RET Review Panel Head, Dick Warburton: “the RET should be ended now”


Dick Warburton: “the RET should be ended now”

Since the RET Review Panel delivered its coup de grâce to the Australian wind industry, the wind industry and its parasites – and the ABC and Fairfax press that run cover for them – have all tried to put a very different spin on the panel’s recommendations – as to which, see our post here. Some have tried to downplay the seriousness of the recommendations, but the majority have simply clenched their fists and yelled “climate change denier” in Panel head, Dick Warburton’s direction, as if that will somehow save the wind industry from its mortal wounds.

STT didn’t think there was much to misinterpret, or argue about, the Panel’s first recommendation (option 1) was that the current 41,000 GWh target should be scrapped immediately; and the scheme closed to new entrants – preventing any new wind farms from being built.

But why take our word for it? Why not hear it straight from the horse’s mouth.

Here’s Dick “RET slayer” Warburton being interview by Channel 10’s Andrew Bolt (transcript follows – we’ve highlighted the best bits so you don’t miss them).



Andrew Bolt: We have a Renewable Energy Target, which is actually a scheme to force Australians to use more green power – at least 20% of all electricity supplies. Even though it’s usually far more expensive. Now that’s why you see so many of those ugly wind farms springing up and spoiling some of our most beautiful scenery. It’s because you effectively pay subsidies to the companies operating those wind farms and the solar schemes, that they’re there. But the Abbott government asked businessmen, Dick Warburton to see whether this target actually worked and whether it was worth the money. Dick Warburton handed down its report on Friday and joins me now. Thanks for your time.

Dick Warburton:  Pleasure Andrew.

Andrew Bolt: Now I want to go back to the very basics because either I’m mad, or we’re looking at one of the greatest frauds in our lifetime. The Renewable Energy Target’s primary aim is to stop or slow global warming. Is that true?

Dick Warburton:  That is one of the aims, it’s also to reduce emissions into the atmosphere.

Andrew Bolt:  But to reduce emissions in order to stop global warming. Now, how much difference has the world’s temperature does this Renewable Energy Target then make?

Dick Warburton:  Well we didn’t get into that in our report at all Andrew we say it is a small addition to the emissions that have come out, emissions have been reduced, but there is not a lot of difference in the global warming at all.

Andrew Bolt:  But that’s the whole point of the scheme isn’t it? And if we are going to be spending billions of dollars we should actually know whether that’s making any difference at all to the world’s temperature. But you didn’t get into that?

Dick Warburton: No, no, we looked at the appropriateness of the scheme as it applied to the legislation that was increased in 2010. And you might have noticed Andrew then the Labor government brought in 20/20 rule – 20% renewables by 2020. But that was based on a demand that has been nowhere near been met and in fact  it is going to be significantly lower than expected. And so therefore we are going to be spending a great amount of money to push more electricity into an already oversupplied market. And that is just a market distortion that we don’t need.

Andrew Bolt: Right, so we are spending all this money to make more green power, to stop a global warming, and you’re saying it wouldn’t make much difference – how much have we actually paid then, to make not much difference to the world’s temperature through the Renewable Energy Target? How much has that cost us?

Dick Warburton:  Well already the cross subsidies into the energy retail area has been $9 billion – so far – but if we continue with the current process, it would cost us a further $22 billion.

Andrew Bolt:  And how much has the temperature of the world’s atmosphere actually risen over the last, I don’t know, the last 16 years?

Dick Warburton:  Well as I read the facts that are coming through the temperatures have not risen since 1998. There’s been just been a flat area even though carbon emissions have gone up – but the temperature has not, which is quite against what the modelling says.

Andrew Bolt:  Dick, I am just staggered here – so tell me where I am going wrong. Temperatures have not risen much, we’ve spent $9 billion on a scheme that will make about zero difference anyway – what the hell are we doing this for?

Dick Warburton:  Well, the suspicion was that the temperatures would rise but they haven’t done so. The same as the effect was that the electricity demand would rise – but it hasn’t done so. So the models back in 2010, or even earlier on the temperature things, are proving at this stage to be wrong. And what we’re attempting to do is to bring it back into proper perspective again.

Andrew Bolt:  But shouldn’t you, when you’re looking at this colossal madness of us spending $9 billion so far Heaven knows how much in the future, to make no difference to a problem that hasn’t actually manifested, shouldn’t your report say – this is crazy end it now?

Dick Warburton: Well I don’t say it’s crazy in the report I keep the words down to a more basic level but we do say, that it is a time for a change. It is quite a – why spend this amount of money to pump more electricity into a market that’s already well and truly oversupplied? So we just say it should be ended now. Now we have taken into account the fact that there have been some certificates issued (RECs) and we’ve held back and suggested that we should let those continue, but no further certificates issued going forward. In other words cease the scheme. We did give an option to the government to perhaps, if the demand does increase then you could perhaps increase the renewables by 50% of that demand, but that was a separate option that we put up.

Andrew Bolt:  So if the government takes your recommendations on board, with luck, we will see no more wind farms despoiling the countryside?

Dick Warburton:  If they take the first option – that is correct.

Andrew Bolt: Thank heavens for that Dick. You might have saved some of our most beautiful spots. Now you have been attacked by the green energy lobby, by the likes of John Hewson, and the ABC, as ‘just a climate denier with vested interests’, ‘a former oil executive’, ‘big oil’. Do you have vested interests? Or do your critics have the vested interests?

Dick Warburton:  Andrew I have no vested interest at all in this. I just like to study the facts. And the facts at this stage are speaking for themselves. And so this wasn’t actually a part of our report per se, but it’s certainly something I am well known in my thoughts about.

Andrew Bolt:  But the vested interests of your critics? I mean that is almost never stated in say ABC reports and such and such – how do you typify the kind of critics that are attacking you?

Dick Warburton:  Well, I just have to let it go over my head Andrew because otherwise I get thrown names by people that I’ve never met before who seem to believe that they know exactly what I have on my mind – and that’s pretty annoying but look you’ve just got to live with that I guess.

Andrew Bolt: Someone like John Hewson – I really think every time he steps up in front of the camera on this sort of issue, they should say that he represents a group that has an interest too in green energy schemes – but it never happens. Now Dick what will happen ….

Dick Warburton:  Well, I think they should say that because every time they put my name in the press, they say well-known climate – well they either use sceptic or denier – I’d rather they say well-known South Sydney Swan’s football player, Dick Warburton, that would suit me a lot better.

Andrew Bolt:  Yes I would like to be known as a well known Richmond supporter after last night, but never mind. Dick, what will happen to our electricity prices if the Renewable Energy Target is not modified?

Dick Warburton:  Electricity prices will continue to rise. The RET has increased electricity prices by 3 to 4%, which is not a huge percentage, but it depends where you’re coming from whether you think that’s a large amount or not. But the thing that’s distorted the whole market is the fact that so much supply has come into the market that the supply well exceeds the demand and the old law of supply and demand comes into effect and in actual fact prices have come down because of that – but that’s a market distortion that will eventually change in time and get back to being a much higher cost if we continue the RET.

Andrew Bolt: Dick Warburton thank you so much for your time.

Dick Warburton:  Thank you Andrew.


Straight from the horse’s mouth.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. So why are MacFarlane and Hunt still supporting the rort? This is the biggest test of all for the coalition. No more subsidies for the car industry, no more for Qantas no more for fruit growers but more for another 15 years for the wind industry that actually produces nothing useful at all!!! Well if they do that they will go down in history as the biggest hypocrites of all time and the biggest failure of all time as being the political party that finally sank their country’s economy and they certainly won’t get a second chance. There are lots of good, intelligent and responsible people in the coalition so why let MacFarlane and Hunt get away with pandering to the garbage coming from the clean energy council, Fairfax press and someone else’s ABC? Australia desperately needs to see some guts from those in the government that know what is the right thing to do and to hell with the consequences — they might be pleasantly surprised! But it does need them to say ‘The propping up of the wind industry will never save the planet and never deliver baseload electric power that we need for our society to function’. The thing is voters don’t know that and MacFarlane and Hunt refuse to tell them the truth. Why? For four years I have advocated that they be sacked. Tony Abbott it’s crunch time, it’s them or us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: