Glasgow’s ‘Green’ Agenda: Killing Meaningful Jobs & Depriving Poor of Meaningful Power

Anyone still thinking that ‘climate action’ is about saving the environment, hasn’t been paying attention: it’s a euphemism for massive and endless subsidies for wind and solar power generation and a meal ticket for billionaires already heavily invested in the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time.

The upcoming climate cult gabfest in Glasgow does not involve any country serious about economic development and lasting prosperity. China and India and Russia will be no shows. These are countries that understand the benefit of reliable and affordable energy and the essential part it plays in national security and economic prosperity.

Australia is a country that generates a little over 1% of the world’s man-made carbon dioxide gas emissions, eradication of which can make absolutely no discernible difference to the weather, anywhere (if such relationship even exists – remember when it used to be called “global warming”, and then it wasn’t?)

So, just why Australia’s PM, Scott Morrison is rushing off to enter an agreement that no one fully understands, with terms that won’t reveal themselves for generations, but with consequences that will be felt by the working poor and aspirational classes, forever, is one of those divine mysteries.

Morrison’s Energy Minister, Angus Taylor seems to believe that signing up to a deal in Glasgow will have no consequences for Australia’s present (but fragile) energy security. As STT followers are acutely aware, its overreliance on chaotically intermittent wind and solar has led to a power pricing and supply calamity; this summer there will be even more load shedding and blackouts caused by the inherent intermittency of wind and solar.

Taylor reckons that he can cut a climate/energy deal acceptable to Jo Biden and Boris Johnson – and the cabal of renewable energy rent-seekers and crony capitalists hanging on their coattails – while maintaining Australia’s ability to mine and export coal and to continue utilizing coal in its fleet of coal-fired power plants (which annually generate around 80% of Australia’s power needs).

Taylor was quoted in The Australian as saying: “We won’t be doing anything that wipes out our traditional industries or threatens our electricity grid.” Taylor’s upbeat optimism is a form of political naïveté, reminiscent of those who sought to appease Hitler’s Nazi Germany, bringing to mind Churchill’s line about the appeaser who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Note to Taylor and Morrison: the climate zealot never rests; he cannot be appeased; he will never be satisfied.

If Australia signs up to the net-zero carbon dioxide gas emissions target, the days of affordable and reliable energy in this country are well and truly over. Save and except for one potential solution, which is being steadfastly ignored by Taylor and Morrison: nuclear power.

STT predicts that Morrison has no hope of forming government in his own right, simply because he will commit to a net-zero carbon dioxide gas emissions target and he will not commit to nuclear power. Independents and minor parties who have grasped the benefit of nuclear power, along with the punitive and irreparable economic costs attached to a net-zero carbon dioxide gas emissions target, will attract a large slab of those people who voted for Morrison back in May 2019 in order to reject Bill Shorten’s 45% emissions target and massive expansion of renewable energy subsidies.

As Peta Credlin (adviser to former Liberal PM, Tony Abbott) points out below, the path being followed by Morrison and Taylor towards net-zero emissions is one littered with the political carcasses of those who elected to ignore the electors.

Glasgow bandwagon careering out of control
The Australian
Peta Credlin
20 October 2021

Before any of the Coalition’s MPs get too excited about supposedly ending the climate wars, they need to remember how they got into government and why they’re still there. They’re in government because Tony Abbott won a landslide election promising to repeal the carbon tax, giving them a big enough buffer of seats to survive the subsequent revolving-door prime ministership.

They’re still in government only because at the 2019 election the Coalition had modest emissions targets and could cost and explain them. Labor had much bigger emissions targets that it couldn’t explain and wouldn’t cost. That’s why this conversion to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, in senator Matt Canavan’s words, looks like a betrayal of the quiet Australians.

Trying to make the new policy palatable, Scott Morrison has let it be known that the government has modelling purporting to show that Australia’s agricultural, resource and gas exports will be even higher – yes, even higher under net zero – in 2050 than they are now. But hang on, before the 2019 election, to blast Labor’s policy as reckless, the Prime Minister cited modelling that cutting emissions by 45 per cent would cumulatively cost 336,000 jobs, cut wages by $9000 and reduce gross domestic product by a half trillion dollars. So then the modelling said a 45 per cent cut would crush the economy; now the modelling supposedly says a much bigger cut – effectively 100 per cent – will boost the economy? Go figure.

This week’s reported but not released government modelling apparently claims that in 2050 gas exports will exceed today’s figures in volume and in price. How does this square with last week’s International Energy Agency modelling that fossil fuels will go from about 80 per cent of the world’s total energy now to only 22 per cent in 2050; or Wednesday’s UK Treasury modelling that assumes getting to net zero will require a $92 a tonne carbon price in 2030 and a $295 a tonne price in 2050 (compared with Julia Gillard’s 2012 carbon tax of just $23)?

Despite all the hype about renewables being cheap and creating green jobs, in every country more renewable power has meant higher costs, lower reliability and the flight of manufacturing industry to China. Just look at the energy crisis hitting Britain and western Europe because of a wind drought and skyrocketing demand for gas.

Frankly, it staggers me that so many Coalition MPs have been prepared to jump on the COP26 bandwagon, which is careering out of control because nothing is ever enough to satisfy the climate warriors. Almost as soon as the Coalition agreed in 2015 to a 26 to 28 per cent cut by 2030 (because that was achievable within policy settings) the campaign began for more.

First, the demand was to commit to net zero by 2050. And as soon as the government started signalling that it would, the demand became higher targets for 2030. Now that it looks like existing policy will deliver a 36 per cent cut, the demand is for further cuts requiring costly and disruptive change. If the latest demand is for a 45 to 50 per cent cut by 2030, you can be certain that in a couple of years the demand will be net zero by 2040 or sooner. This is allegedly because otherwise the planet will face catastrophe; the same catastrophe that has been just around the corner for decades that stubbornly has never come.

The reason nothing is ever enough for the climate cult is because the objective is less to save the planet than to change the way we live; and if that makes us more vulnerable to China and Russia, so much the better.

Old-school Marxists were never able to persuade Western workers to revolt for equality, but today’s cultural Marxists have been much better at persuading Western elites to revolt to save the planet. This is even though China and Russia are doing no such thing and indicating their contempt for the whole emission obsession by absenting themselves from Glasgow.

What’s curious and (to long-term Liberal supporters) galling is that so many Coalition MPs have become the latest useful idiots in this campaign.

By sticking with the current targets for 2030 while committing to net zero for 2050, the Prime Minister thinks he is shrewdly satisfying the inner-city Liberals on climate and the regional Liberals on jobs. If, as is likely, this is criticised as not enough by greens and too much by conservatives, he’ll doubtless claim that being attacked from both sides shows he has got it right.

An alternative interpretation is that this is a bloke who, under pressure, can’t stick with the same position from one election to the next and thus stands for nothing.

Of itself, that’s enough to leave Morrison with a credibility gap. This will be willingly exploited by a raft of minor parties on the right, with messaging hits about the impact of net zero on low-income households, small business and regional communities, once bread-and-butter constituencies for the Coalition but looking more and more as if they’ve been abandoned in favour of the UN, big-business rent-seekers and virtue-signalling billionaires.

If decarbonising the economy really is an “unstoppable change”, why does it need to be mandated and subsidised by government?

And if it must be mandated by government, surely it’s high time to embrace the only proven way to produce emissions-free electricity via a government commitment to develop a civil nuclear industry.

Japan has quietly rethought its post-Fukushima commitment to phase out nuclear. France has just shelved its plan to reduce reliance on nuclear. And Britain is about to announce a big increase in its nuclear power program.

This week there have been pro-nuclear demonstrations in Belgium; and Bill Gates, hardly a conservative climate denier, has declared that nuclear power should “absolutely” be politically acceptable because it’s safer than oil, coal and gas. For climate activists still opposed to nuclear power, the real agenda is not green energy but less energy; it’s economic and social re-engineering disguised as saving the planet.

For Morrison, who needs to keep his team united and enthusiastic, the advantage of using nuclear to get to net zero is that his political fight will no longer be against his own natural supporters but a Labor Party with the double standard of supporting nuclear power at sea but not on land.

The Prime Minister’s colleagues suggesting that net zero was the blood price for “modern Liberal” votes to take over from Malcolm Turnbull might have a point – but what a price if they end up back in opposition for no environmental gain and a world of economic pain.
The Australian

Back when Morrison understood what it took to get elected.

About stopthesethings

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



    By way of an antidote to COP26 in Glasgow, I have taken to revisiting the publication ‘Taxing Air’ (2013) by Bob Carter and John Spooner with Bill Kininmonth, Martin Feil, Stewart Franks and Bryan Leyland. The book features text, cartoons and illustrations and is published by Kelpie Press.

    The introduction is titled, “How the cartoonist got his ideas.” John Spooner writes about the tactics used to promote global warming alarmism. He discusses the use of the term ‘denier’.


    “Then, and just as lobbyists do for matters of economic or social reform, the proselytisers for global warming alarm, who were feeling threatened as never before, got nasty. Someone came up with the brilliantly clever but insidious idea of using the term ‘denier’ to describe a person who remained agnostic or sceptical about the extent of human contribution to the global warming of the last 100 years. Why ‘denier’? Because it made the connection in people`s minds to ‘Holocaust denial’. Unbelievably, this malicious rhetoric henceforward came to be adopted by climate activists, media reporters and politicians up to the level of heads of state, and was applied to distinguished science professors such as Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson, William Happer and many others.

    Holocaust denial describes the heartless and despicable refusal by anti-Semites to acknowledge the historical truth of the Jewish genocide that occurred during World War II. If you use the offensive term ‘denier’, you do so for reasons best known to yourself. You may be calculating or you may be indifferent, but as politicians like Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong and Julia Gillard (all users of the term) would have known, the effect is pungent. No sensible, morally responsible person wants to be stigmatised in such a way.

    Intimidation comes in many forms, and there can be no doubt that many people have been inhibited from entering the public debate on dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW) because of the intimidatory power of this vicious language. And just in case you still haven`t got it, some prominent Australian public intellectuals to this day continue to explicitly endorse the moral equivalence between Holocaust and global warming denial. This endorsement is all the more incredible because it comes from academics who really understand the horror of the Holocaust.”

    “Every cartoonist and satirist in the world, not to mention the investigative reporters, should by now have their bullshit detectors on high alert. If the evidence was so good, and the sceptical scientists were so weak, wrong and few in number, then why the need for such rancorous politics? If you have the UN, the EU, the banks, the financial markets, most of the clergy and the media on your side, then why this dishonourable nastiness as well? I`ve always hated bullies and they have certainly been thick on the ground in this debate.” J. Spooner.

    The current Archbishop of Canterbury would do well to reflect upon these words, in light of his opening comments at COP26.

  2. “China and India and Russia will be no shows. These are countries that understand the benefit of reliable and affordable energy and the essential part it plays in national security and economic prosperity.” Where the smart money is going!

  3. No hope: Whoever promoting the end of “erratic renewable hoax” would obviously win next elections in any country, perhaps with exception of Germany for a while.
    But the hoax lobby is so rich and able to corrupt whatever level of government staff, that any elected anti-erratic renewable person would bent, swallow his oath, make a u-turn as we have already seen: S Morrisson, british BoJo and so on.
    I understand that many politicians have no scientific/technical background – this is no excuse for them: they have plenty of governmental, institutional expertized departments at their disposals to clarify their mind.
    So how to explain these public U-turns?
    Despite I cannot believe that all the persons alike those above mentionned could be so BAD to drive their country and population towards economic disaster ONLY for personal money, pride, we need to find their real deeply rooted personal weaknesses exploited by crony hoax lobbyists !
    I cannot here list some of supposed other weaknesses that simple Logic would suggest….

  4. All subsidies are coming from the people. of the people, should for the people, not by the politicians, give to the capitalists

  5. Stop subsidies!

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: