Why Australia should Clexit Paris Treaty

It is clear that the push to meet the Paris carbon dioxide emission targets is leading to higher power costs, and hence prices, and unreliable supply.

It is also a fact that the predictions of the warmists have not happened.

The IPCC scientific reports are stated in possibilities, yet the guidance for policy makers is written as certainty. A farce.

I hope the new leadership of the Australian Government has the courage to guide our country in a rational manner on this subject as Angus Taylor seems keen to do, and abandons the Paris Treaty.

Jerry Ellis AO
Retired Chairman BHP, retired Chancellor Monash University, and retired Chairman of Landcare

5 thoughts on “Why Australia should Clexit Paris Treaty”

  1. From my experience with Australian politicians very few have taken the time to research the science. One minister, (Labor), in response to my request for the scientific evidence the Queensland government was using in it’s policy for 50% renewables said he “beleeved the science”. On another occasion I told him the Barrier Reef was not being destroyed by global warming and that the air in contact with the ocean UV radiation, did not penetrate water and the ocean was warmed by direct sunlight, short wave radiation, his reply was he “beleeved the CSIRO” By the way, I was told at my local state MPs office the other day that they have signed lock-in contracts for 50% renewables. That’s the end of Queensland.

  2. Well said, Jerry.

    A pity that your successor in Jac Nasser, his CEO Andrew Mackenzie and his Coal Division President who is now Minerals Operations President Mike Henry lack your understanding.

    What holds them back: is theirs a lack of basic knowledge, a lack of integrity or a lack of courage?

    See correspondence with coal industry leaders here: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/coaloh.html

    Or do they simply not care about humanity and the environment. Coal saved the whales. Coal saved the forests. Coal gave us cheap, clean energy that raised human productivity, prosperity and wealth that enables us today to care for the environment better than at any time in human history.

    Malcolm Roberts
    Former senator for Queensland
    Lead senate election candidate – Pauline Hanson’s One Nation

  3. The issue with BHP may stem from their dual listing. This puts them at the behest of the EU. Is this a condition of their LSE listing?

    1. You could well be right.

      These days Corporates the size of BHP spend an enormous amount of energy thinking about their social licence to operate. At AGM’s they feel bound to mention the names of individuals killed each year during the operation of their business, spending time showing how much they care, and I am sure it is heartfelt. It also takes up time that activist shareholders could other wise use to grill them in painstaking, mind-numbing pedantry about climate change issues.

      As the scale of their operations is vast and occasionally things like Samarco Dam collapse, they are permanently navigating the emotionally charged public discussion about their activities.

      It is simply easier to adopt a low profile, rather than be at the sharp end of resistance to Climate change hysteria fuelled Marxist agitation.

      The Chairman and the CEO and some of the directors I have met at AGM’s are in the main smart people. However their priority is in looking after their own and shareholder interests, in an imperfect world where they are on the back foot with media, universities, public servants and most governments.
      In expect Many would privately agree with Jerry Ellis, but you are not going to hear them admit it in public.

  4. I did research on the IPCC for many years and published widely. There are 3 groups in the IPCC, and WG 1 (science) is primarily the tool which WG 3, the policy people, needs to justify its ‘global’ policy recommendations. WG 3 is where government officials, NGOs and social scientists propose ‘climate’ policy to save the planet, and keep themselves busy. WG 3 proposes ‘global’ policy and for this WG 1 (and 2 which works out the impacts of nasty global warming on life on Earth, all predictably very nasty) is needed to justify ‘action’ and more research grants. The IPCC is a body used to justify the ‘globalisation’ of almost everything in the name of science and , of course, salvation if…..

    Climate policy so far has been energy policy but is now widening out to cover all policies: from food, and family size, to transport and health. One main aim is to bring the ‘Third World’ up to standards by official intervention and above all ‘aid’, that is by redistributing wealth. Nothing wrong with this…but can these UN bodies be trusted?

    WG 1 scientists (I know many of them, as well as their largely marginalised opponents) are selected by governments and have a strong self-interest in the climate scare as a source of research funding. IPPC science is selected to feed the ‘climate’ agenda (combatting warming by reducing ‘carbon’ (!!!) emissions) de factor has many other objectives. I much research on this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *