Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make some observations with respect to COP26. In the lead-up Minister Littleproud was very enthusiastic to quickly follow the herd noting the International Energy Agency, with its implied threats to developed nations for non-compliance, was busily coercing the West into joining the march of folly. To give perspective and context to any policy dilemma that faced my colleagues, including their loyalty to constituents around Australia, it is worthwhile noting that Dr Bjorn Lomborg wrote in 2017—with a focus on US policies—about the 2015 Paris climate summit that 'adopting all promises from 2016 to 2030 will reduce the temperature in the year 2100 by 0.05 degrees Celsius'. Dr Lomborg further noted that the economic cost from pursuing these objectives will cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars in foregone economic output each year.

Do I believe in climate change? Yes is my answer because there has always been climate change on planet Earth. The only true climate constant on this earth is that the earth's climate has undergone constant change since time began. Climate cycles are integral to this constant change. The complex nature of climate science is still not fully understood. When one gets lost in the media jungle of climate change activism and alarmism, and when one becomes suspicious about shrill scare tactics and what I deem to be child abuse, then it is time to talk to a geologist to get the facts. Rest assured you will feel better afterwards and you will be able to explain to those children who have been the subject of climate alarmism that the world is not going to end in eight years time given the last hysterical prediction by the usual suspects.

COP26 was punctuated by the usual protesters wielding placards of 'down with capitalism,' accompanied by the usual Marxist paraphernalia. One delegate threatened 'pay now or perish later.' It was a copybook socialist love fest. Lenin would've been truly proud. The Prime Minister of Fiji, Frank Bainimarama, was the voice of reason. He advocated for the building of resilience against climate events, such as building better sea walls, homes and schools. This reinforces the need for the Pacific resilience fund.

Let's look at some of the facts. CO2 is not a pollutant as some would have you believe, including our ABC. CO2 is a clean, colourless and odourless gas which is vital for the health of planet Earth. CO2 is plant food and it remains integral to the process of photosynthesis when trees and plants absorb CO2 thereby producing oxygen. Further to this, it is noteworthy that up to 50 per cent of the earth's oxygen is produced by phytoplankton in the oceans when the plankton absorbs CO2 as parts of the earth's natural process. Once again, I say to some ABC activist journalists—and I use the term 'journalists' very loosely—CO2 is a clean, odourless, colourless gas vital for the health of our planet.

Credible scientific studies by geologists record that the earth's temperature prior to industrialisation was far warner and, indeed, much colder as part of the earth's natural climate cycles. Similarly, prior to industrialisation sea levels were higher and lower as part of the earth's natural climate cycles. The CSIRO noted in about 2016 that the earth's temperature had risen by one degree over the past 100 years and sea levels had risen 17 centimetres during the same period.

Climate alarmism and climate emergency hysteria by the usual suspects have been based on questionable modelling which has been unable to predict with any level of confidence the natural cycles of climate variability. The UN climate body have acted on climate science consensus. Any dedicated and genuine scientist will tell you that science is not consensus. Indeed, any scientific research requires peer review—a vague concept for many who run with the herd. In that regard, true scientists note that a scientific hypothesis can only be validated if it accords with all data, namely the coherence criterion of science. Meteorologists, like William Kininmonth, have noted that there are neither sound theoretical grounds nor observational evidence to support the argument that changing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will have any significant impact on future climate for global temperatures.

Human-induced global-warming ideology is underpinned by the perception that the planet is static and that dynamic change only occurred once humans started to emit CO2 through industrialisation. Nothing could be further from the truth, explains Professor Ian Plimer. According to Minister Littleproud, we should follow the herd and set off on a risky economic path to the nirvana of net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 as part of a PR stunt for the elites who attended Glasgow. The only winners in that game were the elites, including the John Kerrys and Andrew Forrests of this world as they took their victory laps around the world in their private jets.

The shift to the risky new net-zero CO2 paradigm will have consequences. I know I speak for the silent majority of the Liberal Party that will not support us for having broken our election promise on this issue. Net zero has been the political graveyard for a series of political leaders. Not only will jobs be lost and regional economies suffer but industries in general will be poleaxed, as indicated by Dr Lomborg. Jobs will be shifted offshore, mostly to China. The superb television advertisement of COLORBOND products from the Illawarra will be a dream of past glories when manufacturing industries falter and we rely more on China. Windmills and solar panels are now made in China, noting that China will ignore emissions targets, as they ignore the rule of international law in the South China Sea, and will continue to be imported into Australia as our own industries are decimated.

The continued diminishing of our industrial base remains a national strategic and security risk. Taxpayer subsidised Tesla luxury electric vehicles—oh yes, some made in China—will be the norm. Meanwhile, low-income workers will not be able to afford the fuel for their internal combustion engine vehicles as they struggle with increased electricity bills, rising rents and costs of living. All the while, China continues to build coal-fired power stations. In an answer to a question on notice, DFAT advised on 25 March that China has 49.1 per cent of the world's coal-fired power generation and 41.2 percentage of the world's planned coal capacity. Since 2000, the world has doubled its coal-fired power capacity after explosive growth in China and India. So where is the world pressure on China and India to reduce emissions?

There will be a repetition of South Australian and Victorian blackouts and brownouts because of the unavailability of reliable baseload power. And whilst workers will not be able to afford the rising costs of electricity, petrol et cetera, those advocating for the new paradigm don't want to mention nuclear power on the NIMBY principle. It's time to establish a domestic nuclear industry in addition to Lucas Heights, which helps to save lives through nuclear medicine. Low-level nuclear waste is finally on track for the future, noting that every hospital is a nuclear waste dump.

In addition, some make the argument that operating nuclear powered submarines without a domestic nuclear industry is a very high-risk adventure. I agree with that point of view. The European herd of nations rely on nuclear energy as part of their energy mix. Even so, events that played out in the UK just before COP26 with respect to the unreliability of wind and solar witnessed the recommissioning of coal-fired power to save the day. This rescued baseload power as the UK headed into a northern hemisphere winter. It appears that some have forgotten the basics of good policy 101: facts, plus logical thought, plus deductive reasoning lead to good policy outcomes for the betterment of all Australians.