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

18 Jul

Your humble blogger is still working on collating the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) department’s Register and latest Report.

There’s an awful lot of blanks to fill in, if we wish to learn how many lies the Government has told on its “500 biggest polluting companies” webpage.

Meanwhile, here’s the very latest publication by the Government concerning these alleged “500 biggest polluting” companies.

It was published on the very highly trafficked (not) Parliament House Library website on 14 July 2011 (emphasis added) –

Which 500 companies pay the tax?

Under the Government’s proposed Carbon Pricing Mechanism around 500 facilities will become liable…

So which facilities are included in that list of 500? The government has released a Factsheet detailing the types of facilities that will be covered and their distribution by State, but no information on which private and public bodies will actually be responsible for paying the tax.

The page goes on to bore you to tears with information about criterion and so forth.

More interesting are the constant stream of weasel words and disclaimers concerning just how many “biggest polluters” there actually are. And, why there are no substantial details provided about them (emphasis added) –

… the legislation includes caveats to protect the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information…

For these reasons, the NGER data is not an accurate reflection of a company’s greenhouse gas emissions…

Nonetheless, and although imperfect, the NGER data is the only public information that provides any indication as to which companies may be liable under the proposed Carbon Pricing Mechanism. Bearing in mind the limitations of the data as just detailed, below is the latest NGER list, ordered by decreasing scope 1 emissions.

Just so we’re clear then, the information from the NGER is not an accurate reflection” and is “imperfect”, but nonetheless it is the only public information that provides any indication” as to who exactly the alleged “500 biggest polluters” might be.

Moving on then … voila! … a nice, long, impressive looking table is displayed.

Showing NGER Registered corporation names.

And their last self-monitored and self-reported Scope 1, Scope 2, and Combined Scope 1 & 2 emissions totals.


The list is (conveniently) not numbered. So, you simply don’t know how many companies are actually listed there, unless you’re prepared to count.

It sure looks impressive though. Which I guess is the whole point.

Well dear reader, I’ve recreated their list. And numbered it, for your viewing displeasure.

I’ve also taken the liberty of highlighting a few of these evil “biggest polluters”.

Perhaps those readers who

(a) like to eat,
(b) like to drink,
(c) like to bathe,
(d) like renewable energy,
(e) like recycling,
(f) like public transport,
(g) like health services and hospitals,
(h) like the CSIRO, and/or
(i) like attending university,

… will find food for thought in this list of “biggest polluters”.


Just one more thing.

Before you read the list, first take a moment to consider carefully how the government has described the “500 biggest polluters” on its new website (emphasis added):

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.

Got that?

The government’s official claim is thatmost of the “biggest polluters” are “direct” emitters, such as “power stations, mines, and heavy industry”.

Enjoy –

Registered Corporations

  1. Macquarie Generation
  2. Delta Electricity
  3. Great Energy Alliance Corporation Pty Ltd
  4. International Power (Australia) Holdings Pty Ltd
  5. C S Energy Limited
  6. TRUenergy Holdings Pty Ltd
  7. Eraring Energy
  8. BlueScope Steel Limited
  9. Loy Yang Holdings Pty Ltd
  10. OzGen Holdings Australia Pty Ltd
  11. Electricity Generation Corporation T/A Verve
  12. Woodside Petroleum Ltd.
  13. Tarong Energy Corporation Limited
  14. Alinta Energy Limited
  15. Rio Tinto Limited
  16. Stanwell Corporation Limited
  17. NRG Victoria 1 Pty Ltd
  18. Alcoa Australian Holdings Pty Ltd1
  19. AZSA Holdings Pty Limited
  20. BHP Billiton Limited
  21. Anglo American Australia Limited
  22. Qantas Airways Limited
  23. Santos Ltd
  24. Queensland Alumina Limited
  25. Adelaide Brighton Ltd
  26. Cement Australia Holdings Pty Ltd
  27. Xstrata Holdings Pty Ltd
  28. OneSteel Limited
  29. Exxonmobil Australia Pty Ltd
  30. Peabody Energy Australia Pty Ltd
  31. HRL Limited
  32. BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd
  33. Wesfarmers Limited
  34. Boral Limited2
  35. BHP Billiton Aluminium Australia Pty Ltd
  36. Orica Limited
  37. Transfield Worley Power Services Pty Ltd
  38. Alcan Gove Pty Limited
  39. Centennial Coal Company Limited
  40. Origin Energy Limited
  41. Caltex Australia Limited
  42. Virgin Blue Holdings Ltd
  43. Conoco Phillips Australia Gas Holdings Pty Ltd
  44. Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd
  45. BP Regional Australasia Holdings Pty Ltd
  46. Shell Australia Limited
  47. AGL Energy Limited1
  48. Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd
  49. Rio Doce Australia Pty Limited
  50. Transfield Services Limited
  51. Power and Water Corporation
  52. Energy Developments Limited
  53. Asciano Limited
  54. Incitec Pivot Limited1
  55. Pechiney Consolidated Australia Pty Limited
  56. BHP Billiton Energy Coal Australia Pty Ltd
  57. Apache Energy Limited
  58. Qenos Holdings Pty Ltd
  59. ERM Kwinana Holding Pty Ltd
  60. Gujarat NRE Coking Coal Limited
  61. Transpacific Industries Group Ltd
  62. Queensland Nitrates Pty Ltd
  63. QR Limited
  64. TransAlta Energy (Australia) Pty Ltd
  65. Leighton Holdings Limited
  66. Newcrest Mining Limited
  67. Iluka Resources Limited
  68. CSR Limited
  69. Envestra Limited
  70. Minara Resources Limited
  71. SPI (Australia) Assets Pty Ltd
  72. Tiwest Pty Ltd
  73. Billiton Manganese Australia Pty Ltd
  74. Amcor Limited
  75. Owens-Illinois (Australia) Pty Ltd
  76. Aurora Energy Pty Ltd
  77. Wilpinjong Coal Pty Ltd
  78. Axia Energy Australia Pty Ltd
  79. Paper Australia Pty Ltd
  80. Prosafe Production Services (Australia) Pty Ltd
  81. Fortescue Metals Group Ltd
  82. Idemitsu Australia Resources Pty Ltd
  83. Toll Holdings Limited
  84. Ecogen Holdings Pty Ltd
  85. Enhance Place Pty. Limited
  86. Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation
  87. Tarong North Pty Ltd
  88. Arrow Energy Ltd
  89. Nyrstar Australia Pty Ltd
  90. Comgen Australia Pty Ltd
  91. Sembsita Australia Pty. Limited
  92. Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd
  93. Newmont Australia Holdings Pty Ltd
  94. Woolworths Ltd
  95. DBNGP (WA) Transmission Pty Limited
  96. Pratt Consolidated Holdings Pty. Ltd.
  97. Honan Holdings Pty Ltd
  98. Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd
  99. New Hope Corporation Limited
  100. Unimin Asia Pacific Pty Ltd
  101. Penrice Soda Holdings Limited
  102. Macarthur Coal Limited
  103. Whitehaven Coal Limited
  104. APT Pipelines Limited
  105. Brickworks Ltd
  106. Multinet Group Holdings Pty Limited
  107. CH2M Hill Australia Pty Ltd
  108. Norske Skog Industries Australia Limited
  109. Yancoal Australia Pty Limited
  110. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd
  111. Brisbane City Council
  112. QMAG Limited
  113. Big Ben Holdings Pty. Limited
  114. Linfox Pty Ltd
  115. Downer EDI Limited
  116. Tiger Airways Australia Pty Limited
  117. Goldfields Power Pty Ltd
  118. Grange Resources Limited
  119. Jellinbah Group Pty Ltd
  120. Barrick (Australia Pacific Holdings) Pty Ltd
  121. Melbourne Water Corporation
  122. Holcim Participations (Australia) Pty Ltd.
  123. JBS Holdco Australia Pty Ltd
  124. Caledon Coal Pty Limited
  125. Sonoma Mine Management Pty Ltd
  126. New Zealand Milk (Australasia) Pty Ltd
  127. Hanson Australia (Holdings) Proprietary Limited
  128. ICC Holdings Pty Limited
  129. Snowy Hydro Limited
  130. CITIC Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd
  131. Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd
  132. Devereaux Holdings Pty Ltd
  133. MMG Management Pty Ltd
  134. Felix Resources Limited
  135. Barrick (PD) Australia Limited
  136. Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Limited
  137. TT-Line Company Pty Ltd
  138. SPI Electricity & Gas Australia Holdings Pty Ltd
  139. International Energy Services Pty Ltd
  140. Koppers Australia Pty Ltd
  141. AngloGold Ashanti Australia Limited
  142. PaperlinX Limited
  143. Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Limited
  144. D.M. & M.T. Nolan Pty. Ltd
  145. Auscan Holdings Pty Ltd
  146. PTTEP Australia Perth Pty Ltd
  147. Energex Limited
  148. State Transit Authority of NSW
  149. Cairnton Holdings Limited
  150. Sydney Water Corporation
  151. Roc Oil Company Limited
  152. Peabody (Burton Coal) Pty Ltd
  153. Baiada Pty Limited
  154. BHP Billiton Nickel Operations Pty Ltd
  155. Prime Infrastructure Holdings Limited
  156. A.A. Scott Pty Ltd
  157. Envirogen Pty Ltd
  158. Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Limited
  159. Water Corporation
  160. A.C.N. 098 904 262 Pty Ltd
  161. Jet Systems Pty Ltd
  162. Kimberly Clark Pacific Holdings Pty Ltd
  163. Teekay Holdings Australia Pty Ltd
  164. Mount Gibson Iron Limited
  165. A J Bush & Sons Pty Ltd
  166. Lion Nathan National Foods Pty Ltd
  167. Isaac Plains Coal Management Pty Ltd
  168. Mitchell Corp Australia Pty Ltd
  169. Food Investments P/L
  170. Ergon Energy Corporation Limited
  171. Gold Fields Australia Pty Ltd
  172. OZ Minerals Limited
  173. The Maddingley Mine Trust
  174. BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd
  175. Donaldson Coal Pty Limited
  176. Building Supplies Group Holding Pty Ltd
  177. Coalpac Pty Ltd
  178. Silk Logistics Group Holdings Pty Limited
  179. HCPH Holdings Pty Limited
  180. Australian Postal Corporation
  181. Rail Corporation New South Wales
  182. Byrns Smith Unit Trust
  183. Aditya Birla Minerals Ltd
  184. Fletcher Building (Australia) Pty Ltd
  185. A.C.N. 137 191 023 Pty Ltd
  186. St Barbara Limited
  187. V/Line Corporation
  188. Simplot Australia (Holdings) Pty Limited
  189. Foster’s Group Limited
  190. Fulton Hogan Australia Pty/Ltd
  191. Goodman Fielder Limited
  192. Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited
  193. CEVA Pty Ltd
  194. Valemus Australia Pty Ltd
  195. Cargill Australia Limited
  196. Country Energy
  197. ACTEW Corporation Ltd1
  198. Telstra Corporation Limited
  199. South Australian Water Corporation
  200. Veolia Transport Australasia Pty Ltd
  201. Nippon Meat Packers Australia Pty Ltd
  202. Coca-Cola Amatil Limited
  203. Graincorp Limited
  204. SCA Tissue Australia Pty Limited
  205. Cristal Australia Pty Ltd
  206. Thales Australia Holdings Pty Ltd
  207. Heinz Watties Pty Ltd
  208. Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd.
  209. Kagara Ltd
  210. Bega Cheese Limited
  211. Nestle Australia Ltd
  212. ALDI Stores (A Limited Partnership)
  213. Cadbury Australia Limited
  214. Oceanic Coal Australia Limited
  215. Hunter Water Corporation
  216. Boeing Australia Holdings Proprietary Limited
  217. McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd
  218. Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited
  219. Norton Gold Fields Limited
  220. The Trustee for Costa’s Unit Trust
  221. Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited
  222. General Motors Australia Ltd
  223. Coogee Chemicals Pty Ltd
  224. Mars Australia Pty Ltd
  225. Crown Limited
  226. Silicon Metal Company of Australia Pty Ltd
  227. Bradken Limited
  228. EnergyAustralia
  229. Northgate Australian Ventures Corp Pty Ltd
  230. SP Australia Networks (Transmission) Ltd
  231. Arnotts Biscuits Holdings Pty Ltd
  232. BOC Limited
  233. Harvey Norman Holdings Limited
  234. Commonwealth Bank of Australia
  235. Metropolitan Health Service
  236. Lend Lease Corporation Limited
  237. James Hardie Austgroup Pty Ltd
  238. Parmalat Australia Ltd
  239. MML Holdings Pty Ltd
  240. Electricity Networks Corporation1
  241. PMP Limited
  242. Integral Energy Australia
  243. CHEDHA Holdings Pty Limited
  244. Stockland Corporation Ltd
  245. LGL Australian Holdings Pty Ltd
  246. Doral Mineral Industries Limited
  247. Monash University
  248. AAPC Limited
  249. GPT Management Holdings Ltd
  250. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
  251. IPMG Pty Limited
  252. Crane Group Limited
  253. TransGrid
  254. Resolute Mining Limited
  255. Ramsay Health Care Limited
  256. The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q)
  257. John Swire & Sons Pty Ltd
  258. Holiday Inns Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd
  259. Competitive Foods Australia Pty Ltd
  260. University of Melbourne
  261. Sun Metals Holdings Limited
  262. ETSA Utilities
  263. Mirvac Limited
  264. Healthscope Limited
  265. Tabcorp Holdings Limited
  266. National Australia Bank Limited
  267. Westfield Holdings Limited
  268. Perilya Limited
  269. Public Transport Authority of Western Australia
  270. St Vincent’s Health Australia Ltd
  271. Salvage Pty Ltd
  272. Queensland Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited
  273. LyondellBasell Australia (Holdings) Pty Ltd
  274. Dexus Holdings Pty Limited
  275. Westpac Banking Corporation
  276. AMP Limited
  277. Fairfax Media Limited
  278. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
  279. United Energy Distribution Holdings Pty Limited
  280. News Australia Holdings Pty Limited
  281. Macquarie Group Limited
  282. ISPT Pty Ltd
  283. David Jones Limited
  284. Southern Cross Airports Corporation Holdings Ltd
  285. Air Liquide Australia Limited
  286. Metro Trains Melbourne Pty Ltd
  287. The University of Queensland
  288. Centro Properties Limited
  289. McDonald’s Australia Ltd
  290. Myer Holdings Limited
  291. SunWater
  292. QIC Limited
  293. Frequency Infrastructure Australia Holdings Pty Ltd
  294. ElectraNet Pty Ltd
  295. IBM A/NZ Holdings Pty Limited
  296. Port Waratah Coal Services Limited
  297. Amalgamated Holdings Limited
  298. Vodafone Hutchison Australia Pty Ltd
  299. Global Switch Australia Pty Limited

Oh … you noticed.

Yes, that is only 299 “biggest polluters”.

With an enormous leap of faith, one might assume that the Government will find the other 201 “biggest polluters” from amongst the remaining 476 (of a grand total 775) corporations listed in the complete NGER Register.

Of course, to do so would mean that they would be including even more evil “polluting” corporations like some of those highlighted above.

Like …

The universities.

All of them.

The Royal Flying Doctor Service.

The Royal Children’s Hospital.

The Alfred teaching hospital.

The Melbourne Cricket Club.

Really, really evil “biggest polluters” like that.

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:

        • 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…


        • 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 – 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 informationoriginal 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.

  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.


  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.

%d bloggers like this: