Ten Reasons for Australia to Exit Paris Now

by Viv Forbes

It is urgent that all Australian politicians understand the dangers in the Paris Climate Agreement. Here are TEN REASONS to EXIT PARIS NOW:

  1. The science is NOT settled – hundreds of scientists in Australia and thousands more throughout the world reject the theory that human production of carbon dioxide is driving dangerous global warming. And the 102 computerised climate models have always predicted more warming than has occurred. (They got it right once, 39 years ago.)
  2. models
    Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/28/173948/



  3. There is no unusual global warming. Since the last ice age ended there have been warm eras hotter than today’s modern warming – the warm peaks are getting lower, not higher. Climate has always changed in response to forces far greater than human activities. The endless procession of man-made scare campaigns about cooling, warming, ice melting, sea levels, ocean acidity, cyclones and droughts have all proved false.
  4. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant – it is an invisible natural gas that supplies the whole food chain. More carbon dioxide is beneficial to the biosphere – forests, grasses and crops grow better thus benefitting all animal life that relies on plants.
  5. The populous world nations are unlikely to curb their CO2 emissions – China, India, Russia, Brazil, USA, Japan, SE Asia, Indonesia, Africa and the Arab world will ignore Paris limits.
  6. Despite 20 years of favourable promotion, subsidies, taxes, targets and propaganda the contribution of the intermittent energy producers (wind and solar) to world energy supplies is trivial – about 3% (see if you can find “solar” in the graph below.)
  7. energy consumption
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/12/highlights-from-the-2018-bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy/


  8. Australian energy policies, taxes and targets are making electricity more costly and less reliable, hurting consumers and driving industry off-shore. And once they have ruined electricity and coal their next targets will be agriculture and motorists.


  9. With no nuclear power, no geothermal power, limited hydro potential and increasing barriers to gas exploration, Australia has few options except coal for cheap reliable grid power, and oil products for transport.
  10. With a huge continent, a small population and heavy reliance on exports, each Australian will be heavily penalised by the Paris Agreement for the emissions associated with exports consumed by others.
  11. Compliance with the Paris Agreement will destroy industries and jobs, encourage bureaucracy and transfer controls and money to affiliates of the United Nations.
  12. Should the world experience even modest cooling in the decades ahead Australia will urgently need increased supply of reliable power for homes and industry and the global atmosphere will need more carbon dioxide plant food.

PDF version: http://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ten-reasons.pdf [PDF: 530 KB]

7 thoughts on “Ten Reasons for Australia to Exit Paris Now”

  1. I agree with all your concerns about global warming. Let’s hope some sense comes to our political parties and they start questioning the flaws in the science and modeling before its too late.

    How can we stop the propaganda machine? We need real debate on the subject so the man in the street can realize what is happening?

  2. An election is looming!

    Send the flier to prominent Members of Parliament – via Registered Post – so they cannot deny having the information when the truth hits the fan.

    Send submissions by witnessed letter to the legal sections of the departments in charge of science, agriculture, economy, finance, education and to the attorney-General.

    Send the fliers to the various State law societies’ journals.

    Ask presenters of radio talkback programs “How can we recover the money we taxpayers spent on preventing global warming if we discover that the Sun causes it and the world is now cooling? “

  3. I believe this is a great article by Viv but I would like to comment on the statement ” Australia has limited hydro potential,” because I believe it is far from reality.
    This is just part of a presentation I gave in State Parliament about 7 years ago in relation to our (NSW) water and power potential.
    Just some of the major rivers flowing wastefully into the sea from NSW have average yearly discharges of:
    Richmond River 3,340,000 MLs
    Clarence River 5,120,000 MLs.
    Manning River 2,400,000 MLs.
    Hunter River 1,900.000 MLs.
    Hastings River 1,850,000 MLs.
    Shoalhaven River 1,560,000 MLs.
    Bellinger River 1,450,000 MLs.
    Karuah River 1,200,000 MLs.
    Just these Rivers have sufficient volume and head to produce 20 times the output of Tumut 3 the biggest hydro station in the Snowy.
    To put that another way without any fancy schemes we could produce double the present total NSW power production.
    The Australian Water Exploration Company (a not for profit company) have put to Government an upper Clarence diversion which would itself produce about double the present Snowy hydro production capacity.

    1. Well said Ron Pike!! my only comment would be that if this were to reach our oh so left winged (whinged?) media your figures should be in trillions of liters, equated to Olympic sized swimming pools, or just plain old Sydney Harbors (which I wonder at times whether anyone has ever come up with its accurate volume!!) so that the ‘latte supping, SMH reader Sydney siders’ could accurately visualize what you refer to.

      1. Quite so, John Mohr-Bell.

        We all need methods to visualise large quantities.

        About ten years ago I invented the $HB, a currency unit equivalent to one Sydney Harbour Bridge. It is based on a documentary named ‘Reconstructing Australia:’The Sydney Harbour Bridge’ (2007) that noted that in modern terms the Sydney Harbour Bridge would cost $500,000,000. Therefore a billion dollars is equivalent to two Sydney Harbour Bridges.

        It is impossible to visualise a billion dollars but most of us could easily visualise two Sydney Harbour Bridges. For example,a national debt of $500,000,000,ooo is equivalent to a thousand Sydney Harbour Bridges, or $HB1,000. Whenever a politician mentions a billion dollars, think of two Sydney Harbour Bridges

  4. Spending squillions because of all those voters supping their lattes and reading the SMH!!
    Solution:- Move them away from their comfort zones, along the eastern seaboard, giving them no option other than to relocate west of the Great Divide!!
    In response to #7, we have options in hydro electrics, which could also solve some of the dry interior problems, by sending eastbound water west.
    Jobs and infrastructure would be a lot better than social security for those too lazy to look for work away from the surf.
    Our intrepid leaders should have done more along these lines instead of giving everyone $ 8-900 to stimulate the economy, and the squillions spent on water buy backs for the environment.
    Incidentally, all those buy backs have not put one extra drop in the Murray Darling when there is just no rain in the catchments. AND, don’t blame the irrigators, as they have had no water either!!
    Those squillions if spent on dams, hydro power, would have ensured the rains fallen yesteryear were still dribbling water into the system now, added to what falls on the eastern divide now.
    Just scratching me armpits!!
    PS Had sent this in an email to The Club, and received an invitation, which I am in the process of accepting, to join The Saltbush Club. Since then I note Ron Pike’s reply above, and could not agree more.

  5. WHAT IS THE PARIS AGREEMENT?
    Australia was one of 195 countries to sign at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 12 December 2015. It deals with greenhouse-gas-emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance, beginning in 2020, with the aim of “enhancing the implementation” of the UNFCCC through:

    (i) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

    BUT the “pre-industrial” starting date is undefined: some pick 1720-1800 (during the Little Ice Age) while others pick 1850, when quasi-global records started, or 1880 when they became reasonably accurate, so there is no definite starting date or agreed yardstick (surface, radiosonde or satellite records) and thus no way of knowing when the 1.5⁰C or 2⁰C is reached.

    (ii) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production. BUT producing enough food for a rapidly increasing global population is very dependent on increasing CO2 fertilisation and fossil-fuel powered agriculture, transport, storage etc.

    (iii) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development, implemented by 2020. “Making finance flows” means “wealthy countries” giving $100 billion a year to the UNFCCC to distribute to “developing countries”, a recipe for corruption and conflict.

    The Paris Agreement is based on promises by UNFCCC members to make intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) to global emissions reductions, and review/enhance them every 5 years. Individual INDCs are neither binding nor enforceable, with no penalties or consequences for failure, only “naming and shaming”.

Leave a Reply to Ron Pike Cancel reply

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