The climate clown show

From October 31 to November 12 the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference was held, this time in Glasgow. A major goal is net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and after some initial hesitancy Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison decided to tag along.

What has concerned many is the new-found green religion of our Prime Minister: his dogged commitment to net zero and his gallivanting off to yet another chat to which rich and pampered people will attend, having flown over in their carbon-emitting private jets to tell us mortals how we must all tighten our belts in order to save the planet. All this is putting him at odds with the Nationals – his Coalition partner – especially Barnaby Joyce, Matt Canavan and Bridget McKenzie, all of whom are quite opposed to all this. Mr. Morrison is saying he will bypass them if he cannot get full agreement: trouble ahead here!

A number of things can be said about Scott Morrison’s embrace of this grand green scheme. Australia is one of the few countries in the world that is keeping its carbon agreements. We contribute less than 1.5% of total global emissions, and nothing we do will change things globally. Sadly, many people are unaware that CO₂ is just a trace gas in the earth's atmosphere: 78% is nitrogen and 21% oxygen, which leaves only 1% – of which argon is the main component. CO₂ constitutes just 0.037%. It's a very important trace gas, being an integral part of the carbon cycle in which carbon is exchanged between the earth's oceans, rocks, soils and, of course, plants. Its percentage of the earth's atmosphere is therefore constantly changing, which has always been the case.

The big boys, when it comes to carbon emissions, are being let off the hook. China, for example, is considered to be a developing country (despite hosting the Olympics, sending rockets into space etc.) so it can do whatever it wants until 2030 – that is, keep spewing out over 30% of the world’s carbon emissions. China produces more emissions in 16 days than we do in a year, and the Chinese leader Xi Jinping is not attending the November conference. It is not Australia that should be targeted, but nations like China.

Consider Britain under Boris Johnson, who has also gone green. The UK relies on renewables (wind and solar) for over 40% of its energy, but these are unreliable and need to be supported. Like some other parts of Europe, the UK is experiencing a major energy crisis. They have little gas left and domestic supplies are dwindling, with gas and power prices soaring as a result. Boris wants coal out of the equation by 2030, and green-only energy by 2035. However, with this crisis he has had to fire up and reuse two old coal-powered plants. Even though Britain produces just 1% of global carbon emissions their average energy costs are up by 25%. So much for renewables!

The real issue that no one is talking about is the cost. In 2017 a report disclosed that the cost of transition to clean energy would be one trillion dollars. But no one really knows the actual costs. Who pays for all this? We do of course – the taxpayer. It will cost us plenty, including lost jobs, lost income, lost opportunities, lost prosperity, and lost economic growth. It is a massive con job. Back in February 2017 Scott Morrison – who was Treasurer at the time – gave a speech in Parliament in which he used a lump of coal. He said . . . On this side of the House you will not find a fear of coal. And the last Federal election was a miracle win for both him and the LNP: it came about because the Liberals rejected the Labor/Greens nonsense on climate alarmism that would have cost jobs and ruined the economy. So what has changed? Mr. Morrison has apparently forgotten all that. Now he wants to go further than what he rejected just 4½ years ago!

The truth is, Australia is a fossil fuel superpower and the world wants our resources – coal, gas, uranium. We should deliver practical opportunities to our people, and to the rest of the world. We should not be crushing our most successful industries: that is national suicide, and it will certainly handicap our major industries. Our biggest export is iron ore – followed by coal – but today we are targeting coal, gas and methane and offshore oil will be next. What then? If the radical greens get their way, things like red meat will be banned. There is a never-ending hit list here by greens and left-wing zealots. Agriculture has emissions too – do we get rid of that as well? Then there's the 2.1 tonnes of methane produced by every cow each year; perhaps we should ban cows too!

So who benefits from all this? The globalists. The elites. The banks. They will all make a lot of money out of it. The Liberals, like Labor, are now aligning with Big Banks and Big Business. Small business should be our focus. Conversely, Big Brother will tell you what energy you can use, what food you can eat, how and where you will be allowed to travel, how to heat your home, and so on. That's called communism – isn't it?

All this is just a meaningless gesture. Even the International Energy Agency says we do not have the technology – as yet – to attain net zero emissions. It's feel-good posturing by the elites and by those who can afford such radical changes to our economies, our lifestyles, and our future. Small businesses, agriculture, mining and the countless workers who live by them will be the ones who will suffer the most. Economic modelling of a few years ago showed that a 45% reduction in emissions would smash the economy and see hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, not to mention a radical increase in our electricity bills! And now they want zero emissions – but guess what? Many of us, including our Prime Minister, will not be around in 2050 to face the music: it will be our children and our grandchildren who will have to pay the costs. Shouldn't we be endeavouring to preserve their way of life rather than destroy it in such a reckless fashion?

The moral core of this militant environmental cause is that there is too much wealth, too much waste, too much choice, and too many people living too long. Karl Marx – the father of communism – didn't see it so simplistically: he understood that industrialisation not only created more diversified wealth (which was previously tied to the ownership of land) but liberated the rural population from what was effectively agricultural serfdom.

A damaging confusion at the heart of this doctrine is the role that capitalism and the Industrial Revolution – its twin evil in the eyes of the environment lobby – played in the lives of the great mass of the population. The current version of Marxist mythology casts them as being the joint causes of the victimisation of the poor. However, this present-day odd mix of childlike sentimentality and economic illiteracy makes no room for the obvious truth: that industrialisation and market economics transformed the nasty, brutal and short lives of most people into something that at least approached the comfort and security that were once the sole property of those who were the inheritors of privilege.

This campaign, as it stands, is opposed to mass prosperity, self-determination, and ultimately to social equality. Gas and electricity bills are just the start!