Maurice Newman: Green’s RET Rhetoric Just Hysterical Hectoring


Christine Milne considers her next hysterical outburst. Australia’s deluded Eco-fascist Queen is more than just a little confused about climate & energy.

Inconvenient truths ignored by the climate propaganda machine
The Australian
Maurice Newman
7 November 2014

“LEAVE fossil fuels in the ground,” Greens leader Christine Milne says. “Renewable energy is the future.” “Coal is a stranded asset.” “It’s driving global warming.” “It’s a huge risk to the planet,” she adds, lest we miss the point.

Milne’s prescription for a vibrant Australian economy includes “keeping the renewable energy target at 41,000 gigawatt-hours”, “stopping new coalmines”, “no coal-seam gas’’ and “no new ports”. “Jobs will come from green energy,” Milne assures us.

She could have added, there are fairies at the bottom of her garden.

Clearly Milne is unaware of the cost to California, Europe and Britain of their ultra green embrace.

The Golden State’s energy prices are 40 per cent above the US national average, plunging its manufacturing and agricultural regions into depression, with one in five living in poverty.

Researchers at Spain’s King Juan Carlos University have found renewable energy programs destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green one created.

A study by Verso Economics commissioned by the Scottish government concluded that for every job in the wind industry, 3.7 jobs were lost elsewhere.

For the average person, this is what is so confusing about the climate change debate.

Conformists tell us one thing, but the reality is different. In 2009, when chief scientist Penny Sackett threatened we had only five years to avoid “disastrous global warming”, we were alarmed. Now we realise she was being emotional.

When climate commissioner Tim Flannery said that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”, it was sobering, but soon we were donating to flood victims and suspected he’d dreamt it up to scare us.

Climate scientists have been telling us for decades with “95 per cent certainty” that temperatures would move in lock step with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. We have been force-fed on climate change being “extremely likely” (is that a scientific term?) to be the product of human activity.

Yet, with the highest human emissions of greenhouse gases in history, temperatures have gone nowhere for 18 years.

We were warned the heat was stored in the deep oceans and would return with a vengeance. Now, 3500 Argo buoys and NASA can’t find it.

Repeatedly proved wrong, the voice of authority demands silence from rational doubters.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, singing from the green song sheet, wants governments to turn their backs on coal, the cheapest, most efficient energy source on the planet. We are warned of tipping points and catastrophe but offered no scientific proof, just speculation.

Governments are falling meekly into line, with the Europeans boasting they will embrace an RET of 40 per cent by 2030. Sitting at 17 per cent, the EU is unlikely to meet even its 20 per cent target by 2020, let alone 80 per cent to 95 per cent by 2050.

If talk could reduce emissions, plants would be gasping. But rhetoric is different from reality. Some of Europe’s dirtiest coal-fired power stations are receiving subsidies to extend their lifespan. Germany is building 10 coal-fired plants to generate cheaper power. Whatever the dreamers say, economics will drive this debate, not climate theory.

The recent IPCC Synthesis Report is primarily a political document designed to push governments into signing a tougher global emissions abatement agreement in Paris next year. In the bizarre world of climate change, the plan is to legally oblige countries to put forward their proposals and report on progress.

However, no penalty will be imposed if countries miss targets or renege on commitments. It’s appearances that count.

In painting the bleakest picture they can, IPCC authors have projected CO2 levels reaching 1000 parts per million in 2100, largely through coal combustion, despite BP in its Energy Outlook 2035 stating, “Coal is expected to be the slowest growing major fuel, with demand rising 1.1 per cent a year by 2035”, because production costs rise as extraction goes deeper.

The IPCC case smacks of desperation. With improved energy efficiency and the growing use of nuclear power, the scenario it paints is highly improbable. Typically, it ignores the growing gap between climate models and observations. It overlooks the slowing of sea-level rises or that sea temperatures are within natural variability. It fails to mention that the extent of Antarctic sea ice is the highest since records began.

Nowhere are we told of glacier studies that confirm the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were as warm as today. The pause is discounted, with the IPCC relying on a longer-term upward trend.

Inconvenient truths are not permitted in this alarmist report. The endorsement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will make it harder for Australia to hold on to its comparative advantage of cheap coal, but our economic and business self-interest must come before international popularity, particularly given the case to do otherwise is so shaky.

While the debate over the RET and Direct Action shows all sides of politics remain hostage to the climate change cartel, an ABC radio poll asked: “Is the IPCC right that on current fossil use ‘projectories’, we are heading for a global warming of four or five degrees by century’s end?” The result? Of 3101 votes counted, 91 per cent voted no, only 9 per cent yes.

Enough said.

Maurice Newman chairs the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Committee.
The Australian


OK, so CO2 numbers have gone through the roof and temperatures haven’t budged for 18 years, but Christine would never exaggerate in a billion years.

Let’s assume (as STT does, for the sake of argument) that the global warming/climate change Chicken Littles are right: the sky really is falling and it’s all CO2’s fault.

So what the HELL are we doing pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into subsidies for wind power?

The myth in the Green’s mantra is that the only way to “save” the planet is by covering every last inch of it with giant fans – although that may have more to do with the Greens repaying their wind industry paymasters (see our posts here and here).

The central, endlessly repeated lie (upon which the great wind power fraud rests) is that increasing wind power generation results in decreases in CO2 emissions.

In Australia, the central object of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 is for “renewable” energy to “reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector” (see s3). But, somewhere along the way, what was a CO2 abatement scheme became an industry subsidy scheme which is nothing short of “corporate welfare on steroids” (see our post here).

At no point since that legislation took effect over 13 years ago has the wind industry provided any actual proof that it has in fact reduced CO2 emissions in the electricity sector. When we talk about “proof” we’re not talking about smoke and mirrors “modelling” based on long-term average wind farm output – which ignores the extra gas and coal being burnt (and wasted) in order to balance the grid to account for wild fluctuations in wind power output (see our post here); and to maintain additional “spinning reserve” (see our post here) to account for complete collapses in wind power output – as seen in this post.

As we have pointed out just once or twice – the need for 100% of wind power capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation sources means that wind power cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (see our posts here and here and here and here and here and here and here).

E.ON operates numerous transmission grids in Germany and, therefore, has the unenviable task of being forced to integrate the wildly fluctuating and unpredictable output from wind power generators, while trying to keep the German grid from collapsing (E.ON sets out a number of the headaches caused by intermittent wind power in the Summary of this paper at page 4). Dealing with the fantasy that wind power is an alternative to conventional generation sources, E.ON says:

“Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online [and burning fuel] in order to guarantee power supply at all times.”

STT is happy to go all out and say that in Australia wind power requires 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by conventional generation sources. As just one recent example, on 3 consecutive days (20, 21 and 22 July 2014) the total output from all of the wind farms connected to the Eastern Grid (total capacity of 2,952 MW – and spread over 4 states, SA, Victoria, Tasmania and NSW) was a derisory 20 MW (or 0.67% of installed capacity) for hours on end (see our post here). The 99.33% of wind power output that went AWOL for hours (at various times, 3 days straight) was, instead, all supplied by conventional generators; the vast bulk of which came from coal and gas plants, with the balance coming from hydro.

For wind power to reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector it has be a true “substitute” for conventional generation sources. Because it can’t be delivered “on-demand” (can’t be stored) and is only “available” at crazy, random intervals (if at all) wind power will never be a substitute for conventional generation sources (see our posts here and here).

Perhaps the reason that the wind industry has never produced a shred of evidence to show that wind power has reduced CO2 emissions in Australia’s electricity sector is simply because it can’t.

Running counter to wind industry claims about wind power abating CO2 emissions, the result of trying to incorporate wind power into a coal/gas fired grid is increased CO2 emissions (see our post here; this European paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; this American article and this Dutch study here).

If man-made CO2 emissions are set to incinerate the planet – as relentless and increasingly hysterical rhetoric from the Greens would have us believe – then wind power – sure as sugar – ain’t the answer. Nuclear power is one sensible solution (see our post here) – but don’t expect a rational conversation about nuclear power from Christine Milne and her eco-fascist acolytes any time soon.

No, this was always about wrecking economies, smashing the poor and killing business (see our post here) – all for the sake of “green” symbolism.


Maurice Newman calls Green’s RET rhetoric for
what it is: deluded, hysterical hectoring.

About stopthesethings

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


  1. Crispin Trist says:

    Keep it coming STT. The story keeps unfolding with every new article.

    When it comes to “Big Wind”, enough is enough. The Planet is now riddled with wind turbines. We now have more than enough problems to deal with from the towers that are already up. People are being forced out of their homes from industrial noise and blade flicker as the turbines get bigger and bigger. And to accompany this are a cocktail of health effects. The turbines are also killing rare and protected birds and bats. They can also catch fire, throw blades or fall over. Aircraft have even crashed into them with fatalities in some instances.

    Tonnes and tonnes of reinforced concrete has been poured into the ground to form the foundations needed to support these massive structures and the forces and vibrations they generate. These bases will be there forever. Whilst some have been built on industrial wastelands, most have been erected in some of our most beautiful, and supposedly protected landscapes. Precious farming lands have not escaped either. And lets not forget offshore wind developments.

    Much of this concrete has been poured into collapsed underground cave networks as developers build along our fragile coastline. Instead of protecting our coastal ecosystems and wildlife for future generations, the wind developers have pushed their way in. These will or indeed are becoming the industrial wastelands of our future. Broken wind turbine blades are already simply removed and dumped next to the tower from which they came. Industrial lubricants are thrown from spinning oil stained blades and gears. Towers rust in the sea air. Is this really the future we want to pass on to our future generations?

    And what of the Earth`s weather systems? More research is needed here. Thousands of turbines are reaching for the sky as developers try to extend up to the next wind layer. This industry talks of a day when there will be so much “dirty” wind from their turbines that there will be nowhere left to build them. But what of the Earth`s surface winds? These winds move around the Planet to cool it down! If food growers are already using small turbines to stop the frost forming over their crops at night, what are the Global implications of tens of thousands of gigantic Industrial Wind Turbines across the Planet?

    The time to put a stop to ALL industrial wind development is NOW!

  2. There appears to be no rational talk or thinking – just send us the bill and the bill keeps climbing.

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: