Net Zero Nonsense: All Pain, No Gain!

You’ve got to hand it to the Australian government — when they commit to something, they really commit. Even when it’s completely bonkers.

Take Net Zero by 2050. It’s the shiny new goal every government wants to plaster on its press releases to show how virtuous and forward-thinking they are. The problem? For Australia, it’s a painful, self-inflicted wound with zero benefit.

Let’s break this down.

The Costs We’re Copping

1. Skyrocketing Energy Prices
We used to have some of the cheapest power in the world. Now? Power bills are biting everyone, including households, manufacturers, and small businesses. Why? Because we’re ditching cheap, reliable coal and gas for intermittent renewables that need endless subsidies and backups.

2. Grid Instability
Wind and solar might look good on paper, but the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow. Our once-stable grid now lives on the edge. And every blackout or “load-shedding” warning is just another sign we’re powering into chaos.

3. Industry Exodus
Energy-intensive industries — such as aluminium smelting, steel, and fertiliser — are shutting down or relocating overseas. Why run a business here when you can get cheaper, more reliable power elsewhere?

4. Lost Jobs, Lost Communities
As the industry dries up, so do the towns that depend on it. We’re watching generational jobs vanish in places like the Hunter Valley and Gladstone — sacrificed on the altar of climate symbolism.

5. Environmental Own-Goals
Here’s the irony: covering landscapes with wind farms and solar panels is not environmentally friendly. It chews up pristine land, kills wildlife (especially birds and bats), and requires massive new mining operations to extract rare earths and other materials. Where are the greenies when koalas are booted from their trees to make way for a solar farm?

6. Billions in Taxpayer Handouts
Subsidies for renewables, storage schemes, transmission lines to nowhere, hydrogen fantasies… All funded by us, the taxpayers. While China builds more coal plants and laughs at our economic masochism.

The Benefits? Practically Zilch.

Let’s not forget this one crucial fact: Australia accounts for just 1% of global CO₂ emissions.

You could shut the entire country down tomorrow — turn off every power plant, ground every plane, ban every ute — and it wouldn’t make a dent in the climate curve.

China emits more in a week than the United States does in a year. India, the US, and other countries are ramping up their use of fossil fuels. While we sabotage ourselves for feel-good headlines, the rest of the world keeps burning.

And don’t be fooled by the “we’ll lead by example” nonsense. No one’s following us — they’re too busy securing their energy security and lifting living standards.

Virtue Signalling on Steroids

This whole Net Zero push isn’t about outcomes — it’s about optics. It’s about politicians playing to the UN crowd, scoring media points, and pretending to be climate warriors while regular Aussies pay the price.

We’re wrecking our economy, destabilising our grid, kneecapping our industries, and trashing our own environment — all for a goal that won’t change the climate by a single degree.

Madness, pure and simple.

If you want to watch the breakdown that inspired this, check out the video:

Let’s stop the madness and start using a bit of common sense again.

https://youtu.be/qzDoS-cfsWE?si=r2GmFoP215y37YU3

Australia's self-inflicted energy disaster

With virtually daily bombshell news hijacking all media focus, climate zealotry has not had its share of attention. You may not have heard about the recent presentation highlighting Australia's poor energy policies. As part of his sold-out Australian tour for the Institute of Public Affairs, US author and filmmaker Robert Bryce spoke in Sydney about why Australia needs to pull "the plug on Net Zero. Adam Creighton and Chris Uhlmann, both journalists for The Australian, joined Robert Bryce in presenting the case with compelling arguments.

Together, they provided an incisive critique of Australia's current energy policies, highlighting the pitfalls of the country's commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050.

Australia's Energy Failure

Bryce highlights the paradox of Australia being an energy-rich nation that exports vast quantities of coal, natural gas, and uranium, yet faces domestic energy shortages. He points out that while Australia is the world's third-largest LNG exporter, it experiences gas shortages at home due to infrastructure constraints and policy decisions. Similarly, despite possessing significant uranium reserves, Australia has no nuclear power plants, limiting its options for low-emission, reliable energy.

Critique of Net-Zero Ambitions

The presentation challenges the feasibility of achieving net-zero emissions, arguing that such goals are more aspirational than practical. Bryce emphasises that Australia's contribution to global CO₂ emissions is approximately 1%, questioning the rationale behind policies that could have minimal global impact yet significant domestic economic consequences.

Key Insights from the Presentation

Bryce presented several slides that demonstrate the absurdity of Australia's policies. Here are a few of them.

• Australia's contribution to world emissions is insignificant

• China and India's increase in emissions is much greater than the reductions in emissions in the rest of the world.

• Coal is NOT being phased out. The growth in coal-fired capacity is five times greater than the growth in nuclear capacity.

• Australia's coal-fired generation is insignificant, so why close them prematurely?

• World experience shows that cheap alternative energy is a myth.

• Renewables (solar and wind) cause increases in electricity costs

• Net Zero is very expensive

In summary

Given Australia's relatively insignificant contribution to global emissions, energy policy should be driven by cost and efficiency. Australia's Net Zero target should be abandoned as it is unattainable, and attempts to implement it will cause damage to Australia's economy without yielding any benefits in terms of global emissions reduction. The drive towards Net Zero would be self-inflicted harm.

Watch the Full Presentation

https://youtu.be/RSJ15g4Un_g?si=2UHRWNbHLZ6sm0La

Net Zero is NOT achievable without nuclear

Today, Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition in Australia, made a bold declaration. The Liberal National Party (LNP) has unveiled its policy for Australia’s energy transition, advocating nuclear energy as the primary source of carbon-free baseload electricity. Dutton has issued a challenge, setting the stage for a direct clash with the Labor government’s strategy, which focuses solely on renewable energy.

Labor, in its quest to position Australia as a renewable energy titan, has initiated a deluge of renewable energy projects. The country is inundated with daily announcements of colossal wind farms, sometimes offshore, or encroaching upon prime agricultural land, the destruction of pristine environments, or the conversion of farmland for new transmission lines or solar farms. There are also new targets for electric vehicle (EV) sales and funding for solar panel manufacturing, despite the market being saturated with Chinese-made panels.

Chris Bowen has been appointed by the Labor government to spearhead this transition. His efforts have been nothing short of formidable. Bowen is unwavering in his mission, sparing no exaggeration and showing little concern for factual precision. He proclaims Australia as a renewable energy colossus, denounces nuclear as the costliest and riskiest technology, asserts that net zero is attainable without baseload power sources, and suggests that batteries can bridge the energy gap. Moreover, he promises to lower electricity costs, maintain power supply, and bolster industry growth.

This stance persists against a backdrop of rising electricity prices, the gradual shutdown of coal-fired power plants, and load shedding during peak energy demand. Consumers and businesses are incentivized to reduce consumption during these periods to keep the power grid stable—well, sort of.

No one, not even Bowen, finds the current state of affairs satisfactory. Yet, Bowen insists this is merely a transitional phase and that ‘she’ll be right.’

Amidst this turmoil, Peter Dutton has boldly proclaimed that the emperor has no clothes. He has criticized Labor’s target of a 43% emissions reduction by 2030 as unrealistic and has prioritized the cost of living over the renewable energy transition. Dutton has also highlighted nuclear energy as the linchpin of baseload power necessary to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recognized that net zero emissions cannot be realized without nuclear power. While some, including Bowen, remain unconvinced, many believe that renewables alone are insufficient for achieving net zero.

One of the most persuasive arguments against the feasibility of renewables alone concerns resource availability. The materials required to produce the necessary minerals for solar panels and wind turbines are unlikely to be mined by 2050.

Referencing Simon Michaux’s “The Green Energy Myth,” the table below outlines the volume and types of minerals needed to meet net zero goals and the estimated years of mining required to obtain these resources. Focusing on copper alone, it would take over 250 years at current mining rates to acquire the amount needed for net zero. Evidently, achieving net zero without nuclear is an impossibility.

Ref Simon Michaux:The Green Energy Myth

Professor Simon Michaux, a leading researcher in the field of minerals within a circular economy, is currently with the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) and formerly of the University of Queensland. Michaux aims to revolutionize the interplay between energy, minerals, and industrialization to foster sustainable material consumption in society. His recent presentation at the Navigating Nuclear symposium at UNSW, titled "Challenges and bottlenecks to the green transition", addressed these issues.

These inconvenient truths are likely to be disregarded by Mr. Bowen, but Mr. Dutton has certainly brought some compelling facts to the table.