Government Lies Again – Latest NGER Report Lists Only 299 “Polluters” In Total

13 Jul

How many “big polluters” does Australia actually have?

Indeed, how many “polluters” of any size does Australia actually have?

For months leading up to Carbon Sunday, the Government’s mantra was 1,000 of the biggest polluters”.

Then, just before Carbon Sunday, it was suddenly halved – 5oo of the biggest polluters”.

Now dear reader, I have a question.

How do you get a carbon dioxide trading scheme scam covering “500 of the biggest polluters”, when the Government’s own National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) department – whose official data is referenced in support of the claim – actually has only 295 registered “polluters” listed in their latest report?

With just 4 more listed as “Reporting Transfer Certificate Holders”?

Come with me on a little journey, as we uncover yet another monster lie from this government.

First, we’ll take a look at the Government’s freshly minted website explaining their scheme, and the page that tells us about the alleged “500 Companies”.

I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting the weasel words. Those wonderfully vague, non-committal, makes-it-easier-to-weasel-my-way-out-of-it-later words, that tell you the statements being made are not worth the digital binary code they’re written with:

The Carbon Pricing Mechanism is expected to cover around 500 businesses operating in Australia.

Which companies will be required to pay a carbon price?

Most are companies operating large facilities (with over 25,000 tonnes annual CO2-e emissions) that directly emit greenhouse gases, such as power stations, mines and heavy industry. Some are public authorities responsible for emissions from landfills.

Of these businesses, it is estimated that around:

* 135 operate solely in New South Wales and the ACT
* 110 operate solely in Queensland
* 85 solely in Victoria
* 75 solely in Western Australia
* 25 solely in South Australia
* 20 solely in Tasmania; and
* fewer than 10 solely in the Northern Territory.
* a further 45 liable entities operate across multiple states.

Of the 500 businesses:

* around 60 are primarily involved in electricity generation
* around 100 are primarily involved in coal and other mining
* around 40 are natural gas retailers
* around 60 are primarily involved in industrial processes (cement, chemicals and metal processing)
* around 50 operate in a range of other fossil fuel intensive sectors; and
* the remaining 190 operate in the waste disposal sector.

It should be noted that these numbers are estimates only, and are largely based on emissions data previously reported under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting system. In particular, the number of landfills covered will depend on regulations to be developed prescribing the coverage of smaller (over 10,000 kilotonne) landfills that are in close proximity to covered landfills.

Approximate breakdown of covered entities by state and territory [1] State Companies operating each state (excluding companies operating in multiple states)
New South Wales & ACT 135
Queensland 110
Victoria 85
Western Australia 75
South Australia 25
Tasmania 20
Northern Territory 5
Operating in multiple states 45

1. Source: Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency: National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting data; Hyder Consulting (2008) Options for covering waste facilities under an emissions trading scheme Final report 10 June 2008; state and territory government gas retailing regulations.

Right from the beginning, all those weasel words are telling us something.

The original “1,000 of the biggest polluters” suddenly morphed into “5oo of the biggest polluters”, just days before the grand unveiling.

Now, in the official documents – the written record – it is “around” this, and “expected to be” that; “largely” this, and these numbers are estimates only that.

Confidence inspiring, no?

I’ve highlighted in red the footnote that points us to the source of the data used as a basis for their claims.  The “fine print”, that Labor’s ex-Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner belatedly warns us to “examine very carefully” , “whenever a politician cites … figures to show what a fine job he or she is doing”.  The key details that you are not supposed to notice, and certainly never check up on.

According to the Government footnote, they have based their (now) vaguely worded claims of “around 500″ companies primarily on source data “previously reported” from their own National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) department.

So let’s take a look at the NGER’s latest report, Greenhouse and Energy Information 2009-10. The document itself is titled “NGER Publication April 2011”. Here, we find the following (emphasis added):

Information included in this publication

The information in this publication is a subset of the total information reported by corporations to the GEDO. Only some corporations will have their information published due to one or more of the following reasons:

• Some corporations may have de-registered since reporting for the 2008-09 financial year.
• Some corporations are registered for the 2010-11 financial year, but not for 2009-10.
• A registered corporation may not have met one of the reporting thresholds.
• A registered corporation may not have met the 2009-10 publishing threshold.
• A registered corporation may not have submitted its NGER report in time for this publication.
• A registered corporation may have applied under section 25 of the NGER Act to have all or part of its greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption totals withheld from publication.

The information contained in this publication is as reported by a registered corporation, including any resubmissions, as at 24 February 2011. Information published for the 2009-10 financial year will be updated from time to time as a consequence of resubmissions that change corporate group totals.

Note carefully, that it indicates this is a “subset of the total information reported”, and explains why. We will return to that important point shortly.

Further down, we find an alphabetical list of registered “polluters” corporations, under the following title (emphasis added):


Information reported to the GEDO as at 6 May 2011

Then, there’s the list of registered corporations, and, their voluntarily reported green house gas emissions data.

And if you cut and paste all those listed corporations into a spreadsheet, you will see that there is a grand total of … 295.

With 4 more listed separately, as “Reporting Transfer Certificate Holders”.


Julia? Bob? Andrew? Tony? Rob?  How do you get “500 of the biggest” … out of only 299 in total?

Out of interest, in the footnotes to the NGER report’s list of registered corporations, we find the following:

1. These corporations have voluntarily provided information to the GEDO concerning GreenPower renewable energy purchases or voluntarily surrendered Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). This information has been published on the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency website –

That’s just grand, isn’t it. Who knows whether these 295 + 4 registered “polluters” emitted the amount they have reported; or really did make renewable energy purchases, or surrendered REC’s? Clearly the Government doesn’t. By their own admission, they are just taking the “polluters” word for it.

Now for completeness, we need to note the following.

In the Explanatory Information, we find that this latest NGER report only represents “part” of Australia’s total GHG emissions (emphasis added):

Nature of the information

• The greenhouse gas emissions and energy information reported under the NGER Act only represents part of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy consumption. The NGER legislation covers corporations in all sectors of Australia’s economy, however it does not cover:

– corporations that are below certain reporting thresholds;
– entities that are not a constitutional corporation, such as individuals or most government entities;
– reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, land use change and forestry sources in relation to biological processes (but emissions from all other sources, energy production and consumption are included from these industries); and,
– reporting of emissions abatement from greenhouse gas projects.

• In addition to this publication, the information captured under the NGER Act is used to inform government policy formulation; help meet Australia’s international reporting obligations; assist Commonwealth, State and Territory government programs and activities; and, can be used in any future carbon pricing mechanisms.

So, the report does not cover any individual or entity (other than “government entities”) that really matters. That is, in context of their being an insignificant “polluter”.

Does that mean “case closed” … that there are definitely only 299 registered “polluters” in total?

No, we can’t quite leave it there just yet.

Because to an inquiring mind, the NGER report does imply the possibility that there could be other “polluters” out there, that were not included in this particular report. Even though it is supposedly current to 6 May, 2011.

And indeed, it appears that there is.

If we check the NGER’s National Greenhouse Energy Register dated March 2011, we find that there are in fact a grand total of … 771 “corporations” listed.

Now ladies and gentlemen, it is important to note that this register includes lots and lots and lots of rather unlikely candidates for the label of “big polluter”.

Indeed, in the disclaimer information at the beginning of said register, we read that (emphasis added):

The table below is an extract of the Register. It provides information for all registered corporations, including holders of Reporting Transfer Certificates, which are registered under section 17 of the NGER Act. This extract of the Register may include corporations that do not meet a threshold for the trigger year in which they have registered.

This register includes corporations like … family trusts. Trustees for family trusts. Faceless, nameless entities only identified by an ACN number (seriously!). City and shire councils. The Uniting Church property trusts. Area health services. Hospitals. The NSW Forestry Commission. And, universities galore.

Now, as this is the definitive, official list of all registered “polluters” in Australia at March 2011, then Julia … you have got a big problem.

Because according to your own NGER department’s official register and latest Report, there is no way that there actually are “500 of the biggest polluters” existing in this country, for you to include in your global bankster-driven “hot air” derivatives and futures trading scam.

Much less “1,000 of the biggest polluters”, that you have been lying about to this nation for month after month.

In the words of another famous redhead …



This most recent game of “we really don’t have a clue but we’ll keep on lying and pretending to” by our Green-Labor minority government is amusingly reminiscent of the side-splitting exchanges in Senate Estimates, between Barnaby Joyce and the (air) head of the Treasury department’s Climate Change Modelling Unit, over questions of climate “mitigation” and “green jobs”.

Read on to boggle your mind and split your sides with one of the most popular, most retweeted posts in this site’s history – “Barnaby Bamboozles Chief Of Climate Change Modelling Unit … Again”

12 Responses to “Government Lies Again – Latest NGER Report Lists Only 299 “Polluters” In Total”

  1. rogueoperator July 13, 2011 at 2:29 am #

    Just goes to show how strikingly today’s “climate scientists” are mathematically challenged.

  2. Jazza July 13, 2011 at 9:22 am #

    What’s 25,000 times $23 annually again?

    A bleeding lot of money that the dopes who agree with a CO2 tax seem to think will NOT be passed on about 500 times.somewhere in the producer/consumer systems.

    . Well, i’ve got a harbour bridge for sale to the green heads of this nation , cheap!

    Why isn’t the Goose standing down since, apparently he allegedly lied to parliament,when Hockey asked if the cost of the “dirty coal stations”( eg Vic and SA) to be bought out by the government to appease the brown monster, would come from the contingency fund ,and Swan answered NO

    I’ve now read that’s exactly where they will fund their fantasy

    When we keep getting outages in 2012/ 2013 as I expect, perhaps we should all take to the streets and threaten to lynch this incompetent, arrogant mob of “global warming” sycophants unless they reverse this nonsense.

    God the election result, when they all got, will be EXQUISITE!

    • The Blissful Ignoramus July 13, 2011 at 9:49 am #

      I fear this “arrogant mob” may need to be encouraged to consider the implications of the “angry mob” before they pass the legislation Jazza. I have grave doubts that any future government will repeal a cash cow of this dimension. See my previous post on this, vis-a-vis practical challenges (impossibilities?) for Coalition to repeal once it’s in. Even if they truly wanted to .. which in the case of the Libs, I am dubious about.

  3. JMD July 13, 2011 at 7:23 pm #

    It’s all OK….. says the ratings agency, nothing to worry about, Moody’s can’t be wrong;

  4. Whacked July 13, 2011 at 8:38 pm #

    Off topic

    “For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises — that in most cases they themselves created — by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.”

  5. JMD July 13, 2011 at 10:07 pm #

    Just a point of interest for now but the RBA today bought outright, or monetised, Federal debt with a duration of 493 days. For some reason duration data for outright transactions only goes back a few years but 493 days is pretty extreme, the longer the duration the greater the price risk for the RBA, since the price of debt of longer duration moves more with yields than shorter durations.

    Will be interesting to see if this is just an outlier or the start of something more. The longer the duration of the RBA’s loans the ‘easier’ it is getting, like me lending you $100 for a day or for a month.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus July 13, 2011 at 10:33 pm #

      That’s very interesting indeed JMD. What sort of sums are we talking? Link? One wonders what, if anything, it may have to do with the US debt ceiling problems.

      • JMD July 14, 2011 at 9:46 am #

        ‘Only’ $45 million thus far but like I said, the longer the duration of the loans the RBA gives, the greater the price risk of the ‘assets’ the RBA holds. It is not just about how many $ the RBA is throwing around but the quality of the assets it is loaning against & also the duration of the loans it makes.

        It may have something to do with the US debt ceiling problems in that the RBA has to provide a backstop bid for a wobbly Federal debt market, it may also be the government backed carbon scam. Foisting that shit on us when there are sovereign debt issues around the world seems to be the height of stupidity.

        We shall see. The link is & you’ll see Open Market Operations A3.


  1. Only 299 “Polluters” In Total | Cranky Old Crow - July 13, 2011

    […] Only 299 “Polluters” In Total […]

  2. Can You See It? | Cranky Old Crow - July 17, 2011

    […] Only 299 “Polluters” In Total […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: