burned, blown away or flooded. But once the extra targets are taken into account there is no sign of any extra effect from “climate change”. All those extra buildings, bridges and cars are sitting-ducks for storms, floods, and hailstones, yet the “climate crisis” downunder is the same as it ever was.
Back in 1967 (when the graph starts) global carbon dioxide stood at an idyllic 320ppm, now it’s 425ppm, and there is nothing to show for it. How much more are we supposed to spend to prevent a crisis that isn’t happening?
The CSIRO and the BoM and climate academics serve themselves and not the taxpayers who fund them.
The CSIRO and the BOM have reduced themselves and science to nothing more than a publicity exercise to promote government power and spending. Even the half-decent scientists left at both institutions don’t speak up when colleagues shamelessly abuse the scientific method, or lie by omission.
They still collect their salaries and their super while plumbers, farmers and truckies pay more for electricity than they should and jobs at factories and plants close down.
Shame on all the academic incompetent snobs: they are letting the country down to line their own pockets with comfortable careers.
A Chinese group has invented a James Bond style ejector for EVs to solve those embarrassing moments when the battery reaches thermal runaway, and there are no handy swimming pools to park the car in.
It seems like a great idea for all the times the EV starts to smoke while you idle next to a pit of fire retardant foam. Otherwise, it seems a bit tough on pedestrians. This could not only kill school children walking down the road, but take out their bus too.
Imagine if a hostile power had remote control over 500 kilogram covert bomb launchers, and they infiltrated our cities?
In case of thermal runaway, this proposed EV battery ejection system is designed to send a flaming, venting one-tonne battery pack several meters to the right of the vehicle … and may the gods help anything in its path.
(h/t https://t.co/QpsFvjruwZ) pic.twitter.com/Wyu5NIsuKM
Simon who wrote Australian Climate Madness for years, first spotted the ejector battery and explains the crazy on youtube (at least as much as he can):
People would certainly learn never to park beside one.
If heavy vehicles need to beep when reversing what kind of noise should an EV make before launching?
Trump just went full Climate Blasphemy at the UN, saying the things we wish someone had said for the last twenty years. It’s a scam, a hoax, and a fraud, he said, and the schmucks at the United Nations have to listen to every word.
In 1982, the executive director of the U.N. environmental program predicted that by the year 2000, climate change would cause a global catastrophe “irreversible as any nuclear holocaust”… these predictions were WRONG. They were made by stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes.
Trump warned world leaders that if you don’t get away from this green energy scam (and mass immigration) your countries are going to fail.
From 39:00 minutes in he mocks the UN predictions from 1982.
“Your countries are going to hell”.
Despite him being the highest ranking speaker of the day, the UN escalator stopped working and then the teleprompter didn’t work, making it just that much harder for him to connect with the cameras and the audience for the newsworthy grabs, or making it more likely he would misspeak. What are the odds?
When we were in Bali at the UN all those years ago, there were a string of odd accidents that always worked in the UN’s favour. They’d finally relent, and offer us a big venue after days of saying there were none, then they forgot to put a notice on the public ticker-timetable. Petty. Petty. Petty.
“It’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world in my opinion.”
Another UN official stated in 1989 that within a decade entire nations could be wiped off the map by global warming. Not happening. You know, it used to be global cooling. If you look back years ago in the 1920s and the 1930s, they said global cooling will kill the world. We have to do something. Then they said global warming will kill the world. But then it started getting cooler. So now they could just call it climate change because that way they can’t miss. It’s climate change because if it goes higher or lower, whatever the hell happens, there’s climate change.
“Predictions made by stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes…”
Climate change, no matter what happens, you’re involved in that. No more global warming, no more global cooling. All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.
They must take control strongly and immediately of the unmititigated immigration disaster and the fake energy catastrophe before it’s too late.
“… by people with evil intentions…(he names Obama)”
The carbon footprint is a hoax made up by people with evil intentions and they’re heading down a path of total destruction. You know, the carbon footprint, it was a big big thing a few years ago. I remember hearing about the carbon footprint and then President Obama would get into Air Force One, a massive Boeing 747, and not a new one, an old one with old engines that spew everything into the atmosphere. He’d talk about the carbon footprint. We must do something. Then he’d get in and he’d fly from Washington to Hawaii to play a round of golf. And then he’d get back onto that big beautiful plane and he’d fly back and he talk about again global warming and the carbon footprint. It’s a con job.
Europe cut emissions 37%, and for what…”
At extreme cost and expense, Europe reduced its own carbon footprint by 37%. Think of that. Congratulations, Europe. Great job. You cost yourself a lot of jobs, a lot of factories closed, but you reduce the carbon footprint by 37%. However, for all of that sacrifice and much more, it’s been totally wiped out and then some by a global increase of 54%. much of it coming from China and other countries that are thriving around China which now produces more CO2 than all the other developed nations in the world. So all of these countries are working so hard on the carbon footprint which is nonsense by the way. It’s nonsense.
***[For the record I tried to link to the short 6 minute version of Trump’s speech about climate change, that Marc Morano posted on X, and it is breaking the website every time. “You are blocked!” . Hmm. Is it X, or Trump, or just bad luck? – Jo]
Finally, twenty years too late, some Greens admit that wind farms and renewables damage the wilderness they wanted to save, but they’ve stayed silent because they are afraid they’ll be called a climate denier.
People may have missed this significant turning point in The Australian ten days ago. Because climate change is essentially a grossly exaggerated scam, it levitates on billions of dollars and a layer-cake of coercion and intimidation. And so it goes that the economic craziness is tearing the Liberals apart, but the environmental destruction is tearing the Greens apart too.
Never underestimate the power of petty put-downs. Many on both sides didn’t speak up because they didn’t want to sound stupid, or selfish or “far right”.
If the Greens had spoken up against the dehumanizing petty names, instead of staying silent or joining in the namecalling bonfire, we wouldn’t be killing so many eagles and whales and cutting down trees “to save the planet”. Let’s not forget, saving the animals and trees is supposed to be the driving force of The Greens, yet they were willing to look the other way, or ignore something if the social cost was too high.
Wait til they find out they’ve been helping the bankers….
By Matthew Denhold, The Australian, September 12th 2025
Major fault lines have emerged in the environment movement over the renewables rollout, with peak groups accused of turning a blind eye to “biodiversity-destroying” projects, while a senior campaigner likens its impacts on nature to the industrial revolution.
Veteran conservationist and former federal Greens leader Christine Milne told The Australian peak environmental non-government organisations were too “frightened” to oppose renewables projects.
If only the horrible people on The Right hadn’t already opposed wind farms, it wouldn’t have been so hard for the Greens to protest:
“The reason that the larger groups have got to this point is because the right in Australia oppose renewable energy.
“And so the environment movement have been reluctant to stand up and say ‘well, actually, on this particular wind farm or this particular transmission line it’s not appropriate’. They are frightened of being categorised in climate denier (terms) …”
Not quite at the state of accepting personal responsibility then…
Bullying is such a widespread problem — even the campaign director of the Wilderness Society has quit recently because of the bad behaviour and the dire threat of industrial renewables:
Ms Milne’s intervention comes as Wilderness Society national campaigns director Amelia Young quits the group after almost 20 years, citing “intolerable … attitudes and behaviours” – and warning of a dire threat to nature posed by the renewables rollout.
“The renewables revolution threatens nature in many of the same extractive and colonial ways that the industrial revolution did,” Ms Young told colleagues in a farewell email, obtained by The Australian.
It’s amazing the effect namecalling has. It’s not just a schoolyard thing, social mockery and ostracism keeps adults in line very effectively.
Christine Milne talks about the city versus country divide within the Greens. Often it’s the rural locals who are opposing the destruction and the city based NGO’s wont help. The the traditional Greens find themselves on the nasty end of their own activist inner city Green forms of bullying:
“To denigrate those people as just Nimbys or anti-global action on climate is just wrong, and it just alienates people.”
Perhaps if the Greens didn’t teach their underlings to smear and attack everyone for fantasies like “fossil fueled funding” they might foster a healthier community of their own?
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the climate denier insult worked even better on the Greens (and for longer) than it did on the skeptics
If the Greens had spoken against the bullies, they wouldn’t have just helped skeptics, they’d have set themselves free. Everyone would have been able to speak, and we’d all have figured out unreliable low density generators were not going to stop the storms or cancel the floods, or save the spotted quoll. And most importantly, we’d have realized that it isn’t about left and right, but about the people versus the parasitic Blob.
And that’s the thing the Blob is most afraid of — the left and the right talking to each other. (Vale Charlie, eh?!)
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?
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.
*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.
The World’s Renewables Crash-Test-Dummy has officially set new magical emissions-reductions-targets. It’s just a different shade of impossible, so nothing’s changed. But the labels on the staircase to Green Heaven have switched from 43% to 62%. The UN and President Xi will be happy.
It won’t change world temperatures but it might be enough to bribe the UN with to “win” the Olympics of Climate Conferences — the junket to end all junkets. The annual private jet party of bureaucratic celebrities.
When our PM was asked why Australia should set targets for global weather control when the three biggest countries on Earth are not, he whipped out a “fun fact” to run a nation by — as Graham Lloyd noticed in The Australian.
[Anthony Albanese] hit out at Coalition MPs who argue Australia should not adopt ambitious targets when there was a lack of action from big emitters the US, China and India.
“The amount of wind and solar power under construction in China is now nearly twice as much as the rest of the world combined. Just a fun fact there,” he said.
It’s almost like the PM is managing the country like it’s his Tik Tok account. Sadly for him (worse for us) it’s like a conversation with a troll. Before we spend a trillion dollars, and fry the national grid, we’d hope Anthony Albanese could answer our questions. Just because China is installing lots of useless wind and solar plants, doesn’t mean we should too. (They’re also cutting Taiwan’s subsea cables,leaking bioweapons, and harvesting organs from prisoners. Just say “No”. OK? ) China has also sacked one third of their solar manufacturing workforce. Perhaps they’re just installing all the left over solar panels they can’t sell to anyone?
China might be installing all that wind and solar, but their emissions are off with a rocket
Doesn’t that matter, and isn’t it sort of the whole point? (And will the ABC ever ask?)
Lloyd points out that China’s emissions grew by more than Australia’s total annual output.
Looking at all the energy sources used by China we get a clue why their emissions are not falling:
Likewise, here’s Australia’s total energy use by source in TWh on the same scale as China’s:
These graphs include all energy sources including industry and transport and not just electricity, that’s why oil is higher than coal in Australia.
For the record, assuming the numbers are accurate (though I don’t know why we would) China has 30 times as much wind power, and 19 times as much solar power as Australia does — and burns 61 times as much coal. The figures below are TWh for China and Australia from OWID.
…
Fuel source
China
Australia
Ratio
…
Coal
25,599
423
61
Oil
8,964
620
15
Gas
4,344
370
11
Hydro
3,303
37
107
Wind
2,432
878
30
Solar
2,046
123
19
Nuclear
1,099
–
Biofuels
37
1
29
Other renewables
652
9
70
China also has 107 times as much hydropower. (And we thought the Snowy Hydro Scheme was big. )
But seriously, cherry-picked glib inanities is hardly a way to run a country. It is an insults to hardworking Australians. If the media and opposition hounded him on the sheer pointlessness of our Net Zero piety, he would have never been elected.
China and India were never there with Net Zero, the US was, then wasn’t, Canada appeared to be, but in order to be electable, Mark Carney dropped the country’s carbon tax the minute he was appointed PM (because his opponent, Pierre Poilievre had made repealing the federal carbon tax a central plank of his platform). The President of Mexico was a PhD in energy engineering and environmental policy, but now talks about “energy security” and boosting oil and gas production. Meanwhile New Zealand has reversed the oil and gas ban, encourages mining, and will delay the pricing of agricultural emissions by five years.
With impeccable timing, just as Australia announces a new more impossible target, Germany and France are squabbling over the EU target, and the EU will now miss the UN deadline.
The European Union is at risk of missing a key United Nations deadline to submit updated climate targets, as internal disagreements stall progress on a proposed emissions reduction goal for 2040. The bloc had aimed to cut emissions by approximately 90% compared to 1990 levels by 2040, forming a critical milestone on the path to net-zero by 2050.
However, several member states—most notably France, Italy, and Poland—have raised concerns over the economic impact and feasibility of such an ambitious target. These objections led to the postponement of a planned Environment Council vote, originally scheduled for mid-September. As a result, EU leaders are expected to revisit the issue at a high-level summit in October.
In the interim, the EU is considering a “statement of intent” that outlines a potential emissions reduction range of 66.3% to 72.5% by 2035, relative to 1990 level.
Reuters Sept 2: In a closed-door meeting of EU diplomats on Tuesday, France said the 2040 target would not be ready for ministers to approve this month, two diplomats familiar with the talks told Reuters. France is mired in a domestic political crisis, with the government facing potential collapse in a confidence vote next week. A French diplomatic source said the government had reiterated its concerns on whether the 2040 climate goal is feasible…
Even the New York Times, Masthead for The Blob, is lamenting the collapse of the Paris agreement hopes and dreams.
There is a tiny bit of soul-searching here (but not much). Mostly this is just nostalgia.
Ten years ago this fall, scientists and diplomats from 195 countries gathered in Le Bourget, just north of Paris, and hammered out a plan to save the world. … Paris wasn’t just a brief flare of climate optimism. To many, it looked like the promise of a whole new era…
Lo, Climate Action filled a spiritual void (and you thought it was supposed to stop storms?)
But with the global war on terror long since dissipated into tragic farce and a new Cold War not yet well crystallized in the public imagination, the American-led global order seemed to be missing some sense of purpose, too. Here came the existential project of climate action to fill that semi-spiritual void, at least for some of those who felt it.
Now almost everywhere we look climate alarm has become “complacency and indifference”…
To our north, the former central banker Mark Carney — whose 2015 warnings about the financial risks from climate change helped set the stage for Paris by alarming the world’s banking elite — became prime minister of Canada in March and as his very first act in office struck down the country’s carbon tax, before storming to a landslide victory in the April election. To our south, President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, a former climate scientist, has invoked the principle of “energy sovereignty” and boasted of booming oil and gas production in her country — and enjoys one of the highest approval ratings of any elected leader anywhere in the world. Almost everywhere you look, the spike of climate alarm that followed Paris has given way to something its supporters might describe as climate moderation but which critics would call complacency or indifference.
Progressives long believed that climate politics was a kind of tug of war, in which tugging harder would pull many on the other side over the line into grudging support. To some degree, that is what happened after Paris, with advocates shifting the Overton window pretty dramatically and winning meaningful gains along the way.
But it also looks a bit as if they pulled so hard they collapsed in disarray.
The author, David Wells-Wallace, spends the second half of the article pretending that renewables will still take over the grid (we’re installing so many, he says!). He doesn’t realize how little fossil fuel energy they are displacing.
Scott Adams, too, wonders where the climate hysteria has gone?
He quotes someone called coddled affluent professional — who has a theory on why climate change hysteria has gone. He wonders if it was all astroturfed because billionaires were funding hysteria? And theorizes that now that the climate spigot has dried up, the billionaires can’t be bothered raising hell. Adams points out that since the government took away the big money, there ought to be more climate angst about the world, not less — unless, of course, the degree of complaining was related to how much money they could get out of the issue.
The Liberal Party has fallen to 27% primary vote — a dismal, perhaps death-spiral position, mirroring the UK Tories. Yet Trump won in the US by calling Net Zero a hoax and dumping it entirely. And Nigel Farage is storming up the polls in the UK — breaking the ancient two-party system.
Yet despite all these radioactive hot electoral signs, The Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has dithered and delayed on Net Zero, putting off the decision until next year after a long review.
Andrew Hastie is brave enough to stand up to the namecalling bullies, and can’t bear waiting any longer:
The home affairs spokesman issued the ultimatum on ABC radio in Perth on Monday, just days after the sacking of senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price from the front bench.
When asked what he would do if Opposition Leader Sussan Ley attached the Coalition to net zero commitments, the Western Australian MP responded: “That leaves me without a job”.
“I’ve nailed my colours to the mast,” he told ABC Radio Perth.
The sexist take is demeaning, as if Australian women are so small-minded they might vote for X or Y chromosomes rather than cheaper electricity bills, or affordable homes.
But at least one senior member of the Liberal Party is warning of a mass exodus over Net Zero without some conditions.
Opposition education spokesman Jonathon Duniam says there could be a “mass exodus” from Sussan Ley’s frontbench unless the Coalition dumps or qualifies its support for net zero emissions by 2050.
On Monday night, Hastie told ABC radio it would be untenable for him to stay on the frontbench should the Coalition adhere to its position on net zero. “My primary mission in politics is to build a stronger, more secure, more competitive Australia,” he said. “Energy security is a vital input into that, so that’s my bottom line. I’ve nailed my colours to the mast. “I said that net zero policy is a straitjacket for our economy and our country, and I believe that. I’m actually quite passionate about it.”
The only solid Liberal governments in Australian states left are, as Chris Ulmann points out, in Queensland and the Northern Territory, where they are paired with the Nationals and not pandering to the left. (The NT government will not implement their Net Zero Target. And Queensland has axed their renewable energy targets, and vowed to keep coal plants running for another decade. )
Something has to give
Craig Kelly, former Liberal MP, says it could be the start of a whole new Australian conservative party and lays out his vision:
Here we go, the planets are aligning.
With too many bedwetters, the Liberal Party doesn’t have courage nor the troops to take on the Net Zero scam. Here’s how it could play out.
Hastie resigns over the Liberal Party’s weakness on fighting Net Zero.
At least half a dozen others Liberals join him.
Hastie then announces a new party and invites all other Liberals to join – a few more jump the sinking Liberal Party ship.
There is then a convention (like Menzies held in Albury in December 1944) of the breakaway Liberals and all smaller like minded parties including; the Nationals, One Nation, Libertarians, Family First, Katters Australia, Rennick’s People & United Australia.
Policy platforms are determined and they vote to make Andrew Hastie the leader and Jacinta Price deputy leader of new united force to take on Labor at the 2028 election.
Sitting MPs and Senators that join are automatically preselected, and nominations are called for candidates for all 150 lower house seats and the senate positions in every state – with preselections to be held by democratic primary.
The left over Liberals fade in obscurity with several joining the Teals.
The new entity storms the nation, and hits the lead in polls (like Reform in the UK) and smashes Labor at the 2028 Federal election.
Net Zero is scrapped, Migration is cut, freedom of speech guaranteed, pro-family tax reforms introduced, and covid royal commissions commenced.
Australia is saved.
Bear in mind, Hastie chose not to contest the leadership in May after the election, and has young children, so he may not be trying to take over the leadership or split the party — he might just want to give Sussan Ley a reason she can’t ignore to commit to a stance that most of Australia wants.
Right now here in Crazy Land, the government wants to bankrupt the nation to fiddle with the weather in 2100, and the Opposition isn’t even opposing it.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
Recent Comments