Paris Agreement Won’t Prevent Australia From Building New Coal Plants!

Guest drive-by by David Middleton

Proof that Paris was nothing but global virtue signalling…

Paris climate deal doesn’t stop us building new coal plants, Canavan says

Minister says agreement Australia committed to ‘doesn’t actually bind us to anything in particular’

Katharine Murphy Political editor
Thu 6 Sep 2018

Australia does not need to quit the Paris climate agreement because our commitments are non-binding, and new coal plants can continue to be constructed, according to the resources minister, Matt Canavan.

Canavan told Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones on Friday he had never been to Paris, and was “happy to leave the Champs-Élysées for others”, but people needed to be clear the treaty Tony Abbott committed Australia to in 2015 “doesn’t actually bind us to anything in particular”.

[…]

The Grauniad

Advertisements

51 thoughts on “Paris Agreement Won’t Prevent Australia From Building New Coal Plants!

  1. Brilliant. Someone who actually reads the words of an agreement/treaty/contract.
    It would be great if some of the “bad weather=climate change=the end of our way of life as we know it” merchants actually read the IPCC reports, not just the summary (filtered lies) for policy makers. I read most of one and it bore little resemblance to the summary.
    Discussion is better if we all argue facts, not what we want the facts to be.
    So maybe the lights will stay on in our west island (Australia).

    • Nice to see someone who recognises Australia for what it is: New Zealand’s Western Island :)!

      [Technically, the mods point out that there are two Western New Zealand Islands: You’ve the Northern Western New Zealand Island, and the Southern Western New Zealand Island. The Northern Western New Zealand island is bigger than the Southern Western New Zealand Island. By a little bit. .mod]

    • It would be great if some of the “bad weather=climate change=the end of our way of life as we know it” merchants actually read the IPCC reports, not just the summary (filtered lies) for policy makers.
      Those merchants would be the same people who are hell bent on actually bringing about “the end of our way of life as we know it”

  2. This from the Guardian article.

    But it was also clear that the most economical replacement for the ageing coal fleet was not new coal, but “a portfolio of utility-scale renewable generation, storage, distributed energy resources, flexible thermal capacity, and transmission”.

    If this is true, why are financially disadvantaged people still subsidising intermittent ambient energy generators through LGCs and STCs!!

    The AEMO report offered their lowest cost option to achieve the CO2 reduction targets set by the individual States, which exceed the Paris targets for Australia for four of the six States.

  3. Non-binding agreements don’t bind anybody to doing anything in particular. The virtue-signaling required by non-binding agreements that no one has any intention of heeding, are merely a game of rhetorical chicken by activists to see who can be the most revolting hypocrite.

    “I’ll direct my govt-funded limousine down to the tenements and tell the peasants how much they have to sacrifice. Then I’ll have Jeeves take me back to my suburban manse and share a lavish, seven-course dinner with Tom Friedman and Albert Gore.”

    “I’ll do you one better. I’ll fly all the way from Southern California to Vermont and nosh fake veggie burgers with Bill McKibben and Bernie Sanders, while we denounce fracking, and coal, and nukes, and General Motors, and Boeing, and shed crocodile tears about the trees we’re shoving into the fireplace.”

    Etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

    • None of the major emitter countries will meet there targets anyhow. Germany has already admitted it will miss by a very large margin. What would they all do fine themselves or I guess if your a Pacific Island you ask for the fines to be sent to you in a brown paper bag.

      • Ireland was fined (€600m I think) for failing to meet unrealistic targets that were agreed by a Greener political shade a few years ago.
        Meanwhile, our Health service is on its knees, We have a massive homeless crisis, Front line services (Nurses and Teachers) way under paid, so many trainees look elsewhere for employment.

  4. Similarly, the 2008 UK Climate Change Act reportedly has arbitrary numerical targets that can be changed at will by the relevant Minister de-jour.

    While the Act itself is a complete abomination and should be scrapped, it is comforting to know that the Civil Servants involved in writing it had the good sense to phrase it such that when the political wind changed, a minister could swiftly render it impotent without having to go through the agonies of trying to repeal it.

    • I would have been a lifelong Conservative voter, but I’m now a UKIP voter. I won’t vote Conservative again until they have promised to scrap the Climate Change Bill. It will achieve nothing but human misery.
      Chris

      • Aaahhh, I voted Conservative for the first time after David Cameron let slip a comment about getting rid of the “Green Crap”. I was inclined to believe that it reflected his true thoughts, rather than his wife’s. But I dislike the pandering that they are now indulging in wrt regularly banning something else made out of plastic every quarter, it seems. My support for them remains conditional, but they probably also know that voters like me don’t have many alternatives to vote for.

        UKIP votes do indeed seem to be the thing that gets their attention on the UK mainland. In the meantime, I am not entirely unhappy that the Ulster Unionists are no friends of the global warmers and will keep them in line. As Mr Spock might have said, I find my position most curious.

  5. In fact the AU prime minister has today announced via the Melbourne Herald/Sun, “Mr Morrison has also revealed he plans on Monday to ask for his new cabinet’s support to back out of the Paris emissions target legislation.”
    Good news for he’s sure to get that support, given recent events that toppled the former prime minister, “the destructor of the Liberal party” over his green ideology fanaticism.
    This in the face of threats of trade sanctions from the EU if we go down this path. Who gives a damn about the EU? We do little trade with them anyhow.

      • Probably 66 million or so smaller.
        Nobody actually knows how many undocumented immigrants we have [most of whom work very hard].
        But the UK Government probably doesn’t know – accurately, to the nearest million – how many folk live in the UK.

        A look round London – Houses of multiple-occupation; back-yard sheds; even a small number of folk living in vehicles – should cause a careful re-evaluation!

        Auto

    • The EU went supernova on the day Fuhrerette Merkel issued an open invite to the entirety of the third world to come and have free lives in Europe funded by European tax-payers. We still see the light of that incredible detonation but at some point soon it will wink out of existence – forever.

      • What will be ended is all vestiges of European culture, vile thing that it supposedly is. What will replace it is savagery. That, after all, is the end game of Progressivism.

  6. “Australia does not need to quit the Paris climate agreement because our commitments are non-binding, and new coal plants can continue to be constructed, according to the resources minister, Matt Canavan.”
    Ha-ha, true, but that is ignoring the next big Climate Jamboree. There’s gonna be some mega-guilting going on, you betcha.

  7. Malcolm wanted a republic and he had no problem being ruled by socialist UN + Goldman Sachs & Black Rock. What an idiot . . . good riddance.
    Morrison & Co we’re watching you now!

  8. There is no way any energy company will build a coal fired power plant in Australia. Not going to happen.

      • Yes, an upgrade to an existing installation. Australia will never build new coal fired plants. The Govn’t is committed to stupid!

    • It will happen, because its what the people need, even though they have been brainwashed into thinking renewables are the future and coal fired power stations are dirty monoliths.

      The big change is Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News joining the WIN network, their commentators are talking heresy and the people believe them.

      Come the election in May next year I see the Coalition coming from behind to win comfortably over the green left coalition.

      • I don’t see it happening. I see resistance in the industry to obtain finance, any plans to build will be tied up in green tape for years. 60% of Australians believe coal is destroying the world, want strong action on climate change (That is a tax on energy even if it means the economy takes a hit), want the coal industry shutdown and want fossil fuels left in the ground.

        • 60% I think you are way off with that one. Most support action until it costs them something, we all like to think we would save whales, polar bears etc.

          • I should add I have seen those sorts of poll numbers but I doubt the polls because this subject is toxic. Given the secrecy of a poll booth I suspect you may get very different numbers. It is a bit like a poll on asking people if they are racist.

          • This is why the American Left still can’t understand the election of Trump. They believed their own poll numbers (many still do). Trump voters have a distinct dislike of poll numbers because they have realized most of them have been faked in some way (oversampling Democrat-held cities, for instance). Hope this is true of a majority of Australians at this point.

          • I’m still confident that with the help of Murdoch we’ll finally get our debate on the so called ‘settled science’.

            ‘In 2018, 59% of Australians (up five points) say ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem’ about which ‘we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’.

            ‘Almost all Australians (84%, up three points) say ‘the government should focus on renewables, even if this means we may need to invest more in infrastructure to make the system more reliable’.

            ‘Only 14% say ‘the government should focus on traditional energy sources such as coal and gas, even if this means the environment may suffer to some extent’.

            Lowy Institute

    • Unless the Morrison government kills the LRET $3 billion annual renewables subsidy and lets retailers not buy any non-dispatchable junk power.

  9. Please note that former prime minister (PM) of Australia, Tony Abbott did not sign the Paris accord. This document was signed by PM Malcolm Turnbull, two days after Donald trump was elected as President of the USA, when Turnbull knew full well that Trump would not commit to the Paris accord

    • Correct. Turnbull supplanted Tony Abbott on 14 September 2015. The Paris conference lasted from 30 November 2015 to 12 December 2015.

      Its is the Alarmists who keep blaming Tony. They are wrong!

    • Monckton warned us in advance that Tony Abbott was going to be rolled and after it happened Beijing called it a political coup.

  10. So what was the point of the Paris party then? 50,000 delegates/journals/politicians getting a 2 week holiday at public expense……… Cost of around $200 million…. no binding agreement….. a monument to futility and hypocrisy. When will the BBC get round to getting to the truth of these massive scams? Or Private Eye? Or the Daily Mash? Or so-called modern comedians? They are all part of the New Establishment, chanting Green is Good.

    • The Progressives of the world like to get together and throw really great parties. The point of getting together is merely an excuse.

    • Yes it was a giant waste of time and even people like Hansen have worked out it was a scam. No country will meet the targets because it was never going to work from the outset and that was obvious to blind freddy. What it turned into was a political football to kick around and try and use it to inflict damage on other countries.

    • The real goal was to continue to deindustrialize the US and ship all manufacturing overseas and get rid of the middle class in the US. The Paris agreement would have been FULLY LEGALLY binding on the US because the enforcement mechanism for it was embedded in the TPP which was supposed to pass as well. If Hillary had won… the TPP would have passed and then the Paris Accord and the EPA CPP would have become legally binding agreements. The TPP even set up climate panels which could VETO any future changes to our climate laws or the CPP. Imagine that.

  11. about time this not insignificant FACT got an airing!
    im still baffled as to why usa has to wait 2 yrs and pay default on a non binding agreement your congress had no input on either?

    • The non binding agreement had a sunset clause that takes 2 years to exit. The default interest is charged as if the agreement is going to be honoured again nothing unusual there standard debt process. Now it’s non binding so it is all rather meaningless if the party does go thru and exit. However if you have a change of government or they change there mind and do decide to stay in they will have to cough up the default.

      You can see what is going they are hoping for a change of government and a change in decision and then they will put there hand out for the money. I suspect if you dig deeper there would be a clause that if USA ever wants to rejoin they have to pay up the arrears that would also be quite normal.

  12. Loveliest compound word in the English language – “non-binding”. Especially as applied to underwear and climate agreements.

Comments are closed.