Tag Archives: ets

Spain Introduces Sunlight Tax

28 Jul


Are you one of those millions of “useful idiots” who believe that our elites really, truly want to reduce CO2 emissions, to “save the planet” from “man-made global warming”?

Ask yourself WHY then, why they would try to stop you from privately harnessing the energy of the sun for yourself and your family — CO2 emissions-free — by introducing a sunlight tax, designed to “encourage” (ie, force) you to use the state-“sponsored” — make that, privatised, international banker-financed — energy providers instead.

From Mike Shedlock’s “Mish’s Global Economics”:

Spain Levies Consumption Tax On Sunlight

Proving that idiocy truly has no bounds, Spain issued a “royal decree” taxing sunlight gatherers. The state threatens fines as much as 30 million euros for those who illegally gather sunlight without paying a tax.

The tax is just enough to make sure that homeowners cannot gather and store solar energy cheaper than state-sponsored providers.

Via Mish-modified Google Translate from Energias Renovables, please consider Photovoltaic Sector, Stunned

The Secretary of State for Energy, Alberto Nadal, signed a draft royal decree in which consumption taxes are levied on those who want to start solar power systems on their rooftops. The tax, labeled a “backup toll” is high enough to ensure that it will be cheaper to keep buying energy from current providers.

Spain Privatizes the Sun

Via Google translate from El Pais, please consider Spain Privatizes The Sun

If you get caught collecting photons of sunlight for your own use, you can be fined as much as 30 million euros.

If you were thinking the best energy option was to buy some solar panels that were down 80% in price, you can forget about it.

“Of all the possible scenarios, this is the worst,” said José Donoso, president of the Spanish Photovoltaic Union (UNEF), which represents 85% of the sector’s activity.

Before the decree it took 12 years to recover the investment in a residential installation of 2.4 kilowatts of power. Following the decree, it will take an additional 23 years according to estimates by UNEF.

Petition of the Candle Makers Revisited

And so the “Petition of the Candle Makers” comes to pass.

I have written about the “petition” on many occasions, but here is the latest reference: Extremely Difficult to Keep Up With Economic Stupidity

Reflections on “Unfair Competition”

Corporations always consider it “unfair” when any other company can do things faster, smarter, or cheaper than they can. The buggy whip industry once protested cars.

Today, land-line telecom companies have to compete with wireless and they don’t like it. Now, we see protests about VOIP (voice over internet protocol).

Technology marches on. But France does not like it. The French solution is to tax Skype because it has an “unfair advantage“.

This is an age-old unwinnable argument.

Petition of the Candle Makers

The ultimate irony is France’s preposterous “unfair advantage” argument was lampooned by French economist Frederic Bastiat back in 1845 when he penned ‘Petition of the Candle Makers‘.

In his article, candle makers were incensed that the light of the sun could be had for free. The sun’s unfair trade advantage was to the “detriment of fair industries” who could not compete against the sun’s price.

Something had to be done to “shut off as much as possible, all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light” so that “industry in France will encouraged”.

The moral to this story is “Don’t propose something purposefully stupid hoping to make a point. Some idiot might actually think it’s a good idea and do it”.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock


Mike Shedlock and others are wrong to mock this as simple greed and idiocy.

Because it is symptomatic of something far more evil, planned, and pervasive.

Every mainstream “issue” — like “man-made global warming” — is really all about something other than what you see, at “face value”.

It is really all about Money. And far more importantly, Control.

More and more of both, for the international banker class.

And less and less for you.

Know Your Real Enemy.


If You Don’t Support An ETS, You Are “Ungodly”: Rudd

28 Jul

Ring of Solomon 01

Two standout observations, for mine, regarding today’s Kevin Rudd interview on Channel Ten’s ‘The Bolt Report’.

First, Rudd’s defence of his failed border protection policy introduced in 2007 was to, in essence, blame the Australian people. How so? By pointing out that we are a “democracy”, and arguing that he was following the “democratic mandate” given by the people at the 2007 election.

Apparently, his designing and spruiking of that policy as a reason to vote for him, before and after the 2007 election, is irrelevant. If enough people were stupid enough to vote for the ALP based on that policy, then its failure is the peoples’ fault.

Second, in defending his planned move to an ETS ahead of schedule, Rudd argued that the reason an ETS failed to be legislated much earlier (in 2009), was due to “an ungodly cabal” of conservatives and the Greens.

Apparently, if you do not support CO2 emissions trading, you are “ungodly”.

Makes one wonder which “god” Rudd serves.

And reminds one of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein’s claim, that bankers are “doing god’s work“.

Videos of the interview will be available here.

See also:

Scrap The ETS: Growing Global Movement Calls On EU To Abolish “Major Obstacle” To Emissions Reduction

EU ETS Myths Busted As Carbon Price Collapses; “Should Not Be Replicated”

TIME: Carbon Markets May Be Finished

Infographic: Visualising The Size Of Australia’s Carbon Derivatives Time Bomb

The Financialisation Of Nature


From the transcript –

ANDREW BOLT: They’re snowing you, Prime Minister. To finish off, in 2007, Labor under you promised to turn back the boats. It promised to stop reckless spending. In 2010 Julia Gillard promised no carbon tax, and a budget surplus. This year all of those promises and a lot more were broken. What are you going to do to make people trust your promises now?

KEVIN RUDD: The first thing I would say is that climate change, building on where we’ve just been in this discussion, is real. It requires action, putting a price on carbon. What I put forward was a floating price way back when – rejected by an ungodly cabal of the Liberals and the Greens. And subsequently, Julia Gillard at the beginning of the last parliamentary term – or this parliamentary term.

The Financialisation Of Nature

12 Mar

From Carbon Trade Watch:

The banks have successfully infiltrated the international institutions. The creation, and official recognition, of an UNEP Finance branch allows them to promote their private interests as public interests. Central in this strategy is the launch, at Rio+20, of a “Natural Capital Declaration”. What is this? The vision of the financiers, based on the conception of environment and of life as a simple capital resource, and their support for mechanisms that push the financialization of nature.

Hey You, Bankers’ Stooge! THIS Is How To Save The Planet

10 Mar

This morning I am really angry.

And deeply sorrowful.


Because I watched this inspiring, brilliant, contrarian-thinking, must-watch TED talk, by someone I had never heard of before:

Did you weep a little watching that?

I did.

Seriously. I did.

But why the mixed emotions, you may well ask. Whence cometh your humble blogger’s anger, and sorrow? Surely this is good news, hopeful news, inspiring and joyful news?


I am angry because so many otherwise intelligent, educated, thoughtful, well-meaning people have been fooled into supporting the idea that population control – fewer human beings (notable exception: themselves) – is critical to the future of life on the planet. Hence, all manner of genocidal ideas wearing the mask of “environmentalism” gain support – such as reducing the world’s numbers of cattle, a major protein source in human food consumption in developed nations, and an aspirational one in developing nations.

I am angry because so many otherwise intelligent, educated, thoughtful, well-meaning people have been fooled into supporting the idea that allowing central bankers to create literally trillions of dollars out of thin air to bail out the private bankstering system from 2007-08 onwards, was and is “necessary” … but creating just $175 billion a year to end “extreme” poverty in the world, is not.

I am angry because so many otherwise intelligent, educated, thoughtful, well-meaning people have been fooled into supporting the idea that global CO2 trading schemes – “putting a price on carbon” – will save the planet from global warming; that the politically-legalised financialisation (by bankers) of carbon dioxide “units” – created as electronic digits in a computer, just like money – in order to make carbon dioxide a tradeable “commodity”, is mankind’s best hope for avoiding “catastrophic”, “runaway” climate change, because – so they claim – globalised trading in electronic carbon dioxide “units” (not to mention, their derivatives) will reduce global emissions.

It isn’t –

The world emits 48% more carbon dioxide from the consumption of energy now than it did in 1992 when the first Rio summit took place.

And it won’t –

…the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits … The new carbon credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that’s been kind to Goldman [Sachs], except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won’t even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

… Well, you might say, who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won’t we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe — but cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax collection scheme.

I am angry because so many otherwise intelligent, educated, thoughtful, well-meaning people think it is a good thing that powerful lobby groups are now pressuring the government to bring forward the date when our own carbon dioxide “tax” scheme transitions to a full cap-and-trade scheme…

“The Australian Industry Group today called on all sides of politics to support the immediate removal of the fixed price carbon tax and move directly to an internationally linked emissions trading scheme,” Ai Group Chief Executive, Innes Willox, said today.

…which is exactly what the bankers have wanted from the very beginning:

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 am angry because so many otherwise intelligent, educated, thoughtful, well-meaning people have fooled themselves into believing that the recent history of unlimited, unregulated, unmonitored, off-balance sheet, “shadow” market derivatives creation and trading by the world’s bankers that led directly to the GFC will not repeat itself – think Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS), Collateralised Debt Obligations (CDO), and Credit Default Swaps (CDS); that allowing the bankers freedom to set up a new unlimited, unregulated, unmonitored, off-balance sheet “shadow” market in CO2 derivatives creation and trading is not a recipe for an even greater global financial Armageddon; that the massive “moral hazard” caused by declaring the world’s biggest banks to be “Too Big To Fail” – and now, “Too Big To Prosecute” – is a chance worth taking, in order to “save the planet” from rising CO2 emissions.

I am deeply saddened because simple, commonsense, natural, human-life enabling and enhancing ideas – practical, cheap, non-predatory solutions to the popularly-alleged imminent planetary threat of runaway global warming – from virtually unknown people such as Allan Savory – and one of my favourites, Austrian forester/forest warden, naturalist, philosopher, inventor and Biomimicry experimenter Viktor Schauberger* – continue to be ignored or belittled. And most often by … yes, those very same otherwise intelligent, educated, thoughtful, well-meaning people who, despite their intelligence and learning (and often, because of it, and the pride that follows), on this subject, are simply too dumb to see that they are really just stooges for the bankers:

1. Stooge

Someone who is used by others to get what they want, a clown, a follower.


Whether you are labelled a “denialist” or an “alarmist”, matters little.

Ideas such as those of Savory and Schauberger are worth placing at the top of our priority tree.

Because, unlike the legalisation of carbon dioxide “units” for bankers to trade – or even worse, their off-balance sheet creation and “shadow market” trading of unlimited, unmonitored, unregulated derivatives on top of those carbon dioxide “units” – Savory’s and Schauberger’s ideas can make life better.

For every one of us.

And for more of us. Not less.

So if you really, truly believe that we need to “save the planet” .. and even if you don’t … THIS is how to do it.

Electronic carbon dioxide “unit” trading, as the basis for a secondary, “shadow” banking pyramid scheme of unlimited, unmonitored, unregulated derivatives trading, is not.

The bankers are the problem.

Not the solution.

It is their monstrous, worldwide, daily creation and lending-for-interest/profit of electronic digits that we call “money”, that drives all economic “activity” (ie, “growth”).

When there is less “money”, the economy slows, right?

And with less “growth”, less “activity”, there are less carbon dioxide emissions:

US emissions are up for the first time since recession hit in 2008, in a sign of how closely pollution is linked to economic success.

Instead of blaming a morally nebulous, comfortable, dehumanising label titled “population growth” – that’s real live struggling and loving and caring fellow human beings you’re talking about! – for carbon dioxide emissions driving “catastrophic” “man-made” climate change, take a closer look at the real culprits.

Or as some wisely advise, Follow The Money.

Because “money makes the world go ’round”.

It is the bankers who financed the Industrial Revolution.

It is the bankers who have driven national and social (economic) inequality.

It is the bankers who finance all wars – the most unnecessary, wasteful, inefficient, selfish, and costly “activity” of all (can you believe that economic experts unblinkingly “credit” World War 2 for ending the Great Depression? All that lovely new economic “activity”, you see).

It is the bankers who finance – for profit – all the wasteful, inefficient, selfish, unnecessary consumption of ever more and more and more material “goods” (of ever declining quality/longevity) and “services”.

It is the bankers who have, over many generations, grown immensely powerful and unimaginably wealthy by taking advantage of our foolishly granting them the exclusive power to finance – at interest – all “economic activity”, period.

Activity – so much of which is of dubious real necessity, or value – that needs fossil fuel energy to operate.

Oh yes… it is the bankers who financed – for profit – the growth and power of the fossil fuel energy corporations too.

If you actually believe that a solution to the “climate emergency” that bankers unanimously support, lobby for, and stand ready to massively profit from, is a good idea that will achieve the stated purpose – saving the planet – then you really are, beyond any possibility of dispute, a willfully ignorant fool.

A bankers’ stooge.

* P.S. I found Allan Savory’s brief mention of temperature differentials for desertified soils vs non-desertified soils (at 8:10) very interesting, in light of my reading the works of the little known genius, Viktor Schauberger. Central to his observations, insights, theories, and experiments, was the critical importance of temperature differentials within every body of water.

P.P.S. If (like me) you are interested to know more about Allan Savory’s work, then visit the Savory Institute website.

China To EU: “This ETS Is Illegal And Unreasonable … Now The Whole World Is Opposing It”

14 Mar

Those noble saviours of Planet Earth, the EU political elites, have simultaneously managed to inflame both the Chinese, and, their own manufacturers of passenger aircraft.

It seems that legislating a CO2 derivatives scam designed by and for the sole benefit of bankers and traders, can result in unintended blowback.

From the Irish Times:

European aviation bosses have urged political leaders to stop an escalating global row over an EU carbon levy, warning it is threatening their industry and has already led to $12 billion worth of orders being suspended.

Airbus CEO Tom Enders said 2,000 positions were at risk after China – at the forefront of opposition to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – had suspended orders for Airbus aircraft worth $12 billion.

Alongside Mr Enders, eight chief executives of airlines and engine makers wrote to the leaders of Britain, France, Spain and Germany saying they expected “suspensions, cancellations and punitive actions to grow as other important markets continue to oppose ETS”.

All airlines using EU airports must pay to offset their carbon emissions under a new law that took effect in January. The carbon cost for a flight from China to Europe is around €2 per passenger but as the scheme is being phased in gradually, airlines will not face a bill until April next year.

In addition to Airbus, the signatories included the heads of airlines British Airways and Iberia, owned by International Airlines Group, Air Berlin, Air France, Lufthansa and Virgin Atlantic.

The heads of French and German aircraft engine makers Safran and MTU Aero also signed the letter.

In a separate letter to European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, Enders deplored the “very serious situation” caused by the threat of reprisals from China and other nations.

“It seems that these threats are now becoming very real and are being translated into concrete action, which is starting to have serious consequences on the European aviation business,” he wrote in his letter, also obtained by Reuters.

The European Commission said it was forced to act alone after the United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization failed to come up with a viable global scheme. It has said it will modify its law if the ICAO, which has stepped up work on its own system, comes up with a scheme.

On Friday a meeting of environment ministers from all 27 EU nations reiterated they were fully behind the EU scheme.

China, the world’s fastest-growing airline market, is a major purchaser of both Airbus and Boeing jets.

It tends to buy in large quantities, through a central purchasing entity, before the jets are allocated to individual airlines, but final Beijing government approval is needed before the aircraft can be delivered.

“It is not just China’s airlines and industry association opposing the scheme. Now the whole world is opposing it,” Cai Haibo, deputy secretary-general of the China Air Transport Association (CATA), told Reuters.

“This shows that this ETS is illegal and unreasonable and should be withdrawn or postponed.”

Critics of the EU’s plans say they do not just affect profitability, but touch on national sovereignty, making the risk of a trade war that could disrupt air traffic more serious.

h/t Twitterer “Tracy'” aka @seahorse555 (website: seahorsejewellery.com.au)

Carbon Price To Knock $30bn Off Economy

13 Mar

A new study commissioned by the Minerals Council doubtless has about as much credibility as Treasury modelling (ie, none).

Nevertheless, it is only logical that with EU carbon permits trading at under 10 Euro per tonne with little hope of price improvement, Australia’s “carbon price” starting at a fixed $23 per tonne and rising over 3 years, before changing to a full emissions trading scheme with a fixed floor price of $15 per tonne, is going to hurt.

From the Australian:

AUSTRALIA faces a $30 billion hit to growth by 2018 if domestic carbon prices remain higher than the European price, according to new economic modelling that will add to business pressure to bring the $23 starting price closer to Europe’s $10.

The modelling, by the Centre for International Economics consultancy, warns that keeping the $23 fixed price regime and the floor price of $15 a tonne – key elements of the current package – will have almost twice the impact on economic growth by 2018 as allowing the Australian price to track international prices.

A higher price in Australia than in comparable international markets could also cost the mining industry a cumulative $4bn and durable manufacturers $1.5bn over six years, the CIE modelling predicts. In a blow to the Coalition’s direct action policy alternative, leading CSIRO researcher Michael Battaglia has warned that the abatement figures in Tony Abbott’s alternative policy are “ambitious”. The centrepiece of the policy – sequestering 85 million tonnes of carbon in soil by 2020 – might only achieve abatement of between 5 million and 20 million tonnes, he said yesterday.

The CIE research, commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia, comes amid projections that slow growth in Europe will mean international carbon prices will not rise significantly above the $10 around which they are currently sitting.

When Australia’s carbon package was announced, Treasury assumed an international carbon price of between $29 and $61. But the European credit crisis caused prices to slump. The research will amplify calls by key business backers of carbon pricing, including the Australian Industry Group’s Heather Ridout and the Business Council of Australia’s Jennifer Westacott for the policy to be rewritten.

Last week, Ms Ridout said the difference between the Australian and European prices was effectively “a tax on industry”, while Ms Westacott described the disparity as a concern for the competitiveness of Australia’s industries.


As regular readers know, here at barnabyisright.com we have clearly demonstrated – from the government’s own documents – that the Orwellian-named Clean Energy Future legislation is little more than 1,000 pages of babbling legalese designed by bankers, for bankers, to disguise two (2) tiny little clauses that are the key to the entire scam.

A CO2 derivatives scam:

How can I be so sure?

Because not one of [the] claimed “Objects of the mechanism” requires laws that specifically permit bankers to create unlimited quantities of wholly unregulated “financial weapons of mass destruction” called derivatives (or “securities”).

They are completely unnecessary. Moreover, the ongoing GFC turmoil proves that unregulated derivatives markets represent a clear and present danger to our government-propped banking system, and thus are a sovereign risk.

And yet, this is just what our Green-Labor government is doing right now in the Senate.

Carefully buried in their Clean Energy Bill 2011 we find the ticking time bomb (underline added):

109A Registration of equitable interests in relation to a carbon unit

(1) The regulations may make provision for or in relation to the registration in the Registry of equitable interests in relation to carbon units.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an equitable interest that is a security interest within the meaning of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, and to which that Act applies.

In other words, while the regulations may make provision for registration of equitable interests in a carbon unit, they specifically (subsection 2) do not make provision for registering a “security interest” in a carbon unit.

[A “security interest in” a carbon unit is, quite simply, a derivative or “security” that is based on the underlying “value” of the carbon “unit”]

It is clear then, that the government does not want to record carbon derivatives creation and trading.

They want to permit it. Just not record or regulate it.

Indeed, they wish to ensure “avoidance of doubt” that banks are legally allowed to immediately pull the pin on creating and trading these (wholly unregulated) financial weapons of mass destruction (underline added):

110 Equitable interests in relation to a carbon unit

(1) This Act does not affect:

(a) the creation of; or

(b) any dealings with; or

(c) the enforcement of;

equitable interests in relation to a carbon unit.

(2) Subsection (1) is enacted for the avoidance of doubt.

And just in case you missed the point – and your missing the real point is, in fact, the whole point of their using such opaque language – then the truth is spelled out more clearly elsewhere.


Way down in the fine print, of course. In the Explanatory Memorandum tacked on to the end of the Bill (underline added):

3.36 The bill does not affect the creation or enforcement of, or any dealings with (including transfers of), equitable interests in carbon units. [Part 4, clause 110] This provision has been included for the avoidance of doubt. In addition, the bill does not prevent the taking of security over carbon units.

Now I ask you, dear reader.

How does the scheme’s granting permission for banks to create a secondary carbon securities trading market (ie, “security over” carbon units) help to reduce CO2 emissions?

Indeed, how does a wholly unmonitored and unregulated shadow banking market in carbon derivatives help to create a single cent in extra government revenue, for the Senator Milne-championed Clean Energy Finance Corporation to pour down the toilet of otherwise commercially unviable “green” energy projects?

Answer: It doesn’t.

The government will never see any of the profits generated by banks from their multi trillion dollar trading in wholly unregulated carbon derivatives.

But you can be certain that they (and we) will hear all about it when the banks’ multi trillion dollar derivatives betting on movements in the market price of thin air blows up too. Because that’s when – just as with the global mortgage derivatives trade that triggered GFC1 – the bankers will (again) come running to government for a bail out.

Rest assured, dear reader.

Even if this latest round of calls for changes to the legislation are acted upon by government, of one thing you can be certain.

Just as the current legislation specifically allows for unlimited, unregulated creation of CO2 derivatives by banksters for trading and profit in international ‘shadow banking’ markets – and from Day 1, not just when an ETS begins – so too any new or revised legislation will still specifically allow this ticking time bomb hidden in the carbon tax to be created.

Because that is the ONLY reason why the legislation exists.

To allow the creation of wholly unmonitored, unregulated derivatives-on-thin-air by Big Finance, in unlimited quantities.

The fuel-air mixture for the biggest shadow banking financial bomb ever devised:

A Lonely Suicide

29 Feb

A 30% over-valued, speculator-driven Aussie Dollar white-anting whole swathes of the non-mining economy, with the RBA’s blessing.

A government and opposition united in not wishing to do anything about it.

A World’s Biggest (and highest price) CO2 Derivatives Scam set to hollow out what’s left.

A minority government defying the will of the people in implementing it, and an opposition powerless to stop it.

Sounds great, right?

After all, we are going to “lead the world” in the “greatest moral challenge of our time” … despite no global warming in a decade … right?

And all the other lemmings are going to follow us off the cliff, as enthusiastic human sacrifices to the Green cargo cult … right?

Uh … no:

Japan has become the latest major world polluter to rule out introducing a carbon price or carbon tax in the near future, as it struggles with power shortages and a rising yen caused by the euro crisis.

Senior Japanese diplomatic officials in Tokyo have told The Australian there is “no chance” of the country adopting a scheme similar to Australia’s carbon tax or emissions trading scheme in the foreseeable future.

Japan, the world’s fifth-largest carbon emitter, joins the US and Canada in backtracking on the introduction of a carbon price.

Our impending national economic suicide is becoming lonelier by the day.


They went over the cliff years ago.

Now we’re just watching the entrails gush out, and the blood spatter.

At least we can feel all noble and holy though … right?


The AFR reports that electricity generators are warning of price blowouts in excess of that predicted by the Green-Labor-Wind-Shott gubbermint –

The head of Australia’s largest power generator has warned that electricity prices will rise more than the federal government predicts under an option to ration output in order to stay ­profitable under the carbon tax.

The comments by Macquarie Generation chief executive Russell Skelton highlight warnings by the power industry that distressed generators will start to manipulate the price of power in the National Electricity Market in order to stay afloat.

The price threat also casts doubt on the government’s tax cuts and ­welfare payment rises for consumers.

The compensation package is based only on the Treasury estimate of a 0.7 per cent rise in prices due directly to the carbon tax in 2012-13.

Figures released by the government yesterday show some generators will need to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to buy permits in advance to cover emissions when the scheme starts on July 1.

“We expect to go from a profitable business to an unprofitable business partly as a result of the carbon price,” Mr Skelton told The Australian Financial Review.

“Most of the analysis and modelling done indicates we will not be able to pass through somewhere between 20 to 40 per cent of the cost [of the carbon price],” he said. “If you have a $500 million bill you have to absorb 20 per cent, so there is $100 million right there and our projected profits this year are $100 million.”

As a result, Macquarie is considering options to stay profitable which include reducing output to increase the price of power on the National Electricity Market. “We have done it in the past to respond to varying market circumstances,” Mr Skelton said. “To the extent wholesale prices increase, you would expect it would increase the price to consumers.”

“Carbon Is All About Vanity”, Says UK Carbon Trader

8 Dec

“There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”.

Congratulations Julia!

That epic broken promise is looking good now, isn’t it.

Just ask our trans-Tasman neighbours:

Carbon credits pricing crashes and burns

A crash in carbon credit prices means the government has no option but to ban or drastically restrict the use of imported carbon credits of dubious quality, or the emissions trading scheme (ETS) could become a national embarrassment.

The price of New Zealand units (NZUs) has crashed from $22 in May to about $11* last week, stifling interest in developing carbon offsetting initiatives here, according to carbon market participants.

The price crash has been so steep that by one calculation, if the price trend continued for another 100 days, the value of NZU credits would be zero.

The reasons for the crash appear to be the unfettered ability of New Zealand emitters to import credits of dubious quality from overseas, coupled with the recent dumping of international credits by cash-strapped European industrial and utilities companies selling down their stockpiles of carbon to realise cash as the debt crisis worsens, participants in the fledgling carbon trading market say.

Hmmmm. That last bit sounds strangely familiar:

ASX’ announcement came two days after Australia passed a law that will require almost 500 of the country’s largest emitters to pay for their pollution for the first time. The law allows firms to offset as much as half of their Australian discharge by purchasing credits awarded for projects that limit carbon releases abroad.

Lemmings. Cliff. Gravity. Bitch.

In more good news for Julia (and partners in crime Bob, Andrew, Tony and Rob):

Carbon credits may be buried in Durban; India, China to lose

The much-heralded carbon trading system may be headed for a dead end, if discussions underway over the last few days at the United Nations-organised global conference on climate change are any indication. This will have a major impact on India and China, the leaders in such trading.

The carbon markets will crash if Durban fails to send a strong signal that the next round of Kyoto Protocol negotiations are on track,” says Remi Gruet, senior regulatory affairs advisor on climate and environment with the European Wind Energy Association, an industry body.

Doubtless Remi Gruet is “talking his own book”, being a wind energy lobbyist and all.

But his underlying point remains valid.

Because it appears that China and India are not exactly proving helpful in forging a new post-Kyoto agreement:

The world’s three biggest polluters joined in opposing a European Union proposal for talks aimed at drawing up a new climate treaty, dimming the chances of extending the Kyoto Protocol limiting greenhouse gases…

India, along with the U.S. and China are united in opposing the EU’s timeline to a new deal. The 27-nation bloc that’s done the most to limit carbon dioxide fumes since Kyoto was signed in 1997, said it wouldn’t agree to more limits unless a treaty is signed by 2015 and in force by 2020.

The opposing positions may torpedo the chance of a deal on Dec. 9 when two weeks of talks in Durban finish. The EU has called its “road map” proposal a “red line” issue.

Although this report in the Financial Times suggests otherwise:

China and Brazil have warned that one of the world’s biggest carbon markets will be under threat if wealthy countries reject their demands for a new phase of the Kyoto protocol.

It is “inconceivable” that the $20bn UN-backed carbon offset market can continue unless countries agree to a second round of pledges under the Kyoto climate treaty after the first round expires in 12 months, China’s chief negotiator told the FT.

Confused by all the international politicking?

Not to worry.

Barnabyisright.com readers know better than to take much notice of all their noise.

They know that the best way to get an insight into the truth of what is really going on, in almost every life situation, is to simply remember the Golden Rule.

Follow The Money:

Investment banks are cutting traders and analysts in climate-related businesses as a slump in shares and carbon emission permits coincides with a deadlock in international climate talks.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Managing Director for Environmental Markets Odin Knudsen left his post in New York by mutual accord after his team was shrunk, while UBS Securities LLC fired Vice Chairman Jon Anda and his Climate Policy Group co-workers, Anda and Knudsen said in interviews. Ben Lynch left his London job as an alternative-energy analyst for Commerzbank AG and it was taken over by a utilities analyst, company spokeswoman Claire Tappenden said. The departures took place since September.

The biggest banks, trying to recover from trading losses and a clampdown on investing their own money, are clipping resources from emissions-related businesses as United Nations talks have failed for years to extend Kyoto Protocol greenhouse- gas curbs beyond their expiration in 2012. The International Emissions Trading Association, the main carbon-market trade group, has seen its membership slide about 6 per cent this year.

“People are leaving the industry because they’ve been fired or because they see no prospects,” said Emmanuel Fages, head of energy research for Europe at Societe Generale SA in Paris.

And then there’s this, from eFinancialCareers UK:

At least you don’t work in carbon trading

It’s no longer possible to save the world whilst being paid in the style of a financial services professional. Not unless you’re prepared to live with a degree of job insecurity that offsets the advantage of working in an office rather than camping in Finsbury Square.

Three years ago, carbon trading was a vibrant, growing and politically correct business to work in. Today, it’s moribund and politically expedient.

“Carbon trading was very exciting a few years’ ago,” says Mike Brennan chairman of recruitment group Climate Human Capital. “People were very well paid and very well bid, but not any more.”

Last year, Climate Human Capital estimated there were 169 people working in carbon trading in the City of London, 27% of the European total. Today, Brennan says that number is, “significantly lower.”

Carbon trading refugees are emerging from banks and funds. Bloomberg says an MD for environmental markets has left JPMorgan, “by mutual accord,” that UBS has fired a climate vice chairman and his co-workers, and that Commerzbank has reallocated the responsibilities of its alternative-energy analyst to its utilities analyst. Carbon funds like Climate Change Capital, which were the new, new thing, aren’t: CCC made a loss last year, has lost its chief executive, has no current vacancies and has declared an interest in “strategic partnerships” in an effort to raise more capital.

“People are leaving the industry because they’ve been fired or because they see no prospects,” said Emmanuel Fages, head of energy research for Europe at Societe Generale in Paris, told Bloomberg. “That is the sad story.”

The sources of the sadness are manifold: the price of carbon has plummeted to €7.9 a metric tonne, down from €17 euros in May; the much hoped for US cap and trade carbon scheme has failed to materialize, and the EU carbon trading scheme has been blighted by an oversupply of credits. One trader who’s been acting as an advisor on the carbon market says things are unlikely to improve soon. Carbon is all about vanity. Corporates and governments want to be carbon neutral until they have to start laying people off or facing rioting in the streets. At that point, they don’t give a damn.”

What will happen to the carbon traders who thought they were using capitalism to save the world? “It’s a good job Starbucks are planning to hire so many people in London,” says one carbon headhunter, only semi-humorously.

However, Brennan insists there are some roles still somewhere. “We’re working with some niche brokerages focused on Central and Eastern Europe. They see opportunities there and are selectively adding carbon professionals to their team,” he promises. Unfortunately, applicants may exceed opportunities.

See Julia?

This is what happens when you have your Pinocchio nose jammed so far up Senator Brown’s realm-where-the-sun-don’t-shine.

You can’t see what is really going on out here in the real world.

What’s that old proverb again?

Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

* And just days after that article, this:

New Zealand carbon price collapses below $10 a tonne

The price of a tonne of emitted carbon has fallen below $10 for the first time today, with Westpac quoting a buy price for a New Zealand Unit falling to $9.90 as European carbon prices collapse.

The developments coincide with New Zealand and Australian climate change ministers, meeting on the sidelines of the global climate change summit in Durban, South Africa, announcing terms of reference for efforts to align the two countries’ emissions trading schemes…

“Westpac has regular buy and sell prices, but no one knows whether they contract at those prices, we don’t know,” said one broker who declined to be named. “We’ve hit dire days in carbon pricing.”

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.

Malcolm Turnbull – The Goldman-churian Candidate?

20 Jul

h/t to @JamesJohnsonCHR for inspiring the title phrase.

Regular readers of this blog will doubtless not all be Twitter users.

