16 July 2025

Barnaby Joyce to introduce his own bill to repeal net zero target

| By Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
140
Barnaby Joyce

Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce says there is a “lunatic crusade” over net zero. Photo: The Nationals.

Barnaby Joyce is going to put an end to all this “net zero nonsense” the first chance he gets and that opportunity will be when Federal Parliament returns next week.

The National Party MP and former deputy prime minister has vowed to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to sort out what he is calling Labor’s “lunatic crusade”.

His bill will seek to repeal Australia’s whole net zero target because, he says, it’s been toyed with for far too long and there is far too much at stake.

In social media posts and television interviews over the past few days, Mr Joyce has used a range of expressive terms to describe the net zero target.

His labels have ranged from “crazy” to a “disgrace” to “treacherous” when talking about the Federal Government’s legislated aim to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The United Nations reports that as of June 2024, 107 countries responsible for approximately 82 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions had adopted net zero pledges.

READ ALSO Former Labor MP to head up Climate Change Department

These commitments were made either in law, in policy documents such as national climate action plans or long-term strategies, or in an announcement by a high-level government official.

“More than 9000 companies worldwide and over 1000 cities, more than 1000 educational institutions, and over 600 financial institutions have joined the Race to Zero, pledging to take rigorous, immediate action to halve global emissions by 2030,” the UN states.

In Australia, laws have been passed to firm the commitment and to promote economic transformation as the nation transitions to a net zero emissions economy.

That shift involves expanding Australia’s energy system and transitioning from coal and gas-fired power to renewable sources such as wind and solar.

But that’s where Mr Joyce comes in. He’s had enough.

“There is no more time to assess, to ponder, to nuance or to amend,” he wrote on Facebook.

“Net zero must be repealed and as such, I will, at my first opportunity, bring forward a bill to do that.

“The idea that, at this stage, we have put the focus of our nation on a lunatic crusade of net zero is treacherous to the very security of Australia.”

In a subsequent media interview, Mr Joyce said the pursuit of net zero emissions risks Australia’s energy security while adding to cost-of-living pressures.

While Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has so far not revealed her position on net zero, there are plenty inside the Liberals and especially the Nationals who are urging Mr Joyce to force a show of hands.

READ ALSO Tourism, trade and questions over Taiwan mark PM’s first days in China

Since the election routing, the Opposition has only 43 of the 150 Lower House seats.

The Coalition has embarked on a review of its policy positions and climate change and energy are among its most contentious.

“I’ve been fighting for this for so long, but I think it’s got to a point we’ve actually got to say ‘okay, let’s see where we vote’,” Mr Joyce told Sky News.

“Or more to the point, if you don’t even want to vote.

“You’re so courageous about the climate, but you won’t even have the debate in the parliament…

“I’m hoping that the people who are so courageous, so emboldened with their virtue about changing the temperature of the globe… if they have that conviction that goes all the way to their desire for the Parliament of Australia to have the debate about net zero.”

But with the Federal Government steadfastly committed to the net zero goal – and with Labor holding a massive majority on the floor of the House of Representatives – what are the chances of Mr Joyce’s bill even being read and considered for debate?

And especially in the first fortnight of the new parliament?

“Look, I’m a realist,” he said.

“I don’t think it gets support, but I think it’s important for the Australian people to understand exactly what is before you.”

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

140
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Balmy Barnaby and Michael McCormack are running around like Henny Penny, sewing hysteria in the bush for the fossil fuel industry’s and their own interests. Disgraceful, but totally expected.

HiddenDragon10:22 pm 21 Jul 25

“…..I think it’s important for the Australian people to understand exactly what is before you.”

A doomed to fail parliamentary stunt won’t do that, but being bitten on the backside by reality will – starting with the debt-funded energy bill subsidies coming to an end.

Have another beer, affair, brain explosion. Pathetic leech!

Being a Nat, Barnaby represents country folk. Their interests aren’t entirely aligned with us, their city cousins.
In the bush, it’s 4WD Hiluxes, large trucks, tractors, and heavy machinery – all diesel powered. There simply are no other options.

