Barnaby Joyce. By Simon.chamberlain - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, link

Aussie Deputy PM Rejects Immediate Net Zero Deal

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Australia’s National Party leader Barnaby Joyce has suggested that attempts to pressure the coalition into a rushed decision on Net Zero could lead to the downfall of the Australian Government.

Morrison tells Liberals he wants binding 2050 net zero target at Glasgow summit

By David Crowe
Updated October 18, 2021 — 12.02pm

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has told Liberal MPs he intends to take a binding commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 to the Glasgow climate summit, revealing to colleagues it will be more than a general statement of policy.

But he confirmed to a Liberal party room meeting on Monday morning he has no intention of upgrading Australia’s 2030 emissions target, which was set under former prime minister Tony Abbott in 2015.

Asked if he and others would have to quit cabinet if they could not agree with government policy, Mr Joyce said this was a “statement of the bleeding obvious” but he warned that this should not be pushed too far.

“The process is quite clear – everybody is in cabinet at the behest of the Prime Minister and that includes me,” he told the ABC on Monday morning.

“But of course, hand in glove goes with that the ripple effect through the Coalition, and everything comes with rights and comes with consequences and everybody is aware of that.”

Read more:

From News Corp;

Barnaby Joyce fires up at ABC host during net zero interview

Barnaby Joyce has hit back at an ABC host after the Nationals leader came under fire for his party failing to reach a net-zero position ahead of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow.

Ellen Ransley | NCA NewsWire
October 18, 2021 12:05 pm

Prime Minister Scott Morrison could head overseas at the end of this month without a deal to reach net-zero by 2050, as the Nationals refuse to sign a deal that would “harm” regional Australia.

On Sunday, the Nationals held a four-hour meeting in an attempt to come up with a position on Energy Minister Angus Taylor’s plan to reach net zero by 2050, to no avail.

On Monday, Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce said it was impossible for the party to come up with a deal in four hours – despite the Coalition having been in power for eight years.

Mr Joyce went on to tell RN Breakfast what the Nationals were being asked to sign was “such a titanic change” to the trajectory of Australia, “that absolutely insists on due diligence”.

When asked whether it was possible the Prime Minister could head to Glasgow without a deal, Mr Joyce said the Nations would “try to be an effective member of the coalition”, but that they would not bend over to the detriment of regional Australia.

Read more:

Liberal Prime Minister Scott Morrison needs National Party Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce’s support to maintain a majority in Australia’s parliament. But agreeing higher fuel prices is politically impossible for Barnaby Joyce, whose main support base is rural and mining districts.

Yet how do you achieve Net Zero without higher prices for fossil fuel?

Prime Minister Scott Morrison tried to turn the screws, by committing to attend Glasgow COP26, then demanding his government produce a net zero deal he could announce at the climate summit. But right now, there is a real chance this high pressure tactic could blow up in his face.

There is still a horrible possibility a deal will emerge. Barnaby Joyce wants to support his coalition partner Scott Morrison, who wants a Net Zero pledge he can take to COP26. But Barnaby Joyce also has to take care of his rural and mining supporters, who absolutely depend on affordable energy for their everyday lives.

5 8 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 19, 2021 2:05 am

The National Party of Australia and Leader/Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce should remind the Coalition Liberal Party of Australia partners in Government that net zero emissions was a future objective discussed at the Paris Conference at the end of 2015.

And that Australia well exceeded the emissions target agreed to at the Kyoto Conference and without applying the credits is in line to achieve the Paris Agreement emissions target by 2030.

Few UN member nations have achieved those targets. Australia produces 1.3% of global emissions by country, China produces 30.0%.

Reply to  Dennis
October 19, 2021 2:10 am

And also remind the Prime Minister and Cabinet of this admission just before the Paris Conference was conducted at the end of 2015 …

  • 06:43 PM ET 02/10/2015

Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.

October 19, 2021 2:16 am

Seem like a coalition plan for the upcoming election. Humpty Barnaby and his party can pick up seats in non woke areas and the libs can play to the woke inner city seats on basically opposition policy. As a coalition they can then appeal to both voters 🙂

Reply to  LdB
October 19, 2021 3:59 am

…everyone is happy.

comment image

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Loydo
October 19, 2021 11:52 pm

Labor was in power till 2013.

If you don’t even know what a decade is, how can we trust you to draw cartoons?

