To stay or to leave?
While China burns coal – we burn money.
Before considering the Paris Agreement we must first look at the Kyoto Protocol (KP). Australia agreed to the KP in 1998 under the Howard Government and the agreement was ratified by Kevin Rudd in 2007.
Understanding the intrinsic differences between Kyoto and Paris and how the message has changed to alarm the public about a ‘climate-change- emergency’ is crucial when considering the benefits of belonging or the advantages of being in control of one’s own destiny.
Those who read the previous campaigns about the people and corporations behind Greta Thunberg (‘Creating a Climate Messiah’) will begin to recognize the worldwide web of power, money and greed. (1) This campaign is longer than others due to the complex nature of the issue. Please come on a journey of discovery and find out why we believe Australia should leave the Paris Agreement. (2)
The UNITED NATIONS legally binding KYOTO PROTOCOL
Phase One: Key components of the 1998 Kyoto Agreement (3):
- At Kyoto, developed countries (incl. Australia) agreed to a collective target of a 5.2 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012.
- The European Union (EU) agreed to a collective emission reduction target of 8 per cent based on the same criteria.
- Credit for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from land clearing changes or the creation of greenhouse sinks were permitted in the Kyoto Protocol.
- Six greenhouse gases are covered in the Kyoto Protocol.
- Issues associated with non-compliance were not resolved.
- No emission reduction goals were agreed to for DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. Measures were agreed as to how developed countries can obtain credit for assistance to developing countries.
- Australia agreed to limit itself to an 8 per cent increase in greenhouse gas emissions above the 1990 level between 2008 to 2012.
The six gasses identified under the Kyoto Protocol are important and are listed here. Of these gases SF6 is the most toxic. (3)
Since the introduction of renewables into the market there has been an alarming INCREASE in SF6 – a gas which is used extensively by the electrical industry to prevent short circuits in wind, solar and gas energy production.
SF6 is 23,500 times more warming than CO2 and yet there have been NO reports in the media. In fact, wind and solar energy production has increased exponentially due to generous taxpayer funded subsidies!
CO2 is the only greenhouse gas that the climate-changers are interested in. Why is that so?
Australia agreed to Phase One of the Kyoto Agreement. It was not, however, until Labor came to power that the Kyoto Protocol was ratified on the 12th December 2007 by Kevin Rudd, making it legally binding. (4)
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol – an agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – is the world’s only legally binding treaty to reduce greenhouse emissions. However, because many major emitters were not part of Kyoto, it only covered about 18% of global emissions.
Just two weeks after a successful leadership coup, Malcolm Turnbull ratified Phase II of the Kyoto Agreement. Phase II further reduced our emissions by between 5 and 25 per cent from 2000 levels.
Erwin Jackson of the Climate Institute said, “The Protocol helps build confidence that Australia is serious about its international commitments.”
Malcolm Turnbull said that “Australia will contribute at least $1 billion over the next five years from our existing aid budget both to build climate resilience and reduce emissions.” (5)
This figure is disputed by the IPA who calculates the cost to the nation will be $52 billion between 2018 and 2030. (25)
AUSTRALIA & THE UN PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT
The Paris Climate Agreement came into force on 4th November 2016 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Australia ratified the Paris Agreement under the Turnbull Government, on 10th November 2016 by then Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, – despite strong opposition from within the government’s own ranks. (6)
Parts of the Paris Climate Agreement are ‘legally binding’ between signatories. A non-parole period of three (3) years after ‘entry-into-force’ is imposed.
This means, that the first opportunity for Australia to flag its intention to leave the agreement is 9 December 2019, with official withdrawal effective 12 months later.
The non-legally- binding part of the agreement is the proposed EMISSION TARGET REDUCTIONS; however, Article 15 will promote compliance.
Within the ‘highlights’ of the COP21 Paris Agreement are statements of intent and assumption, but DEVELOPED NATIONS are obliged to pay. (7)
Important details of the Paris Agreement: (8, 9)
- DEVELOPED countries will provide funding to help DEVELOPING countries make the costly shift to green energy and shore up their defenses against climate change impacts like drought and storms.
- Funding must be scaled up, and the agreement says rich nations must report every two years on their finance levels — current and intended.
- Moved from the legally binding core agreement to a separate non-binding ‘decision section’, the document refers to the $100 billion a year that rich countries had pledged to muster by 2020 as a ‘floor’. The amount must be updated by 2025.
The processes within the Paris Agreement are quite different to the Kyoto Protocol, under which only DEVELOPED NATIONS were given emissions reduction targets.
By comparison, the Paris Agreement provided flexibility for all nations to propose their own targets, and to self-identify as either DEVELOPED OR DEVELOPING NATIONS.
Even though deemed voluntary, some key aspects of the Paris Agreement should give cause for concern.
Extracts from the Australian Government and UN Websites: (8, 9)
- Climate finance: Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement states: that developed country parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country parties with both their mitigation and adaptation efforts. Article 9.2 encourages all parties to provide financial support voluntarily, regardless of their economic circumstances. The Green Climate Fund, established in 2010 under the UNFCCC, will play an important role in relation to this aspect of the Paris Agreement.
- It will provide a mechanism to promote compliance (see Article 15), which will operate in a non-adversarial and non‑punitive manner, although the full details of this mechanism are still yet to be worked out.
Question: Is the role of the UN under the Paris Agreement to redistribute wealth?
WHAT ARE AUSTRALIA’S TARGETS
From the Federal Parliamentary website (8):
Australia will ‘implement an economy-wide target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Comparing targets between member countries is complicated by the use of different baseline years as well as different target years. For example, in comparison:
- New Zealand announced a target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030
- The European Union pledged a target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030
- The USA announced a target of 26–28% below 2005 levels by 2025 ( but have since withdrawn)
- China’s target is to peak emissions by 2030 and to lower the carbon intensity of GDP by 60–65% below 2005 levels by 2030. (China’s emissions will rise from 11b to 22b tonnes of carbon)
Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target has been described by some as less ambitious than that of most developed nations. The Australian Government maintains that ‘our target is a fair contribution for Australia’ and argues that it exceeds those of other countries on a per capita basis as well as in terms of emissions intensity.
Comment: Australia does not have the benefit of zero-emission nuclear energy. Instead, Australia exports uranium.
It should be noted that DEVELOPING NATIONS (e.g. China and India) are permitted to INCREASE greenhouse gas emissions to 2030 while DEVELOPED NATIONS are expected to REDUCE emissions and contribute significant funds to nations that are increasing emissions!
Question: How does the relaxation of emission targets for the world’s largest polluters equate with a ‘climate emergency’?
WILL AUSTRALIA MEET ITS TARGETS?
From the Federal Parliamentary website (8):
The Australian Government considers that Australia will meet its 2030 target through policies built on its proven Direct Action approach. These policies include the Emissions Reduction Fund and its associated Safeguard Mechanism, as well as a number of other policies designed to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy productivity.
As a self-identified developed nation Australia is meeting its Paris targets. There are many climate-alarmists, however, who believe Australia should go much further! An example is the recent rise of Extinction Rebellion (XR). (10) This group wants to accelerate the rate of moving to a zero emissions future by using public disobedience and civil disruption to force both state and federal governments to bow to their demands.
Extinction Rebellion’s three core demands are:
- Force governments to declare a climate emergency
- Create permanent recessions
- Destroy democracy to implant Socialism
It is important to note that within the Paris Agreement is an obligation on DEVELOPED NATIONS to significantly REDUCE emissions and move towards a 100% renewable- energy- future by forcing the closure of all reliable and affordable fossil-fuel-energy-production ( coal, oil and gas) and to FUND DEVELOPING NATIONS who have been given a ‘free-pass’ to INCREASE emissions up to 2030, building more coal- fired-power stations, in part, financed by DEVELOPED NATIONS.
Question: Could money paid to China under the Paris Agreement be used to further build China’s rapidly growing Armed Forces?
It should be noted that Australia’s emissions are approx. 1.5% of global emissions. It is widely considered by many eminent scientists including Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, that if this nation were to become’ emissions- free’, it would NOT make any perceptible change to the overall projected (but still unproven) global temperature rises because of an increase in CO2. (11)
There are over 31,847 eminent scientists who have signed the ‘Oregon Petition’ proclaiming there is no evidence to support the claim of anthropogenic global warming. (12)
The impact of a zero-emissions-Australia (i.e.100% renewable energy, 100% electric cars, no heavy manufacturing, beef cattle production eliminated) would be extreme, and contribute almost zero-benefit to the global climate.
Australian jobs, manufacturing, farming, transport and trade would be negatively impacted causing permanent recessions, extensive social hardship, widespread mental illness and the break-down of families, society, laws and governments.
CHANGING THE CLIMATE OR CHANGING THE SYSTEM?
Groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace, The Rockefeller Foundation, Richard Branson’s B Team, GetUp and numerous other groups and global elites including newly discovered child-climate-messiah Greta Thunberg, all say we must change the system to fix the global climate. (13)
Their proposition infers that capitalism is the problem, fossil fuels are the enemy, and we must eliminate both and implement Socialism in order to survive mass extinction.
It should be noted that those advocating for such changes are individually and collectively some of the highest users of fossil fuels and the highest emitters of CO2!
Many years ago, it was environmentalism that protected the natural environment; clean air, water and green spaces.
Responsible management of the environment included the proper disposal of waste, reduction in toxic chemical use, stopping farm fertilizer run-off and managing biodiversity. But today’s ‘climate-change-warriors’ have forgotten the environment and have joined the’ religion of climate-change’ where belief is all that is necessary, and facts are irrelevant.
Commentator and journalist Peta Credlin says:
“Today’s green movement is nothing more than 21st-century Socialism. Having failed to convince the people that changing their system of governance to a socialist model was the way to go, the cunning ideological warriors of the Left are now intent on doing it by stealth using the guise of environmental issues to deliver their agenda of political system change” (14)
What if there is no climate emergency and CO2 (necessary for plant photosynthesis and therefore human existence) is not responsible for ‘climate change or global warming’? Please read the link and consider the evidence presented in this article. (15) The author’s conclusion:
“Spending any effort, for solely emotional and childish reasons, without true cost benefit analysis and without full engineering due diligence, let alone at GDP scale costs, trying to stop the UK’s 1% or the EU’s 10% of something that has not been happening for 3 millennia has to be monumentally ill-advised.
Russia, China and India are mocking the way Western governments have been induced by ‘Green’ thinking to promote their policies of abject self-harm at great national cost and to no perceptible benefit”.
An excellent short explanation, especially helpful for children, can be found and downloaded here: (16)
‘Climate Change – Fear Not’ – THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DEBATE.
In fact, the UN’s own material calls for an overhaul to the financial order to ‘tackle climate change’ (17)
Question: Could the current ‘climate hysteria’ not be about climate-change per-se, but forcing a change from democracy to worldwide Socialism?
THE UNITED STATES ARE LEAVING PARIS
Even though the US will NOT be a part of the Paris Agreement, ‘the experts’ say that Paris can still work, due to ‘intrinsic differences’ and growing public concern about ‘climate-change’. (18)
The US is the world’s second largest greenhouse gas emitter, with China in top position, and contributing greenhouse gases double that of the US. (China currently emits 11b tonnes of carbon pa. This will rise to 22b by 2030)
- With the US out of the Paris Agreement, is the effectiveness and integrity of the agreement compromised?
- Has the withdrawal of the US driven the ‘increased panic’ to change public opinion and gain support for accelerated ‘climate-change-action’?
- Was the request for $400m towards the Green Climate Fund (GCF) – rejected by PM Scott Morrison, an attempt to fill a funding void left by the United States?
Some sections of the Paris Agreement are not legally binding, and nations can ‘independently evolve and adjust their climate strategies’. The Paris Climate Accord is in part a voluntary agreement, signalling a nation’s commitment to addressing ‘climate-change’, however, there is a clearly stated obligation and expectation for DEVELOPED NATIONS to FUND the climate-train.
Comment: We believe, public concern has increased exponentially due to a concerted, deliberate and well-funded push by ‘interested parties’ who stand to benefit from the proposed climate-change model.
In a statement President Trump’s said the Paris Agreement was unfair to America and would cost millions of jobs $3 trillion losses in GDP. He said: (19)
“Even if the Paris agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes”
WHICH NATIONS ARE SIGNATORIES?
Australia signed the Paris Agreement on 22nd April 2016. It was ratified on 9th November 2016 and declared ‘entry into force’ on 9th December 2016.
As of 2019, 196 states plus the European Union have signed. Further, 183 nations and the European Union have ratified the agreement. The main purpose of the Paris Agreement is to fight back against climate change. The list of nations in the agreement can be found here: (20)
Of the 196 signatory states, the highest greenhouse gas emitters are China, India, and the US.
China and India have declared themselves DEVELOPING NATIONS therefore positioning themselves to receive billions in climate-funding from DEVELOPED NATIONS. In addition, China and India have been given permission under the UN Paris Agreement to INCREASE emissions until 2030. (China rising from 11b to 22b; India rising from 2b to 4b tonnes, CO2)
It was reported that at the recent UN Climate Summit on the 24th September 2019 in the US, the highest emitters, the US, India and China offered ‘nothing or very little to curb their emissions’. (21)
The report said,
Even after one of the largest environmental protests ever in more than 150 countries on Friday and a fiery speech from 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg, the commitments from other big emitters still fell short of the level necessary to hit the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s target of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or ideally 1.5 degrees. Both India and China have also called for more money from other countries to pay for their climate change mitigation and adaptation work.
Of the nations delivering (or exceeding) their climate targets, they collectively make up just 6.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
CARBON CREDITS (CC)
Carbon offsetting (Carbon Credits) is a mechanism that allows organisations and individuals to invest in projects which mitigate climate change to counter their own unavoidable emissions. The offsets are traded on an open market in clearly definable units, with one tonne of CO2e (Carbon Dioxide emissions) being equal to one carbon offset, also known as a carbon credit. (22)
A recent example is Elton John buying carbon credits to offset the emissions caused by Prince Harry and Meagan taking four private jets instead of using commercial aircraft and economizing on emissions. (23)
The system of CC is convoluted and complex. This masks the money flow and those benefiting the most from the creation of tradeable carbon credits. The potential for global elites, corporations and other ‘vested interests’ to make trillions in profits from ‘climate-change’ should not be underestimated.
Questions also need to be asked, who pays and who benefits from Carbon Credits.
Please see an explanatory diagram and video by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai (MIT PhD Inventor of Email)
Dr Ayyadurai is an MIT PhD who exposes who will profit from (what he calls) the ‘Climate Change’ hoax, and why it was right that President Trump pulled out of the pollution-incentivizing Paris Accord.
Please watch the short video for a full explanation of the above graphic: (24)
Question: Will issuing carbon credits address the ‘climate emergency’ and save the planet, or result in a negligible reduction of projected temperature rises, and huge wealth for those driving the system?
WHAT THE PARIS AGREEMENT MEANS FOR AUSTRALIA
The IPA has written an excellent and comprehensive report (August 2018) on the effects of the Paris Agreement on the nation and its citizens. (25) Here are their core reasons why Australia should LEAVE the UNFCCC Paris Agreement.
a) Cost to Australia and Australians
Meeting our emissions reduction targets is estimated to cost $52 billion over the period 2018- 2030. This equates to $8,566 per family in Australia. This cost reflects the additional cost of generating electricity, the flow-on consequences of lower business investment, lower employment and lower wages growth; and a reduction to real incomes due to increased cost of consumption. What would $52 billion provide?
- For the nation- funding for 22 new hospitals
- Twenty years of Gonski 2.0 education funding – or over four years’ worth of funding for the (NDIS).
- For families, $8,566 for five years’ worth of schooling at a local government school, paying down entire credit card debt, or four years’ worth of electricity bills.
- The cost of the Agreement more than twice eliminates the income tax relief provided in the 2018-19 Budget to individual middle-income earners.
b) The agreement is not operating as intended
The United States has provided formal notice to the UN that they (the world’s second biggest emitter) will withdraw from the Agreement. Meanwhile;
- The world’s largest emitter, China, is unconstrained by the Agreement.
