UN climate-czar abuses Australia, cossets leviathan China

Albanese Labor enjoys a masochistic relationship with pro-China United Nations.

Following UN open-borders precepts, massive immigration induces 75-80% of our (unnecessary) population growth. Nearly as silly as the UK, which topped 95% in 2023-24. For the first time ever, they're more populous than much-bigger France.

Deferring to the power of China - far and away the world's top coal-burner and CO2-emitter – woke Labor is also wedded to the UN net-zero fallacy.

Early 2024 they welcomed Stiell into Australia. He claimed climate-change would make Australian food unaffordable. Unless we followed UN dictates, we'd have to resettle "entire national populations" from the Pacific.

As he knew, Labor already had a climate-pact with Tuvalu. When climate-visa applications opened in June 2025, a third of its population expressed interest.

Simon does what bullies do - when you appease them. He's come back bolder and badder.

During his end-July 2025 visit, as reported by state-ABC, he's really jumped the shark. Claiming his UN "blueprint" could reap us "colossal" rewards, delivering "in spades":

"You know, half measures will destroy property and infrastructure, hammer households, bankrupt regions, and punch holes in public budgets."

Should Australia even think of "half" measures, "mega-droughts [will make] fresh fruit and veg a once-a-year treat".

Like the ABC, UK-based Fruit-Net (fruit-loop?) media took this nonsense at face-value. But The Spectator dubbed Stiell a climate disaster. IPA and Matt Canavan noticed he was off with the fairies. Jibed The Australian, this babble is "more boring than broccoli".

Who on earth is Simon Stiell?

Leaving aside Hurricane-Beryl blitzing his home island, Stiell isn't any climate-expert you'd listen to especially. He's just another climate-opportunist that knows a bandwagon when they see one. As if we didn't have enough of our own.

Hailing from the tiny Caribbean [Commonwealth] nation of Grenada, he accrued UK degrees, did time with corporates, followed by several ministerial positions for Grenada. Roughly the same level as the mayor of a small Australian city.

Allegedly a true champion at "formulating creative approaches for our collective global response to the climate crisis", he's climbed the greasy UN pole.

When visiting meek Australia, however, this creative champ can take the gloves off. Knowing that Albanese Labor ministers love the punishment.

What on earth is UNFCCC?

United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) is another UN acronym for decades of conspicuous failure.

First effective 1994, its main aim is the "stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

More than circular enough, you'd think, to be of little practical use. But that wouldn't reckon on Christiana Figueres, 2010-16 UNFCCC chief.

Applauded by other woke lionesses, she was instrumental in UN adopting the deeply dodgy un-science of "netting" greenhouse-gas emissions to zero by 2050.

The Paris Agreement towards net-zero first came into effect November 2016. Our Liberal prime minister Turnbull was already signed on. Nobody asked voters.

To this day, Liberal-National Coalition is betwixt and between on net-zero. Roasted by "Liberal" Matt Kean, Scott Morrison reluctantly recited the UN rosary. Oddly enough, Peter Dutton angled for a "nuclear net-zero".

That's one outcome from the 2025 election. Voters never get a choice about net-zero or open-borders. They appear to have expressed a view about nuclear.

Sure, net-zero cult is great for China

Juiced by Australian resource-exports, China's massive development-surge shot its CO2 emissions past the US, at the turn of this century. Today's world emissions-graphs say China first and daylight second.

Despite our upper-class legions of trusting China-doves, the US is inextricably our main defence ally. Ironically, they've genuinely reduced their emissions this century. Horrors, by switching from coal to gas.

UN climate-action is still a "no-brainer", Stiell insisted, don't risk a "bog-standard" 2035 target. But Stiell, Climate Minister Chris Bowen, anyone really, can see Australia will fall well short of present targets, never mind cranking up the virtue.

Stiell bragged of reading the riot-act to Turkey. So, there's immense pressure on China, right?

Hardly. As China can see, it's kid gloves. The UN cossets China with 17 symbolic Sustainable Development Goals, number 13 being "climate-action" motherhood. Stiell's own speeches in or of China are deferential – technocratic fluff.

Despite this UN indulgence, educated folks at our Superpower Institute, at US Harvard and UK Oxford, trust the fairy-story. China's runaway "electrification of everything" will also see it reaching its net-zero nirvana by "2060".

"This requires open international trade," instructs Superpower's Ross Garnaut, "with China supplying equipment to and drawing zero-emissions semi-processed goods from abroad."

Zero-emissions goods, Ross, only exist in your imagination. And why should your mate China get the pole position for generous growth and consumption?

Global net-zero is "difficult but not impossible" the guru concludes. My money's staying on impossible.

Anyone old enough to have dodged Australia's UN-friendly educational system should figure that global population/consumption/GDP/emissions/CO2/temperatures aren't Stiell-compliant. They keep on rising.

If emissions-minnow Australia really cared, it would quit its rapid population growth, also the relentless logging and land-clearing. Not happening.

That Oxford don is swooning, at the inexplicable magic of net-zero's "sensitive intervention-points" in "socio-economic systems". His is a cult for the top 1-20%, no beneficial program for the masses.

But net-zero makes no sense for Australia

For Albanese Labor, Matt Kean at Climate Change Authority, Peter Hartcher of SMH, and in left media generally, the "truth" is clear.

They claim Australians have voted for net-zero "science". Only by capitulating can the Coalition hope to have any future. Let's all look-over-there, embellishes Hartcher, claiming Trump "goes further" than dictator XI.

Debatable stuff – when net-zero wasn't even contested. If anything, voters would rather have cheaper energy.

Once again, Australia is a vast ocean-locked continent with stable democracy and untold mineral and energy riches.

What the Coalition should be offering, what the Australian economy should be exploiting, is low population-pressures, housing being affordable, and cheap energy.

It suits our governing classes to impose the opposite – and lie about it. They ascribe the dire housing stress and homelessness to Mr Nobody. They call it a wicked problem. Look over here, they say, at the artificial Treasury indicators of "progress" or "wellbeing".

Instead of isolating Labor, to fawn over their China-net-zero, the Coalition's tying itself in knots again.

The Nationals' initial post-election split got bandaged over. Then Sussan Ley sent off a mild working party to "look at" net-zero again.

Meanwhile it's the Nationals sponsoring a no-net-zero bill, pushing back against the Stiell assault. And being reviled by the educated left.

The Liberals are still playing UN-nice. Docile Deputy-Leader Ted O'Brien will attend Labor's largely do-nothing Reform Roundtable. Which quarantines our cargo-cults of net-zero and open-borders, intimating that artificial-intelligence is the next cult.

For Paul Kelly at The Australian, the Coalition must respect Garnaut, and find an "Australian Way" to net-zero. Simon Benson recommends net-zero but "not at any cost". To Chris Uhlmann, net-zero is delusional "liturgy" not science. Which the Coalition shouldn't abruptly "abandon" - focusing instead on the heavy costs for Australians.

Guys, astute roll-out of renewables is one thing. But Engineer Albanese has already accumulated a pile of authoritarian and unrealistic climate-energy laws, backed by a team of bureaucratic climate-acronyms, all pushing impossible net-zero.

Not readily turned around, even if anyone had a mind. As long as we export our energy security to emissions top-heavy China (and India), and preferentially import their migrants in vast numbers, there's no future "made in Australia".

The world's foremost China-lobby, aka UN HQ in Manhattan, can enjoy more years of pummelling Australia silly. Two key "commodities" that we're trading internationally, Ross, are our sovereignty and our future.