The “Biggest Polluters” Are? – Food For Thought If You Like To Eat, Drink, Or Bathe

32 Responses to “The “Biggest Polluters” Are? – Food For Thought If You Like To Eat, Drink, Or Bathe”

1. 

   Medusa Knows July 18, 2011 at 1:27 am #

   Great work, as usual!
   • 

     jorge palacios August 11, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

     The 500 biggest polluters are those that run a FACILITY that emits over 25kt of CO2 (direct emissions). They may OR may not be in the list you provided.

     It is, however, UNLIKELY that they will be companies with ‘facilities’ that are responsible for manufacturing/producing/providing:

     (a) things we eat,
     (b) things we drink,
     (c) bathing (??),
     (d) renewable energy,
     (e) recycling,
     (f) public transport,
     (g) health services and hospitals,
     (h) CSIRO, and/or
     (i) university,

     The government’s claim that:

     “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.”

     …is actually accurate.

     Worth a fact-check prior to posting.

     As for the theory of “eugenics under the cover of Gaianism” posted below… Gold!
     • 

       The Blissful Ignoramus August 11, 2011 at 5:52 pm #

       Jorge, the government’s claim is very far from accurate. Please see my detailed research on the NGER Register of “polluters” here – download the spreadsheet and see for yourself.
     • 

       jorge palacios August 11, 2011 at 7:09 pm #

       BI, just because a company is in your NGERS register doesnt mean it will “make the list” that you are referring to (top 500 that pay the tax).

       The top 500 come from those corporations with a “facility” that trips the threshold.

       The facility must emit 25kt of scope 1 emissions (liquid fuels, LPG etc excluded). Or be a landfil that is 10kt+ of scope 1. Or a natural gas retailer…

       Your register is the summary for all the corporations that report. They might have 5,10 or 50 facilities that make up their total emissions shown in your register. If one of those facilities trips the 25kt threshold, they’ll pay the tax – if not, like the schools and hopsitals, they won’t…

       explained pretty well here in a flow chart:
       http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/500-companies/
       • 

         The Blissful Ignoramus August 11, 2011 at 7:25 pm #

         Sorry Jorge, but with respect, you are not nearly with the program on this. Just for starters, as of yesterday we’re now down to “more like 400” “biggest polluters”.

         Funnily enough I did pass Grade 2 math, so I’m obviously fully aware that not all of the 775 companies in the full Register are included in the … “more like 400” … who will (if they don’t change their story yet again!) be hit with the tax.

         Read my posts just today on the issue of (lack of) monitoring/measuring/auditing of emissions. I’ve plenty of other posts demonstrating their lies, including the fact that the whole scheme is unconstitutional, and a follow-up post coming in next couple days with further evidence it is unconstitutional.

         It’s a scam. End of story. The evidence – all from the government’s own documents – is overwhelming.
     • 

       jorge palacios August 11, 2011 at 7:35 pm #

       It doesnt matter if its 500,400 or 50. The fact is that the food manufacturers and hospitals won’t be the companies that pay the tax.

       Which was the basis for your blog.

       And why i replied.
       • 

         The Blissful Ignoramus August 11, 2011 at 7:49 pm #

         (sigh) …

         1. What I have noted, is that these are the kind of companies that are included in (a) the latest NGER report, and (b) the NGER Register. Both true.

         2. Read both lists. Carefully. Start with the latest Report – which includes 299 “polluters” that are ALL above the threshold. Food manufacturers and hospitals etc are on that list of 299.

         You are simply wrong, Jorge.

         You are making assertions (“The fact is that the food manufacturers and hospitals won’t be the companies that pay the tax”) that (a) you cannot possibly know to be true, and (b) are clearly and unequivocably contradicted by the evidence of the government’s own Report.
     • 

       jorge palacios August 11, 2011 at 8:19 pm #

       OK, there are two lists.

       One that exists (NGERS reporting) that you used to make your spreadsheet.

       The other list doesnt exist yet and will ONLY include companies that manage a FACILITY that emits more than 25kt of CO2. Or landfills etc

       Just because you are on list No1 and emit more than 25kt in TOTAL, doesnt mean you have a FACILITY that will emit this much. Some uni’s might have 4 or more campuses (facilities) that make up their total emissions (figure in spreadsheet). And when you exclude scope 2 and liquid fuels even their biggest campuses aren’t going to come into reckoning…

       safe
       • 

         The Blissful Ignoramus August 11, 2011 at 8:36 pm #

         No Jorge. You are still wrong.

         There are two lists. BOTH are from the government.

         1. The NGER latest Report containing 299 reporting “biggest polluters”, and their last reported emissions, ALL above the threshold – the subject of this particular post. You can find the original of that list here – http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/climatechange/CarbonPricing/Companies.htm. I linked it at the beginning of this post, but clearly you failed to check all the links in order to get the full story, and your facts correct, before posting. It does quite clearly contain “companies” that include food manufacturers, uni’s etc, with emissions above the threshold. By definition, they have to be above the threshold in order to be in that government Report, Jorge. Read the emissions totals. It’s not difficult.

         2. The NGER Register containing 775 names/ABN numbers, and no other information – original here. That is the list I researched in order to identify who/what they are. And then, produced a separate spreadsheet detailing the results.

         Now please Jorge. Please, make an effort to check, follow all links, read, THINK, and get your facts correct first … before posting.
       • 

         The Blissful Ignoramus August 11, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

         “Some uni’s might have 4 or more campuses (facilities) that make up their total emissions (figure in spreadsheet). And when you exclude scope 2 and liquid fuels even their biggest campuses aren’t going to come into reckoning…”

         Before you post again on this, I would ask you to please find evidence for your assertion/s first. If you are not prepared to put in an effort to research and back your assertions with evidence, then your opinions presented in the form of accusation that my research is wrong, will not be welcome.
     • 

       jorge palacios August 11, 2011 at 8:59 pm #

       i’ve read it all BI.

       Suggest you take note of these lines from your link:

       “All scope 1 (direct) emissions covered by the carbon pricing mechanism, and legacy waste emissions, will count towards thresholds, but not scope 1 emissions from fuels or other sources excluded from the carbon pricing mechanism.

       Publicly available NGER data does not make the distinction between sources of scope 1 emissions. It provides only aggregates and could therefore be misleading.”

       No facility with scope 1(minus fuels) over 25kt – no tax.
       • 

         The Blissful Ignoramus August 11, 2011 at 9:32 pm #

         Jorge, if you care to check (I don’t believe you have) the “Combined” spreadsheet #4 in my download – which combines the NGER Report data with the NGER Register – it takes a matter of seconds to identify (eg) at least 9 food manufacturers that (a) appear in both GOVT lists, and (b) have reported Scope 1 emissions in excess of the threshold.

         I’m not going to bother checking any of your other incorrectly-cited sector examples as (with all due respect) I feel that I’ve wasted more than enough of my time responding to your unsupported assertions already.

         Final comment – if you have read all my posts on this topic, and if it is still not obvious to you that the government is misleading the public at every turn on this topic, and is making it up as they go along, then you are either not looking carefully, not thinking carefully … or have a “need to believe”.

         Thank you for visiting.
2. 

   JMD July 18, 2011 at 9:56 am #

   Off topic but keep an eye on the price of gold in Pounds Sterling, it is getting very close to 1000.

   I have spent countless hours in the last few years studying the nature of money & I rate the Bank of England one of the most nefarious institutions that has ever existed.

   Hitting 1000 may not cause the sky to fall but I think it is a milestone. Just maybe the Old Lady of Threadneedle St is beginning to lose her grip, after some 400 years.
   • 

     The Blissful Ignoramus July 18, 2011 at 9:59 am #

     Didn’t “modern” central banking as we now know it pretty much start with the BoE?
     • 

       JMD July 18, 2011 at 10:04 am #

       More or less, apparently the Swedish central bank is older but hasn’t had the ‘influence’ of the BoE.
3. 

   John Comnenus July 18, 2011 at 10:36 am #

   OMG!!!! I will be paying the carbon tax EVERYTIME I WIPE MY BUTT – with my Kimberly Clark twin ply tiolet tissue. Forget big government’s hand in my pocket!
4. 

   Daniel July 18, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

   Im guessing you will look into why those company’s made the list?

   Snowy Hydro Limited
   “Snowy Hydro owns and operates the 300MW Valley Power gas fired peaking power station located in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria and the 320MW Laverton North gas fired peaking power station also located in Victoria. “
   • 

     The Blissful Ignoramus July 18, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

     Eventually yes. The NGER Register is a big list. With no details provided. None at all.
5. 

   Zorro July 18, 2011 at 4:31 pm #

   Am i cynical or am i the only one thats get a sense that there’s a lot of double counting going on.?
   For instance, Woolworths is on the list as a big emmitter, but they are a food supermarket & pokies retailer. Therefore, shouldnt the bulk of thier carbon emissions be already included in the manufacture of good & production of electricity by thier suppliers?
   And the carbon emitted by their transport activities by the contractors who move thier products from warehouse to stores?
   Unless of course they run a number of mining, smelting, steelmilling or concrete businesses that we dont know about.
   So who exactly is going to pay for thier carbon emissions via the tax? Shareholders? Directors? Whats that, you say?…..customers?
   But that will mean they have to increases food prices by say, only 0.1% , lest they fall foul of that bastion of consumer protection, our ACCC, who’ve done such a wonderful job in holding down retail food prices in the past.
   (just my $23 worth)
   • 

     The Blissful Ignoramus July 18, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

     You’re onto it Zorro. First person I’ve come across who’s clicked to that.

     I’m slowly labouring through researching who exactly – and what industry sector, exactly – the 775 “companies” on the NGER Register are. And I can assure you, it is abundantly clear that there is a LOT of double counting going on.

     Total scam.
6. 

   Cameron July 18, 2011 at 4:59 pm #

   Surely the federal government as an entity is a big polluter powering government buildings government transport, defense forces etc
   • 

     The Blissful Ignoramus July 18, 2011 at 5:03 pm #

     Indeed, you are quite correct. See my previous posts on this – from the most recent NGER Report, “Explanatory Information” footnote:

     • 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.
7. 

   Fred July 18, 2011 at 10:33 pm #

   Thinking about the good ole 80/20 rule and checking out that data at the link you provided, and counting up the ’emissions’ you get the following results:

   Using scope 1 figures (that the list is sorted by):
   80% of all emissions in the list counted by biggest “polluters” 1 to 36 (Orica)
   90% of all emissions in the list counted by biggest “polluters” 1 to 60 (Gujarat NRE..)
   98% of all emissions in the list counted by biggest “polluters” 1 to 149 (Cairnton..)

   Using both scope 1 and 2 figures:
   80% of all emissions in the list counted by biggest “polluters” 1 to 56 (BHP)
   90% of all emissions in the list counted by biggest “polluters” 1 to 125 (Sonoma Mine…)
   98% of all emissions in the list counted by biggest “polluters” 1 to 253 (Transgrid..)

   Down the bottom of the list, the last 20 “polluters” are together creating 0.0187% of all the C02. Hardly worth even listing them.

   Those that worked on and had this list should have known that of course the list of 1000, er um 500, was always going to be culled. The final list could have easily been even shorter.

   I’ll bet there is indeed a list of 1000 or more ‘polluters’ somewhere in the bowels of government, with the last 750 companies contributing stuff all to the total. In the same way that Australia, would be way down the list on the world total. Clearly the CO2 trading bang per “expense” of “political dollar” gets very thin a the bottom of the list. Little gain for plenty of election pain. That, Swanny, Julia and the rest of those clowns and all their advisers did not see the sense in cullling the list sooner (even just so that Hockey could not make jack-asses of them in question time) tells us that these people lack mathematical and political savvy.

   We’re stuffed.
   • 

     The Blissful Ignoramus July 18, 2011 at 10:42 pm #

     Well done. 😉
8. 

   Matt of Brisbane July 20, 2011 at 7:35 am #

   You have absolutely no idea my biased friend! Next you be telling us that we should all do nothing at all. You are not a scientist and never will be. You own a small business? Don’t quite your day job my uneducated friend.
   • 

     The Blissful Ignoramus July 20, 2011 at 12:13 pm #

     Indeed, that is exactly what “we” should do.
   • 

     Andrew Richards August 11, 2011 at 12:02 am #

     Matt, since you clearly have no idea what a duped little Nazi sympathiser you’ve been conned into being, let me give you a history lesson:

     Where the modern environmental movement falls apart is that it advocates for the genocide of “undesirables” (which is EXACTLY what “combating overpopulation” means), rather than drawing on the greatest asset the human race has (namely the creative potential of human beings and the creative density which increases with population).

     Therefore the agenda has far less to do with the good of the planet than it does with fulfilling the insane desires of those who believe in eugenics under the cover of Gaianism (pagan planet worship).

     Eugenics, for those who don’t know, was the ideology behind the Holocaust which Hitler “borrowed” from the Social Darwinist movement of European Aristocracy.

     As the World Wildlife Fund themselves acknowledge, the 2 founders of Modern Environmentalism were HG Wells and the lesser known Sir Julian Huxley. While Wells is known for War of the Worlds, he is much lesser known for one of his other works, “Anticipations” which was written in 1901.

     In it he wrote: “And how will the new republic treat the inferior races? How will it deal with the black? how will it deal with the yellow man? how will it tackle that alleged termite in the civilized woodwork, the Jew? Certainly not as races at all. It will aim to establish, and it will at last, though probably only after a second century has passed, establish a world state with a common language and a common rule. All over the world its roads, its standards, its laws, and its apparatus of control will run. It will, I have said, make the multiplication of those who fall behind a certain standard of social efficiency unpleasant and difficult… The Jew will probably lose much of his particularism, intermarry with Gentiles, and cease to be a physically distinct element in human affairs in a century or so. But much of his moral tradition will, I hope, never die. … And for the rest, those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency?
     Well, the world is a world, not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go.The whole tenor and meaning of the world, as I see it, is that they have to go. So far as they fail to develop sane, vigorous, and distinctive personalities for the great world of the future, it is their portion to die out and disappear.”

     pp 340-343

     Sir Julian Huxley on the other hand is quoted as saying:

     “The lowest strata… allegedly less well endowed genetically… must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive…”

     — Julian Huxley, Galton Lecture at the Eugenics Society, 1936

     And then 2 years after the Nuremberg Trials:

     “Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenics policy of controlled human breeding will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care…”

     — Julian Huxley, “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy”, 1947

     I should point out that a “radical eugenics policy of controlled human breeding” is the short version of what Hitler was attempting with his “Master Race”.

     Therefore let us be clear- regardless of what they thought about the state of the planet, their own words demonstrate that their position was very much pro-eugenics and that this was the overriding factor in starting up the movement.

     In fact it was Huxley, in 1961, the year he was also president of the British Eugenics Society, who formed the World Wilflife Fund with Prince Phillip, Prince Consort of the Brittish Royal Family, and his Cousin, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

     Prince Bernhard’s Nazi credentials are pretty black and white- he was a member of Hitler’s SS, in fact what is not widely known is that most of Prince Phillip’s immediate and extended family could be classed as “card carrying” Nazis.

     In fact, Prince Phillip has made numerous remarks, such as:

     “Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed… We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.”

     — HRH Prince Philip, interview “Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation”, People Magazine, Dec. 21, 1981

     “The object of the WWF is to ‘conserve’ the system as a whole; not to prevent the killing of individual animals. Those who are concerned about the conservation of nature accept… that most species produce a surplus that is capable of being culled without in any way threatening the survival of the species as a whole.”

     — HRH Prince Philip, founder of WWF, in the Chancellor’s Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.

     Based on what was said in 1981, it should be clear just what species Prince Phillip is referring to there being a “surplus” of.

     The significance of the World Wildlife Fund of course is that it is the flagship of the modern environmental movement and if you’re keen to do some digging, you’ll very quickly discover that the vast bulk of environmental groups are either direct or indirect offshoots of the WWF.

     The argument of course is “but movements can change”. Just one problem with that- the focus on “overpopulation”. The sanitised definition of “overpopulation”, is that we need to reduce our population. The way you reduce a population of course is by killing it off through various means, which Prince Charles went into. So who gets killed off? Well as Julian Huxley pointed out in 1936, it’s the “undesirables” of course.

     The irony of all this is that our greatest resource as a race is our creative potential. Where that ties into population though is that the larger the population, the greater density of creativity you have. What that means is that the more people you have, the more people who will come at a problem from different angles and the more likely you are to come up with radical and brilliant ideas. This is something which of course is exponential, and arguably the best chance we have of saving the planet.

     Don’t feel too bad for being taken in by this- remember the number of German’s Hitler conned into thinking the Holocaust was necessary to save the German people.However it’s time to wake up to what’s going on and demand better.

     We should certainly take care of our planet because we only have one planet. However let’s wake up enough to recognise that we’re being conned into signing our own death warrants here.
     • 

       The Blissful Ignoramus August 11, 2011 at 12:12 am #

       “..drawing on the greatest asset the human race has (namely the creative potential of human beings and the creative density which increases with population).”

       Ever read Tesla’s paper on increasing human energy?
     • 

       Andrew Richards August 11, 2011 at 12:24 am #

       Just gave the openning paragraphs a quick glance then (i’ll read through it in the next week), but it sounds very similar to what Vernadski was talking about with the movement of human civilisation into the noosphere.
9. 

   JMD August 11, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

   As a B.Sc (Biology), I object to any association with Charles Darwin & any form of ‘socialism’. Any connection is a complete corruption of the theory of evolution.

   Evolution by natural selection, or survival of the fittest, has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

1. The “Biggest Polluters” Are? | Cranky Old Crow - July 18, 2011

   […] The “Biggest Polluters” Are? […]

2. Behind the “Big 500 Polluters” Lie! | Australian TEA Party - August 9, 2011

   […] we saw in my article “The ‘Biggest Polluters’ Are? – Food For Thought If You Like To Eat, Drink, Or Bathe”, after this catch-all disclaimer there follows a not-numbered list of “polluters” totalling […]

Comments are closed.