cprs | Barnaby Is Right

Tag Archives: cprs

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

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.

Tags: 500 biggest polluters, carbon tax, clean energy future, cprs, ets, national greenhouse and energy reporting, NGER

Comments 19 Comments
Categories Uncategorized

It Begins – Opposition Takes Up The Fight Against The Bankster Class

15 Jul

At last, dear reader.

It begins.

The Opposition beginning to highlight the real purpose behind the global push for trading “hot air”.

The enrichment … and further empowerment … of the global bankster class –

Note that well:

But one of the things that I really want to draw people’s attention to today is the fact that we are learning more and more about just how much money is going to go overseas under this tax. It was obvious on Sunday that in 2020 more than $3 billion was going to go overseas to foreign carbon traders to meet the Government’s emissions abatement targets but if you go out just 40 years to 2050, no less than $57 billion of Australian money is going to go overseas to line the pockets of foreign carbon traders. Within a relatively short time, more than one per cent of Australia’s GDP is going to go overseas to line the pockets of foreign carbon traders. Now, all of us want to help the environment but a get-rich-quick scheme for foreign carbon traders is not the kind of environmental assistance that Australians want. So, I just think that as each day goes past and more details of the Government’s carbon tax package become apparent the less the Australian public like it.

I hope that readers will forgive me a little moment of fantasy. A small, petty indulgence.

In my imagining the teensy possibility that my discussion with Senator Joyce just 2 weeks ago may have just a weensy bit of influence on this small shift of emphasis, in the campaign against the carbon “X” ~~scheme~~ scam.

I met Senator Joyce for the first time on July 1, at the Martin Place No Carbon Tax rally. Despite the pressures of so many wishing to speak with him – as you can imagine – he was gracious enough to make time available to speak with me about several concerns.

The chief of those concerns relates to my view that regular readers will be familiar with.

That is, my firm view – now confirmed by the evidence of the final package – that this carbon “X” scam is and always has been a scam designed solely to benefit bankers, from Day 1.

And therefore, it has also been my view that there is great opportunity for the Opposition to take advantage of Julia’s recent to-ing and fro-ing over whether the scheme is really a “tax”, “like a tax”, or … “an emissions trading scheme”.

How?

By emphasising the simple, demonstrable fact that an ETS only benefits the banksters, and speculators.

And further, that emissions trading has been shown to have zero impact on reducing actual emissions of CO2 –

Why do I believe it is so important to emphasise the bankster connection?

The reason is this.

While calling the scheme a “tax” has been very effective to date, in appealing to those of a conservative mindset – who in my view are generally predisposed to an ideology of lower taxes – I do not believe it is the most effective strategy for appealing to those of a more so-called “progressive” mindset.

It is my experience that “progressives” are not necessarily predisposed against bigger taxes – provided they can be convinced that it is in “a good cause”.

That is exactly how The Final Solution to global warming – the Great Global Carbon Trading Scam – has been sold to those of a “progressive” bent.

That it is “a tax” … or “like a tax” … that is “the best way” to “save the planet”.

A Robin Hood scheme, that takes from the rich, and gives to the poor, saving the planet in the process.

And so-called “progressives” have lapped this lie up.

It is also my experience that, in Australia at least, pretty much everyone … hates banks.

And it is my observation that so-called “progressives” are often their most fervent opponents.

In my discussion with Senator Joyce, I put this argument forward, and whilst congratulating him on his own frequent mentions of “bankers making fees and commissions from pushing bits of paper around”, impressed on Senator Joyce my view that the Coalition should raise the emphasis on the role of banksters in the Government’s planned scheme.

I explained my view that the polls clearly show those of a “conservative” bent are now very firmly against this scheme, irrespective of what title is given.

And that I firmly believe a significant raising of emphasis on the galactic-scale profit-making opportunity that the ~~Scheme~~ scam represents for global banksters – who are driving the push for global “hot air” trading – may be the best way to now begin appealing to “progressives” and the “undecided”. Using a touchstone for nearly all Aussies, conservative or progressive.

Hatred of banks.

I also suggested my view to Senator Joyce, that the Opposition should begin to do so only after a suitable interlude from the day of our discussion, being the day after Julia’s first backflip on what this scheme really is, a “tax” or an “ETS” .

An interlude of a week or two.

And here we are.

Exactly 2 weeks later.

Pure coincidence, I am sure.

But I do trust readers will understand my choosing to enjoy a little moment of vanity indulgence, on seeing the above statements by Tony Abbott yesterday 😉

Please do spread the word, to all you know.

That our Green-Labor-Independent government’s scheme, is nothing more than a global bankster scam.

As I am confident that one former Goldman Sachs Australia chairman (and “confidential” beneficiary of their deep pockets), Malcolm Turnbull MP well knows.

Tags: $57 billion, ANZ, banksters, barnaby joyce, carbon credits, carbon tax, CBA, cprs, emissions trading, ets, NAB, tony abbott, wbc

Comments 10 Comments
Categories Uncategorized

I Was Right – Our Banks Begin Preparing Carbon Derivatives Market

14 Jul

It did not take long. Just 3 days.

From Business Spectator (emphasis added):

Australian banks are eyeing opportunities to cash in on the proposed carbon tax by developing new financial products and services that capitalise on a market seen to be worth billions of dollars annually, according to a report by the Australian Financial Review.

Australian financial firms that have experience in European carbon markets, such as Macquarie Group Ltd, Westpac Banking Corp Ltd and ANZ Banking Group Ltd are particularly keen to establish their presence in the Australian market.

The initial three-year fixed carbon tax period from 2012 will serve as time to prepare for the release of ETS permits by 2015, when opportunities will really open up for banks to capitalise on the carbon market.

ANZ’s head of energy trading said the value of the derivatives carbon market would dwarf the $10 billion initially raised by the government, according to the AFR.

I was right.

On Carbon Sunday, I dissected the Government’s newly-announced “carbon pricing mechanism” (see “Our Bankers’ Casino Royale – ‘Carbon Permits’ Really Means ‘A Licence To Print'” ).

Here’s a couple of quotes from that article. The first is in reference to the “initial fixed price period” that the Government would have you believe is “like a tax”:

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”.

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.

Note well. The banks do not have to wait until the “flexible price period” commences after 3 years, to begin creating their “securities” (ie, derivatives), based on the notion of the underlying “value” of the “fixed price” carbon permits.

The Government’s scheme allows this from Day 1. Naturally. Because that is what the banksters – and their “leading economist” shills – are all salivating over. A government-decreed excuse, to create a whole new kind of “derivatives” market. It is the whole point of the scheme.

In specific reference to the “flexible price period” to follow three years later, I wrote this:

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”.

Thank you, Australian Financial Review and Business Spectator.

For confirming that I was right.

Oh … just one more thing.

To help give you some idea – a picture in your mind – of how gigantic the new (government-rigged) “market” for the banksters’ carbon derivatives can become, take a look at the following chart, sourced from the RBA’s Statistics data.

It shows the size of our banks’ current holdings of Off-Balance Sheet derivatives bets, on the future of Interest Rates, and Foreign Exchange Rates:

Click to enlarge

Yes, that’s $3.98 Trillion in Foreign Exchange derivatives bets. And a whopping $11.68 Trillion in Interest Rate derivatives bets. Off-Balance Sheet. At March 2011.

Here’s another chart – also sourced from RBA data – showing our banks’ current On-Balance Sheet “Assets” (66% of which are actually loans) – the blue line – compared to their total Off-Balance Sheet “Business” (ie, derivatives) – the red line:

Click to enlarge

Yes, that’s $2.68 Trillion in “Assets” (mostly loans). Compared to … $16.8 Trillion in Off-Balance Sheet derivatives gambling. Mostly on Interest Rates, and Foreign Exchange rates.

Just try to imagine the size of the brand new carbon dioxide “hot air” derivatives ~~market~~ casino that our banksters’ will create, in the form of leveraged bets on the underlying so-called “value” of carbon permits.

It is Armageddon waiting to happen.

Tags: ANZ, banksters, business spectator, carbon trading, casino, CBA, cprs, derivatives, emissions trading, ets, macquarie group, NAB, Westpac

Comments 1 Comment
Categories Uncategorized

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):

2009–10 GREENHOUSE AND ENERGY INFORMATION BY REGISTERED CORPORATION

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”.

Hmmmm.

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:

Footnotes
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 …

“PLEASE EXPLAIN!”

Footnote:

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”

Tags: 500 biggest polluters, carbon emissions, carbon tax, clean energy future, cprs, ets, JuLIAR, national greenhouse and energy register, NGER

Comments 12 Comments
Categories Uncategorized

Barnaby: “I Thought One-World Government Was A Conspiracy Theory, Then I Heard The De Facto Deputy PM On Radio National”

11 Jul

Media Release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 11 July 2011:

I thought one-world government was a conspiracy theory, then I heard the de facto deputy PM on Radio National

Well, welcome to the world of a new broad based consumption tax to sit on top of the other green state based taxes and swindles, and of course the GST.

Welcome to the capacity of the government to jack the tax take via your power point, as they please, to pay back their gross debt of $194.4 billion.

Welcome to the fact that the Prime Minister said this is the deal before even a draft of the legislation has made it to the Parliament, another insult to your democratic rights.

Welcome to the Brown-Gillard-Windsor alliance saying this will save the Great Barrier Reef and stop droughts, a pitch that would put the dodgiest second hand car dealer to shame.

Welcome to the world where a member of the new government alliance, Bob Brown, has stated about the carbon price this morning on ABC radio that:

… it’s not locked in for 15 years to no change, this has got upward flexibility. It means that through the processes, including a Climate Change Authority here, we will be able to keep pace with the rest of the world as inevitably more mature and reasoned action is taken against the enormous threat of climate change in the years ahead.

Let’s all just retire from the Parliament as your rights follow your $3 billion of carbon credits, collected via a power point in your home just above the skirting board, to some other corner of the globe. Instead, a new Canberra bureaucracy, or Authority, will decide what the carbon tax should be in the future.

They didn’t need to go to an election to introduce it and now they don’t think they need to go to the Parliament to increase it.

More information– Matthew Canavan 0458 709433

If you’ve not read it yet, then perhaps you’d like to read My Idea to change the world.

How?

By undermining the power of the global bankers … the parasites who screwed us with their GFC, and are behind the huge push for global “air” trading –

“The People’s NWO: Every Man His Own Central Banker”

Tags: barnaby joyce, Bob Brown, carbon tax, cprs, emissions trading, ets, global government, greens, nwo, one world government, UN, World communism

Comments 3 Comments
Categories Uncategorized

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.

Ok.

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.

Right.

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?

“surrendered”?

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.

Brilliant!

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?

Banksters.

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.

Insanity.

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”.

UPDATE:

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”

Tags: banksters, carbon tax, carbon trading, casino, clean energy future, cprs, derivatives, emissions trading, ets, Goldman Sachs, julia gillard, speculation

Comments 16 Comments
Categories Uncategorized

Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In

10 Jul

Back in the 60’s, a drug-addled chap called Timothy Leary popularised a phrase that came to symbolise the counter-culture of that time.

“Turn on, tune in, drop out”.

I think it’s time to revive this phrase for a new counter-culture … and reverse it.

In the same way that the “scientists” of Leary’s time fear-mongered through the 70’s about a coming Global Freezing. And then, when it didn’t happen, reversed their mantra and went for “Global Warming” instead.

Today when, like most Australians, you will be sorely tempted to turn on the TV, and watch our Dear Leader Juliar spruik more lies about her “carbon pricing” scheme, I say –

“Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In”.

Drop in where?

Drop in here –

Nature.

Remember that place?

It is beautiful. It is peaceful. It is magical.

And perhaps best of all, I can assure you from personal experience that it is a place where you are highly unlikely to find any of the barking mad, “save the planet” via economic planking, concrete jungle-dwelling hypocrites either.

What’s more, I will tell you the two biggest reasons why you should do this today.

1. Watching Juliar tell more lies, can not do you any good. You will either be conned (not good), or angered (not good). So, better to Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In … to a place where you can be certain that you will really enjoy this moment. Why spoil a beautiful day?

2. Dear Leader Juliar is not going to mention the only 2 details that you need to know. Instead, she will drone on with mesmerising, soothing ~~words~~ lies about ~~“compensation”~~ bribes for households … and ~~“protection”~~ bribes for ~~“trade-exposed”~~ hand-picked rent-seeker industries … and “green jobs” … and our glorious green prosperous future, blah blah blah. But the only 2 details that you need to know about this scheme – the 2 key details that will confirm the Green-Labor-Independent Alliance’s bankster-enriching scheme is exactly the same farcical scam as the European system – those 2 key details won’t even get a mention. They will be buried in the written documentation. Which you will have to find online, if you want to know the truth. So … why bother watching it?

Today, dear reader … take a chill pill.

Turn your back on our Dear Leader, and go bush for the day.

Even just to the park.

Or the beach.

Anywhere, but near an idiot box.

Or computer. Or “smart”phone.

Take a picnic blanket. Some eats. A selection of your favourite beverage/s. A good book, even.

(Oh … and some warm clothes for the afternoon, too. Because, you can trust me on this … outside, where it’s green, and Greens rarely venture … it’s cold!)

Do no-thing today.

Absolutely no-thing.

Which is the same thing we should be doing in response to global “warming”.

Stretch your wings, and quietly, calmly soar high above all the inane bullsh!t today.

I guarantee that if you do, then tonight, as you r…e…l…a…x back at home (with the TV and PC off), you will agree with me.

That this was a very wise decision.

Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In –

If you really want confirmation of the only 2 details that matter … look it up on the climatechange.gov.au website.

Tomorrow.

Or … some other time.

That’s what I’ll be doing.

Have a wonderful, peace-ful Sunday everyone.

Tags: carbon tax, cprs, ets, julia gillard, JuLIAR, timothy leary, turn on tune in drop out

Categories Uncategorized

A Disturbance In The Farce

9 Jul

Hooray!

Thanks to the Green-Labor-Independent Alliance, our little battler nation from Down Under is going to save the planet.

Or is it?

Perhaps not.

Not when even the Green-Left Weekly is aware of the disturbance in the farce:

Europe’s biggest polluters have made billions out of the European Emissions Trading System (ETS). But a new briefing by Carbon Trade Watch (CTW) says the scheme will ensure industry will not have to cut its emissions until at least 2017.

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.

The European Commission said the scheme’s problems would be ironed out in the second phase, from 2008 to 2012. It claimed the ETS was working when emissions from the 11,000 polluters covered by the scheme fell by 5% in 2008 and 11.6% in 2009.

But CTW points out the emissions fall was due to the impact of the global recession, which caused a fall of 13.85% in industrial and electricity production in 2009.

In 2010, as the economic crisis eased, emissions shot up again by 3.5%.

The polluters stand to make more money for doing nothing in the ETS’s second phase. By 2012, power companies will make between 23 billion and 71 billion euros from passing on the cost of their free permits.

The third phase of the ETS, which will run from 2013 to 2020, won’t solve the problems. Companies will still be able to use the excess permits given out in the second phase. The World Bank has estimated about 970 million permits will be available.

This means polluters won’t have to cut their own emissions until 2017 — they can just cash in their free permits instead.

“Put simply,” said the briefing, “the third phase of the ETS will continue the same basic pattern of subsidising polluters and helping them avoid meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

“It is a fundamentally flawed system, setting up a system of property rights for continued pollution, and transposing environmental objectives into the kind of cost-benefit trade-offs that led to the problem in the first place.”

The farce is strong with this one.

Note carefully the sentence that I have underlined above –

“Companies will still be able to use the excess permits given out in the second phase.“

This points to the very heart of the argument made by your humble blogger, in his article on 27 June – “The Carbon Tax is Not A ‘Tax’ – It Is The Bankers’ CPRS By Another Name”.

And, to the heart of the argument made by your humble blogger, in his public stoush with Opposition Climate Action Onanist, Greg Hunt MP from June 29-30 – “Letter To Greg Hunt MP”.

Here is the key point of that argument, as directed to Mr Hunt (emphasis added):

The government’s openly professed intention, and the Garnaut Review’s consistent recommendation, is to issue carbon permits at a fixed price only for a temporary initial period, with said permits having the following key characteristics, specifically in order to “smooth the transition” to the ultimately intended fully-floating cap-and-trade scheme:

(a) Unlimited expiry date;
(b) Unlimited bankability, from Scheme commencement.

The implications of these parameters – stated previously as formal Policy Positions by Prof Garnaut and the ALP – are perfectly clear:

1. A “polluter” forced to purchase the initial “fixed price” carbon permits will be empowered to “bank” said permits, “from Scheme commencement”.

2. Due to their unlimited expiration date, the “polluters” will be enabled to trade said permits, after the temporary initial period has passed.

3. The “price” of carbon permits issued during the temporary, initial “fixed price” period, will be legislated to rise incrementally over that interim period.

Thus, it is patently obvious to any thinking person, that “polluters” forced to purchase carbon permits at (eg) the Year 1 “fixed price”, having been enabled to “bank” said permits, will be able to on-sell them after the temporary initial “fixed price” period trading restriction has passed, at the then going market rate.

Furthermore, as the price of permits will have been forced to rise by government decree during the initial period, this means that, absent a collapse in the market price upon the “floating” of the Australian carbon permit market, “polluters” will be granted opportunity to profit from the sale of carbon permits that they were forced to purchase – at lower prices – during the initial temporary period!

Indeed, those “polluters” who will be granted “free” permits will effectively be granted a free profit-making opportunity, directly arising from the nature of the proposed “initial fixed price” carbon pricing mechanism.

It’s as simple as that.

The government has been trying to con you with the idea that their scheme is “like a tax” for the first 3 years, and will then “transition” into a “market-based” Emissions Trading Scheme.

The real truth is, the scheme will be just as Trilateral Commission member Ross Garnaut has recommended, in its key details (below).

And in terms of its alleged goal of so-called “pollution abatement”, it will be just as farcical as the benchmark European CO2 “reduction” scheme. You remember – the great European system that the World’s Most Moronic Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has lauded loud and long.

The initial 3 year “fixed price” period will simply be a period in which ~~1,000~~ 500 hand-picked “~~polluters~~” rent-seekers will be “forced” to buy X amount of carbon permits, at a “starting price” of $Y per tonne.

And … receive lots of free ones too. To help “protect” our “trade-exposed” industries, you see.

These lucky “polluters” will bank some (or all) of these permits. Doubtless in a new “independent” Carbon Bank, as recommended by Garnaut and the entire banking sector … along with those same banks’ “leading economists” (I can’t imagine why – can you?).

Each year during the 3 year “fixed price” period, the government will increase the price of that year’s permits.

At the end of the “fixed price” period, the government will “float” the scheme … Oh praise be to the gods of capitalism and “free markets” – we’re saved!

And those “polluters” will then be able to sell their “banked” permits on the open market. For a windfall profit.

A windfall profit on top of the windfall profits they’ll have already made during the previous “fixed price” period, by jacking up their prices, and using the cost of permits as their excuse for doing so.

Just like in Europe.

And the bankstering sector – the #1 drivers for global emissions trading – will make billions in fees and commissions.

Just like in Europe.

IT.

IS.

SCAM.

I for one am quite looking forward to – not watching, heaven forbid – but reading the official documents from this Sunday’s grand announcement of the Green-Labor-Independent Alliance’s CO2 “pricing mechanism”.

For one reason only.

To confirm the two (2) key details.

The two key details that have been “recommended” in every Garnaut Review. In every Rudd-CPRS White/Green Paper. And in every Gillard government public policy document, as published on the climatechange.gov.au website.

(That is, until they removed all trace of the original CPRS documents from their website yesterday)

And the two key details are these.

Will the carbon permits:

(1) have an unlimited expiry date (or, an expiry date after the end of the 3 year “fixed price period”)?

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

Dear reader, there is nothing else that you need to know about the final design of this scheme.

Nothing.

Compensation, blah blah blah … it’s all just noise to distract, and lull you into a false sense of security.

Because if the above two details are consistent with the recommended “design” from Ross Garnaut since the Rudd CPRS days, then you can rest assured of one thing.

Australia’s grand scheme to save the planet via economic planking, has exactly the same farcical, “fundamentally flawed” design as the European one.

And so, the results will be identical.

Huge profits for the few.

Raped wallets for the many.

And sweet FA impact on CO2 “emissions reduction”.

This blogger hopes that Australians will rediscover the spirit of our Eureka stockade heritage, and rise up against this scam.

For truly, if this Green-Labor-Independent Alliance is not stopped (and now, they have the numbers to do as they please), then you may rest assured that –

“The farce will be with you, always*“.

* Because the Coalition can not – and I believe, will not – repeal it. See here, and here for reasons why.

UPDATE:

European’s warn of ETS perils, according to “their ABC” –

Tags: carbon tax, cprs, dark side, ets, julia gillard, no mandate, ross garnaut, the force, trilateral commission

Comments 2 Comments
Categories Uncategorized

Gillard: “I Have Always Been Determined To Create An Emissions Trading Scheme”

1 Jul

Three days ago, I wrote an article arguing by reference to the Government’s official documentation, that the Green-Labor-Independent Alliance is not proposing a “tax”, but an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price start –

“The Carbon Tax is Not A ‘Tax’ … It Is The Bankster’s CPRS By Another Name”.

Two days ago, prompted by a reader, I wrote a detailed email to the Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Mr Greg Hunt MP, arguing the same point –

“Letter To Greg Hunt MP”.

Yesterday, I engaged in multiple correspondences with Mr Hunt, continuing to present the same irrefutable point; that the Government’s proposed “pricing carbon” scheme is not a tax, but is, and always has been, planned and intended to be an emissions trading scheme with an initial and temporary “fixed price” period –

“Letter To Greg Hunt MP” – Updates 2, 3, 4, 5.

In one of these correspondences, Mr Hunt stated the following (emphasis added):

Thur 30/6, 10:30pm –

I respect your views but the Prime Minister herself has said that it operates like a tax.

As has the Treasurer.

Cheers,

greg

I will leave it to those interested to read my detailed critical response to Mr Hunt’s statement.

Remarkably however, just a few short hours later the following was being widely reported in the mainstream media (please note carefully my bold emphasis added):

By Malcolm Farr, National Political Editor | From: news.com.au | June 30, 2011 2:38PM

Prime Minister Julia Gillard today said the imposition of a fixed price on carbon pollution will last for the minimum possible of three years before being replaced by whatever the market decides.

The decision will be a bid to take the “tax” out of the Opposition’s highly effective “carbon tax” attacks as quickly as possible.

“What (Opposition Leader) Tony Abbott likes to refer to as a carbon tax, a fixed price period for an emissions trading scheme, is a period I believe should be as short as possible,” Ms Gillard said in Darwin.

“I’ve always been determined to create an emissions trading scheme, and I’ve always been determined that the fixed price period would be as short as possible and we would get to that emissions trading scheme.”

She said her aim “has always been to have an emissions trading scheme“.

“That’s an aim I share with (former Liberal Prime Minister) John Howard and (current Liberal front bencher) Malcolm Turnbull – an emissions trading scheme for our nation’s future,” said the Prime Minister.

And then there was this, from the ABC (emphasis added):

Jeremy Thompson, On Thursday 30 June 2011, 16:55 EST

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she is determined to introduce an emissions trading scheme as soon as possible, amid reports the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee has agreed the transition from a carbon tax to an ETS will take three years.

It is understood the Government, Greens and independents agreed to transition from the carbon tax to an ETS in 2015 – at the early end of the stated aim of three to five years.

The Government wanted to go directly to an ETS, but the minority nature of the Parliament meant the Greens were able to insist on an initial fixed carbon tax.

“I’ve always been determined to create an emissions trading scheme and I’ve always been determined that the fixed-price period would be as short as possible and we would get to that emissions trading scheme,” Ms Gillard told reporters in Darwin.

She sought to change the nature of the rhetoric, rejecting the term “carbon tax” as a description used by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

I’m tempted to end this piece right now, with a triumphant “I rest my case”.

Sadly, there will doubtless be those who are to a greater or lesser degree incapable of critical thinking, who may dismiss Gillard’s remarks as not supporting my argument.

For one reason.

They no longer trust anything she says.

It is not necessary to believe that she is telling the truth now.

It is only necessary to critically examine the facts.

And the facts are these*.

The Rudd-Gillard government has always officially (ie, in written documentation) referred to their “carbon pricing” proposal as an “emissions trading scheme”.

Always.

Never as a “carbon tax“.

If those who oppose the introduction of a carbon “tax” wish to succeed in preventing it, they need to start using their brains.

It is better for everyone in the community to clearly understand that it IS an emissions trading scheme.

We should all encourage and applaud Gillard and Co in their new “bid to take the “tax” out of the Opposition’s highly effective “carbon tax” attacks”.

Why?

Because the people we need to convince are not those who already oppose the carbon “X”.

The people we need to convince – the people we need on our side against the carbon “X” – are the lefties, green cargo-culters, and others like them who go along with most every popular delusion, and are too thick to critically think for themselves.

Now believe it or not, those of us who understand the grave threat of a carbon “X” actually do share one very important thing in common with the lefties, et al.

We all – broadly speaking – HATE BANKERS.

It is vital for “righties” to understand, that “lefties” generally think that taxes aren’t such a bad thing – especially if the wise and compassionate, caring Big Government is going to “save the planet” by taxing “only” those big bad “polluters”.

But … if just once these poor deluded fools could glimpse the reality – that the governments plan is NOT a wise and benevolent Robin Hood “tax” as they imagine, but is in truth, nothing more than a grandiose scheme that is designed by, and for, the benefit of BANKERS – then we have a chance.

Then, there is hope that we can all become one.

“Leftard” and “Rightard” alike.

United in opposition … to the banksters’ ETS.

So I say … Go for it JuLiar!

You’re on the right track now 😉

Tell it like it is.

Keep telling the world that it ‘aint no “tax”.

Keep telling us all that it is what you have “always been determined to create”.

“An emissions trading scheme for our nation’s future“

And We The People will drive home the patently obvious “bankster” connection in this grand scam for you.

________

* The Facts

References:

Garnaut Review 2011, Chapter 5 (emphasis added):

In implementing an emissions trading scheme with a fixed-price start, there are two sets of decisions to be made: the starting price and how much the price will rise in each subsequent year; and the timing, conditions and manner of transition to emissions trading with a price that is set by market exchange.

*******

Government’s climatechange.gov.au website (emphasis added):

Multi-Party Climate Change Committee

Broad architecture of the carbon price mechanism

A carbon price mechanism could commence with a fixed price (through the issuance of fixed price units within an emissions trading scheme) before converting to a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme…

*******

Government’s climatechange.gov.au website (emphasis added):

Publications

CPRS White Paper:

Policy position 8.1

Each permit will have a unique identification number and will be marked with the first year in which it can validly be surrendered (its ‘vintage’). It will not have an expiry date.

…

8.4.1 Banking

Banking allows permits to be saved for use in future years. With unlimited banking, permits would not have an expiry date—once issued, they could be used for compliance at any future time.

… the advantages of banking are greatest if banking is continuous. For these reasons, the Government will allow unlimited banking from Scheme commencement.

Tags: banksters, carbon tax, climate change, cprs, ets, Goldman Sachs, greg hunt, julia gillard, malcolm turnbull

Comments 4 Comments
Categories Uncategorized

Be There!!

30 Jun

Click to enlarge

Tags: banksters, barnaby joyce, cata, cprs, ets, no carbon tax, warren truss

Categories Uncategorized

← Older Entries

Search

Barnaby Is Right

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

It Begins – Opposition Takes Up The Fight Against The Bankster Class

I Was Right – Our Banks Begin Preparing Carbon Derivatives Market

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

Which companies will be required to pay a carbon price?

Barnaby: “I Thought One-World Government Was A Conspiracy Theory, Then I Heard The De Facto Deputy PM On Radio National”

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

Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In

A Disturbance In The Farce

Gillard: “I Have Always Been Determined To Create An Emissions Trading Scheme”

Be There!!

UN UDHR – Article 19

Latest

Comments

Blogroll

Archive

Tag Cloud

Search

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Which companies will be required to pay a carbon price?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

UN UDHR – Article 19

Latest

Comments

Blogroll

Archive

Tag Cloud