Submission on Australia’s post-2020 RET - Peter Kemmis
Introduction:
This brief submission supports neither the RET nor other vain “climate mitigation” strategies, and
summarises the main reasons for this opinion. The three questions posed at the end of the Issues
Paper presume that a post-2020 target is both desirable, and will be established (and of course, it
will be). That doesn’t make the process right.
In brief, responding to those three questions in turn, this paper proposes:
1. The post-2020 targets – nil.
2. Target impacts – deleterious to business and therefore jobs.
3. Further policies – policies to adapt to climate change.
Definitions: You’d think that if the Issues Paper couldn’t get the science right, it could at least get
the language right.


Climate change is a misnomer for anthropogenic global warming (AGW)
Greenhouse gas emissions from human activity include carbon dioxide, which is erroneously
referenced in the Issues Paper as carbon, and carbon leakage.
Evidence of AGW:



“Australia has warmed by 0.90C since 1910”1:
o This period excludes the immediately preceding half century or more with its well
documented records and accounts of very hot and dry weather.
o The statement is simplistic, and fails to acknowledge the noticeable warming from
1910 to about 1940, the cooling from then to about 1970, the warming from 1970 to
about 2000, and the relative plateau in Australian and global temperatures since
then.
o There is no acknowledgement of the Little Ice aAge, the Medieval Warm Period, nor
the Roman Warm Period.
“rise in sea level of about 20 centimetres”2:
o This statement is correct.
o There is no acknowledgement of the effect on oceans levels of a globe warming up
after the Little Ice Age.
o There is no acknowledgement of earlier sea levels in recorded history, let alone over
geological time.
“increased ocean acidification”3:
1
Issue Paper Paragraph 3.
2
ibid
Page 1 of 4
Submission on Australia’s post-2020 RET - Peter Kemmis
o
o
o

There is no evidence of this occurring.
In fact, with warming oceans, outgassing of carbon dioxide increases.
Evidence of shellfish in oceans of past eons, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
were by today’s standards extreme, demonstrate that such lifeforms are quite
capable of surviving in the oceans of those times.
“a shift in rainfall patterns”4:
o Such changes are to be expected, and Australia’s recorded history tells of changes
that have occurred over the last 225 years of white settlement. Of course we should
expect changes – that’s what climate change means.
o Climate is dynamic, and highly complex. It is particularly influenced by the heat from
the sun, which is not ever-constant. There are several major long-term sunspot
cycles, and the Milankovitch cycles, as a couple of major climate drivers. There is
also recent work on the potential effects of cosmic rays on the Earth’s atmospheric
composition.
“Australia is taking strong action on climate change”5


Why? To earn the approval of those nations busily engaged in transforming the world’s
economies? The effects of those transformations on developing nations would be hugely
devastating through limiting their access to cheap energy. For developed nations, such
changes would be highly destructive, and may force many into long-running recession.
Why? To ensure that any increases in future global temperatures are minimised? Here’s the
U.S. EPA assessment of the effect of its new policies:
o As Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute noted in a National Review article, "The
EPA's own model, ironically acronymed MAGICC, estimates that its new policies will
prevent a grand total of 0.018 degrees Celsius in warming by 2100. ... In fact,
dropping the carbon dioxide emissions from all sources of electrical generation to
zero would reduce warming by a grand total of 0.04 degrees Celsius by 2100."6
o So what would be the effects of the most stringent of those RETs proposed for
Australian, say by 2050, let alone 2100? Minimal, I would suggest.
3
ibid
4
ibid
5
(Issues Paper, paragraph 5):
6
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/033115-745967-obama-28-cut-us-emissionsclimate.htm#ixzz3W5Ea7RX3
Page 2 of 4
Submission on Australia’s post-2020 RET - Peter Kemmis
A sensible approach to renewable energy

Renewable energy in various forms does have its place. Wind and solar power has been
used for years, in locations without sufficiently close connection to the electricity grid.
Those decisions preceding subsidy policies, were made on a cost/benefit basis.

Renewable energy policies based on ideological convictions that without their
implementation the earth will warm with seriously damaging consequences, is ridiculous
when the case for AGW theory is so fraught with uncertainty.

Present operators of wind and solar farms insist that without subsidies, their businesses are
not viable. Should technology develop to a point where such farms can stand on their own
feet, and compete with conventional sources of power generation (from fossil fuels and
nuclear energy), then well and good. But at all times, cost-benefit analysis rules.
Direct Action

While having concluded that this policy achieves little more than providing a political
alternative to a carbon dioxide tax and/or regulatory measures (such as South Australia’s
mandating that energy providers source some minimum level of power from renewable
sources), it appears at least to provide some positive environmental benefits.

However, taking some useful action for the wrong reasons, usually results in distorting the
results that would be achieved by doing things for sound reasons. So we may plant lots of
trees on particular rural properties that have not proven to be viable grazing enterprises
today, but have we selected the best places to spend our tax monies, and is this the best
way to spend it if the objective is environmental care, rather than carbon dioxide fixing?
Conclusions:

Reset all Renewable Energy Targets to zero. The impact of misdirected funds has negative
effects on any economy, in jobs and business activity. Less benefit for the environment is
likely to arise, again from the false premises behind decisions.

Withdraw from further involvement with all international bodies engaged in futile climate
related mitigation. Despite some expressed fears, I don’t think our international trade
would be harmed in the slightest, and in fact I think Australia would be at first secretly
admired, and later lauded for its being the first to call out the Emperor’s sartorial
deficiencies.
Page 3 of 4
Submission on Australia’s post-2020 RET - Peter Kemmis

Provide funding to proper research into climate, but not into ridiculous efforts such as the
IPCC’s determination to prove that anthropogenic emissions are the primary cause of global
warming.

Place substantial effort into adaptation to natural climate change.
o
Page 4 of 4
Examples of such adaptation efforts are:

Identification of risks arising from changing climate.

Disaster adaptation and recovery planning and facilities, relevant to location
and risk, for bushfire, flood, drought, cyclone etc.

Constructive measures for environmental protection and restoration.

Development and issue of incentives for agricultural adaptation to changing
climate.

Modification of land use (zoning) on carefully-based scientific analysis.

Community-based education about factors affecting climate (to start to
redress the gross misinformation that has been peddled from schoolyard to
tertiary lecture hall, from sensationalist media to national broadcaster).