Wallaroo Solar Farm

I object to the Wallaroo Solar Farm.
Industrial solar plants are inefficient and NOT environmentally friendly - with panels made of a toxic mix of gallium arsenide, tellurium, silver, crystalline silicon, lead, cadmium and heavy earth materials. Solar panels deteriorate, resulting in even less efficiency, total failure or even fire. They get damaged by hail, wind, and fire and potentially leach their toxic chemicals into the soil and watercourses. Major damage does happen - such as with the Beryl Solar Plant in 2020 with impacts from heavy rain, a lightning strike, inverter damage and other failures. The contamination risks to the land and through the water courses and potentially leaching into the water table cannot be tolerated by the community.
PV solar systems are also prone to fires from panel and electrical equipment failures causing risk to nearby agricultural properties, native bush and the community, as accessing the fires on/near a solar site is difficult and limited for safety reasons. Gunnedah Rural Fire Service has confirmed that firefighters can only fight fires in a solar plant from the perimeter due to dangerous high voltages and the possibility of toxic gases. In August 2022 a small grass fire near Beryl Solar Plant near Gulgong, required a dozen emergency vehicles and three water-bombing helicopters to protect the solar plant and nearby farm. A small fire of this size could potentially be out quickly and easily by minimal fire crew, yet this small fire took four hours and multiple crew and vehicles to bring the situation under control.
The current proposal also includes battery storage- batteries use lead, lithium and cobalt, all of which are hazardous materials. This is concerning to the community as ordinary fire suppression measures cannot extinguish a Lithium chemical reaction fire. A fire that occured in Geelong on 30 July 2021, burned for three days and resulted in the evacuation of residents because of the toxic fumes that were generated.
Solar plants are not visually appealing and will impact near and not-so-near neighbours. As well as potentially impacting the value of the neighbouring properties, the natural beauty of the district will be negatively impacted.
Whilst the EIS claims rehabilitation of the land, it will remove productive farmland from up to 35 years with potential long term damage to the soil from compaction and leaching of toxic chemicals, potentially removing it from being productive farmland in the future.
Also of concern is that Walleroo Solar Farm Pty Ltd is a joint venture project proposed by New Energy Development and Univergy International. Univergy International is an offshore company based in Spain.
Any project that could be detrimental to the land and water and the future agricultural use of what is currently productive farmland, by a foreign owned profit making entity should be rejected.

I strongly object to this project. Batteries create more environmental destruction than they solve, due to their mining, transport, manufacture and limited lifespan. Wind and solar generators consume more raw materials and energy to manufacture yet produce less power than equivalent thermal power plants. They are simply grossly less efficient. Adding batteries to try and fill the gaps in generation only compounds this inefficiency and leads to the consumption of more energy and material. The planet suffers a net loss environmentally, which is counter to the purported reason for doing all this.

This is a beautiful part of NSW. At the rate Canberra is expending people would prefer to have country size blocks , with the benefit of living close to the capital of Australia. Not having to look at a solar factory.

See attachment

I object to this project as it’s taking away agricultural farm land the need to be put in a better place

I am protesting about this project because it will support the infrastructure of Solar Industrial Complexes on the scarce resource of 4% of arable land that is available to Australian farmers. These installations also cause dissension amongst neighbours where some make a fortune where others have to put up with the mess. When a future Australian Government comes to its senses and Nuclear Power is provided, which is the only answer at this time in history to providing clean energy, most of the detritus of solar installations will have to be removed and despite so called contracts being signed, this will fall on Local Government. There are many other issues but these will suffice for the time being.

How about giving poor Wellington some relief from this inundation of solar plants, in the past three months I have had the misfortune of traveling on Goomla Rd between Wellington and Gulgong on four separate occasions, what has happened to that beautiful red basalt country is criminal and to see the historic Wellington Research and Training centre now covered in panels saddens my heart, I spent many hours honing my craft in NRM at that centre and most of my research and work has now been bulldozed and covered in panels, I am not ashamed to say that it left a lump in my throat for all the wrong reasons. I would also bet in the research centre's case that the not care less foreign company would not be paying a penny for that land in this governments blinded mindset for renewables everywhere and I would dearly like for you to prove me wrong.
How much pain do the rural residents and town folk have to endure.
Please also see the attachment with general comments in relation to this solar / renewable scourge

Although I support renewable energy, I object to the Wallaroo Solar Farm project for these reasons:
- It is right next to, and far too close to, existing Canberra suburbs Dunlop and McGregor
- It will have significant visual impact and glare to residents on the edges of the suburbs, including my property
- It potentially will reduce the value of my property and ability to sell
- It prevents any further surrounding residential development to support an increasing population
As Australia is such a vast land with very little of it used for cities/towns, there are so many other options available instead of right next to Dunlop and McGregor residential areas.

Whilst Australia is the sixth largest country in the world by land mass, we have some of the lowest arable food producing land per capita in the world. Example in 2020, arable land in Australia was 30,729, 200 hectares (307,292 sq kilometres) or 4% of Australia’s land mass.
Definition: Arable land includes land defined by the FAO as land under temporary crops (double-cropped areas are counted once), temporary meadows for mowing or for pasture, land under market or kitchen gardens, and land temporarily fallow. Land abandoned as a result of shifting cultivation is excluded.
For comparison, Australia world ranking for arable land in the world is number 145, Canada is 137, the USA is 56 and France is 25, with Bangladesh number one at 61.5% of its land mass and Kuwait, one of the lowest at number 185 of the 192 countries listed.
Source: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/arable_land_percent/
Regarding percentage of energy by solar
No production system of any type is 100% effective! The spread sheet has allowed for some losses but in reality, these production losses are much greater. Of course there are other sources of energy that I haven’t calculated into the spread sheet. The object of this information is to alert those that think, care and question, is that we have a finite amount of food producing land.
The purpose of this presentation is to show how much agricultural land will be lost for food production with the implementation of solar farms on this land and have not included the fallacy of wind generation.
The facts:
Substations are installed in high electrical consumption areas
Solar farms are installed near substations for cost effectiveness for the provider who is building these farms for one reason only: it is an excellent return on investments guaranteed by taxpayers who are not engineers and do not and should not have to be engineers as they elect governments to run the nation for them and trust the governments to explore pros and cons of all transactions big or small that affect the nation. This trust is being broken by a few misguided zealots!
High electrical consumption areas in rural Australia are located in the high agriculture food production areas, hence high populations.
High agricultural production areas have high fertility soils, therefore huge areas of prime ag land is lost and possibly contaminated forever, regardless of the renewable platitudes given.
Glossary:
% or energy by solar – No production system is 100% effective. Obviously there are other sources of energy that I haven’t calculated, but to show a result of solar alternatives. Eighty percent renewable appears to be the Holy Grail by the renewable religion; therefore I have chosen that figure as a constant for all initial calculations.
Avg annual solar hrs with tracker stm – all solar energy calculations use about 6 full sun hours per day as a base for full energy yield – add a tracking system, this adds about 20% to the 6 hr, = 7.23 hours
Current per solar panel watts Currently (this wattage is increasing all the time) about 400 watts each
Annual avg. non solar hours per day – remainder of hours without energy producing sun equals about 16.77 hours
Current module battery capacity in k/W - (this is increasing all the time) is 230 k/W (just found this battery module - Invinity VS3 Battery Module 230 kW – footprint - same as a shipping container – 6m x 2.5m
Solar Farm Footprint-ha per MW the amount of land based on a per megawatt figure (research indicates between 2 & 3 ha per MW – I chose 2.5 ha as a balance point
ha – abbreviation for hectare – a measurement for land area – one ha (100m x 100m) equals 10,000 sq metres – one million square metres (1000 x 1000) equals 100 ha or one square kilometre
kW - abbreviation for kilowatt = 1000 watts
MW - abbreviation for megawatt = 1,000,000 watts (1000 x1000 kW) (million)
GW - abbreviation for gigawatt = 1,000,000,000 watts (1000 x 1,000,000) (billion)
TW - abbreviation for terawatt = 1,000,000,000,000 (1,000,000 x 1,000,000) (trillion)
The terrible fact is that regardless of the renewable religion, this is a futile exercise as the whole concept of this type of renewable is impossible to achieve. It flies in the face of physics, which mankind for all of its achievements, cannot change as physics are unalterable laws!
The renewable zealots ignore the complex “road” of creating renewable energy and the ensuing cost to humankind. Beginning with the process of locating the mines, developing the mines, the high energy requirement of the manufacturing process, the hypocritical and questionable labor types being coerced for component production, the massive lost of food producing land, the transport factor that affects every aspect of creating the renewable generators as well as the end of life of components, all having in some way, non reversible environmental impacts Notwithstanding the reality, that a massive amount of the alternative components are produced elsewhere in the world, not here is Australia, so very little national benefit.
There winners with this process are some land holders, though at the expense of the nation and eventually the investors and manufactures, but in the not so long term, by its very nature, will fail.
Facts continued:
As explained in the introductory paragraph, The Global Economy organization states that Australia has 307,292 square kilometres of arable land or just over 4% of its total land mass. Eighty percent solar for the nation, requires almost half of that land.
For your own interest, enter your own figures in the red spread sheet cells to create different scenarios which also show the change affecting each state/territory,