And so, many will not have had opportunity to bear witness to the following example of the intransigence of our politicians, when it comes to transparency concerning possible conflicts-of-interest.

In particular, that of Mr Malcolm Turnbull, who I have written of previously with respect to his past associations and their possible bearing on his long and strident advocacy for an Australian emissions trading scheme (and only an emissions trading scheme) –

Compassion For Malcolm – He Just Wants His Balls Back

Malcolm’s Motive: His ETS Lie Unravelled

Doing God’s Work – Turnbull An Angel Of ‘Death Derivatives’

“Turnbull Once Said To Me, ‘You Capitalise On Chaos'”

On Thursday 14th July, prompted by another blog article I published that day “Spread The Word – ‘Untouchable’ Turnbull Is A Goldman-Plated Turd” , the following exchange took place on Twitter between myself and Mr Turnbull, along with interjections from Twitter onlookers.

I’ll not comment with my own views as to what – if any – conclusions might be drawn from Mr Turnbull’s responses, or their implications for the present state of political honesty, transparency, and accountability in our nation.

I will simply leave readers to draw their own conclusions.

If you find it too hard to follow, then skip past this Twitter dialogue to the bottom.

There, you will find a very interesting quote from the Royal Commission into the collapse of HIH, which exonerated Mr Turnbull of any wrongdoing … in rather curious circumstances:

* Click on the bold ” @____ ” titles to view original tweets.


@nqcowboy_@barnabyisright@getuppr barnabyisright.com is such a courageous website there is nowhere can be found the identity of the author


@TurnbullMalcolm Would you care to offer FULL disclosure re Goldman, HIH, FAI, “confidential settlement” Mr Turnbull? @nqcowboy_ #auspol

(Interjection by) @gtwarrior47

@TurnbullMalcolm @BarnabyisRight @ Politics is a dirty game Malcom.The goal is to get the labor/green coalition off the treasury bench,


@gtwarrior47 Disagree. The goal is to have an honest, open, transparent Parliament, w/out conflicts-of-interest etc @TurnbullMalcolm #auspol

(Interjection by) @makiwa

@BarnabyisRight Agree. Without full accountability and transparency, we will only have an illusion of change! @gtwarrior47 @turnbullmalcolm


@BarnabyisRight@nqcowboy_ and who are you? Or are you as cowardly as you are scurilous?


@TurnbullMalcolm Not relevant, Mr Turnbull. What is relevant are the facts viz GS, HIH, FAI, ur “confidential settlemnt” @nqcowboy_

(Interjection by) @snowytristan

@BarnabyisRight @TurnbullMalcolm @nqcowboy_ We would like to to know Malcolm. Sounds like Gillard and her cover-ups.


@snowytristan @barnabyisright @nqcowboy_ ok whats the question?


@TurnbullMalcolm RU willing 2 provide public w/ ALL documentation viz GS/HIH/FAI “confidential settlement”? @snowytristan @nqcowboy_ #auspol


@TurnbullMalcolm RU willing 2 publish sworn affidavit that u’ve 0 obligations of any kind 2 GS/their CT interests? @snowytristan @nqcowboy_


@TurnbullMalcolm RU willing 2 publish sworn affidavit that u will receive 0 benefit – financ/otherwise – from ETS? @snowytristan @nqcowboy_


@BarnabyisRight a bit rich from someone who wont reveal his name..but I have no obligations to GS re carbon – only a paranoid wd say I did.

(Interjection by) @KeeptheBshonest

@TurnbullMalcolm @barnabyisright MT, we understand your frustration you will never be PM of Aust but calling folks Paranoid is a bit rich!!


@KeeptheBshonest @barnabyisright conspiracy theorists usually are. Especially when they dont have the guts to say who they are.

(Interjection by) @KeeptheBshonest

@TurnbullMalcolm @barnabyisright No Guts is about you sucking it up and “fully supporting your leader” in the fight for govt old mate, JS


@TurnbullMalcolm You are obfuscating Mr Turnbull. Ad hom. is not honest response to the 3 simple Q’s posed, implies guilt. @KeeptheBshonest


RU willing to publish sworn affidavit to that effect? @TurnbullMalcolm “..I have no obligations to GS re carbon” #auspol


@TurnbullMalcolm RU willing 2 provide public w/ ALL documentation viz GS/HIH/FAI “confidential settlement”? @FixNSWLegal @JamesJohnsonCHR


@TurnbullMalcolm RU willing 2 publish sworn affidavit that u, family, assoc’s, will receive 0 benefit – financ/otherwise, from ETS? #auspol


@BarnabyisRight If you are not prepared to say who you are, then I regret our interesting dialogue will have to come to an end.


@TurnbullMalcolm Sir, it appears you are not prepared to openly, directly, & honestly respond to reasonable questions of public record.

(Interjection by) @NOH8ER

@TurnbullMalcolm That’s not reasonable – what matters is the value of what is said, not who says it, Malcolm. cc.@BarnabyisRight

(Interjection by) @maatilda

@TurnbullMalcolm This tweep has a large following and if you dont respond you condemn yourself @BarnabyisRight


@TurnbullMalcolm As I iterated earlier Mr Turnbull, who I am is irrelevant to the facts. You are the public “servant”. Pls answer direct Q’s

(interjection by) @joneschris79

@TurnbullMalcolm @barnabyisright – don’t let it end. Best Aussie twitter 2n and fro ever. Plus…we want the answers.


@KeeptheBshonest @TurnbullMalcolm @barnabyisright I actually wanted MT to be PM but the GS affair is unsettling.


@NOH8ER @turnbullmalcolm @barnabyisright never liked the kid who took his bat & left a game mid way through because a point went against him


@KeeptheBshonest Never liked “public servants” who attack the man when asked simple, direct Q’s of national import @NOH8ER @turnbullmalcolm


@BarnabyisRight @noh8er @turnbullmalcolm you keep asking the tough q’s mate, MT lacks ticker, that’s why Libs turfed him out


@KeeptheBshonest No, disagree. Think Mr @turnbullmalcolm has lots of ticker. Q’s go to issue of obligation, opportunity, not courage @noh8er


@TurnbullMalcolm I looked forward to you as an alternative to Abbott, then I found out about the Goldman Sachs affair. @BarnabyisRight

Readers may be interested to consider the following excerpt from an article commenting on the HIH-FAI-Goldman-Turnbull affair.

It is noteworthy that Mr Turnbull’s standard defence when this topic is raised, is to point to his exoneration by the HIH Royal Commission.

Perhaps the following may assist readers who are unfamiliar with just how … questionable … the efficacy of our legal system is, in their own reflections on whether or not Mr Turnbull has anything to hide.

From nineMSN ‘Money’, 23 May 2008 (my emphasis added) –

One question [to Mr Turnbull], though, got a very terse response, suggesting it might have made its target a little uncomfortable. It was badly asked, revealing the questioner’s lack of knowledge about the issue. But the question on Turnbull’s expectations as to the timing of the HIH liquidator’s legal action against him (and a number of other respondents involved not with HIH, but the insurer it acquired in 1998, FAI Insurances) earned the questioner a firm lecture.

The royal commission report into the HIH collapse had found no wrong-doing on his part, Turnbull told the questioner. This is true. The HIH liquidator will struggle in a courtroom to make any case against Turnbull.

Turnbull’s answer at the National Press Club, and the predicament in which he finds himself, must be viewed in the context of the fact that the royal commission spent more time examining the deal in contention – HIH’s 1998 takeover of FAI – than any other transaction. For about three months, anyone even remotely connected with the takeover was grilled intensively.

In the end, the royal commissioner Neville Owen became impatient and ordered his counsel assisting to move on. Owen was obliged to find that the acquisition did, in fact, contribute to the collapse of the merged company.

Turnbull’s role as adviser to FAI in its “defence” against HIH was complicated by the fact that he and Goldman Sachs had considered leading a recapitalisation of FAI a few months before HIH launched its bid, partly using the investment bank’s own money. This proposal was called Project Firelight.

Goldman Sachs’ New York office finally canned the idea in early September 1998 for reasons that were never fully explained, but most likely because of volatile global markets at the time (very similar to recent subprime global liquidity squeeze) caused at the time by the Russian bond crisis and the Asian currency crisis.

In his subsequent role as adviser to the FAI board in relation to the HIH bid, Turnbull made a presentation to FAI directors in support of his recommendation that they accept the HIH offer, which was 47 percent above the previous FAI share price. The presentation covered three scenarios, one of which was similar to the Project Firelight proposal.

The royal commission found that he didn’t directly tell any of the board members about the earlier exercise. Turnbull told the royal commission he assumed that managing director Rodney Adler, who had hired him, had informed the board. Adler said he told John Landerer, the chairman. Landerer denied this. Who do you believe? Is it important?

After three months and millions of dollars of expenditure chasing the line that Turnbull and Goldman Sachs were somehow responsible for the collapse of HIH, this is what the royal commissioner says in his concluding remarks about their role in the FAI takeover:

It would have been of assistance to the directors of FAI to have known that GSA had spent considerable time in the course of 1998 analysing a very similar proposal in which Goldman Sachs might invest its own money but had decided not to proceed with it.

Such information should have been revealed to the FAI board by a financial or corporate adviser, like GSA, because it would have assisted the directors to decide whether to appoint GSA as their financial adviser on the takeover. It would also have assisted the directors in forming their opinions about the viability of the ‘break up and sell clean general insurance company’ proposal, which [was] presented by GSA as a potentially more attractive alternative than the takeover.

The fact that these matters were not revealed to the board of FAI is regrettable. This is particularly so in light of the evidence of some directors that it might have affected their attitude to the appointment of GSA.”

Having heard months of very aggressive evidence from his counsel assisting, designed to build a case against Turnbull and Goldman Sachs, this was all the royal commissioner was prepared to say about their role.

It would be a brave person who would try to predict the outcome of a court case, given the dysfunction of the court system, but this is hardly the basis of a successful $500 million claim. Turnbull’s protests that there is no case against him have merit.

I will leave it to readers to judge for themselves whether they agree with the concluding comment by the author of that piece.

As we know, just over 1 year after that article was written, Goldman Sachs did in fact make a “confidential” settlement on Mr Turnbull’s behalf.  Meaning that he did not have to suffer the embarrassment and indignity of facing up to the charges in the NSW Supreme Court. This occurred in mid-2009.  Right at the time that Mr Turnbull as leader of the Opposition was negotiating the bipartisan agreement with Kevin Rudd to introduce an ETS in Australia (dubbed at that time, the “CPRS”).

The implications of which, given Goldman Sachs’ extremely prominent role in emissions trading and the drive for globalised emissions trading, I leave to readers to ponder for themselves.

%d bloggers like this: