Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In 1956 South Australia experienced the great flood, an event described as the greatest catastrophe in the state's history. It was the highest flooding in the region since European settlement, but nobody asserted it was caused by humans, because it was a natural disaster. There hasn't been a worse flood in Adelaide since. If this event had occurred in 2022, we'd be bombarded by propaganda telling us that it was caused by carbon emissions from human endeavours. Headlines about the dangers of climate change and the urgent need for harsh emissions reductions would abound.

The corporate and political classes have bought into this narrative that, to avoid the imminent climate apocalypse which the so-called experts have for the last 50 years been predicting will occur in the next 10 years, we must hastily transition to renewable energy, whatever the cost. Those apocalyptic claims come to us from the United Nations, and with the Climate Change Bill 2022 and Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 Labor is pushing to reduce carbon emissions by 43 per cent by 2030, which marries up perfectly with the United Nations' 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This is, by the way, the same agenda that led the Dutch government to declare soil, of all things, a threat to the environment and push farmers off their land and out of their profession. As well as ruining thousands of lives, this means that global agricultural experts and food suppliers suffer. This is the same agenda which also led to the uprising in Sri Lanka as the cost of living for Sri Lankans became unbearable. Clearly, these restrictions now place an impossible burden on citizens, and Labor seeks to take us down that path. At some point Australians need to realise that the net zero agenda is not about saving the planet; it's about preventing us from being energy independent by bringing our fossil fuel and nuclear capabilities to a halt.

For those who are cynical, refer to what's happening in Europe at the moment. At what point do we start assuming that international bodies like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, which also pushes the net zero agenda, have our best interests at heart? At what point do we start judging their ideas by what happens when they're implemented? We live in a time when political ideas are judged by what sounds good rather than what actually works. It is a post-truth era, perhaps better described as the era of rainbows and unicorns, which is so overtly pushed by our friends across the chamber.

We can see that these ideas, from declaring soil a threat to the environment to rapidly shutting down coal power stations, lead to the disenfranchisement of ordinary citizens and to more wealth in the hands of the anointed elites. So let's see politicians, corporate elites and celebrities who moan about the so-called climate crisis lead by example and c their own international travel aboard fuel-guzzling private jets. Let's see them give up eating meat in favour of crickets. Let's see them giving up their champagne in the Chairman's Lounge, where I see them very often on a Thursday night heading home. None of them want to do that very quickly. Those pushing this agenda lecture you about your so-called carbon footprint while making no adjustment to their own lives. While you worry about the rising cost of food, fuel and bills, they simply march on unabated.

The hasty push for renewables doesn't make any sense other than in the light of an agenda to rob ordinary people of autonomy in energy and in food production. Coal and gas currently account for 79 per cent of Australia's electricity generation, and we are now apparently required to build solar and wind plants to cover that gap. It's impossible to quickly reduce this figure without jeopardising our capacity to generate electricity and increasing its costs, which will be the net effect.

What we know as so-called renewables, wind and solar, are inefficient, expensive and dreadful for the natural environment. For wind and solar power to generate electricity, the wind must be blowing and the sun must be shining, meaning you have stable power generation less than 40 per cent of the year. Given they're so inefficient, renewables have such short life spans that they rely on fossil fuels as backup sources. Wind turbines have a life span of about 20 years before they're buried in the earth. So we're not dealing with achievable outcomes here. This is nothing but a utopian fantasy.

The transition to renewables would need Australia to increase its mining operations to build the required solar panels and wind turbines. The Greens members who are calling for Australia to ban the development of new mining projects are literally calling for the prevention of the means of building the renewables they argue for. You simply can't make this stuff up.

Renewables require much more land than fossil fuels and their nuclear counterparts, meaning vast stretches of beautiful Australian landscape are going to become wind and solar farms. The natural environment will be turned into an ugly landscape of metal and plastic. So much for environmentalism! True environmentalism actually means being good stewards of our natural environment while keeping the lights on, and conserving our natural resources while using them appropriately. If we are serious about reducing emissions, then, as we've said many times in this chamber before, nuclear energy is the answer. If there were really a climate crisis, Australia's prohibition on nuclear power generation would be considered irrational and inexcusable. Over 70 per cent of France's energy is generated through nuclear, and their natural environment is no worse for it, as exhibited by our friends' guzzling of French champagne. Their carbon emissions are low and they have some of the lowest electricity bills in Europe—or they used to. If we were truly facing a climate emergency, we would pursue nuclear energy, as it would address the emissions concerns and improve the cost of living for everyday Australians. It's such an obvious solution, but of course we know that it would interfere with the net zero agenda, so it is falsely presented as unsafe.

Let's not forget that Australia contributes roughly 1.08 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, compared with China's 29.34 per cent, the US's 13.77 per cent and even Russia's 4.76 per cent. If carbon emissions do cause climate change, then our emissions are negligible compared to those of other nations. China is now building 43 new coal-fired power plants, despite being a signatory to the Paris Agreement, while Australia, which is the largest exporter of coal in the world, is gearing up to dismantle its largest export industry.

Labor's bill continues the trend of deferring to experts with conflicts of interest, with the role of the Climate Change Authority in advising climate policy. The Climate Change Authority has got to provide advice to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy on reaching emissions targets, and any deviation from this advice has got to be accounted for by the minister in a written statement.

If we look back, it's pertinent to realise that none of the climate alarmists' predictions—from a new ice age all the way through to the melting of the ice caps—have come to pass. But, rather than admit these obvious errors, the climate propagandists simply change the nature of the emergency and push the catastrophe back a few decades, because their predictions have been wrong for so many decades. That begs the question: why are people still listening to them? We need to consider this, especially seeing as the net zero agenda places us in a more vulnerable position regarding China, which is the greatest manufacturer of renewables technology, meaning our transition to renewables will ensure that we become reliant on the Chinese Communist Party's exports for our electricity. Since the invasion of Ukraine, Europe is learning the hard way that relying on a hostile foreign power for energy resources is a disastrous idea. Far from making us a renewables superpower, as Labor claims we will be, net zero will simply mean greater economic dependence on the Chinese Communist Party, of all organisations, for our energy, placing them in a considerable position of leverage over us and ensuring that we go down the path of becoming a tributary state. We don't need to become a renewable energy slave to China. We already have the resources here to become an energy superpower, and we should be leading the world in energy production, including nuclear. And we would be, if it were not for the unscientific and ideologically driven net zero agenda.

Those who have introduced and supported this bill need to understand that they're dooming Australia to a high-energy-cost future, a future in which Australians must choose between heating and eating. One only needs to look at the bleak winter fast approaching in the Northern Hemisphere to see our future right there before us. Power bills will become 500 to 600 times the cost, with energy shortages and businesses going under. It's all on the watch of those who support this bill, and we won't let you forget. We've been blessed with a natural environment with bountiful resources that can allow us to reduce the cost of living and become less dependent on foreign powers. I hope that, as a nation, we can become alert to the urgency not of climate change but of pushing a rational energy policy. It's time for those in this place to reject this bill. It's time for those in this place to put Australia first.