Australia's "Net Zero"

BASED ON AVERAGE YEARS, AUSTRALIA IS ALREADY AT (OR BETTER THAN) “NET ZERO”

This is an edited excerpt from the complaint article I wrote to the Senate Inquiry on Information Integrity in Climate Change (published also on Substack).

Top-Down Satellite Emissions Analyses Reveal Australia’s Net CO₂ Uptake in Average Years: Evidence from NASA OCO-2 and JAXA GOSAT/GOSAT-2 Observations

Top-down atmospheric inversions use satellite measurements of column-averaged dry-air mole fractions of CO₂ (XCO₂) combined with atmospheric transport models to infer surface carbon fluxes directly from observed atmospheric concentrations. Unlike bottom-up inventories (which sum estimated emissions and uptake from ecosystems, fires, and human activities), top-down methods provide an independent constraint on net fluxes at continental scales, capturing the integrated effects of photosynthesis, respiration, fires, and disturbances. For Australia—a continent dominated by semi-arid ecosystems with high interannual variability—this approach has been transformative. Satellite data from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2, launched 2014) and Japan’s Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT, launched 2009; succeeded by GOSAT-2 in 2018) have revealed that, in average years without severe bushfires or prolonged drought, Australia’s terrestrial ecosystems act as a clear net CO₂ sink (negative net biosphere exchange, or NBE, excluding fossil-fuel emissions). Extreme events reverse this, but the baseline is uptake.

NASA’s OCO-2, with its high spatial resolution and dense sampling (up to ~100 times more soundings per day than GOSAT), has enabled regional-scale inversions over Australia. A landmark study assimilated OCO-2 land nadir and glint XCO₂ retrievals (version 9) into a regional 4D-Var system for the full year 2015—an average year with no continent-wide extreme drought or major bushfires, though influenced by a developing El Niño. The posterior terrestrial flux estimate was a net sink of −0.41 ± 0.08 PgC yr⁻¹ (petagrams of carbon per year), compared with a prior near-neutral or slight source of +0.09 ± 0.20 PgC yr⁻¹ from the CABLE-BIOS3 biosphere model. Most uptake occurred in the northern savanna and western sparsely vegetated regions, driven by positive rainfall anomalies that enhanced vegetation productivity (confirmed by MODIS Enhanced Vegetation Index anomalies). The inversion reduced OCO-2 observation biases by over 90% in key months and aligned closely with the OCO-2 Model Intercomparison Project (MIP) ensemble mean.[1]

Extending this analysis, a follow-up paper used the same OCO-2 assimilation framework for 2015–2019. The five-year average terrestrial NBE was −0.46 ± 0.08 PgC yr⁻¹—a consistent net sink. The strongest uptake occurred in 2016 (−1.04 PgC yr⁻¹), again in semi-arid savanna and sparsely vegetated zones responding to high rainfall and low temperatures. By contrast, 2019 showed large net outgassing linked to unprecedented rainfall deficits and high temperatures—the precursor to the catastrophic 2019–2020 southeast Australian bushfires and drought. Non-extreme years (2015, 2017, 2018) contributed to the overall sink, with flux anomalies consistent with independent OCO-2 MIP and FLUXCOM ensembles. These results demonstrate that Australia’s land surface provides net CO₂ uptake under typical climatic conditions, with semi-arid ecosystems acting as the dominant driver.[2]

JAXA’s GOSAT and its successor GOSAT-2 complement OCO-2 by providing longer-term and overlapping records. GOSAT-2 (launched October 2018) offers improved pointing accuracy, higher signal-to-noise in the shortwave infrared, and dedicated sun-glint observations over oceans, enabling better global coverage including Australia’s remote interiors. While Australia-specific regional inversions using GOSAT-2 XCO₂ are still emerging (most early analyses focus on methane), GOSAT-2 data feed into global systems and extend the GOSAT record. A key GOSAT-based study covering 2009–2018 identified recurrent end-of-dry-season CO₂ pulses over Australia driven by rapid soil respiration after the first rains—processes previously underestimated in both top-down and bottom-up models. These pulses dominate year-to-year variability and amplify seasonal flux swings by 2–3 times compared with earlier estimates. The work confirmed that Australia contributes substantially to global terrestrial CO₂ sink variability, but in non-extreme years the net annual balance remains one of uptake rather than release.[3]

A comprehensive 2024 global OCO-2 inversion (GONGGA system, assimilating NASA OCO-2 data through 2022) further reinforces the pattern. Over the eight-year period 2015–2022, Australia ranks among the planet’s major terrestrial carbon sinks (behind only Europe, boreal Asia, temperate Asia, and parts of the Americas and Africa in the TransCom regional ranking). Most of the continent shows net uptake, with only isolated southeastern coastal areas acting as sources in the mean field. Fire emissions (notably the 2019–2020 events) and drought can temporarily overwhelm NEE and flip regions to net sources, but the multi-year mean confirms sink behaviour in average conditions. The GONGGA dataset aligns well with other OCO-2 MIP inversions and highlights how satellite constraints reduce prior model biases in Australia’s vast, sparsely observed interior.[4]

The contrast with extreme years is stark and well-documented. The 2019–2020 Black Summer bushfires and preceding drought—intensified by climate change—produced a massive net carbon loss exceeding Australia’s annual fossil-fuel emissions for that period alone. Top-down analyses (including OCO-2 and multi-satellite studies) quantified this reversal clearly, with subsequent recovery expected over years to decades as vegetation regrows. Yet in the absence of such events, the satellite-derived record consistently shows net uptake. This holds across independent inversions using different transport models, prior fluxes, and satellite products (OCO-2, GOSAT), lending high confidence to the conclusion.[5]

These findings carry important implications. Australia’s semi-arid ecosystems are highly sensitive to rainfall timing and intensity—processes that bottom-up models have historically underestimated. Top-down satellite constraints from OCO-2 (NASA) and the GOSAT/GOSAT-2 series (JAXA) provide policy-relevant verification of the national carbon budget, especially as Australia aims for net-zero emissions. They also underscore the risk: continued climate-driven increases in drought and fire frequency could erode the natural sink, turning a reliable uptake mechanism into a source. Ongoing assimilation of GOSAT-2 and future missions (e.g., NASA’s OCO-3, planned successors) will sharpen these insights, enabling near-real-time monitoring and better separation of natural variability from anthropogenic trends.

In summary, top-down analyses from 2022-era satellite datasets and supporting scientific papers demonstrate unequivocally that, in average years free of severe bushfires or drought, Australia functions as a net CO₂ sink. The terrestrial biosphere removes more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases—typically on the order of 0.4–0.5 PgC yr⁻¹ on multi-year averages—driven by the responsive productivity of savanna and sparsely vegetated landscapes. This satellite-verified reality strengthens the case for protecting and enhancing these ecosystems, as well as other more highly carbon-sequestering ecosystems.

So, for average years, Australia’s ecosystem-based carbon sequestration is 400-500 million tons of CO2 per year. And this is based predominantly on net carbon uptake of vegetation of inland Australia. What were previously our best ecosystems for carbon uptake, the coastal and range ecosystems, have largely been decimated for the needs of population and economic growth.

Based on average years, we are already better than Net Zero.

The 2019–2020 Black Summer bushfires and preceding drought were likely intensified by climate change, and they produced a massive net carbon loss exceeding Australia’s annual fossil-fuel emissions for that period alone. I am not arguing the toss on this, and its possible that such events will worsen into the future. But objectively Australia’s contribution to global climate change is negligible, and as I argue below, Net Zero policies in the context of growth, will likely not improve the situation, but make it worse.

And other factors, which no-one dares to mention, because they are disruptive to pro-renewables and population growth agendas, also made the Black Summer bushfires worse. I’ll list them:

• Population and economic growth increasingly fragments forest ecosystems¹, causing local climate changes² - these are well documented to dry forests out and increase average surface temperatures, extending into forested areas³.

• Increased roads through forested areas (due ultimately to population and economic growth) makes them more easily accessible by arsonists, and arsonists were likely to be a significant source of the ignition of bushfires, as is usually the case⁴⁵. Criminality also comprises a fairly fixed subset of populations - increase populations and you increase numbers of arsonists. But take note of the media furore regarding allegations that many of the fires were lit by arsonists⁶⁷⁸, as they usually are - apparently Black Summer bushfires were an exception to the usual trend. “Only about 1 per cent of the land burnt in NSW this bushfire season can be officially attributed to arson, and it is even less in Victoria, the ABC can reveal.” The source of the information was representatives of RFS and CFA fire services. It’s impossible to exclude arson and catastrophic backburns are not judged to be arson. I don’t doubt that “dry lightning” strikes were an increased cause⁹ ¹⁰ but fires attributed to lightning may have started without thunderstorms being active on occasion - even if they were, bushfires in the area are not automatically caused by “dry lightning” unless directly witnessed. Obviously arson is not a likely cause in remote inaccessible areas, and dry lightning would be more likely, but not certain. The supposedly false attribution of some fires to arson has even reached academic circles in a scientific article on Black Summer arson: “Climate misinformation has been identified as a barrier to mitigative action.”¹¹ The Black Summer bushfires have been weaponised to promote “climate action” (renewable energy) and attributing fires to arson erodes the argument somewhat.

• Many of the damaging bushfires were also actually lit by fire crews as “back burns” - its documented that some of the more catastrophic bushfires started in this manner or were made worse, not better, by such methods¹²¹³.“An independent fire expert report by Mr Nic Gillie B.Sc. MA Fire in Landscape on the seven escaped RFS strategic back burn fires that helped create the Gospers Mountain Mega Fire and the four missed opportunities to contain the wildfire without using strategic backburns. These escaped RFS back burns grew the fire from 56,000 hectares to a final size of 780,000 hectares destroyed or damaged 217 houses and sheds; and killed an estimated billion animal and flora species.” ¹⁴ “The Mt Wilson back burn was lit at 10am in very high fire danger and extremely low fuel moisture content conditions in breach of RFS Backburning Protocol #17 at the corner Bells Line Road and Mt Wilson Road.” ¹⁵ What’s the difference between a bushfire and a distant backburn lit in dangerous conditions? There are numerous accounts of backburns being lit in inappropriate and dangerous conditions, or with these conditions forecast. The coronial inquests and other inquiries into the Black Summer bushfires seem to have escaped the attention of pro-renewables media including the Guardian and the ABC. They don’t fit with the narrative.

• Dropping incendiaries from helicopters for “back burns” into areas inaccessible by roads and fire breaks during extreme fire weather increases the complexity and risk of firefighting operations. “During the Black Summer bushfires of 2019/20 we flew approximately 4200 hours on aerial firefighting missions across a range of flight regimes including waterbombing, air attack supervision, aerial incendiary, thermal imaging mapping and the insertion and supporting of rapid aerial response teams (RART) on remote fire grounds.” ¹⁶

• Some of the bushfires were “accidentally lit”. For example, the pilot of an army helicopter decided it was a good idea to land in tall grass during extreme fire conditions for a toilet break for one of the crew members, then decided not to report the ensuing fire¹⁷. The helicopter’s tail light, which is normally 2.5-3.5m off the ground surface, apparently caused ignition of the bushfire by heating up surrounding grass. The number of accidentally-lit bushfires also increases with population and more intensive industries and interventions.

• Renewable energy actually makes landscapes more fire-prone, via warming via atmospheric layer mixing¹⁸. Wind energy has also been shown to dry landscapes out¹⁹. Solar farms cause local surface warming (“heat island effect”, which extends into surrounding areas)²⁰, and reduce overall planetary albedo, leading incrementally to more global warming²¹. High voltage transmission lines have been causes of severe bushfires²², and wind turbine fires, although downplayed, are additional sources of ignition in rural and forested landscapes. Solar farms have also caused rural fires²³.

• It has been scientifically shown that the pervasive frequent “fuel reduction burns” conducted by government agencies and private landholders actually tend to make forest ecosystems more fire-prone, sometimes promoting fires with greater intensity (eg “crown fires”).

The Black Summer bushfires have been weaponised by large sections of pro-renewable energy media and academia to promote the uptake of renewable energy in Australia. The net effect of such increasing ecosystem fragmentation and destruction will make the fire situation worse, not better, especially in the context of global increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, both as a result of increasing global emissions, and loss of carbon sinks. As stated below, renewables expansion and “Net Zero” policies are primarily to provide ideological cover for population and economically expansionist policies which will undoubtedly increase Australia’s emissions contributions and destruction of carbon sinks.

Will Net Zero Policies improve the situation?

Australia is one of the important global carbon sinks. Our carbon sink capacity needs to be protected at all costs and enhanced – that is clearly our best contribution to global (and local) climate change.

Proponents of renewable energy point to the possibility that “climate-driven increases in fire and drought” might erode the natural sink. That is purely speculative, and even if true, it does not reduce the need for the protection and enhancement of carbon sinks. These proponents also conveniently ignore many other trajectories[6][7], detrimental to the climate and life on earth, which they cannot use as pretexts to justify the expansion of renewable energy.

I would point out that the only areas in Australia that are net carbon-positive are “south-eastern coastal areas”, which most likely refer to cities and areas of major urbanisation and land degradation that, until around 200 years ago, were highly carbon-sequestering. These areas will inevitably increase their emissions with population growth.

Admittedly, these satellite analyses of carbon uptake and emissions ignore offshored emissions. However, renewable energy and electrification actually increase Australia’s offshored emissions as most infrastructure necessary is actually manufactured offshore, often on high emissions coal-dependent grids in China.

Also, these analyses ignore other greenhouse gas emissions. The “transition” actually necessitates increased methane consumption for balancing which is burned more inefficiently[8]. Nitrous oxides and similar compounds are also potent greenhouse gases, released due to agriculture, fertilisers, diesel combustion (eg agriculture, mining and transport), and other industrial sources. These will also increase with renewable energy and population growth.

The proposal of using ammonia as a fuel source potentially releases significant quantities of N2O and NOx, if the temperature of ignition and other factors are not well controlled[9]. Even if this source achieves “low emissions” it, will promote “business as usual” and ongoing extractivism, growth, and destruction of the biosphere and climate through other means. And its usage needs to be well-regulated and controlled. As exemplified by its oversight of renewable energy projects, DCCEEW appears incapable of such oversight, and further direct climate harm is very possible, if ammonia were to be seriously utilised as fuel source.

Additionally, renewable energy causes increased emissions of the most dangerous synthetic greenhouse gases, NF3 and SF6, which essentially do not degrade. NF3 has an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 550–570 years, and SF6’s atmospheric lifetime is 3200 years. DCCEEW provides no direct oversight of the use of SF6 in wind turbines and electrical infrastructure, instead it is total reliant on self-reporting and the users’ honesty.

GREEN GROWTH?

Renewable energy proponents[10] as well as governments, are generally in favour of economic growth via mass immigration and increasing growth of specific industries such as mining, agriculture, and real estate. This invariably lead to increased emissions and the destruction of carbon sinks. The science, which only really considers fossil fuel emissions and ignores the destruction of carbon sinks and sequestration, is clear that there is no such thing as “green growth”[11][12][13][14].

Growth cannot be decoupled from increased emissions, let alone increased destruction of carbon sinks[15]. The “best available science” shows this[16][17]. Renewables are really just another route for economic expansionism, for “growth” for the benefit of billionaires and big business. And are entirely unnecessary. Proponents and governments clearly consider that remnant areas of forests and biodiversity, which are not protected by national parks, as well as farmland, are underutilised economically and should be converted to energy generation, for their version of globalist economic growth, on the pretext of “climate action”.

In fact, as embodied in this article[18], attempting to “transition” to an entirely renewables-based economy necessitates, in the short-term (for at least several decades), the consumption of more, not less, fossil fuels. This is because the mining expansion requires more diesel, as does the expansion of globalism, which requires fossil fuels for diesel and ship fuel. In addition, the requirements of attempting to manufacture and deploy massive, electrified networks to replace the use of fossil fuels require a massive reconfiguration of all energy systems – doing that requires more consumption of fossil fuels in the next few decades, and the emissions are mainly upfront.

So too are the initiatives contained in the “Net Zero” dogma, which are (perhaps) more applicable to other countries that do not have our large carbon sinks.

“Net Zero” strategies, in their pure form, require attempting to replace all fossil fuel uses with electrification and non-fossil fuel sources of energy and materials. This requires huge areas of land for attempting to replace fossil fuels with organically derived fuels[19] (as well as fossil fuel-derived fertilisers and other chemicals), as well as feedstocks for the replacement of plastics. This necessarily impacts agricultural food production, and further incentivises the destruction of ecosystems for agriculture, as well as the intensification of existing rural land which often holds habitat for many remnant native species, to intensive monocultures, dependent on intensive applications of chemicals (fertilisers and pesticides) and irrigation.

And that’s in addition to the vast land area requirements of intermittent renewable energy with required storage and overbuild. This inevitably means more destruction of carbon sinks and carbon sequestration, as well as upfront emissions. Net Zero strategies are simply catastrophic for biodiversity and climate, from Australia’s perspective.

Renewable energy is the cornerstone of Net Zero policies - all policies are predicated on the massive and rapid expansion of renewable energy, which has predominantly upfront emissions. As I shall examine in a future article or book (currently being written), the emissions intensity of renewable energy systems are grossly underestimated for multiple reasons and thus renewable energy is unlikely to significantly reduce emissions, especially in certain scenarios such as the use of rare earth magnets, and wind farms located in forested areas. Indeed, when one considers, in addition, the total emissions of the systems required to replace fossil fuels in energy generation, systems that require huge amounts of storage and significant overbuild, its unlikely there is any emissions reduction.

“Net Zero” is likely disastrous for the climate as well as biodiversity.

Clearly, the best strategy for preserving biodiversity and reducing our impact on anthropogenic climate change is stabilisation of growth and degrowth, which will ultimately lead to protection and enhancement of carbon sinks, and reduction of emissions. Nuclear energy is also obviously a better option than renewable energy, for many reasons, not the least of which is the preservation of biodiversity and carbon sinks[20].

But because our national policies seem to be run by vested interest groups and billionaires, and their puppet politicians and parties, it seems we have no choice but to endlessly expand our economy via globalism and population growth, increase emissions, and destroy carbon sinks, under the guise of “climate action” and “Net Zero”.

Most “climate action”, especially that funded via billionaires and offshore interests, is clearly not “climate action” but “renewables activism”, or “mining and industrialisation activism, on behalf of billionaires and corporate interests”, the very same billionaire and corporate industries who advocate for endless growth and the destruction of biodiversity and climate.

“Net Zero” policies, at least in the Australian context, provide ideological cover for policies which both increase emissions and destruction of carbon sinks, such as population growth via mass immigration, and are assumed to be efficacious regardless of population and economic sizes. This is abhorrent, but is fully supported by the Australian Greens and ALP.

(References are below but there are two lists, as a result of editing this article originally as a Word document then editing it further in Substack - I apologise).

---

[1] Was Australia a sink or source of CO₂ in 2015? Data assimilation using OCO-2 satellite measurements

[2] Interannual variability in the Australian carbon cycle over 2015–2019, based on assimilation of Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite data

[3] Soil respiration–driven CO₂ pulses dominate Australia’s flux variability

[4] A global surface CO₂ flux dataset (2015–2022) inferred from OCO-2 retrievals using the GONGGA inversion system

[5] The Carbon Cycle of Southeast Australia During 2019–2020: Drought, Fires, and Subsequent Recovery

[6] The Great Acceleration

[7] New planetary dashboard shows increasing human impact

[8] Wind energy is not sustainable when balanced by fossil energy

[9] Ammonia fuel offers great benefits but demands careful action

[10] QUEENSLAND RENEWABLES GROWTH & INVESTMENT STRATEGY

[11] ‘Green Economic Growth’ Is a Myth

[12] The idea of ‘green growth’ is flawed. We must find ways of using and wasting less energy

[13] Idea of green growth losing traction among climate policy researchers, survey of nearly 800 academics reveals

[14] The myth of green growth

[15] Green growth cannot make a sustainable world

[16] Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature

[17] Raising the bar: on the type, size and timeline of a ‘successful’ decoupling

[18] Want Clean Energy? We’ll Need More Fossil Fuels

[19] Net Zero and Beyond What Role for Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage?

[20] Reframing Net Zero: Nuclear’s role in protecting biodiversity

1. Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth

2. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems

3. Deforestation-induced surface warming is influenced by the fragmentation and spatial extent of forest loss in Maritime Southeast Asia

4. Humans light 85% of bushfires, and we do virtually nothing to stop it

5. Up to 40% of bushfires in parts of Australia are deliberately lit. But we’re not doing enough to prevent them

6. Shocking number of arson charges in bushfire-ravaged regions indicate sinister start of blazes

7. The truth about Australia’s fires — arsonists aren’t responsible for many this season

8. Bushfire article in the Australian that fuelled misinformation cleared by press council

9. Variation of lightning-ignited wildfire patterns under climate change

10. Multi-decadal increase of forest burned area in Australia is linked to climate change

11. Black Summer arson: Examining the impact of climate misinformation and corrections on reasoning

12. Backburning in Gospers Mountain mega fire claims 20 buildings at Bilpin and Mt Wilson

13. ‘Poor strategy’: Burnoffs made Black Summer bushfires worse, study reveals

14. NSW Special Coronial Inquiry into Black Summer Bushfires Mt Wilson Escaped RFS Backburn case study.

15. Report by Nic Gillie

16. Bush Fire Support

17. Inquiry into Orroral Valley bushfire finds Defence helicopter crew made ‘error of judgement’ after accidentally sparking blaze

18. Harvard Study Finds Wind Turbines Will Cause More Warming In Minnesota Than Emissions Reductions Would Avert

19. Climatic Impacts of Wind Power

20. Wind farms dry surface soil in temporal and spatial variation

21. The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect: Larger solar power plants increase local temperatures

22. Small reduction in land surface albedo due to solar panel expansion worldwide

23. Electricity-caused fire