(also Malcolm Turnbull. So not a huge amount of ‘Conservatives’ in that so called ‘Decade of Delay’)

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Loydo
October 19, 2021 11:59 pm

Also, while we are pointing out the political history of Left Talk to Action ratios, let us go and look at the little farce that first sort Turnbull slapped around by angry members of his own party.

Rudd is Prime Minister. He is pushing a massive CO2 based Green Policy. ALP back it. The media is telling Australia that the Liberals need to take a knee and back the policy or risk being destroyed at the next election.

The bit everyone remembers is the grass roots members and supporters of the Liberal Party told the elected members if they had wanted to support Rudd policies they would have voted for him. The elected members got scared and Turnbull was rolled as party leader.

What people forget is that at the time the Greens voted against the bill out of principle, claiming that it was too small a step. At the time they thought they would get away with it because the MSM was telling the world that the Liberals had to pass the bill in the Senate… or else.

Hence the Greens assumed they could make their Moral High Ground protest and still get to eat their cake when the Liberals caved in and passed the bill.


That didn’t happen and the Bill – which the Greens could have voted for – didn’t get passed.

Nothing Green Ever Works, even their own cunning Senate plans.

Reply to  Loydo
October 20, 2021 7:04 am

Loydo on the bright side with current CO2 emission cuts by countries for COP26 we will still be emitting 35Gt of CO2 in the year 2040. Don’t worry I am sure we will do all the heavy lifting in the last 10 years.

For me it’s comical for you true believers it must be a disaster 🙂

Last edited 1 year ago by LdB
October 19, 2021 3:08 am

“statement of the bleeding obvious”

Only in Oz. They do Yorkshire blunt in bl**dy spades.

October 19, 2021 4:07 am

scomo should have stuck to Im NOT going…fool gave in to pressure
looking at eu uk and elsewhere with all the greenscams fuels etc
why the hell???would Aus cut its own throat to follow the lemmings?

October 19, 2021 4:59 am

“At this point alarm bells should be going off even among the most brain-dead progressives because for all its touted benefits, the costs are starting to emerge and – at least when it comes to the next two or three generations – they will be absolutely crushing for the middle class, while allowing the top 1% to plunder and pillage virtually all the world’s assets. Think of it as the biggest mandated theft in world history, and suddenly one can understand why every private-jet setting billionaire is oh so very vocally in support of a “net zero” world” –

October 19, 2021 5:23 am

“…rushed decision on Net Zero could lead to the downfall of the Australian Government.”

Whereas the UK parliamentary dictatorship is 100% in favour of suicide. No matter what voters may think.

It would be nice to have Australia’s more relaxed attitude to the lunatic net zero rubbish, but without their covid madness.

Last edited 1 year ago by strativarius
Gerry, England
Reply to  fretslider
October 19, 2021 5:47 am

And we can’t do anything about it as woke Red Labour is even worse than the current Blue Labour.

October 19, 2021 5:55 am

Please take the time to read this, there are extraordinary facts and figures here and what is happening in regional NSW is nothing short of criminal. Who are our conservative representatives? In the National Party, apart from Matt Canavan, who is standing up for our rights?

We have been betrayed by the coalition out here in the regions. The Liberal Party turned their backs on us long ago and have no clue of the pain we are suffering, and the majority of the National Party have betrayed us. I have reached a point that I can not trust my state member on any level, and though my federal member has been a little more forthcoming, he hasn’t picked up the phone after two years of communication.

We formed a community group to fight against renewables as we are in the heart of a Renewable Energy Zone in Central West NSW. We successfully defeated two small solar installations, the really big ones are state significant and are pretty much rubber stamped. We requested that the DPIE notify us of any new developments in our area, they have not. We knew about two new developments, one has already been given the go ahead despite the fact that we were still seeking information from the developer. The DPIE asked the Developer, instead of us, if the outstanding issues had been resolved. Of course they said yes, it was approved within 24 hours by a bureaucrat. I don’t believe the Minister, Matt Kean set eyes on it. This one is 500MW of solar and a 200MW BESS taking up nearly 18 square kilometres of land.

The second of those we had been notified of is a massive project. A 500MW solar project plus a 500MW BESS. This will be teamed up with a neighbouring 441MW wind turbine project and an additional 441MW BESS plus an internal 11 kilometres of high tension wires. This mega project takes up 89 square kilometres of prime agricultural land starting at 8 kilometres from town. There will be 63 turbines starting not too far outside town at 7MW per turbine, and each of these will be 280 metres high! Almost as high as Centrepoint Tower, the tallest structure in Sydney. There have already been two endangered animals identified at this site and the adjoining approved site. Likely that the Long Eared Pied Bats and the Barking Owls will be diminished in numbers, but that’s OK, the Developers will buy certificates. We also identified the nest of a Wedge Tailed Eagle, don’t hold out much hope for their future generations, or the Nankeen Kestrels that hover over our paddocks.

