Tag Archives: clean energy future

The “500 Biggest Polluters” Exposed – Everything The Government Is Not Telling You

25 Jul

Do you think that the “500 biggest polluters” are all – or even “mostly” – power stations, miners, and heavy industry?

That is certainly what the government would have you believe.

Take a careful, close look at the exact words used by our government on the “500 biggest polluting companies” page of their 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.

Seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?

If you take the government at their word, then you have been led to fully expect that “most” of the “500 biggest polluters” are power stations, mines, and heavy industry.

And, that “most” of the “500 biggest polluters” “directly emit” greenhouse gases.

Would it surprise you to learn then, that our electricity generators, along with all the related companies that supply electricity and maintain the transmission networks, only comprise a tiny 7% of the total companies listed on the government’s official NGER Register of “polluters”?

And would it surprise you to learn that the 2nd biggest number of “polluting companies” are actually Freight / Transport logistics firms.

That’s right … truckies.

The people who haul our food and everything else we need, right across this huge, sparsely populated island continent, to our local retailers where we can easily purchase it.

And would it surprise you to learn that the 3rd biggest number of “polluting companies” are actually Food Manufacturers.

That’s right … the good folk whose sweat and toil keep us all alive by taking the raw ingredients and making our daily bread … and cereal, and meat, and veges, and dairy products, and processed foods, and snacks, and … you get the idea.

And would it surprise you to learn, that the government’s own official National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) department’s complete Register also includes the following categories of “biggest polluters”:

* 62 government entities, such as local councils and State-owned enterprises.

* 22 hospital / health care companies, encompassing 131 public and private hospitals, plus 100’s of day surgeries, clinics, aged care, rehab, palliative, mental and other health care services.

* 19 water utility companies.

* 19 universities.

* 7 renewable energy companies.

* 7 recycling companies.

* 3 biofuels companies.

* 3 scientific research and development companies (including the CSIRO).

* 18 public transport companies.

* 41 unknown, unidentifiable “companies”, including 3 whose ABN number (as provided to the NGER) is not recognised by ASIC, and 1 deregistered from ASIC.

* 7 companies now in receivership or liquidated.

* 1 recently-abandoned state government/private consortium joint venture company, that had been hoping to sell wind farms to China.

* 1 gold miner that ceased all active mining operations in Australia in September 2010.

* 1 gold miner with an office in Brisbane, but all active mining operations in Indonesia.

* Double-triple-quadruple-quintuple-ups of companies owned by the same parent, or recently merged.

The government claims that the (absence of any real) information it has (not) provided to the public about these “500 biggest polluting companies”, is based on the data from its own National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) department.

Problem 1.

The NGER’s most recent Report dated April 2011 shows only 299 “polluters” reporting emissions for 2009-10.

Problem 2.

The NGER’s complete Register of “polluters” shows only 775 company names and/or their ACN numbers. And no other information.

So our first obvious question must be this:

How can the government justify the claim “1,000 of the biggest polluters”, endlessly repeated for months until mere days before unveiling their scheme, when their own official NGER Register only has 775 company names on it?

Our second obvious question must be this:

How can the government justify the claims made on their “500 biggest polluting companies” webpage, when

(a) only 299 companies reported emissions in their NGER department’s latest Report, and

(b) their official NGER Register of 775 “companies” provides no information by which to easily identify either the location, or industry sector, of each of those companies?

For example, here is what the government claims on its new website concerning the number of “biggest polluting” companies in each State:

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.

And the government goes on to claim that (emphasis added):

Of the 500 businesses:

  • around 60 are primarily involved in electricity generation
  • around 100 are primarily involved in coal or 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.

Note all the nice round numbers. “5’s” and “0’s”.

Importantly, the government then effectively negates any believability or value in its nice round number claims, with this ultimate catch-all, cover-your-arse disclaimer (emphasis added):

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.

Got that?

The “around” this and “expected to be” that statements made earlier on the same page by the government, are “estimates only” based “largely” on the NGER data.

And what is the excuse for the lack of detail or clarity concerning the government’s claims about the “500 biggest polluting companies”?

Here is what they have to say about that, in the most recent government publication on the subject, hidden away on the Parliament House Library website, 14 July 2011 (emphasis added):

Which 500 companies pay the tax?

… 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 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.

As 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 (once you add them up yourself) … 299 companies.

In other words, it is just the NGER department’s latest Report, reordered. There is no new or additional information provided.

Well dear reader, your humble blogger has employed all of his spare time over the last week in researching the NGER’s entire 775 “company” Register.

Just to see exactly who and what kind of companies really are considered to be “the biggest polluters” in our nation.

Before I give you a link to download the spreadsheet for yourself, please take a few moments to brush up on the key details of what is included.

Because there’s a lot of information here.

The spreadsheet has eight (8) individual worksheets included, as follows:

Sheet 1 – NGER Report April 2011 (this is simply the government’s own most recent NGER Report, unedited – original here)

Sheet 2 – NGER Register March 2011 (this is simply the government’s most recently available copy of the complete NGER Register, unedited – original here)

Sheet 3 – Combined NGER by state, industry – HQ state listed if Multistate (this combines Sheet 1 + 2 data, plus my research. Key to note is that in the breakdown by State, this worksheet checks the box for the state where a company’s HQ or primary site is located, as well as checking the “Multiple States” box where applicable).

Sheet 4 – Combined NGER by state, industry – Multistate identifier only (this worksheet is the Daddy; it is per Sheet 3, but only checks “Multiple States” where applicable, rather than also checking the box for the company’s HQ state; this has been done to more easily and directly compare Totals per state with the government’s “500 biggest polluting companies” page)

Sheet 5 – “500 Biggest Polluters” >25k tonnes p.a. CO2 / By state (this worksheet compares the government’s claimed companies by State with the full NGER list)

Sheet 6 – “500 Biggest Polluters” >25k tonnes p.a. CO2 / By sector (this worksheet compares the government’s claimed companies by Sector with the full NGER list)

Sheet 7 – Operating Fossil Fuel Power Stns – ga.gov.au/fossil_fuel/ (this worksheet is an unedited list of power stations found on the indicated government website. Please be aware that I am unable to ascertain its currency, but I note that in References there are quoted news articles from mid-late 2010, suggesting it may be the most currently available government information – original here)

Sheet 8 – APH Library – Carbon Pricing – Companies 14 July 2011 (as mentioned above, this is the table of 299 “polluters” in order of decreasing emissions, as published on the Australian Parliament House Library website 14 July 2011 – original here).

A couple of important points to note:

NOTE 1. On the far RHS of Sheets 3 & 4, you will see that I have listed the government’s six (6) industry sectors as worded on their “500 biggest polluting companies” webpage:

Electricity generation

Coal and other mining

Natural gas retail

Industrial (cement, chemicals, and metal processing)

Other fossil fuel intensive industries

Waste disposal

I have also added two more “sectors” of my own:

NONE (specifically) of Gov’s broad categories

UNKNOWN (no information available)

Four very important sub-points to understand are these.

(a) The totals for the 6 government-described industry sectors on the far RHS are just that … Totals. As you will see, I have also classified (where possible) every company listed on the NGER Register into one of 43 more detailed industry sector descriptions, that I have created.

(b) Where a company is government-owned, I have checked my “Government” sector for that company, and the relevant detailed industy description category as well.

(c) I have included companies involved in “(supply / distribution)” of electricity in the government’s category of “Electricity generation.

(d) With the exception of electricity-related companies as per (c), in researching the 775 company names listed in the NGER Register, if it was apparent to me that the company’s self-description of its activities (where available) did not clearly and directly fit the government’s precise stated wording of its 6 industry sectors, then in these RHS totals, I checked my own category “NONE…” as the default for that company. Or “UNKNOWN”, where no information is available on the internet.

The obvious result of this is that I have many companies listed in the RHS industry sector totals, in the category of “NONE…”.

Why? Because their actual activities do not necessarily fit the government’s mere 6 industry sector descriptions, as displayed on the “500 biggest polluting companies” webpage.

The government would (due to its deliberately choosing only 6 descriptions of industry sectors) clearly have no choice but to place most/all of the companies that I have totalled up in the “NONE…” category, into its misleading and deceptively titled “Other fossil fuel intensive industries” category.

Which brings me back to the #1 fundamental point made at the very beginning of this article.

One that goes to the very heart of this Green-Labor Government’s gross dishonesty, and blatant misrepresentation of truth.

Remember the opening words of the government’s “500 biggest polluting companies” webpage?

Here they are again –

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.

When categorised as closely as practicable in accordance with the 6 industry “sector” descriptions chosen by the government for their official webpage, then some 478 companies (according to my research) out of 775 companies listed in their NGER Register, would have to be lumped into the government’s category of “Other fossil fuel intensive industries”.

Furthermore, in consideration of the government’s own description of “most” of the “500 biggest polluting companies”, then this majority of companies on the NGER Register would be deemed by our government as “large facilities” that “directly emit greenhouse gases”, “such as power stations, mines, and heavy industries”.

Clearly, this is factually untrue.

The majority of individual companies listed on the official NGER Register are not “large facilities”.

Are not “power stations, mines, and heavy industries”.

And do not “directly emit greenhouse gases”.

Indeed, at best only 54 companies (7%) of the 775 total are currently, actively, and directly involved in the generation and supply / distribution of electricity.

At best, only 137 companies (17.6%) are miners, and/or primarily involved in “heavy” mining support industries.

And according to the NGER department’s latest Report, only 299 companies (out of 775) actually reported “direct” greenhouse emissions in 2009-10.

NOTE 2. I have included a colour coding system in Sheets 3 & 4, to help identify interesting anomalies in the NGER Register data. The colour codes and their descriptions are shown in the top LHS corner of those Sheets, and are self-explanatory.

Ok then, here it is.

The complete spreadsheet in xls format for you to download if interested:

NGER_Register_Report_Combined_Polluters (1.6Mb)

I do not wish to claim or even imply that my research is perfectly accurate in all respects. The paucity of available information on the internet concerning many of these companies, of itself ensures that it is imperfect.

However, it is a solid foundation for further research. And in particular, for comparison against future government claims.

Even as it presently stands, I believe it shines a clear light on the fuller truth concerning our so-called “biggest polluters”.

Ladies and gentlemen, the reality is this.

The Green-Labor Government wants you to only visualise images of power stations, mines, and heavy industries, whenever you hear or think about their “carbon pricing mechanism”.

Because their choice of words is propaganda.

Perception management.

Their choice of words conjures up images of dirty, sooty, sweaty, evil “big polluters”.

The truth of the matter though, is that their scheme will not benefit the planet one iota.

It will only benefit bankers. Because that is what all carbon dioxide tax/trading schemes are designed to do.

It will not “hurt” only the relatively small number of dirty, sooty mining companies and heavy industries. The people who make stuff.

(Especially not, when we now know that the government is giving free carbon permits equal to 94.5% of average emissions for the “worst” “polluters”, like aluminium refineries.)

Instead, the government’s carbon dioxide “pricing mechanism” will really hurt the many clean, hygienic companies who make your food.

And deliver your food.

It will hurt those clean, hygienic companies who provide you with water to drink, wash in, and flush your dunny with.

It will hurt those clean, hygienic companies who provide you with hospital and health care.

It will hurt those companies that provide you and/or your children with a university education.

It will hurt those companies that provide you with public transport.

It will hurt those companies who air and sea freight in all of the crap that you buy from overseas, because successive governments have so screwed over our manufacturing industry that this nation makes next-to-nothing ourselves anymore.

It will hurt most or all of the 93 manufacturing companies still left in this country (according to the NGER Register) – many of whom are already foreign-owned.

And yes, it will hurt the companies who dig wealth out of the ground, providing employment for tens of thousands of Aussies.

And yes, it will hurt the companies who (used to) provide us with cheap, efficient, reliable electricity to keep our lights on and appliances working.

It is a brilliant plan, dear reader.

That is, it’s brilliant if your goal is to enrich international bankers and carbon derivatives speculators.

While at the same time, under-mining the heart and soul of (what’s left of) our national economy.

This is the truth hiding below the surface of all the government’s lies.

You just have to take a closer look.

Ka Ching! Here Comes Australia’s Carbon-Baggers

20 Jul

My truth-in-advertising take on our government’s Clean Energy Future advertising campaign –

Can You See It?

17 Jul

No new posts today, dear reader.

Busy with mammoth task of collating all the data from the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) department’s Register, and latest Report, into one comprehensive spreadsheet.

Because the Government’s claims about the “500 biggest polluters”, are misleading and deceptive in the extreme.

Especially so, when the Government is counting (eg) universities, hospitals, area health care services, Snowy Hydro Limited, Arnott’s Biscuits, Bega Cheese, Heinz Watties, McCain Foods, Nippon Meat Packers, the Big Four banks, The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q), local councils, government-owned water utilities, public transport corporations, the NSW Forestry Commission, and more unlikely candidates, in order to come up with as big a headline number of so-called “biggest polluters” as possible.

It appears that in the Brown-Gillard weltanschauung, everyone is a “biggest polluter”.

Which is understandable, when you want a big round number to fear-monger about on the telly (“1000 biggest” … oops, make that “500 biggest”).

I’m collating all the NGER data (and, researching all the missing data) in order to confirm – in detail – that the “around” this and “estimated” that plethora of claims made on the Government’s “500 biggest polluting companies” webpage – claims that are allegedly based on the NGER data – are simply more lies.

Until tomorrow, please enjoy this –

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 – http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reporting.

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”

Our Bankers’ Casino Royale – “Carbon Permits” Really Means “A Licence To Print”

11 Jul

I was right.

It is a scam.

A huge scam.

A clever, complicated scam.

But a scam, nonetheless.

In previous articles, I identified the two key details of the Green-Labor Alliance’s proposed “carbon pricing” scheme. The only two details that matter. Because they are the two key details which confirm whether this really is “a tax” / “like a tax”. Or, whether this is just a European ETS-imitating scheme scam:

Will the carbon permits:

(1) have an unlimited expiry date?

(2) be bankable from the commencement of the scheme?

If you’ve not read the previous articles I’ve posted about this – including my online brawl with Opposition Climate Action Onanist Greg Hunt MP about it – then you may wish to recap by reading this, this, and especially, this.

Now, if you just want the quick answers to those 2 key questions, then here’s the 30 second summary. All you need to know. Without bothering to check and understand the detail for yourself.

1. YES, carbon permits will have an unlimited expiry date.

2. NO, carbon permits issued during the “fixed price period” can not be banked. Although there will be unlimited banking after 3 years, when the “flexible price” period begins.

BUT … and (like Gillard’s) it’s a very big but … all “freely allocated” carbon permits can be traded. And – here’s the real biggie, ladies and gentlemen – from Day 1 the Government will allow securitisation of carbon permits (the creation of carbon derivatives, in other words). AND, the Government will set up an “auction” system in advance of the “flexible price period” – an advance-auction system that effectively creates a carbon Futures trading market, allowing banksters (and the lucky 500 “polluters”) to speculate gamble on the future price of the “flexible price” permits, that will replace the “fixed price” permits after 3 years.

I was right.

It is NOT a “tax”.

From Day 1, it operates as an ETS by stealth.

It is the bankers’ CPRS by another name.

And what “carbon permits” really means, is “permitted to profit”.

Or perhaps more accurately … A Licence To Print.

Want to know more? To see the proof with your own eyes … and understand it too?

Ok. Let’s get into the details.

Now that GilBrown’s Grand Design has finally been released, let’s take a look at the Government’s freshly-minted cleanenergyfuture.gov.au website. There we can see exactly what they have to say about those two key details that I identified previously.

Note that the answers are buried in the fine print.  Naturally.  You have to read the Appendices.

In this case, the “devil in the detail” is hidden in Appendix A.

First, let us look for the answer to my point #1 – Will there be unlimited expiry dates for carbon permits?

We find the answer in Appendix A, Table 6  (emphasis added):

Table 6 Compliance

Carbon permits

The domestic unit for compliance with the carbon pricing mechanism will be the ‘carbon permit’.

Each carbon permit will correspond to one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions.

The creation of equitable interests in carbon permits will be permitted, as will taking security over them.

In addition, carbon permits will:

* be personal property;

* be regulated as financial products;

* be transferable (other than those issued under the fixed price or any price ceiling arrangements);

* have a unique identification number and will be marked with the first year in which they can be validly surrendered (‘vintage year’);

* not have an expiry date; and

* be represented by an electronic entry in Australia’s National Registry of Emissions Units.

I was right.

The carbon permits will have no expiry date.

They are an artificial construct – “an electronic entry” – that is deemed by government decree to be a new “financial product”.

And, they are a personal property right (see first asterisk) of the holder of the permit. Exactly as I argued with that onanist shill for the green cargo cult, Greg Hunt MP.

Moreover, note carefully the sentence I have bold underlined.

The “creation of equitable interests”, and “taking security over them”, simply means this.  The carbon permits can be used as the basis for bankers to create other, new financial “securities”.

Carbon derivatives, in other words.

Derivatives (or “securities”) are the toxic, wholly-artificial financial “products” that were at the heart of the GFC.  The same bankster-designed “widgets” that the world’s most famous investor, Warren Buffet, spoke of as “a mega-catastrophic risk”, “financial weapons of mass destruction”, and a “time bomb”.

You can stop reading this piece right now if you like.

Because from that Table 6 alone, you now have conclusive proof that this is nothing whatsoever to do with the climate.

It is all – and only – about global bankster profits. At the direct expense of the common people of planet earth.

Now, what about my point #2. The key question of whether there will be unlimited banking of permits.

That is covered in Appendix A as well.  But we must take a bit of a journey here, as it’s a little more complicated to get to the bottom of this one.

If you are interested to understand how this scam really works more fully, then do bear with me here (emphasis added):

Scheme architecture

Table 1: Starting price and fixed price period

Fixed price period

The carbon pricing mechanism will commence on 1 July 2012. There will be a three year fixed price period.

The fixed price

The carbon price will start at $23.00 per tonne in 2012‑13 and will be $24.15 in 2013‑14 and $25.40 in 2014‑15.

The prices in the second and third year reflect a 2.5 per cent rise in real terms allowing for 2.5 per cent inflation per year (the midpoint of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s target range).

Blah blah blah. We already knew all that. These details were leaked in advance, in typical Green-Labor fashion.

Let’s get to the nitty gritty. The characteristics of the carbon “permits” themselves, and what you can (and cannot) do with them.

Especially during the initial 3 year, so-called “fixed price period”.  The period in which the government (and Opposition) have been telling you that this scheme scam “is a tax” or “will operate like a tax” (depending on what day it is):

Fixed price permits

Liable entities will be able to purchase permits from the Government at the fixed price, up to the number of their emissions for the compliance year.

Any permits purchased at the fixed price will be automatically surrendered and cannot be traded or banked for future use.


So, the lucky 500 “polluters” can not trade, or bank, any permits that are purchased at the fixed price.

Now, that appears to eliminate point #2 of those key points that I identified, doesn’t it? The question of unlimited banking of permits.

But does it really?

Hold your horses, dear reader. There’s more to it than that.

Let us peel back the multiple layers of deception.

Yes, permits that are purchased can not be banked.

But what about permits that are handed out for free?

Permits freely allocated may be either surrendered or traded until the true-up date for the compliance year in which they were issued. They cannot be banked for use in a future compliance year.


So, just like “purchased” permits, “freely allocated” permits also can not be banked during the “fixed price period”. (However, all permits will have unlimited banking after 3 years, when the “flexible price period” begins – see Appendix A, Table 3)

But note this well.

Freely allocated permits can be traded “until the true-up date for the compliance year in which they were issued”.

In other words, with respect to “freely allocated” permits in particular – which will be handed out to “trade exposed” industries rent-seekers – this IS an emissions trading scheme.

It’s right there.  In black and white.

I was right.

“The Carbon Tax Is Not A “Tax” … It Is The Bankers’ CPRS By Another Name”.

Now, did you notice that other little word back there?


What happens when “freely allocated” permits are “surrendered”?

Is that just a case of handing back something that you got for free?

Or … is there another profit-making opportunity for our lucky “polluters” there too?

That is, a profit-making opportunity over-and-above the profit-making opportunity they have been granted, to simply jack up their prices and use the “cost” of permits as an excuse – whether they actually paid for all their “permits” or not. Just like the lucky “polluters” have done in the European scheme scam (from Green-Left Weekly May 1, 2011):

The first phase of the ETS ran from 2005 to 2007. It made no dent in emissions. But power companies made about 19 billion euros by charging customers for the “cost” of permits they were given for free. Manufacturers made about 14 billion euros in windfall profits with the same trick.

So, let’s take a look shall we, and see if there might be yet another profit-making opportunity for our hand-picked lucky 500 “polluters”, on all those “freely allocated” carbon permits (emphasis added):

Buy‑back of freely allocated permits

The holders of freely allocated permits will be able to sell them to the Government from 1 September of the compliance year in which they were issued until 1 February of the following compliance year.

Got that?

You get some-thing for nothing.

You increase your costs to customers, using the government-decreed “price” of that “some-thing” as your excuse – a windfall profit.

And then, you either trade that free “some-thing” to someone else, or, you sell it back to the government – for another windfall profit.


Now that’s what I would call “transitional assistance” too, if I were one of those lucky 500 “big polluters”.

Money for nothing.

How much will you get paid for selling back your free permits … you lucky big “polluter” you?

The price paid by the Government will be equal to the price of the fixed price permits for that year, discounted to 15 June of the compliance year by the latest available Reserve Bank of Australia index of the BBB corporate bond rate, so that the buy‑back price reflects the present market value of the permit.

From 15 June onwards, the price paid will be equal to the fixed‑price permits for that vintage.

What does that mean?

It’s very simple.

Those lucky “polluters” receiving “freely allocated” permits (to profit), can either:

(a) trade them (as we saw earlier), OR

(b) sell them back (ie, “surrender” them) to the Government.

If they can’t pull a big enough profit from trading their free permits … the fall-back plan is to resell them to the Government.

Now, who do you think is going to benefit the most from all the transactions of these carbon permits?

Who is going to make money for nothing via fees and commissions, each time a “freely allocated” permit is traded, or bought from/sold back to the government?


The same despicable scum, the parasites who created the GFC, and have been driving the global push for CO2 emissions trading from Day 1.

Our government’s scheme scam will achieve exactly the same result as the benchmark European ETS.

Huge profits for a few.

Raped wallets for the many.

And absolutely bugger-all impact on global CO2 “emissions reduction” –

Want more?

There IS more.

Is there anything interesting to note about the subsequent “Flexible Price Architecture” (ETS)?

That wonderful “market-based” scheme scam that comes after the so-called “fixed price period” (in which trading of freely allocated permits can happen anyway, meaning it is an ETS from Day 1)?

The final destination of the scheme scam that Gillard spoke of in these words just days ago – “I have always been determined to create an emissions trading scheme … for our nation’s future”.

Is there anything about the detail of the “flexible price architecture” that might give us further evidence – if any were needed – that this really is the bankers’ CPRS by another name?

Indeed there is.

Take a look at Appendix A, Table 3 (emphasis added):

Table 3: Flexible price architecture

Price ceiling

A price ceiling will apply for the first three years of the flexible price period.

The price ceiling will be set in regulations by 31 May 2014 at $20 above the expected international price for 2015‑16 and will rise by 5 per cent in real terms each year.

If the world is on a 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) trajectory or higher, this will be reflected in international prices and the price ceiling will automatically be $20 above this price. The level of the international price will be examined closer to the point of transition to a flexible price period to ensure that the price ceiling reflects a $20 margin above its expected level.

In other words, our Green-Labor Alliance would (if still in power) not only allow, but indeed, “ensure”, that the CO2 price in Australia could be traded at a $20 per tonne premium to the international price.

Economic planking indeed.

And, a Paradise Now bonus for banksters.

Because this detail tells us that this is a scam whereby the government will “ensure” that there is “flexibility” for the banksters’ – market manipulators extraordinaire – to use the many dodgy means at their disposal to push the Australian CO2 trading price up, by as much as $20 more than the international market price.

In other words, if the international market price for CO2 permits (again) fell to near-zero – let’s say, $0.10 – then our Green-Labor Alliance would still happily allow our nation to suffer under a $20.10 price for CO2 permits, and the flow-on effects of that to the prices on everything.


But there’s more:

Price floor

A price floor will apply for the first three years of the flexible price period.

The price floor will start at $15 and rise at 4 per cent in real terms each year.

Also highly significant.

And insane.

If still in power, our Green-Labor Alliance would force the so-called “free market” price to be at least $15 per tonne. And, they would force that price to rise at a rate of 4% per annum.

Ummmmm … hello?!

That’s NOT a “free market” mechanism.

That is quite simply, a Communist-style command-economy.  Wearing a very thin veil of “free market” respectability (if you’re idiot enough to believe it, that is).

But here’s the part I really love, dear reader.

The part that – once again – confirms that this is a bankers’ CPRS by another name.

Banking and borrowing

Unlimited banking of permits will be allowed in the flexible price period.

There will be limited borrowing of permits such that, in any particular compliance year, a liable entity can surrender permits from the following vintage year to discharge up to 5 per cent of their liability.

Auctions of permits

Permits will be allocated by auctioning, taking into account transitional assistance provisions for key sectors.

The policies, procedures and rules for auctioning will be set out in a legislative instrument.

The Government will advance auction future vintage permits. There will be advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period.

Note that bit about “transitional assistance provisions” for “key sectors”. That’s Orwellian doublespeak for “freely allocated permits” for “big ‘polluters’ with the best lobbyists”.

If you are a “polluter” in need of “transitional assistance” – meaning, everyone – then you will get lots and lots of freely-allocated permits. To help you “transition” (wink wink, nudge nudge).

Now, why have I bold underlined “borrowing“?

And why have I bold underlined “advance auctions of flexible price permits…”?

Because these are the key words from the “banking and borrowing” section. The words that tell you all you need to know.

That this SCAM is nothing whatsoever to do with the global climate.

And that it is 100% about creating a new, global, CO2 derivatives-trading market for the banksters.

The world’s biggest-ever financial cesspool.

Of toxic, intrinsically-worthless, humanity-raping financial “instruments” called derivatives.

Non-existent, digital “widgets”.

That can be borrowed from the future – ie, before these artificial carbon “widgets” are even issued – and leveraged by scum-of-the-earth banksters.

And then, traded by these parasites at multiples of hundreds and thousands of times more than the underlying, artificially-created “value” of the carbon permit.

Furthermore, the “advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period” proves beyond all shadow of doubt, that I was right.

That this “carbon pricing mechanism” is the bankers’ CPRS by another name. From Day 1.

Why does it prove it?

The advance auctions of flexible price permits “in the fixed price period” means this.

From Day 1, the government is effectively allowing the setting up of a futures trading market, for Australian CO2 permits.

Futures trading of nothing. Before the nothing is even created.

The banksters’ wet dream.

Australia – you have been monumentally conned.

The Green-Labor-Independent Alliance’s plan to “save the planet”, is a gigantic scam.

It is the bankers’ Casino Royale.

Where “carbon permits” really means, “A Licence to Print”.


Stock broker and licensed securities and derivatives dealer Andy Semple recognises the same point that I did above – that this is not a “free market” mechanism at all, but a Soviet-style command-and-control scheme. He has deconstructed the Government’s carbon trading scam, from a trader’s perspective. A must read –

The Clayton’s Emissions Market – “The Market You Have When You’re Not Having A Market”

%d bloggers like this: