25 November 2025: ALBO OBSSESED WITH THE ENVIRONMENT

Today I'll focus on 2 things:

1. THE ENVIORNMENT

2. PAULINE HANSON WEARS BURQA???

THE ENVIRONMENT

In Australia we are facing an extreme cost-of-living crisis.

It’s basically impossible for young people to buy a home. Groceries are ridiculous. Energy bills are through the roof. Businesses are drowning in red tape. Youth crime is dangerously high.

Now, take a guess: which of these problems is the federal government most determined to fix?

If you guessed any of them… you’d be wrong.

Despite all of this, for some reason nearly every major politician has decided that the environment is the biggest crisis of our time. WHAT???

By the end of this section, it should be pretty clear why everyone needs to calm down and shut up about “climate leadership” for a while. But first, here’s what’s actually happening.

Right now, Albanese is trying to ram through a massive overhaul of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. Not one bill, not two. Seven separate bills.

The centrepiece is a brand new federal environmental regulator.

This regulator would be able to:

• pause and drag out projects for years,

• effectively override state approvals,

• demand extra assessments and conditions,

• and hit companies with fines in the millions.

It doesn’t just “enforce rules.” It can delay and effectively block major projects entirely. In the real world, that means:

• housing developments held up,

• roads and tunnels delayed,

• energy projects slowed or cancelled.

When projects are slower and riskier, three things happen, every single time:

1. Fewer projects get started at all.

2. The ones that do go ahead cost much more.

3. Those higher costs get passed on to you - in rent, electricity, tolls, everything.

Why would any sane government choose this at a time like this?

On top of that, they want to introduce a “net gain” requirement. In simple language: if your project harms the environment in ANY way, some obscure ecological community, a lizard, a frog, a patch of scrub, you’re on the hook.

You either:

• spend a fortune proving you don’t cause “unacceptable” harm,

• or are forced to pay big money into government-run restoration schemes.

So even if a project is approved, you’re forced to cough up cash for offsets and credits.

Is it possible to build homes, roads, dams and energy projects without changing the local environment at all? No. So these rules basically mean every project gets slapped with more cost and delay.

Yes, obviously we want some basic regulation. Nobody is arguing for a “Lorax” scenario where companies bulldoze everything. But this goes way beyond that. This is extreme, heavy-handed, and a massive burden on every citizen who needs housing, power, transport and jobs.

Who benefits from this, exactly?

Labor doesn’t have enough votes in the Senate to pass this by themselves, so this week they’ve been begging both the Greens and the Coalition for support, and offering two completely different versions of the law depending on who they’re talking to.

To the Greens, they’re promising:

• stricter rules on native forest logging,

• fewer loopholes for coal and gas,

• more hurdles for future fossil fuel projects.

Translated: even more cost, even fewer jobs, even slower approvals.

To the Coalition, they’re whispering a slightly different story:

• the regulator’s powers will be “balanced”,

• fewer projects will be blocked purely on activist grounds,

• some penalties and triggers might be softened.

In other words, “Don’t worry, we’ll make this monster slightly less scary for your voters.”

The Greens, to their credit (for once), look like they may not support the package. not because it’s too extreme, but because it’s not extreme enough for them. But yes greens PLEASE go ahead and block this bill.

The Coalition, meanwhile, because they love snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, are floating the idea of supporting it if a few conditions are met.

Why, Liberals? This package is awful. Don’t do it.

In the middle of all this, Australia was desperately trying to host the big UN climate summit in 2026, COP31.

Price tag? Around $2 billion of taxpayer money.

Two. Billion.

For what? So diplomats and activists can fly in on jets, stay in expensive hotels, lecture us about emissions and then fly home again.

We eventually lost the hosting bid, and Turkey got it instead. You’d think that would be the end of it. But no. Energy Minister Chris Bowen still managed to score himself the role of lead negotiator for the summit, which now means months of meetings, travel, diplomacy, policy-writing and political theatre.

Why are we spending time and political energy on this instead of the cost-of-living crisis smashing Australians right now?

So now the bigger picture.

There are three uncomfortable truths we need to accept.

1. Australia’s climate impact is basically irrelevant

We produce about 1% of global emissions.

China produces over 30%, and rising. India’s emissions are also growing fast.

If Australia disappeared tomorrow, the impact on the global climate would be non existant, completely swamped by changes in China, India, and the rest of the world.

No matter what we do, we cannot materially change the global climate by ourselves. The idea that "every little bit counts" is NOT TRUE.

2. Environmental laws ALWAYS hurt the economy

People love to pretend you can write endless new rules and magically “create green jobs” with no downside. Reality does not work like that.

Take Labor’s EPBC reforms as an example:

1. New rules and regulators make every major project more complex and risky.

2. That means fewer companies are willing to invest.

3. The projects that do go ahead take longer and cost more.

4. That means fewer new houses, fewer roads, fewer tunnels, fewer energy projects.

5. When supply is choked, prices go up - for housing, power, transport, everything.

6. Higher costs mean businesses hire fewer workers and pay lower wages than they otherwise would.

Now add broader “climate action” on top, net zero targets, carbon taxes, bans on certain types of energy:

1. Cheap, reliable coal and gas are forced off the grid early.

2. Businesses are pushed into more expensive or less reliable energy.

3. Their power bills rise.

4. To survive, they either raise prices, cut staff, or both.

All of this is completely predictable. if you raise the cost of producing things, you get less production and higher prices.

3. Every rebuttal is WRONG

There are two big comebacks you always hear.

Rebuttal A: “Renewables will be cheaper in the long term.”

Everyone quietly admits renewables are not cheaper right now, because if they were, companies would switch voluntarily without needing to be forced.

So then the story becomes: “Yes, yes, they’re expensive today, but long term they’ll be cheaper.”

The problem is, that fantasy never includes the whole system:

• backup batteries for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing,

• thousands of kilometres of transmission lines,

• constant balancing of a fragile, unstable grid,

• replacing panels and turbines after 15 years,

• paying generators to be available as “backup” even when they’re not running much.

Once you add it all up, the system cost is enormous. Even the Australian Energy Regulator and other official bodies have repeatedly acknowledged the scale of investment required to make this kind of system work.

If it were genuinely cheaper in the long term, businesses would just invest now to save money.

They’re not.

Rebuttal B: “We have to lead by example.”

The idea here is that even if our sacrifice doesn’t do much directly, it will “inspire” countries like China and India to follow us.

First, this is fantasy. Beijing and Delhi are not sitting there watching Canberra for moral guidance. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT US.

Second, the only example we’re actually setting is this: If you follow the global climate agenda too enthusiastically, you wreck your economy and make your citizens poorer.

Ultimately, Albanese and a lot of the political class have a weird hyper-fixation with the environment that is totally out of proportion to our actual impact and our actual problems.

PAULINE HANSON BURQA

After the Senate refused Pauline Hanson permission to introduce a bill that would ban full-face coverings like the burqa in public, she decided to make a point: she walked into Parliament wearing a burqa herself, as a protest.

CUE TOTAL LEFTIE MELTDOWN!!

The Senate reacted by censuring her and suspending her for several sitting days. A bunch of woke senators, including Mehreen Faruqi, called it racist and all the other usual words they use for people they don't like.

Not much else to say because I don't really care, Australia has far bigger problems than what one senator wears for five minutes in a chamber.

But I will say this: you cannot seriously call yourself a feminist and defend the burqa.

Even leaving religion aside, the burqa has historically functioned as a male-designed rule to control female visibility and movement. You don’t get gender equality by normalising the idea that women should cover themselves completely or be treated as walking temptations.

Anyway, Muhammad married a 6 year old so I don't like Islam.

Alright bye I'll talk about the liberal leadership changes tomorrow.