Submission by P. S. Clark 24 April 2015
AUSTRALIA’S POST-2020 TARGET OR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Submission on Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target, and in particular on the
following issues:
• What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed? In responding to this
question you could consider the base year (e.g. 1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the
type of target and why the suggested target is preferred.
• What would the impact of that target be on Australia? In responding to this question you could, for
example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs, business and on the environment.
• Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct action approach
should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target and why?
SUBMITTOR BACKGROUND
The author of this submission is a professionally qualified and experienced science and economics
graduate presently involved in climate science research studies. He has 40 years experience assessing
the quality of justification documentation associated with a range of proposed Australian and
overseas legislation. He lectured and taught professional ethics to postgraduate students for ten years.
He has not and does not expect to receive any funding or support from any fossil fuel or other source
posing any actual or potential conflict of interest.
This submission is not confidential.
AUSTRALIA’S POST-2020 TARGET
The simple answer to the first dot point is – Do nothing. More specifically, dismantle all legislation
justified by claims of adverse future climate impacts associated with “greenhouse gases,” “carbon
pollution” or the like.
Two key facts underlie this submission. The first is that the “climate change” industry is the most
successful pyramid marketing campaign in human history, involving a wide range of vested interests
from governments, political parties, media, financial and business enterprises, religious and
environmental groups to individuals.
The second fact is that the “climate change” industry is based on the greatest fraud in human history,
the assumption that “greenhouse gases”, most notably carbon dioxide, have and will continue to
cause dangerous warming of the earth’s atmosphere with a range of other hypothesised adverse
impacts. That “cause-effect” assumption and the consequent political demonisation of so-called
“carbon pollution” follows the dogmatic UNFCCC definition of “climate change” as “a change of
climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the
global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable
time periods.”
There is no credible scientific evidence supporting the “carbon pollution” hypothesis of atmospheric
composition variations associated with human activities causing past, present or future catastrophic
global temperature or other adverse climatic impacts. The hypothesis was developed from pseudoscientific “indirect attribution” anecdotes, assumptions and opinions and relies on negative medieval
fear-based advocacy rather than modern science, rules of evidence and professional ethical standards.
Reliance on IPCC documentation which adopts the UNFCCC human-causation dogma provides no
supporting evidence. As carbon and carbon dioxide are the basic building blocks of all life on Earth,
advocacy of “carbon pollution” as dangerous to human existence is ignorant propaganda rather than
a credible source for development of major public policies and resource allocations.
“Climate change” publications from government departments and agencies such as CSIRO and the
Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) hiding behind “appeals to authority” and “do not rely on anything in
this publication” disclaimers can at best be described as advocacy propaganda rather than credible
science-based public information. Publicly-funded agencies and consultants publishing information
claimed to be authoritative should be accountable for the quality of their advice to the standard
required for companies and individuals, particularly when they know or ought to know that the
content has been developed from unproven dogma and assumptions rather than the full range of
available falsifiable science.
The quality of “climate change” advice provided to the Government and public is also fatally flawed
when it is unethically provided by organisations or individuals consulting outside the scope of their
professional qualifications and competence and relying on third party information. Ethical practice
further requires identification and explanation of all areas of potential and actual uncertainty and
conflict of interest issues as well as fully reporting on all potential positive and negative
consequences of their advice. CSIRO, BoM and AAS unethically adopt the dogmatic IPCC
presumption of no or insignificant beneficial effects from the increased atmospheric “greenhouse
gas” concentrations and temperature increases that they confidently predict will be caused by
“business as usual” human activities, most notably fossil fuel-fired electric power generation. That
widespread availability of cheap, fossil-fuel sourced electricity underlies the favourable standard of
living in Australia and all other First World nations is recognised by all Third World nations as their
primary aspiration.
Australian “climate change” reports and publications fail these basic ethical requirements. The
former Climate Commission was a well-funded sales force selling the pyramid “climate change”
campaign marketed as reliable and authoritative public information. Activists within the Australian
Academy of Science (AAS) have recently joined the marketing campaign, unfortunately without
apparent recognition of their ethical responsibilities. Inclusion of pseudo-scientific jargon such as
“ocean acidification” and “consensus” in the AAS publication reveals their activist advocacy
intention instead of the expected ethical dispassionate scientific “expert witness” role.
IMPACTS ON OUR ECONOMY, JOBS, BUSINESS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The second dot point question addresses potential impacts on Australia of the actions proposed by
this submission.
The “do nothing” proposal would eliminate the major adverse economic impacts on the Australian
economy posed by multiple items of “climate change” legislation including the renewable energy
target package. While the “do nothing” proposal of this submission applies to the post-2020 period,
the present adverse budget situation should prompt a prudent Government to reconsider its 20152020 period “climate change”-related expenditures.
While it is obvious that the proposed actions would have significant impacts on a number of
businesses, government departments and agencies together with their employees and downstream
groups such as academia, it is submitted that the existing legislative packages pose significantly
greater adverse short and long term economic and social impacts for the whole Australian economy,
workforce and taxpayers, are based on unsustainable and fraudulent assumptions and would not
provide any measurable environmental benefits.
POLICIES TO SUPPORT THE DIRECT ACTION APPROACH
The third dot point requests submissions on policies to support the Direct Action approach. While it
is too early to allow responsible evaluation of the Direct Action Plan impacts, as it was justified on
similar grounds to other “climate change” legislative measures, it is submitted that it should also be
discontinued and replaced by legislation encouraging significant “energy intensity” improvements as
is the policy in China. While energy is not a major factor input for the majority of Australian
industry, it is a significant potential cost saving area especially for metal exporting industries such as
aluminium, copper and zinc.
As the supposed beneficial environmental impacts of the majority of existing “climate change”
legislation is illusory, there is no benefit to be gained by their continuance post-2020 or earlier.
Refocus on policies enhancing Australian employment is a more relevant consideration from now
through the post-2020 period.