,

The UN’s Torres Strait Ruling

AGENDA 2030 IN THE TORRES STRAIT AND PACIFIC

Last week the UN found Australia ‘guilty’ of having violated the human rights of Torres Strait Islanders, due to climate inaction.

The UN’ Human Rights Committee ruled that Australia had failed to take adequate action to cut emissions or adopt adaptation measures to protect the islands.  It also said the country should “compensate the Islanders for harm suffered, … and TAKE MEASURES TO CONTINUE TO SECURE THE COMMUNITIES’ SAFE EXISTENCE”.

The Torres Strait Islanders were represented by the wealthy UK environmental group, ‘ClientEarth’, funded by wealthy billionaire Winsome McIntosh, of the A&T supermarket chain.

The Torres Strait Islanders’ case was the first climate change litigation brought by inhabitants of low-lying islands against a nation state.

As ClientEarth lawyer, Sophie Marjanac, commented:

“This case opens the door for further legal actions and compensation claims by other climate affected people, and will give hope to those fighting for loss and damage at this year’s international climate talks in Egypt”.

However, those “climate affected people” should think twice about taking advantage of the ‘landmark’ ruling.

It is little more than a ‘stalking horse’ for rich nations to use a ‘human rights argument’ justifying the declaration of a state of emergency over small islands and the forced relocation of their populations.

The 3rd National Climate Assessment states: “As sea level raises faster and coastal storms, erosion, and inundation cause more frequent or widespread threats, relocation (also called managed retreat or realignment), … will become a more pressing option”.

A 2021 paper by “Young Australians in International Affairs” is just one of many published the last few years calling for first world states to pro-actively assist in moving the Islands’ “affected populations”.

The UN’s Torres Strait ruling provides the perfect legal basis for them to do so.

After all, it instructs Australia to “take measures to continue to secure the communities’ safe existence”.

It will start gradually with the relocation of people from small, low lying coral atolls, most subject to sand erosion and king tides, but it won’t end there.

Eventually, ALL small and remote islands will be designated “at risk” from climate change.

That’s why Islanders everywhere, need to be very, very careful how they respond when these slick-talking, wealthy European NGOs come knocking at their door.

They might say they want to help but believe me, their idea of “helping” masks a different agenda altogether.

One that ends with the loss of the Islanders’ homeland, way of life, culture and heritage.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Net Zero Transformation

THE COST OF AUSTRALIA’S NET ZERO ‘TRANSFORMATION’

On 25 August 2022, Net Zero Australia (NZA) released an interim report detailing various scenarios for Australia successfully reaching Net Zero by 2050.

The group, including University of Queensland, University of Melbourne, Princeton University and Nous Group, estimate that Australian governments will need to spend between $100 and $150 billion a year in order to phase out fossil fuel generators in favour of renewable energy.

In terms of providing a comprehensive ‘cost-benefit analysis’, however, the NZA report fails to properly assess the true impact involved in in terms of costs, lifestyle and land use.

Instead, the report relies heavily on the use of ‘models’ and a set of extremely ‘iffy’ assumptions that fail to stand up to scrutiny.

The Chair of the Net Zero Steering Committee, Robin Batterham, said:

“Our findings show there are no two ways about it – to meet net zero by 2050, AUSTRALIA MUST TRANSFORM.”

He got that part right.

Net Zero will mean a complete transformation of Australia.

We are looking at 30 years of intense social and economic disruption, greatly diminished living standards and the imposition of a command economy.

In terms of electricity capacity alone, Australia’s grid will need to be almost three times bigger by 2050.

Most homes and buildings will need to be rewired, as will the mains fuse, street distribution and local substations.

The cost of electricity will skyrocket in order to repay these major capital costs over the lifetime of the assets.

More importantly, it is all going to take an extraordinary amount of land.

And I am not talking about land in the remote outback either.

These industrial scale renewables structures will have to be sited on land close to the cities and towns they are intended to power.

The public simply has no idea how much land use this will involve.

Solar and wind farms alone will eliminate farmland, vegetation, forests and disrupt natural habitats.

Once you add biofuel to the mix, then there’s pretty much ALL your good land gone.

This is only a tiny fraction of what ‘Net Zero’ will involve.

Australian governments and policymakers need to start being honest with the public about the true cost of this transformation, and the extent to which it will radically alter their individual lives, lifestyles, mobility, finances, property rights and jobs.

Net Zero is an idea that you could only believe possible if you have no idea how the energy economy works or how energy is produced.

/0 Comments/by