We recently heard from a member of our community group that there are three more planned projects in the pipeline, all within close proximity of our town. We’re not sure of the details of the most recent project, but that one aside we are up to 155 square kilometres of prime agricultural land. Much of this will be bulldozed flat and fenced off from larger native animals and destroying smaller ones.

Something for you to think about, our town is a tourist destination, so much history, original buildings, a wine region, nestled in rural countryside with rolling hills and distant mountains.

One of the Developers has as least been honest enough to reveal what we can expect. Here’s some examples of the mega project. The solar project alone expects that the large truck movement will entail 70 to 80 trucks, 130 during peak times, every day, for almost three years. These trucks will make the return trip of 600 kilometres to the port in Newcastle to pick up the imported infrastructure. The solar panels, (up to a million?) Steel pylons, inverters, batteries and associated materials arrive on pallets and are well packaged. What happens to the packaging? The population of our town is 2500, our landfill is small.

Based on our existing 87MW solar installation which had 150 backpackers for the peak construction period and saw a rise in petty crime, how will we cope with 750 itinerant workers in the peak period for this one project? How will we cope with all these projects running consecutively, or in conjunction with each other? How long will this go on for? What will happen to the infrastructure that will have taken years to be transported from the Newcastle port, at the end of life of these projects? What will happen to tourism in this region?

That was a description of one project. The solar infrastructure is not likely to last 25 years. There will be five major projects near us, that we know of. Our spirit is being crushed. Non of this is sustainable. Non of this will do a damn bit of good for anyone, anywhere. And non of them have considered that they will have to duplicate all of this before the end of life of these projects for continuous supply of energy.

Here’s a choice, major project of 500MW Solar plus 500MW BESS, 11 kilometres of high tension wires, 441MW of 63 wind turbines plus 441MW BESS which will all need to be replaced at (conservatively) 25 years solar, 15 years wind and 10 years batteries. All this covering 89 square kilometres of land, and providing nameplate energy of 500MW and 441MW of energy for 25% and 30% of the time and weather dependent.

OR One Small Modular Nuclear Plant at a similar nameplate capacity which is ‘engineered’ to operate at 95% capacity 24/7 for up to 80 years. All this and it only takes up 18 hectares of land! And zero emissions.

The modern Gas fired and HELI coal fired power plants are also reduced emission, 24/7 output with considerably longer life than renewables and both also have a small footprint of land.

The Coalition, Craig Kelly (recently departed) and Matt Canavan aside, have largely turned their backs on the people of the Regions. They are going to pay for this big time! The death of a political team, all because they trusted the same fake advisors that have let them down for decades. All because they believed in ‘settled science’. Science doesn’t stand still!

They have to stop kidding themselves, there are no moderates or centre rights in these parties. They are photocopies of the Labor Party, and in many cases The Greens. They are a disgrace.

Peter K
Reply to  Megs
October 19, 2021 6:01 pm

There is still no proof that all of this expenditure will reduce global CO2, by any amount or average global temperature for that matter.

Reply to  Peter K
October 19, 2021 6:25 pm

Exactly! Yet we are effectively being told to sit down and shut up because “it’s all for the greater good”. Best not to get me started.

Reply to  Peter K
October 19, 2021 8:21 pm

A couple of years ago Australia’s Chief Scientist was asked in a Senate Committee inquiry what difference it would make to global temperature if Australia stopped producing emissions (1.3% of global total) and he replied that it would achieve nothing.

Reply to  Dennis
October 19, 2021 10:21 pm

I trust that the protest committee understands what Nameplate Capacity and Capacity Factor are for solar installations and wind turbines. Solar is much less than wind for which the AEMO rates Capacity Factor as 30% to 35% of Nameplate Capacity, meaning on average considering intermittent wind availability based unreliability that limits performance to well under design capabilities.

In other words 100MW Nameplate is on average 30-35 MW achievable.

Most often the renewables industry attempt to impress communities with misleading data, convert their claims to 30%, because independent monitoring in Australia resulted in Capacity Factor below AEMO rating and just below 30%.

If the world’s longest interconnected electricity grid could be supported (baseload and peak demand) by wind and solar including back up systems and feeder transmission lines to the main grid the land area, note suitable land area, is not available.