- The Climate Action Tracker, a consortium of three research organisations, tracks national progress of 32 nations, which account 80 per cent of global emissions, in meeting their Paris emissions reduction targets, and finds that only seven nations (of the top 32) that collectively account for 6.6% of global greenhouse emissions, are on track to meet their targets.
c) The Agreement will make no noticeable difference to the global temperature
… even if all nations meet their national emissions reduction requirements.
- It is estimated that adopting all promises under the Agreement from 2016–2030 will reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just 0.05 °C.
- Human activity accounts for just three per cent of total emissions.
The IPA Report concludes that:
“The Australian government should withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and end all subsidies to weather-dependent energy generation such as wind and solar”
THE CASE FOR, AND PROCESS TO, WITHDRAW FROM PARIS
PM Scott Morrison declared in his speech to the Lowy Institute on the 3rd October 2019; (26)
“The Government rejects negative globalism, that coercively seeks to impose a mandate from an often-ill-defined borderless global community. And worse still, an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy. Only a national government, especially one accountable through the ballot box and the rule of law, can define its national interests. We can never answer to a higher authority than the people of Australia. And under my leadership Australia’s international engagement will be squarely driven by Australia’s national interests. To paraphrase former Prime Minister John Howard, as Australians, – ‘we will decide our interests and the circumstances in which we seek to pursue them’.”
Final comment: It is recognised that climate-change and energy are dangerous issues for political leaders, having caused the downfall of former Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd, Julie Gillard, Tony Abbott, and Malcolm Turnbull. Climate-change and energy have created deep divisions within Australia. We believe the Federal Government must openly discuss energy, climate and the environment, addressing both the facts and the fears. A national advertising and information campaign (with a special focus on schools and universities) could help unite the nation and discover the best solutions. A leader, who puts the nation’s interests alongside that of the environment, will gain majority support.
- The science is NOT fully settled, and any agreement made on FALSE PREDICTIONS is a BAD AGREEMENT
- Due to a plethora of contradictory evidence ‘climate-change’ should be examined under a ROYAL COMMISSION
- The Paris Agreement was signed before non-compliance penalties were confirmed. Signing an agreement WITHOUT FULL DISCLOSURE is A FAILURE OF GOVERNMENTS DUTY OF CARE.
- The estimated cost to Australian taxpayers of $52b over the period 2018-2030 is unacceptable. The recent ‘climate-change’ federal election resulted in voters rejecting Labor and the Greens climate schemes. Australia is experiencing significant economic headwinds, uncertainty in trade, and a water emergency in rural Australia which impacts food-security. Australia’s contributions under ‘Climate Funding, Article 9.2 of the Paris Agreement, are expected, irrespective of the nations’ economic position. SIGNING ANY AGREEMENT THAT DOES NOT PUT THE NATIONS’ INTERESTS FIRST IS IRRESPONSIBLE
- Article 28 of the agreement enables parties to withdraw from the agreement after sending a withdrawal notifications to the depository, but notice can be given no earlier than three years after the agreement goes into force for the country. Therefore, the first opportunity for Australia to give notice (to withdraw from the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC) would be 9th December 2019.
- Withdrawal is effective one year after the depositary is notified. For Australia, the date of formal withdrawal would be no earlier than 9th December 2020. Alternatively, the Agreement stipulates that withdrawal from the UNFCCC, under which the Paris Agreement was adopted, would also withdraw the state from the Paris Agreement. The conditions for withdrawal from the UNFCCC are the same as for the Paris Agreement. In the agreement no provisions for noncompliance are stated.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
1/ Sign the petition here to ask the government to AUSExit Paris
2/ Share this campaign with your social media contacts
3/ Print copies of this campaign and post or deliver to your:
- Local state and federal members and your local councilor
- Superannuation Fund Manager
- Bank HQ
4/ Email a copy of this campaign to the PM, Scott Morrison; email@example.com
and the Treasurer, Josh Frydenburg; firstname.lastname@example.org
5/ Email a copy of this campaign to the hosts at Sky News;
6/ Download a copy of ‘Climate Change – Fear Not’ – THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DEBATE, at https://www.anzfire.org/climate-change-1 and share with your family, friends and neighbors.