I object to this environmentally disastrous solar farm, because it will never, in its very short lifespan provide despatchable power. Australia needs base-load power, for both food and national security. Not more geopolitically sensitive solar panels made by slave labour in factories controlled by the CCP.

I support this project for its benefits to the local community and the state.

Our household strongly opposes the Wallaroo Solar Farm.

This project is way too close to current housing. I feel like there hasn’t been sufficient community consultation, particularly with those who live close to the area. Building the farm will be incredibly disruptive to those in and around the area. Being such a significant proposal, the impacts on quality of life are high.

When I asked the question regarding lasting environmental affects on the houses and people who live close to the area, the contact person was unable to answer, and the link to information is broken on their website.

As a concerned resident of West Belconnen, we continue to take up beautiful green space with infill.

There is no doubt native flora and fauna live in the proposed area, it concerns me that these things can be overlooked and seen as unimportant in development.

It also concerns me that the Traditional Owners (TO) of that land have not been heard. If the TO’s have concerns, how is this being handled? And what provisions are there within the proposal.

It appears this is nothing more than another cash builder for an international company in Univergy International.

While I believe Solar is a great asset, these farms SHOULD NOT be within a stones throw of housing.

The fact this proposal is even being considered is a terrible move by the government.

Please find attached my objection letter in regards to the Wallaroo Solar Farm.

This is a beautiful area with a lot of natural beauty. The proposed solar farm is going to spoil that all by having a mega facility next to housing community and destroying the natural calmness and beauty of this locality. I propose that the location of this farm is reconsidered and moved farther away from community and its natural landscape.

There are numerous areas to the West and South of these ranges which would present a viable alternative to this proposed development which would impact far fewer people and present a significant hazard reduction to the highly popular suburbs of Dunlop, MacGregor and Charnwood.

Everything in my area is important to me particularly its calm peaceful natural lush green views and views of the mountains. Don't prefer changing anything so close to living areas.

Absolutely disagree with majority of the paper work provided in the Stakeholder community and consultation plan. Its not about how you manage issues, its about actively listening to the community and then taking appropriate actions even if its means relocating or cancelling the project. All these glossy words about issue management are pretty shallow.

The social and hazard impact to residents has not been quantified in terms of the impacts of reflection from the panels, latent heat build up in the are giving rise to increased significant storm activity, the hazard of having toxic battery systems adjacent in in the predominant wind flow back onto residential areas, and the social impact of having a 292 Ha eyesore right in the middle of what is one of the pristine views into the Brindabella Mountains and adjoining ranges.

I am definitely against the location of this proposed farm. It should be moved farther away from housing community reducing risk of damaging the natural beauty of the area as well as causing difficulties to the local community (potential increased traffic, decline in property value etc etc)

It is too close to my suburb/houses and will contaminate the land and the creek which basically means loss of wildlife not to mention the heat the will be generated from all those solar panels.

This project should never been done way too close to inhabited areas.

Please see attached submission document wallaroo solar farm objection

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for your time in reading my submission.

I would like to raise two concerns with this project. First concern is a safety concern and the second is an environmental concern.

I live approximately 900m from the proposed solar farm. This close proximity to the solar farm's battery banks are of major concern. I understand that safety measures will be put in place to prevent the battery banks from catching fire. As we all know accidents can happen no matter how hard we try to prevent them from happening, it is just the way life is. I am now very concerned after reviewing lithium battery fire cases. These battery fires are incredibly volatile and explosive. The smoke and fumes the battery fires produce are incredibly toxic. I fear for myself, my family and the surrounding thousands of people who live so close to this toxic potential hazard.

Secondly I am concerned with the visual impact this farm will have on our environment. I have spoken to and walked around our suburb with Ben Cranston of New Energy Development. I have raised my concern with him about his proposed screening hedge that he is proposing to be planted along the edge of the farm. We live on the opposite side of the valley to the solar farm. We are located on the side of a hill. The solar farm is on the other side of the valley on the side of a hill. There is no way that his planted screen will reach an approximate 20m high needed to block the view of the panels we will see from our kitchen window. Ben acknowledged that his proposed planted screen would never screen out the panels from this part of Dunlop. The residents of my area of Dunlop will forever have to put up with this hideous eye saw that is going to blemish our current beautiful views of the hills and paddocks.

I urge you to take into consideration the residents of Dunlop and put a stop to this solar farm. This is not the place for it. It needs to be moved first and foremost to a safer location away from a densely populated area.

The health and safety of the people of Dunlop must be put first. Both from physical harm and psychological harm. Our environment we live in can provide us with health or harm. I am certain that you do not want to harm us.

Thank you again for your time.

Miika Voutilainen

Dunlop Resident

Solar – A risky waste of time & money, John Mole, The Spectator 17th May 2023 1
The Spectator
Solar: a risky waste of time and money | The Spectator Australia
John Mole, 17 May 2023
Getty Images
In Australia, great reliance is being placed
on electricity generation from solar
panels, both roof-mounted & solar farms.
The aim is to replace generation from coal
& gas to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Researchers recognise that, for this to
succeed, the electricity generated & used
must be greater than the electricity expended
in making & installing the panels (embodied
energy). The number of years it takes for this
energy recovery is called Energy Pay-Back
Time (EPBT).
It is clear that pay-back times should be short
because, until the embodied energy is
replaced, there cannot be any positive output.
Numerous studies have determined that the
pay-back time is between one and five years
for rooftop solar & longer for solar farms. This
is all very well, but solar panels alone are not
a practical, generating system.
Nothing is generated from late afternoon
through the night to the next morning. No
electricity every night…
Clearly, a battery has to be added for
continuous supply & the embodied energy
from the manufacture of the battery has to be
included in the analysis. Electricity consumed
overnight is replaced when the battery is
recharged by the solar panel during the next
day.
What happens if the next day is cloudy?
Clearly, a bigger battery & a bigger solar panel
would be needed. The embodied energy of
the bigger battery & panel must be included in
assessing pay-back time & the viability of the
system. What if the day after that is also
cloudy? An even bigger battery & panel than
needed. How many cloudy days need to be
accounted for?
Any electricity generation system that
cannot recover the energy embodied in its
manufacture, in a short time, or not at all
in its lifetime, cannot be considered viable
for electricity supply, or for emissions
reduction.
Yooko Tsuchiya et al reported on two cases
of PV electricity generation systems in subSaharan rural Tanzania, concluding that
EPBT analyses showed unsatisfactory
performance. They reported that: ‘At one
site, the EPBT even exceeded the lifespan
of the PV panel, indicating that energy
recovery was impossible.’
The question arises as to whether PV
electricity generation can replace coal/gas
generation in Australia. This study examines
the energy recovery potential of rooftop solar
for three cities in Australia representing the
extremes of climate, viz. Melbourne, (worst
case state capital for sunny days, excepting
Hobart), Perth, (best case state capital for
sunny days) & Alice Springs (central
Australia).
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)
has records of solar radiation day-by-day for
years 1990 to 2022. These data sets show
that, of these 33 years, 16 have radiation
below average & that May, June & July are the
Solar – A risky waste of time & money, John Mole, The Spectator 17th May 2023 2
months most likely to risk electricity
shortages, ie. blackouts.
Using these data, a new study has calculated
the sizes of solar panel & battery which give
the least, combined, embodied energy, then
calculated the Energy Pay-Back time for
Melbourne, (least sunny days capital
excepting Hobart), Perth (most sunny days
capital) & Alice Springs (central Australia).
Full details of the study are available on
request. The results show that:
• The Energy Pay-Back time for roof-top
solar generation of electricity is 22 to 24
years for Melbourne, 14 to 15 years for
Perth & 14 years for Alice Springs.
• For Melbourne, Perth & Alice Springs,
EPBT’s exceed the lifetime of the battery,
therefore, batteries have to be replaced
twice in the 30-year lifetime of the solar
panel. Accounting for this, the energy
embodied in the manufacture & installation
of the system is not recovered in the
lifetime of the system.
• Storage of excess summer generation for
practical use requires very large batteries,
resulting in unfavourable EPBT.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
• Since prior research indicates that solar
farms are worse than rooftop solar, solar
farms are not a feasible replacement for
traditional coal/gas-based electricity
generation.
• Given equal dollar value eg dollars per
kWh, assigned to both input & output
electricity, the cost results will echo the
energy results, that is to say that the cost
incurred in manufacture etc. will not be
recovered in the lifetime of the system.
Given that, within that lifetime, the batteries
would be replaced at additional cost, it
follows that electricity generated by the
solar system will always be more
expensive than the input coal/gas
electricity which established the system.
Statements by politicians such as, ‘the
reason electricity is more expensive
now is because we do not have enough
renewable energy’ is the reverse of the
facts. The more solar generation we
have, the more expensive electricity will
become.
• Subsidies to adjust input and/or output
dollar charges do not change the costs.
They transfer costs to another element of
production, for zero added value. Such
subsidies are therefore inherently
inflationary.
• Continued purchase of solar panels &
batteries from low-cost, coal/gas-based
producers while, at the same time,
inhibiting & closing domestic coal/gasbased electricity, presents national
security issues, for no economic or
environmental benefit.
• Persistence with the widespread
installation of PV panels & batteries &
closure of coal or gas-fired power stations,
will result in greater, not lesser,
emissions of carbon dioxide, higher
electricity charges & higher inflation.
Put simply, Australia mines coal & exports it
to China where coal-fired power stations
generate electricity, which is used to
manufacture PV panels & batteries, which
Australia buys & uses to generate electricity
from the rays of the sun. In their lifetimes, the
solar panels never generate enough usable
electricity to replace the coal/gas electricity
they originated from.
Reliance on solar combined with closing
down coal & gas generation is definitely
premature & will lead to power shortages,
inflated energy costs, compromised
national security & increased carbon
dioxide emissions. Australia would be
better off for supply reliability, emissions,
costs & sovereign security, to use coal &
gas domestically for electricity generation.

I wish to make a submission to the Wallaroo solar project.

I have some of my own writing, and ALSO wish to refer to two recent articles. Being unsure how much material I can upload, I wish to give URL's to these articles at the beginning.
ONE An article by Peter Smith https://the-pipeline.org/beware-of-dunkelflautes/
TWO An article by Bill Ponton https://www.dropbox.com/s/yssanxsc15vm7ll/The%20Cost%20of%20Increasing%20UK%20Wind%20Power%20Capacity%20-%20A%20Reality%20Check%20%28rev%204%29.pdf?dl=0

Now, I appreciate that these talk about wind, but the underlying thread of intermittency is equally true for solar.

HOW MANY RENEWABLES DO YOU NEED.

It is often naively stated that you just keep adding more renewables until the grid is fully supplied. There are several things wrong with this assumption.

Firstly, say the renewables were only producing a meagre 8.3% of their nameplate capacity, then it is supposed you simply construct 12 times as many. But that is a massive amount of extra capital and a huge spillage of electricity at other times when they produce closer to their nameplate.

Secondly, the renewables produce in an environmental sawtooth fashion. Ponton in the UK over 2022 with wind supplying 25% of demand, (they have no solar), notionally kept doubling up possible wind turbines. At 4 times current quantity, you would naively expect to be supplying almost 100% into the grid. However, only 2.5% extra supply came from the fourth 25% (22.5% was curtailed), because wind blows at varying rates producing varying amounts of electricity, (and a small 15% of demand was supplied by idling the standby gas generators). At 4 times capacity wind could only supply 52% of demand, and regardless of however many times you doubled up, the wind could only provide a maximum 60%. [Ponton]

Thirdly, there are wind droughts, or dunkelflautes. At times there is no wind and no sun. Studies at various locations around the world show that in a full year the combined addition of all wind droughts and low sun will be equivalent to 30 days, (varying from 15 to 46 days).
The belief that the sun will be shining or the wind blowing somewhere else is a complete fallacy.

The Chilean electrical engineer found widespread puzzlement that after a certain point – varying from species to species and grid to grid – adding more renewables either did not increase that species’ share of total grid output or resulted in ever-growing capacity-constraint payments or do-not-generate orders even at times of high wind, strong sun or low demand. He discovered a counter-intuitive and unexpected fact that the greatest penetration achievable without great cost and waste is equal to the mean national capacity factor of that species, which I now call the Pollock limit. I calculate Australian solar is 19% and non synchronous wind is 18%.

THE EXISTING NEM CAPACITY

In the NEM, these ideal capacities for solar of 19% and wind 18% are far exceeded. The NEM is said to be a "22GW enterprise", with a minimum demand of 18GW and a maximum of 28GW. Solar has an existing and commissioned capacity of 12GW, 67% of the likely minimum demand, and a further 48GW proposed, being another 270%. Wind has an existing and commissioned 12GW, 43% of the likely maximum demand, and a further 19GW proposed or another 68%. Rooftop solar capacity at 20GW (Aust) is huge, the largest penetration in the world, and in the NEM could replace about 3GW, making these percentages even higher.

MY CONCLUSION
Carbon dioxide released in manufacturing for a solar farm is greater than that saved for farms beyond 30 degrees of latitude. Are the proponents embarrassed by this, as they will have already released more than they can possibly save?

It is extremely difficult to get over 55% wind and grid solar. Bill Ponton has made that categorically clear. Douglass Pollock has made it clear that overbuilding and/or spillage occurs at a point which is 19% solar in the NEM. Existing and commissioned solar in the NEM is already at 67%, with another 270% proposed, and these figures are subject to further jeopardy from rooftop solar. THIS PROJECT IS TOO LATE.

Dear Sirs,

I wish to make a comment on your proposal.

It may be that carbon dioxide does not cause warming, and that there is no need for renewables or solar farms.
When this is realised, the infrastructure will be left rusting and corroding away - reference- Dr Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace.
There are many individuals and groups who believe this, especially professional, retired, academic, and those not beholden to an employer. You could explore all these from wattsupwiththat.
I enclose a copy of a submission by an islander, Bud Bromley, Big Island, Holualoa, to Hawaii's bureaucracy.
Regards,

Bob King
[New post] Human CO2 causes no global warming

You forwarded this message on Fri 26/05/2023 9:29 PM
You forwarded this message on Fri 26/05/2023 9:29 PM
budbromley








To: You
Fri 26/05/2023 4:47 PM
Site logo image budbromley
Human CO2 causes no global warming
budbromley

May 25

The following text are my comments to a very elaborate and long draft proposed plan by a commission on the island of Hawai'i island to the County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department.

You may use my comments to respond when such Net Zero proposals occur in your community. The official Hawai'i island (county) website for this draft is linked below. My comments below appear at the end of the first sentence of the executive summary.

If this Integrated Climate Action Plan (ICAP) is enacted, it would destroy the economy. We could be the next Easter Island.

Summary of my comment: There is no valid scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gas causes "unprecedented warming" or global climate change or global warming. Therefore, there is no need to reduce human-produced CO2. Even if we humans reduce our CO2 emissions, there will be no significant or measurable reduction in global CO2 concentration and no significant change in temperature. The consulting firm McKinsey & Co estimated the cost of the global “Net Zero” plan is $9 TRILLION per year. It would be an extremely wasteful exercise in futility.

Quoting Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (31 March 2021. Zoom call Clintel Foundation), quoted by his permission, “Stop treating it [i.e. AGW…human-caused global warming/climate change] as a worthy opponent. Do not ascribe reasonableness to the other side. It is not reasonable, not true, not even plausible.” Dr. Lindzen also said, “So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to reduce trust in and support for science.”

The scientific hypothesis that human-caused greenhouse gases such as CO2 causes global warming is "not reasonable, not true, not even plausible."

In the words of John F Clauser, BS, MA, PhD (all in physics), the 2002 Nobel Laureate in Physics, "The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world's economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world's large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science."

What is the reason to waste my tax dollars and yours on an implausible and unproven hypothesis? Doing so would be malfeasance on the part of public officials. I hereby register my complaint. CO2 is food for plants in ocean and on land. There are proven and substantial benefits of increased global CO2 concentration. (I will be happy to supply these to ICAP upon request.) But there are no substantial negatives even if CO2 concentration were ten times higher. CO2 is not pollution, it is plant food. The ONLY way carbon gets into the plants is by plants absorbing CO2 gas from the air and water. Plants then form carbohydrates in their cells by photosynthesis with sunlight and water.

There are many objections to and errors by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC.) For example, thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in the latest IPCC report. This Clintel report is an analysis of the latest IPCC report AR6 and is signed by over 1500 scientists and qualified people, including me. link here: https://clintel.org/coming-soon-the-frozen-climate-views-of-the-ipcc/

To give you a feel for the extraordinary errors and omissions by the UN IPCC, here is an excerpt of the press release, so you get an idea of what was found:

"The IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC, by cherry picking from the literature, drew the opposite conclusions, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change. These are two important conclusions of the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, published by the Clintel Foundation.”

“The 180-page [Clintel] report is – as far as we know – the first serious international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. In 13 chapters the Clintel report shows the IPCC rewrote climate history, emphasizes an implausible worst-case scenario, has a huge bias in favour of ‘bad news’ and against ‘good news’, and keeps the good news out of the Summary for Policy Makers.”

“The errors and biases that Clintel documents in the report are far worse than those that led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Interacademy Council (IAC Review) in 2010. Clintel believes that the IPCC should reform or be dismantled." Link here: https://clintel.org/thorough-analysis-by-clintel-shows-serious-errors-in-latest-ipcc-report/

This Clintel report is only one of many over the last several decades documenting the many problems with the IPCC. Thousands of real scientists have signed many documents, letters, and petitions in protest of the scientific and political hoax being perpetrated by climate activists and politicians, and multiple letters and petitions from multiple countries to Secretaries General of the United Nations. I will be happy to supply the ICAP with many petitions and lists of scientists and other qualified signers from around the world.

The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change is another example. Among other statements, it declares “Now, therefore, we recommend …That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth…“That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.” Since its creation in March 2008 by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change has attracted more than 1,200 signatories from 40 countries, including over 200 climate experts. https://www.icsc-climate.com/manhatten-declaration

Despite the expense of billions of dollars, UN IPCC and other proponents of the hypothesis of human-CO2-caused global warming have produced no verifiable evidence to support their hypothesis. Computer models are not evidence. Computer models are only hypotheses, and so far the computer models “substantially” overstate warming, and this is admitted by modelers and as shown by analysis of the models against actual temperature trends.

“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” reads the first line of the abstract of lead author, climate scientist Ben Santer’s 2017 paper in Nature Geoscience http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/SanterEtAlNatureGeosci17.pdf In other words, the actual temperature trends were less than their models.

Their models cost taxpayers billions of dollars and they want trillions more dollars.

Michael Mann (of the infamous and repudiated “hockey stick” warming graphic in Al Gore’s science fiction movie) as well as other climate alarmists were co-authors on the paper. The abstract continues: “Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, MODEL tropospheric warming is substantially larger than OBSERVED,” (Capital letters are mine for emphasis.) In other words, their computer models substantially overestimated the global warming which has been observed in the real world.

Contrary to non-stop reports in mainstream media and government agencies, most scientists do not support the narrative that there is a climate crisis. That narrative is propaganda. Instead, the real problems are the activist proponents of a non-existent climate crisis and their use of heavily-funded, fear-based propaganda to indoctrinate citizens and children, essentially yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Following this climate alarmist agenda is not a legitimate use of Hawai’i taxpayer resources.

There is no valid evidence of unprecedented global warming. Earth has been warmer in the past. Nor is there evidence that human-produced CO2 from burning fossil fue