All of that said, I see little point in fighting a battle you can’t even score points in. The best he achieves is to see where other Nats & Libs stand.
The ALP members don’t get a Conscience vote. They vote according to caucus.

Barnaby doesn’t give a rats about country folks, he has a constituency of one.

It is a curious position to claim to defend our energy and national security while simultaneously demanding continued dependence upon imported fuels, especially when our nation possesses barely a month’s worth of fuel reserves.

It will be fascinating to observe Barnaby’s swift about turn should that supply ever be disrupted, leaving his farming communities stranded. Even a short-term, significant fuel price shock could cripple our economy. Does Barnaby honestly believe that a 1,500 km truck haul from farm to consumer is fueled by “values”? How will he explain the benefits of imported fuel when supermarket shelves are empty and people are going hungry? This vulnerability has already manifested—recall the AdBlue crisis, which was but a taste of what could unfold.

It beggars belief that anyone can seriously claim “security” while furiously defending energy sources that inherently rely on a consistently secure supply of fuel for transport and generation. Coal mines have been flooded before, generators failing or even exploding, sending price shocks through our energy system.

Meanwhile, my car has charged from my roof this week, exhibiting a 0% price correlation with overseas conflicts and China’s relentless attempts to seize control of our primary oil shipping route through the South China Sea. Really hard to pick a side here….

Then again, this argument emanates from an individual who campaigned against cervical vaccines on the grounds of “promoting promiscuity,” while himself engaging in promiscuous behavior. The double standards and logical contortions run strong in this one.

Was your solar system free ?

Capital Retro1:57 pm 16 Jul 25

And was his roof Made in China?
I don’t now about any solar system Penfold as he said his car was charged by his roof.

Must be a smart roof CR. Though perhaps not an ethical roof, with all those rare earth minerals dug up by slave labour.

Penfold once again demonstrating that he cannot make a cogent, rational, evidence backed argument on climate & Energy, and Capital demonstrates that all he can contribute in echoing Penfold’s trolling drivel is some how even less.

Best ignored.

It was a simple question really, was the solar system free. After all, the sun doesn’t send a bill.

Out of interest is the cubby house solar powered or wind powered ?

Capital Retro3:21 pm 16 Jul 25

At your peril, Sean Zero.

Is coal energy infrastructure free? Is gas energy infrastructure free? Is nuclear energy infrastructure free? No it’s not and per kw/h it’s a lot more expensive that renewables with firming technology. It was a dumb, irrelevant question Penfold.

Whatever you say, Capital Zero.

And speaking of clowns I see the usual culture wars clowns telling the proven lie that power prices surge on the back of renewables when the truth is the exact opposite.

The massive influx of renewables in recent years has been the only thing keeping a lid on power prices…”Booming renewable energy generation halves wholesale power prices across national grid”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-25/wholesale-power-prices-pushed-down/103386062

So Barnaby is still a clown.

Global opposition to the net zero madness is gaining steam. The USA has withdrawn from Paris, Europeans realise it’s unachievable, even Tony Blair has called it madness.

Yet Australia still dreams while power prices surge on the back of more renewables. Energy poverty grows and industry declines. Barnaby is 💯 % correct, stop the madness.

“Global opposition to the net zero madness is gaining steam.”….no it’s not.

Barnaby would be aghast to know you think he’s 100% correct, considering your previous difficulties with percentages.

Percentages are fun chewy. Here’s one – 0% of your posts add any positive value to any discussion.

0 ÷ n = 0 🤗

Hey Penfold – try this experiment at home – go to Google or your preferred AI and ask “how has the length of Canberra’s winters changed in the last 50 years?”.. I look forward to your response.

Demosthenes – yes I took your advice and googled it. The response was sponsored by the greens “think tank”, the Australia Institute. Is that what you meant by “AI” ?

Here’s some more current news:

https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/canberra-endures-coldest-run-of-nights-in-60-years/1890679

Straight from the fossil fuel lobby, through Penfold’s “mind” unfiltered. Laughable.

Pengold,
Considering your permanent allergy to facts and evidence, your posts on this thread are highly amusing and ironic.

Glad to be of service chewy.

Hey did you know that there are a few countries who have achieved net zero ? Bhutan, Comoros, Guyana and Suriname are amongst them.

Do you know how ? Well they’re some of the best developed countries on earth with the lowest standards of living. But hey at least they can feel good.

As Penfold correctly references in that document, in the world away from his cubby house human-forced climate change is real, and the push for renewable energy should continue. As former PM Blair says there, the world needs policy solutions to help developing countries transition because their emissions are still rising and likely to continue without more serious action. As Blair says, “this is one of the fundamental challenges of our time.”

Damascene, Penfold.

That Blair proposes some largely uneconomic interim or transitional solutions does not alter the problem he defines, one which Penfold accepts as “what’s happening in the world”

Axon do you mean those uneconomic solutions which helped the world lift billions of people into higher standards of living ?

And why is Blair pro- action on climate change but very, very slowly? It’s always about the money.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/30/blairs-net-zero-intervention-invites-scrutiny-of-his-institute-donors

“Glad to be of service chewy”

Pengold’s posts:

-Links an article outlining how important dealing with climate change is, not even realising its the opposite of the point he was trying to make.

-Links to a weather channel.

-Makes meaningless, simplistic and irrelevant comparisons as if they provide some great insight to the issue under discussion.

Pengold doesnt just add 0% positive value to any thread, his posts actually significantly in the negative.

Well chewy it’s great you’ve noted the freezing climate report from Weatherzone. A week of cold – is that weather or climate ? It’s so hard to tell these days.

You probably haven’t read the article. It’s about net zero. Any thoughts on why countries are ditching it ?

“A week of cold – is that weather or climate ? It’s so hard to tell these days.”

I dont think anyone’s surprised by your current confusion, although I cant comment on you suggesting that at one stage in the past basic comprehension was easier for you.

Although glad you think climate change is such a real and important issue to deal with, that you linked an article outlining potential policy options to deal with it.

Well done.

So chewy you still haven’t read the article and are unable to comment on net zero ?

Goodness me, do you have anything on topic to add ?

Penfold once again pretending that climate change which described by trends over time is the same as weather which is a point in time because he can’t win any argument on it’s merits.

Pathetic as always.

seano the post was pretty clear in a binary sense which sits nicely with your black and white view of the world – is a 7 day freezing trend climate or weather ?

If it’s weather, how many days does it take for it to become climate ? Come on, have a crack at an answer 🙂

Pengold,
You mean you haven’t actually read the article you linked that outlines how climate change is a major issue and then outlines policy options to deal with it?

Why am I not surprised in the slightest.

“If it’s weather, how many days does it take for it to become climate ? Come on, have a crack at an answer 🙂”

You’ve got to laugh when Pengold just keeps providing more evidence of his own ignorance in attempting what he thinks is some brilliant debating move

Capital Retro8:32 pm 16 Jul 25

It’s certainly about money if The Guardian is involved Sean Zero because they are nearly broke.

You’re free to look at the data any time you like Penfold and produce the evidence that the climate is not changing. I’m sure every major scientific body in the world will be quite interested in you proving them wrong.

Good luck with that.

seano you make me laugh again. I’ve always accepted the climate is changing, it has over billions of years.

But the reaction to it has been absurd, propagated by climate zealots and economic ignoramuses. Do you know any ? 😶‍🌫️

“But the reaction to it has been absurd, propagated by climate zealots and economic ignoramuses. Do you know any ?”

Yes, one posts here regularly under the name “Penfold”. 😂

I know you can’t back your you puerile claim that climate change is “a hoax” with evidence and data. So you lose the debate…again.

“It’s certainly about money if The Guardian is involved Sean Zero because they are nearly broke.”

Please point to where the reporting is wrong. You can’t and hence this puerile comment. Capital Zero indeed.

Another gold star 🌟 for the cubby house wall !

So no proof the “climate change is a hoax” Penfold…lol

Once again, I don’t need a wall to mark my wins champ, this forum is public.

The hilarious part is you count “wins” in an opinion forum.

The hilarious part is you can’t prove the puerile claim that “climate change is a hoax” because the evidence is not there and all you have is culture wars and sad attention seeking.

Who said climate change is a hoax ?

The irrational scaremongering that comes with it is certainly hoax. As is the stupidity that if you don’t accept the whole climate ideology then you’re a “denier”. But then you’d need some critical thinking ability to tell the difference.

You did, it’s a direct quote. How sad that you’ll post that nonsense than then pretend you haven’t.

I’ve ignored the rest, clearly it’s attention seeking and nothing more.

Feel free to provide a link, which we both know you won’t.

“Well David the N probably won’t abstain, as they’ve worked the entire climate hoax out.”

Penfold, being a climate change denier explains so much. I’m entirely uninterested in the tediously lame justifications and conspiratorial excuses. Best ignored.

Wow seano – you made the statement i’d claimed “climate change is a hoax”. Your quote above says nothing of the sort. There’s little point trying to explain the difference.

Have you made it to English lessons at skhool yet ?

It says exactly that, the “climate hoax” proves you’re a climate change denier. An argument, like every argument that you lose on the facts and therefore like other promoters of this puerile, conspiratorial nonsense can be dismissed.

Well seano if you think the words “climate hoax” and “climate change is a hoax” mean the same thing, I’m wondering if you’ll be able to tell the difference when you make it to English lessons in Year 4

This “direct quote” seano, can you provide it ? 🤣

It’s a direct quote. Proof you’re a climate change denier. What you’re doing now is proof you know that position is at best embarrassing at worst indefensible.

A mythical “direct quote” which you can’t produce. Well seano rack that up as another of your famous “wins” 🤣

As for climate change denial as I’ve said I’m not, but definitely deny the need for all the stupidity around it. The only deniers these days are the climate evangelists who deny the benefits of nuclear technology. You’re one of them from memory 🫣

It’s a direct quote, this is a public forum. I’m not surprised you’re embarrassed, climate change denial is an indefensible position.

Well seano if you can’t provide evidence of this mythical quote one must assume you’re lying. Deny that 🤣

Penfold: ““Well David the N probably won’t abstain, as they’ve worked the entire climate hoax out.””

‘…one must assume you’re lyin…”
Facts don’t lie, but apparently Penfold does.

Thank you seano for confirming that i didn’t make the comment you have multiple times said i did. Why you would say something so baseless is bewildering. What a porky.

Sorry to say, your credibility has been shredded.

Direct quote from a climate change denier. Words have meaning Penfold.

Your comments on climate & energy can be dismissed and as the the position of climate change denial is one of either conspiracy or culture wars posturing your comments on every topic lack credibility accordingly.

Penfold, you mean stone adzes, lead water pipes, and charcoal burning?

Do catch up.

@Penfold
” I’ve always accepted the climate is changing, it has over billions of years.”
That’s a position on which everybody agrees, Penfold.

What makes you a climate change denier, is your refusal to acknolwedge the man-made causes of climate change, as per the definition of ‘climate change denialism’ from many reputable sources (Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam Webster Dictionary, Macquarie Definition, et al).

Your puerile use of ‘cold spells’ in weather, as proof that there is no such thing as ‘global warming’ (which, I and many others have pointed out to you on many occasions, relates to an increase in the average global temperatures), is testimony to your futile attempt to cling to your culture war mentality as if it’s has some basis in science – when the science clearly demonstrates the impact of anthropogenic (yeah – there’s that big word again) climate change.

You can play word games as much as you like, but the reality is you are just another denialist, who has no facts to support your position.

JS – hi there, haven’t seen you for a while. Nope, i’ve also stated that there’s pretty simple scientific facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has warming properties and that burning coal and gas emits CO2.

But if you want to call me a denier that’s fine. It’s the way your type view the climate debate – it’s black or white and nothing in between. Swallow the whole renewables are the only solution line and nothing else matters. Even clean nuclear can’t be discussed.

If you look around the world the whole hoax is crumbling. Germany has the highest power prices in Europe. A recent letter to the government stated:

“Just last year, at least 100,000 industrial jobs were eliminated altogether. The political promises of the previous federal government for a ‘green economic miracle’ have amounted to smoke and mirrors. In reality, never before have so many well-paid jobs been under threat as they are today.”

It goes on:

“For 35 years, (solar) and wind power have been legally privileged and subsidised, but to this day they contribute no more to supply security than they did three decades ago. Instead, they generate hundreds of billions in grid costs.”

So every time you use the term denier it’s becomes even clearer who’s in denial. It’s people like you who just can’t take the blinkers off. I wonder what’s going to happen when reality makes the blinkers fall off.

Seriously he’s cutting and pasting this Chris Uhlmann garbage (who has never let having it constantly demonstrated to him by experts that he’s clueless on climate & energy stop him posting right wing anti-renewables fanfic drivel), straight from the Australian via Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting. And doesn’t even have the courage to either reference it or link it.
https://www.hancockenergy.com.au/once-upon-a-time-in-the-green-energy-transition/

And of course no attempt to parse any of it by Penfold because there’s no interest in applying critical thinking.

Climate denial and the usual sad, failed attacks on clean energy straight from the fossil fuel lobby completely unfiltered.

PS. Uhlmann was the bloke who blamed renewables for blackouts when a storm knocked down transmission towers. A complete clown.

@Penfold
My apologies … it would appear you are not a denier, but rather a simple hypocrite.

For having understood and accepted the impact of anthropogenic climate change, you decry the solutions to addressing it.

Thanks for clarifying that.

As for nuclear – it’s about the timeframe and the cost, which has been discussed exhaustively by many, in here. So, like Dutton, it’s yesterday’s news in Australia.

JS – it’s hard to keep up, now i’m not a denier ? Goodness me you people are hard to understand.

As for solutions, yes nuclear – as used by over 30 countries around the world in spite of your professional analysis – is certainly an option. Denied by blinkered experts though.

Sigh Penfold the economics of nuclear in countries that had massive govt investment in nuclear up to 50 years ago are NOT the same as nuclear in Australia where there has been no investment in nuclear. Unless you have a time machine which I’m betting you don’t you can stop comparing apples to oranges, it’s dumb.

And the energy generators and retailers are not “blinkered experts” no matter how many times you stamp your feet an make this childish claim, they are for profit energy companies with shareholders that knocked back nuclear energy as too expensive, too slow and too risky. They knocked back Dutton’s dud plan which relied on massive and very unlikely assumptions (such as Australia building reactors faster than any Western country in history despite having no nuclear industry) as bad for their bottom lines. That’s just how economics works.

Let it go champ you lost.

PS. “climate hoax” are the words of a denier. That’s just how English works.

@Penfold
Again with the puerile word games, when you have nothing cogent to offer to “us people”, Penfold.

I assumed, because you derided my (correct) use of the term anthropogenic climate change, that you were denying the impact of human caused climate change. My bad … as stated – despite understanding those impacts you decry the practical and economical solutions for addressing that impact. So, I’m happy to accept your protestations that you are not a climate change denier (as per the accepted definition), which, as stated, simply makes you a hypocrite.

Yes, nuclear is an option for addressing some of the impacts of climate change for those countries which have it, even though it only accounts for approximately 10% of global energy. Renewable sources, on the other hand, account for approximately 30% of global energy and that’s growing. Nevertheless, as previously covered, ad nauseum on here, the economics and lead times (both comparative and actual) just don’t stack up for Australia. No blinkers there – rather complete clarity of vision.

JS – your constant use of the term “puerile” made me go and look it up. And shock horror it means childish and immature, something both yourself and seano seem fixated on.

Anyway, we can agree that the global renewables share of energy is growing. But sorry to burst your bubble, it’s only 3% of energy supply (2022), perhaps a wee bit more now. How’s that for complete clarity of vision. One might even suggest that the real hoax is your claim it’s 30%. 🤣

https://www.iea.org/world/energy-mix

IDK know where you get 3% from Penfold…but it’s proof you once again haven’t read the link or can’t read a chart.

With the vacuity of your comments it’s little wonder you need to pepper them with the puerile use of emojis.

https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/world-passes-30-renewable-electricity-mileston

seano thanks for the broken link with the 404 error, it reflected your argument well.

As for where I got the 3%, well if you’d bothered to read the link you’d notice it is from the International Energy Agency. The 3% is total solar and wind production.

You must be hard of reading Penfold, clearly “mileston” was missing the “e” (a typo on my part that most reasonable adults would have worked out) and your link does not say what you claim it says. Have you even looked? I doubt it.

Under “Largest sources of electricity generation in World, 2022”

Solar is listed as 4.4%, Wind 7.2%, Biofuels 2.2% and Hydro 15.3%…if you believe that any combination of that adds up to “3%” you’re failing Maths as well as English today.

Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?

https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/world-passes-30-renewable-electricity-milestone

seano, you are the full comedian today. Clearly you don’t know the difference between global energy and global electricity.

Here’s a hint: planes, trains, automobiles amongst other things. 🤣

Clearly you’re being deliberately disingenuous because you literally say “The 3% is total solar and wind production”. At this point your commentary is beyond pathetic.

This sounds like a blinkers moment. Yes that’s right, only 3% of global energy production is solar and wind. 81% remains fossil fuels.

But how funny you’re clueless on the difference between energy and electricity. Says it all really. 😂

JS clearly and specifically referenced renewable energy, which globally is at 30%. This is a fact.

In trying to make the debate about something you’re not only being deliberately disingenuous as you always are when you’ve lost the argument, the link you put up does NOT reference “global energy production” at all. You either haven’t looked at it or can’t read a table.

“clueless on the difference between energy and electricity”, lol you really posted that….um…Penfold electricity is a form of energy. I’m not sure you should be calling anyone clueless.

seano you’re the gift that keeps giving, and it’s not even Christmas or April 1.

Energy and electricity are related but distinct concepts. Energy is the general capacity to do work or cause change, while electricity is a specific form of energy resulting from the movement or accumulation of charged particles. Essentially, electricity is a type of energy, but not all energy is electricity.

30% or electricity is solar and wind, but sadly that only translates to 3% of energy. Now both words star with the letter “E”, possibly today’s Sesame Street letter of the day, but there’s a big difference:

https://sympower.net/articles/energy-and-electricity-whats-the-difference

So when those big tractors in the nice farmer’s paddock harvest wheat or when a big jumbo jet takes off, they use what’s called energy. Delivered generally using fossil fuels. When you turn on the lights on the cubby, that’s called electricity.

Did that help ?

Drivel. You attempted to shoot down JS’s correct comment that renewables make up 30% of energy generation with a complete nonsense. A typical Penfold red herring logical fallacy.

And you attempted to do push your red herring with reference to a link from the IEA that does not say anything about “global energy production”. Demonstrating that you either didn’t read the link or you can’t read a graph.

You can be a snide as you like but renewables are already 30% of all energy generation world wide and you’ve been caught out again.

Great links Pengold,
Thanks for once again providing the evidence showing the global proportion of energy provided by Nuclear is not increasing whilst renewable energy production is showing massive year on year growth.

The costs of Nuclear are just too high, when cheaper renewable options are available. No wonder the world isn’t expanding its use.

Glad you like the link chewy. It still hasn’t dawned on seano – maybe he’s in denial – that nuclear accounts for more energy production than renewables. And it also sounds like you’re able to tell the difference between electricity and energy. Maybe you need to take the poor boy aside for a chat.

But you are correct, the numbers show nuclear energy production has been relatively unchanged for 20 years.

seano there’s a nice CSV option on the link and throwing it into a pivot table (best google that one) shows the global 3% of renewable energy generation. Chewy will be able to tell you that the numbers indicate that there’s also been strong growth in coal, oil and gas in the past 20 years.

We know that words can be a struggle, but the “global energy production” is also known as “total energy supply”. It’s the first sentence on the IEA page.

Perhaps seano you should take stock, go for a walk and take it all in. Reality takes time but it does settle in eventually.

LMAO ….Sure Penfold, your link is to a link to CSV to a pivot table to back up a point that no made or cares about. lol Genuis stuff always champ.

Meanwhile facts, renewables are 30% of energy generation. It’s the fastest growing, cheapest form of energy. Nuclear is never happening in Australia because Energy Generators & Retailers have rejected it because it’s not economically viable.

You lose.

“that nuclear accounts for more energy production than renewables.”

Maybe it hasn’t “dawned” on him because renewables have far surpassed nuclear as a global source of energy as your own links show.

You did read them this time right? Right?

In all your haste to “educate” others, perhaps you should look up the definition of renewable energy before claiming things like:

“Anyway, we can agree that the global renewables share of energy is growing. But sorry to burst your bubble, it’s only 3% of energy supply (2022)”

Bahahahahaha, how embarrassing for you,l to make such a mistake, although we both know it’s a feeling you’re very used to.

Toodles Pengold, see you next time.

Ahh yes chewy, you’ve got me on a technicality there. Hydro, the nice renewable, is also almost 3%.

Have you managed to take seano aside and point out that those nasty coal, oil and gas energy sources have grown significantly over the past 20 years ?

“Far surpassed” apparently means 4.7% compare to 5.5%. Far out, mathematics buddy. Here’s the 2022 numbers.

Oil 30%
Coal 28%
Natural gas 23%
Biofuels and waste 9%
Nuclear 5%
Hydro 3%
Wind, solar, etc. 3%
Total 100%

Look who’s last 🙂

Bahahahahaha,
You claim a “technicality” then make the identical mistake in trying to correct it.

Perhaps that “education” should have gone a bit further.

You do know the difference between energy and electricity right? The figures are even in your pretty little graphs and tables.

I did tell you to look up the definition of renewable energy but alas, it seems it was a bridge too far.

Truly is a sight to behold when Pengold repeatedly shoots himself in the foot with his own evidence.

An irrelevant point that no one argued that that you raised as a red herring. Tedious.

The definition of renewable energy, that’s a new one. Those Europeans in their desperate plight to claim adherence to Paris targets are even using burning wood in their renewable definition.

Here in Canberra it’s verboten in new suburbs. How confusing is that ?

Lol genius stuff as always Penfold, humans have been burning wood since they discovered how to make fire. Europeans are not doing it “to claim adherence to Paris targets”….and no I’m not interested in whatever weird, demonstrably nonsense culture wars meme you got that ridiculous comment from…you need to log off Telegram and go for a walk.

“The definition of renewable energy, that’s a new one”

Well obviously it’s new for you, that’s the point.

Maybe you should try reading and understanding your own links before posting them next time, too funny.

He seems more vocal about this than when he was found incapacitated on the floor in civic 😂

Amazing that he’s still in public life considering how little he’s genuinely achieved as a former deputy and acting PM and in spite of his continued public embarrassments and failures.

Barnaby Joyce is the sort person that people think about when they think about the failure of the political class, an in it for himself career politician, with no achievements, who loves to lecture people about standards of morals, ethics and behaviour whilst exhibiting none himself.

Capital Retro5:25 pm 21 Jul 25

There is no chance the bill will even be read but it’s presence will haunt the Labor renewable camp for some time, especially when the blackouts start and the Australia’s creditors move in.

I got a new energy supply proposal from Red today. It would be great if I could understand it. It looks like an ACT Government car rego renewal notice.

“There is no chance the bill will even be read but it’s presence will haunt the Labor”….no it won’t because it’s a stupid self aggrandising stunt.

You’ve been predicting blackouts for years, give it a rest champ …it’s not happening.

On the contrary Capital Retro, the ALP might leave the bill on the notice paper then when the LNP looks like it is feeling happy, bring it on for reading. This will blow up the LNP. It is their own petard with the fuse in Labor’s hands.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.