The Liberal Party still mouthing uniparty waffle on Net Zero. By Joanne Nova.
Polls in the AFR today point to a wipe-out of the old centre-right. … One Nation could win a blockbuster tally of between 46 and 59 seats in the Australian Parliament. The Liberal Party would be reduced to between 7 to 21 seats and the Nationals to zero.

It’s the Blob versus The People, but the Liberals are on the Blob’s side. One Nation voters know this is a fight for the country against corruption and globalist power, and they’re hardly going to be won over by a team that says they’ll stick with the UN because they’re a bit busy. What is Angus Taylor thinking?
The Coalition’s half-pregnant policy position is that Net Zero absolutely has to go, but the Paris Agreement absolutely has to stay. … There is no principle here except something else is going on and the Liberals don’t want to tell us what it is. …
The difference between Net Zero and Paris is mere wordplay:
Senator Malcolm Roberts of One Nation explains that “No, Angus Taylor & Matt Canavan, it is not just ‘a piece of paper’”. That’s just a word game, and it’s clear the spirit and intent of Net Zero lives in there.
The phrase ‘Net Zero’ was deliberately left out of the Paris Agreement, as it was deemed too politically charged. Instead, they inserted the legal definition of Net Zero into Article 4.1:
“Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible … so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century…”
According to Onassis, Farhana Yamin is credited with ‘getting the goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050 into the 2015 Paris Agreement’ and was a key IPCC architect. She later joined Extinction Rebellion. Even Wikipedia says, ‘Net Zero was basic to the goals of the Paris Agreement’ with the IPCC’s follow-up to Paris, the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5*C, popularising Net Zero as a short-hand for the phrase already used in the original document. …
The Paris Agreement is a legal tool to pave the way to cement the intent in domestic legislation. …
China was caught funding eco-lawfare suits in the USA to sabotage American energy dominance. Do we want to make it easier?
The UN has told Australia (but not China) that digging up our own gas might be a breach of “international law”. In another instance, a Blobocrat Court has ruled that perfect weather is a “human right”.
Even if the UN hasn’t succeeded yet in legally bombing a nation back to the stone age, we know it wants to. …
Suggestion for the Liberal Party:
If the Liberals keep pushing these contradictory messages which are obviously hiding their true intent, they look weak. If they are just doing this so the Liberals in Teal seats have a safety line, it isn’t worth it. Give the Teal voters the full force of the UN quagmire and failures and the fence sitters will be all yours.
This is the sort of Uniparty waffle that will lose even more voters to One Nation.
Probably not related. Ms Nova included this picture in her blogpost, but I don’t really get it. Something to do with sea level rise? The uniparty net zero monster? Anyway, it looked cool so here you are:

UPDATE: Joanne says it’s the Paris agreement, green on the outside but sick and deadly on the inside. Or something.