Remove the government paid taxpayer monies subsidies for profit for renewable businesses, in addition to the tax deductions businesses might have the legal right to claim for expenses incurred in producing taxable profits, and I doubt that most investors would seek a different venture to risk their money in.

Peter K
Reply to  Dennis
October 20, 2021 1:56 am

Correct. For every 1GW of coal fired power station, you will need between 3 to 4 GW of renewable installations and even that will not guarantee supply 24/7.

Reply to  Dennis
October 19, 2021 11:05 pm

That was Alan Finkel! He’s singing a different song now.

Reply to  Megs
October 20, 2021 3:59 am

Bolt Report tonight (Wednesday) Deputy Prime Minister and National Party Leader Barnaby Joyce was asked what difference to global temperature Australia would make if emissions here stopped.

The DPM replied nothing at all.

Which is of course true.

October 19, 2021 7:03 am

Nuclear power would be the only way to achieve net zero by 2050, a great way to shaft “greens”, stop all subsidies to ruinables, allow fossils to rule for now, market forces and new technologies will reduce demand for them as reliable electricity grows.

Reply to  climanrecon
October 19, 2021 8:26 pm

Which begs the question why Australia has banned nuclear energy and greatly limited the mining of uranium after a Federal Government commissioned report recommended modular nuclear generators to replace coal fired power stations in the future.

This happened several years after the Kyoto Agreement to lower greenhouse gas emissions was signed and that Federal Government created a target to introduce 3 per cent of grid electricity to be produced by so called renewables.

Once again look back at the political objective of undermining the capitalist (free enterprise) system admitted by UN Official Christiana Figureres and others.

October 19, 2021 7:16 am

Before you can have “net zero”, in order to balance your “net positive” you have to find someone “net negative”, and in very large quantities. So far politicians are just assuming these “net negative” sinks exist or can easily be developed.
In Canada, Polly Anna Trudeau suggested planting 2 Billion trees. Someone pointed out that would be irrelevant considering Canada’s forests have 300 Billion trees already. Which if each tree grew by 2Kg of cellulose annually would offset Canada’s entire human CO2 emissions. The topic was then dropped in the government controlled media, lest the sequestration of the boreal forest today versus a glacier covered land 100 centuries ago be brought up…..

Thomas Gasloli
October 19, 2021 8:24 am

Has Morrison ever explained WHY he wants to achieve “net zero”? Or is that too much to ask?

Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
October 19, 2021 8:37 pm

Not that I am aware, but consider the Paris Agreement emissions reduction target by 2030 signed 2015/16 by the Turnbull Government, PM Morrison became PM in 2018.

Net zero emissions was a discussion at the Paris Conference and listed for future implementation after 2030. So it is not a new proposal. However, while POTUS Trump rejected the Paris nonsense and would not allow the USA to sign it POTUS Biden has embraced it, as has the woke British PM.

So now think about the last G7 Meeting and not publicised at the time discussions between the three leaders that resulted in formation of new defence initiatives called AUKUS. Not only nuclear submarine technology to be given to Australia but long range missile technology for production in Australia and many other decisions.

Then the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the UK which is part of the discussions with all Commonwealth of Nations members to create Commonwealth Free Trade.

The Australian PM was apparently pressured by the other AUKUS partners to agree to net zero emissions. He replied that Australia has an “inspirational goal” but not damaging the economy, no new carbon tax or emissions trading for example. That if net zero was achieved it would be from new yet to be developed technology and the Australian Government would support research and development. We all now understand “fake news” left leaning media tactics, they even claimed the Australian PM was all but ignored when he went to the G7 Meeting, and then came the AUKUS announcement and news about Free Trade discussions.

So let’s wait and see what is decided between the two Coalition partners.

Andy Pattullo
October 19, 2021 8:57 am

Emperor still running about naked and the followers still gazing in wonder. Net zero is not stylish fabric, it does not hide stupidity, it is stupidity. Net zero is net ignorance. It is virtue signaling with no real intent to eventually thwart the laws of physics. It is an admission that you will do anything for popularity other than tell the truth. Lemmings have more sense.

willem post
October 19, 2021 9:04 am

If you want to REFORM THE WORLD to an RE NIRVANA, then be prepared to spend at least $5 TRILLION per year for at least the next 30 to 40 years.

Here is n estimate of the PARTIAL TURNKEY CAPITAL COST to somewhat get there.



World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the US Energy Information Administration, EIA. 
See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.
Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.
China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America, need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive. They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements

Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades. 
However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution. 
Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats. 
The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs. 
The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.
The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.


The analysis includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.
The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.

50% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y

100% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y


World More-Inclusive CAPEX

The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.
This report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world more-inclusive CAPEX at $100 trillion to $150 trillion, over the next 30 years, about $3 trillion to $5 trillion per year
NOTE: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that an average of $3.5 trillion per year will be needed just in energy investments between 2016 and 2050 to achieve the 1.5-degree target.

US More-Inclusive CAPEX
The ratio of World CAPEX for RE / US CAPEX for RE = 16,988/60,987 = 0.279
A more-inclusive US CAPEX could be $27.9 trillion to $41.8 trillion
The US CAPEX could be less, because, at present, the world is adding a quad of RE at about $58.95 billion, compare to the US at about $102.78 billion.
It is unclear what accounts for the large difference. 
Part of it may be due to differences of accounting methods among countries. 

NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:
Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.
Nuclear plants about 60 years
Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years
Wind turbine systems about 20 years
Solar systems about 25 years
Battery systems about 15 years

Last edited 1 year ago by wilpost
Reply to  willem post
October 20, 2021 7:08 am

You left out you need to do all that without increasing your emissions to build the new infrastructure.

Peter K
October 19, 2021 5:50 pm

I would have thought that the LNP Treasurer would have put together a Business Case, complete with the expected return on investment by now, so that the expenditure can be monitored for effectiveness.

Reply to  Peter K
October 19, 2021 6:35 pm

Of course, but career politicians don’t understand business principles. Aside from that it’s not likely any of this has been costed country by country. As is evident from my long post, Australia has unique issues. We import everything and it has to travel vast distances. The cost of transport is more expensive for us, ironically it also creates more CO2. We could cut our emissions by ditching renewables.

Reply to  Megs
October 19, 2021 10:28 pm

And China produces 30% of global emissions, Australia produces 1.3% of global emissions, and China increases their emissions by at least 1.3% every year while Australia has achieved the Kyoto Agreement emissions reduction, exceeded the target, and is on track to achieve Paris emissions target by 2030.

Reply to  Peter K
October 19, 2021 10:25 pm

The Labor Opposition would not discuss the cost of net zero emission impact on GDP growth during the 2019 Federal Election campaign and were loudly criticised for not having costings by the Coalition Liberal-National Government at that time.

I have emailed MPs asking for a copy of the economic modelling (I trust that they would not use rubbery figures for creative accounting purposes) but no comment in reply received.

October 19, 2021 10:47 pm

I heard the Federal Minister for Environment in Australia comment that country people and farmers are well aware of climate change.

Doesn’t the climate change gradually over time, the Sahara Desert was a long time ago a green fertile land, before about 130,000 years ago Australia was covered in rainforests but today only 3 per cent remain and eucalyptus have replaced them that are drought and heat tolerant. Climate zone changed over time.

However, the real history of modern Australia that began in January 1788 when Sydney Town in the new Colony of New South Wales was started consists of “droughts and flooding rains”, heatwaves and cooler weather, very long periods of drought and shorter periods of drought, farm records spanning back to the 1800s or even early 1900s reveal the many variations experienced.

I am fed up with weaselling and political spin crafted to fool the people.

Craig from Oz
October 20, 2021 12:05 am

Morrison will have to rapidly decide which side of the fence he is actually going to sit on.

Frankly I feel he needs to remember that the MSM hate him out of principle and the sort of people who get excited about ‘green’ policy already vote for The Greens.

The basics of popular voting isn’t that hard.

You work out who already supports you, and make sure they are at worse grumbling. You work out who is never going to vote for you, and at best be polite but otherwise ignore. You work out who are the swinging voters and blow smoke constantly up their arse.

Swinging voters = Target
Core supporters = Throw bones occasionally while smiling constantly
Everyone else = Ignore, cause they are NEVER GOING TO VOTE FOR YOU.

Not. That. Hard.

Try and please everyone and you end up pleasing no one.

October 20, 2021 4:04 am

Multi-billionaire Australian Andrew “Twiggy” Forest stated that nuclear power stations are not a good way for Australia to go because it could lead to nuclear weapons.

The question he should now be asked is about iron ore his business investments mine and export, after all it is used to manufacture all kinds of military weapons.

Mr Forest is also a renewables industry investor.

October 20, 2021 4:54 am

Forcing this crap on the people of Australia will collapse the government? Good, ram it through.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights