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

Trump's most winning week!

Trump, never one to "hide his light under a bushel", has often enough expounded on his 'winning policies. During his 2016 campaign, he said

 “We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, ‘Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore, Mr. President, it’s too much.’ And I’ll say, ‘No it isn’t. We have to keep winning. We have to win more!”

Trump is nothing if not entertaining. Yet, this last week qualifies as the most winning of weeks for Trump and his policies. Let's look at the list:

• The US dropped massive bunker busters on Iranian nuclear facilities, significantly downgrading, if not eliminating, their nuclear infrastructure and capabilities.
• At the NATO conference, he won commitments from almost all NATO members to increase their defence investments to 5% of GDP
• SCOTUS announced 3 most significant rulings, all in favour of the Trump administration; 
• The first was a ruling denying individual Federal Court judges the right to issue nationwide injunctions. This is a direct defeat of the lawfare battle that the Democrats had initiated against Trump's executive orders. Virtually every one of his EOs had been challenged via injunctions for various reasons by left-leaning Federal judges. 
• The second was to give power back to parents to refuse to accept the LGBT propaganda that seems to have pervaded many of them
• The third was to allow the administration to send illegal immigrants to third-party nations
• The signing of a trade deal with China
• Food giants have agreed to remove artificial dyes from food
• The social security payments have had the most considerable monthly reduction ever, due largely to the work of DOGE
• The Pentagon has started reinstating service members who had been wrongfully dismissed due to their refusal to accept the COVID-19 vaccine.
• Trump brought an end to the war between Rwanda and Congo, a war that had been going on for decades.
• The tariff strategy has generated some $88 B, disproving many pundits
• The SP500 and NASDAQ hit record highs
• Zero crossings of illegal immigrants into the US

Not a bad list!

Here is Rowan Dean from Sky News Australia summarising this most successful of weeks for Trump.

https://youtu.be/5pL1LA8a4Sw?si=XIEae4o99sl8W5hc

Has Bill Maher Already Left The Democrat Party?

Earlier this week, I was speculating about Bill Maher's allegiance to the Democrats following his Trump dinner (see Maher telling it straight). 

Obviously, I was either prophetic or already too late, as I came across this video where he claims he was "never a Democrat". Go figure. He certainly sounded like one for a very long time. Admittedly, many people who claimed to be Democrats a decade ago do not recognise what has become of the party. I often reflect on how organisations and individuals can transform gradually into something so unrelated to their former selves. They seem to have intense and passionate views both before and after their transformation, yet these views are now the opposite. If you think I am talking only about Democrats, you would be wrong. I find Tucker Carlson has undergone a significant transformation from his Fox News days into a bloviating isolationist. And don't get me started on Candace Owens. But I digress....

Here is the latest Maher video.

https://youtu.be/ToRsSdpBpuo?si=nTk918TWo40WL3JT 

Did the US destroy Iran’s nuclear sites?

Spoiler alert, it is still too early to tell. While that may be the short version, here is more detail.

Following the massive attack on key nuclear sites using the biggest bunker busters ever, all the pundits have been voicing their opinions. President Trump has announced it an unqualified success with total destruction of the sites and Iran's nuclear ambitions eliminated forever. Ok, I am exaggerating, but that is the spirit of his commentary. The left-leaning newspapers have doused these claims as being too optimistic and cited various 'leaked' security services' assessments as questioning the success of the mission. The bombing has not destroyed all the sites, and some 40kg of 60% enriched Uranium was transported from the sites and hidden elsewhere.

Clearly, we have Trump and his team with a strong interest in owning a successful mission. At the same time, the anti-Trump brigade, including most Democrats, the left-leaning media and some isolationist Republicans, want to prove it a failure. 

As always, it is challenging to glean truth from the cacophony of claims.  But there is one party that has a strong interest in the truth. That is Israel. Israel, under an existential threat from a nuclear-armed Iran, certainly wants to know whether Iran's nuclear ambitions have been thwarted for keeps. 

So what does Israel say?  Israel Defence Forces spokesperson Brigadier General Effie Defrin said 

 "It is too early to fully assess the operation's achievements, which will be discussed for years to come. Even at this moment, we maintain high alertness. Our missions are not complete, and we will continue to act for our future."

He stressed that Iran's nuclear program, according to Israeli assessments,  "has been set back for years."

 So there you have it, 'too early to tell the details, but successfully put back for years. That is good news.

You can read more about the assessment in Israel Hayom's article "Did Trump's Iran strike do its job? New information sparks controversy"

I guess time will tell.

https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/06/25/did-trumps-iran-strike-do-its-job-new-information-sparks-controversy/

Premature Ceasefire?

It has been messy. After widespread acclaim for the US operation to end Iran's nuclear program through intensive strikes by the US, including the deep penetration MOPs, Trump has been speedy in announcing a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. 

It was not a fully negotiated affair, with Iran denying, then accepting, Israel accepting, then accusing Iran of breaking, and with missiles killing Israeli civilians. It also had a rather truculent Trump denouncing both Israel and Iran as if they were equally guilty of the violations. Bibi complied but was most probably smarting. It was another unedifying Trump performance. But, so far, the ceasefire is holding.

That seems to have been Trump's objective, but is it wise?

Israel had total control of the air and was systematically disarming the IRGC. The ceasefire stopped their momentum. Had they continued for a few more days, the regime may have suffered terminal damage and allowed for a popular uprising to replace the regime that has terrorized its people for over four decades.  Now, that may not happen. The IRGC has already been out rounding up anyone who showed support for the Israelis and could pose a threat to their rule. 

Equally significantly, there have been reports that the IRGC relocated enriched Uranium before the attacks on the known nuclear sites and even claims that the level of destruction of the sites was not as extensive as has been reported. If there is truth to such claims, it would make all that Israel and the US have invested into this battle be for naught.

Given the bombing occurred quite recently , it is too early to evaluate the veracity of such claims, but they are important. Once a ceasefire is in operation it becomes far more difficult to assess the truth, and more difficult to react if further bombing is required.

I am generally a Trump supporter, but I really cannot see the urgency in pushing a ceasefire before assessing the status of the nuclear program after the bombing.  Also, Trump has made it clear that he forced Israel to accept this ceasefire. Given Israel had taken all the risks of attacking Iran, executed the battle over 12 days, and had suffered 1000 missiles raining on her civilians, Israel should have had the choice of whether it wanted a ceasefire and when it should have been called.

Not good, Mr Trump!