From the Newcastle Herald, 16 July 2011 (emphasis added):
Key industries in the Hunter say they face uncertainty under the government’s carbon tax, despite the significant financial support to be provided to some.
The Hunter’s mining and aluminium industries, both major employers, say the tax will reduce their competitiveness internationally.
The Hunter provides one-third of Australia’s aluminium and production is expected to double in the next 10 years, but the industry says the tax will force a lot of it overseas.
The coalmining industry is still warning of job losses in regions such as the Hunter despite the government’s $1.3 billion support.
Regular readers will know that I have already pointed out the gaping holes … lies … in the Government’s scheme scam.
The handing out of “freely allocated” carbon permits to “trade-exposed” industries in particular is a classic example of why I have been right all along in insisting that this scam is not “a tax” … or “like a tax” … but is a sneakily disguised emissions trading scheme from Day 1.
Why?
Because while “purchased” carbon permits are not tradable in the initial 3 year “fixed price period” … “freely allocated” permits are –
Which they can either “surrender” back again to “pay” for their “excess” emissions.
Or, trade their free permits (for profit).
Or, sell their free permits back to the Government … who will use your money to buy those free permits back again:
Buy‑back of freely allocated permits
The holders of freely allocated permitswill 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.
The latest NGER Report on “biggest polluters” emissions shows that just one of the Hunter’s alumium producers – Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri – emitted 366,598 tonnes of Scope 1 emissions, and 2.509 million tonnes of Scope 2 emissions in the most recent voluntary reporting period (2009-10).
So, with a carbon dioxide price set at $23 per tonne, and the Government planning to give Hydro Aluminium free carbon permits covering 94.5% of their emissions … well, you can do the math.
Sounds like an awful lot of free carbon dioxide “money” to me.
That the Green-Labor-Independent government’s carbon “X” scheme … IS … A … SCAM.
From Green Left Weekly yesterday (emphasis added):
There’s been so much political spin around the Gillard government’s carbon tax announcement. Of course, there’s the predictable hysterical hollering from the Tony Abbott, Barnaby Joyce and the climate change denier’s camp, but there is also tons of bullshit from the Gillard Labor government.
However, a couple of developments have provided a much-needed reality check.
On July 12, ABC News said: “Coal mining giant Peabody Energy has teamed with steelmaker ArcelorMittal to launch a $4.7 billion bid for Australian miner Macarthur Coal.”
This was the biggest-ever bid for a coal mining company in Australia and the bid was well above market expectations.
Peabody’s bid made nonsense of the opposition’s shrill warning’s that Gillard’s carbon tax, which will morph into a carbon pollution trading scheme by 2015, spelled the end of Australia’s massive and growing coal industry.
The coal mining boom will continue. The government’s modelling for its “carbon tax” impact says coal production will rise by 109% to 150% by 2050. It expects gas-fired energy to rise by more than 200% by 2050.
There will be no serious investment — public or private — into the needed radical transition to a 100% renewable energy-based economy.
And if more proof of the fakery of Gillard Labor’s scheme, there was this other telling news report.
Peter Martin wrote in the July 14 Sydney Morning Herald: “If Australia’s economists had the vote, Julia Gillard’s carbon tax would win a landslide.
“A survey of 145 delegates attending the Australian Conference of Economists in Canberra finds 59 per cent think the tax is ‘good economic policy’.”
These economists were overwhelmingly economic rationalists — true believers in the corporate profits-first orthodoxy that has dominated that profession since the 1970s.
What they see as “good economic policy” is good for big business profits and not for our common good or good for the environment.
Unfortunately, some very influential voices in the Australian environment movement have jumped on the Gillard Labor carbon tax bandwagon and regurgitated (or at least endorsed through lack of criticism) the deceitful spin Gillard’s salespeople have been generating.
Precisely.
As has been documented at great length on this blog for months.
Let it be clearly understood.
The Government’s scheme has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment. Or with “mitigating” so-called “man-made global warming”.
The facts are crystal clear.
From the government’s own website detailing the scheme scam.
If you have any remaining doubts that I am right, then please … take the time to read my several detailed analyses of the Government’s “carbon pricing” scheme scam.
That prove – by simply noting the details buried in the “fine print” of the Government’s own documents – that the entire “mechanism” is designed purely for the benefit of the global financial industry.
Please … go out now, and start belting your card-carrying green cargo cult member friends, relatives, colleagues, and associates about the side of the head with this news.
From one of their own.
And while you’re at it, ask them to stop and think for a change.
Ask them to stop and think about why Bob Brown and Christine Milne’s Greens Party are really so happy about their great scheme scam.
Which even Green Left Weekly has now denounced as “fakery”.
Revealed: The real winners of Gillard’s carbon price plan
Big banks, accountants and lawyers are among the big winners to cash in on the carbon plan, as companies wrestle with reporting requirements arising from the tax.
Banks will be involved in trading carbon permits when emissions trading starts in 2015, and will develop new products to help polluters reduce their carbon exposure.
“We would therefore expect to see a range of instruments developed to help companies manage their carbon exposure,” he said.
Indeed.
There you have it.
Straight from the Australian Bankers parasites’ mouthpiece.
The grand Scheme scam to “price carbon” is “essentially” – meaning “in essence” – the creation of a new market.
A bankers’ paradise.
The key thing that bankers’ want – an underlying “market” of carbon permits, on top of which they can then create a whole new carbon “securities” (ie, “derivatives”) casino – is actually built into the Government’s Scheme scam from Day 1 –
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.
Confirmed.
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 financial “products” that were at the heart of the GFC.
It’s worth noting that the above article is wrong in one very important detail.
Like all mainstream media, this story incorrectly reports that –
Banks will be involved in trading carbon permits when emissions trading starts in 2015…
Because … it is only “purchased permits” that are not tradeable in the first 3 years.
“Freely allocated permits“, on the other hand, are tradable.
As with the now-notorious European ETS scheme, many of our so-called “500 biggest polluters” – 201 of whom may not even exist – will receive lots of “free permits”. To “assist” and/or “protect” our “trade-exposed” industries, you see.
And those “freely allocated” permits are tradable:
What’s more, Brown-Gillard’s grand design also allows “polluters” to sell their “freely allocated” permits back to the Government.
That’s right.
Lucky “polluters” will get lots of free permits, which they can either “surrender” back again to “pay” for their “excess” emissions – which they report themselves(!). Or, trade their free permits (for profit). Or, sell their free permits back to the Government … who will use your money to buy those free permits back again:
Buy‑back of freely allocated permits
The holders of freely allocated permitswill 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.
Moreover, the Government is not only “essentially creating a new market” for banks to profit from fees on the simple trade in the carbon permits themselves.
And create their new galactic-scale carbon “derivatives” market, leveraged on top of the simple trade in permits.
The news gets even better for the bankers.
Because the Government’s scheme scam will also set up an “advance auction” system, during the so-called “fixed price period”, where carbon permits valid for the later “flexible price” system can be purchased in advance.
Which is essentially nothing less than a Futures trading system for the bankers and speculators to exploit:
Auctions of permits
The Government will advance auction future vintage permits. There will be advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period.
It’s easy to see why the banksters’ are pleased right now.
The Government’s scheme allows them to:
1. Begin creating and trading in carbon “securities” (ie, derivatives of carbon permits) from Day 1.
2. Earn fees and commissions from trade in “freely allocated” permits during the “fixed price” period.
3. Earn fees and commissions from Futures trading in the “advance auctions” of “flexible price” permits during the “fixed price” period.
4. Create other derivatives products on top of the Futures trade in advance auctions of permits.
And all this before the all-singing, all-dancing “free market” scheme kicks in three years later.
Any suggestion that this is somehow not a mechanism designed to allow banksters’ to begin creating the Australian arm of their new global derivatives monster – the true goal of the push for global “emissions trading” – is simply a blatant lie.
There is nothing in the Government’s scheme that prevents the banksters from doing everything they have wanted, from the moment the scheme begins.
In fact, as anyone can easily see from a careful reading of the Government’s own documentation, it is perfectly clear that the scheme is purposefully designed to grant the banksters’ free reign. All hidden behind the curtain of the misleading and deceptive name of “tax” or “fixed price ETS”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Adoration of the Golden Calf - Nicolas Poussin, 1629
The Treasury department is – like many false idols – placed up on a pedestal and revered as some kind of infallible authority.
An economic god.
And when it comes to our Green-Labor-Independent minority dictatorship’s newly finalised “carbon pricing mechanism”, the infinite wisdom of the Treasury department will once again be held up as the final Word.
We are talking, of course, about a government department long headed by well known green cargo cult members. True believers in the warmist cult, such as former Treasury secretary Ken Henry. And the latest appointee from among the green faithful, Martin “Mini-me” Parkinson. Previously the head of the government’s new Climate Change department.
So today, I’d like to indulge in a little “Moses” reenactment.
You know … the old Bible story.
The one where Moses smashed in pieces the golden calf that the people had taken to worshipping.
The Treasury department is our modern equivalent. It has become a sacred cow.
I think it is high time we ritually slaughtered this sacred cow. In much the same way as our minority dictatorship has slaughtered Aussie farmers’ cattle export industry.
It seems that we are all expected to (once again) bow and scrape to the Treasury sacred cow, when our dictators tell us that the economic modelling for their new “carbon pricing mechanism” all stacks up.
Yes indeed, we are all expected to accept in blind faith, that the Treasury department’s forecasts and predictions of the financial effects of this great new economic reform bankers’ money-go-round, are solid and sound.
Hmmmm.
Perhaps if Treasury’s forecasts and predictions as prophesied in past budgets can be shown as having been accurate, then we might have some basis, some reason, for placing our faith in them regarding this new carbon dioxide mega-scheme … right?
Well, let’s take a look at them, shall we.
And let’s keep it really simple.
Let’s not slice and dice every line item in their past Budget forecasts. Let’s just see how accurate they were with the two (2) basic, headline Totals.
1. Revenue (ie, income), and
2. Expenses.
Let’s look at the original Budget forecasts that our Treasury gods made in 2007-’08. And especially, let’s note their “forward estimates” made back then, for the following 3 years.
After all, the Government’s “carbon pricing mechanism” plan has an initial 3 year “fixed price period”.
So, if we can see that Treasury got their Budget forecast reasonably accurate for the three years from 2007-’08, then maybe … just maybe … we can have a little confidence in their abilities, and their forecasting accuracy.
Note too, that the 2007-’08 Budget forecasts – prepared by the Ken Henry-led Treasury department – were for the Howard-Costello Government. So we are talking here, about the Treasury sacred cow’s forecasting effort for the so-called “World’s Greatest Treasurer” Peter Costello’s final budget.
Let’s get into it, shall we?
Here’s the original 2007-’08 Budget document, showing “estimates” and “projections” for Revenue:
2007-'08 Budget Paper No. 1, Statement No. 5
Ok.
So, in the May 2007-’08 Budget, Treasury “estimated” Revenue of $246.8 billion for the year 2007-’08.
And they “projected” Revenue of $260.7 billion for the year 2008-’09, and $274.6 billion for 2009-’10.
(Unfortunately, we cannot compare the forecast versus actual Revenue and Expenses for the 4th year (2010-11) of the 2007-’08 forward estimates, because the Final Budget Outcome for that year will not be released until September 2011.)
How well did our Treasury gods do on those “estimates” and “projections” for Revenue?
Let’s take a look.
Here’s the Treasury’s Final Budget Outcome for Revenue in 2007-’08:
2007-'08 Final Budget Outcome - Revenue - Part 1, Table 2
Hmmm. $303.7 billion in actual Revenue, versus the $246.8 billion they “estimated” just 1 year earlier.
An error factor of 23%.
Here’s the Treasury’s Final Budget Outcome for Revenue in 2008-’09:
2008-'09 Final Budget Outcome - Revenue - Part 1, Table 1
Hmmm. $298.9 billion in actual Revenue, versus the $260.7 billion they “projected” just 2 years earlier.
An error factor of 14.6%.
And finally (for Revenue), here’s the Treasury’s Final Budget Outcome for Revenue in 2009-’10:
2009-'10 Final Budget Outcome - Revenue - Part 1, Table 1
Hmmm. $292.8 billion in actual Revenue, versus the $274.6 billion they “projected” just 3 years earlier.
An error factor of 6.6%.
Summary – Revenue.
Treasury’s 2007-’08 Budget “estimates” and “projections” for Revenue in the following 3 years, were wrong by a factor of +23%, +14.6%, and +6.6% respectively.
Or to put it another way, in the 2007-’08 Budget the Ken Henry-led Treasury department underestimated future government revenue by a grand total of $113.3 billion over the first 3 years of their “forward estimates”.
Incredible. They actually received $113.3 billion more than they originally forecast through to EoFY 2010. And yet, these Treasury gods and their Rudd-Gillard-Goose muppets have still managed to plunge Australia into $194 billion in gross debt by mid-2011.
That probably has something to do with their out-of-control spending, right?
Indeed.
Let’s move on to Expenses.
Here’s the original 2007-’08 Budget document, showing “estimated” and “projected” Expenses:
2007-'08 - Budget Paper No. 1, Statement No. 6
Ok.
So, in the May 2007-’08 Budget, Treasury “estimated” Total Expenses of $235.6 billion for the year 2007-’08.
And they “projected” Total Expenses of $247.5 billion for the year 2008-’09, and $259.7 billion for 2009-’10.
How well did our Treasury gods do on those “estimates” and “projections” for Expenses?
Let’s take a look.
Here’s the Treasury’s Final Budget Outcome for Expenses in 2007-’08:
2007-'08 Final Budget Outcome - Expenses - Part 1, Table 3
Oops. $280.1 billion in actual Expenses, versus the $235.6 billion they “estimated” just 1 year earlier.
An error factor of 18.9%.
And don’t forget, ladies and gentlemen … the GFC had not even hit yet! That came 4 months later, in September 2008. Our new PM Kevin07 evidently got off to a treasury-emptying head start, even without a GFC as the excuse.
Here’s the Treasury’s Final Budget Outcome for 2008-’09. This is the year that included the GFC panic, from September ’08 through early 2009:
2008-'09 Final Budget Outcome - Expenses - Part 1, Table 1
Oops. $324.6 billion in actual Expenses, versus the $247.5 billion they “projected” just 2 years earlier.
An error factor of … gulp … 31.1%.
And finally (for Expenses), here’s the Treasury’s Final Budget Outcome for Expenses in 2009-’10:
2009-'10 Final Budget Outcome - Expenses - Part 1, Table 1
Oops. $339.2 billion in actual Expenses, versus the $259.7 billion they “projected” just 3 years earlier.
An error factor of … gulp … 30.6%.
Summary – Expenses.
Treasury’s 2007-’08 Budget “estimates” and “projections” for Expenses in the following 3 years, were wrong by a factor of +18.9%, +31.1%, and +30.6% respectively.
Or to put it another way, in the 2007-’08 Budget the Ken Henry-led Treasury department underestimated future government expenses (ie, spending) by a grand total of $201.1 billion over the first 3 years of their “forward estimates”.
Incredible. These Treasury gods and their Rudd-Gillard-Goose muppets spent$201.1 billion more than they originally forecast through to EoFY 2010.
Here’s another way of looking at the Treasury department’s forecasting genius.
It’s a chart showing the Treasury’s 2007-’08 Budget forecast for Revenue over the following 3 years (blue line), versus the actual Revenue in the Final Budget Outcome for each of those years (green line):
And here’s another chart, showing the Treasury’s 2007-’08 Budget forecast for Expenses over the following 3 years (blue line), versus the actual Expenses in the Final Budget Outcome for each of those years (green line):
It’s interesting to note that Treasury underestimated both Revenue, and Expenses.
Convenient. Very convenient.
After all, most citizens will take more kindly to a government Budget that “forecasts” a total tax take … and total government spending … that are 20% – 30% less than they eventually turn out to be. And the odds of getting caught out are low – how many citizens (or journalists) ever bother to check how close the Treasury/Government’s final budget results came to their original “forward estimates”?
Now, there will doubtless be those who will cry out, “But wait! What about the GFC?! The Treasury forecasts were wrong because of the GFC!”
Indeed.
Our Treasury gods, with all their degrees and PhD’s … did … not … see … the … GFC … coming.
Think about that.
Why would any sane person believe in Treasury’s economic forecasting abilities now … after they totally failed to see that one coming?
We have been documenting these warning signs coming from all over the world – and from here in Australia too – right here on this blog.
If the impact of the GFC is your excuse for the Treasury’s abject failure to get within a bull’s roar of predicting the Budget revenue and expenses for 3 years ahead of time … that they only got it so very, very wrong because they did not see that impact on the Budget coming … then I rest my case.
By your own words … and their own data … they stand condemned.
(And by the words of Macquarie Economic Research too. Click here to see what they had to say about the “truly extraordinary” Treasury modelling underpinning the recent May budget)
UPDATE:
A late thought that just occurred to me.
At precisely the time that Peter Costello was handing down the Treasury department’s 2007-’08 Budget “forward estimates” that we have just examined – in early May 2007 – your humble blogger was commanding his superannuation fund manager (contrary to strenuous “expert” financial advice) to put all his super into cash –
Why?
Because thanks to the clear evidences already coming out of America and elsewhere in the world, even I could see that a GFC was bearing down on us.
The overpaid, tea leaf reading numpties led by former Treasury secretary Ken Henry … could not see it.
UPDATE 2:
Feb 7, 2012
Reader and Twitter follower @Ayeshavit asked me to update this post to capture the Final Budget Outcome for 2010-11 … the last year of the 2007-08 “forward estimates” by the Treasury genii.
Recapping – way back in the (Coalition’s last) May 2007-’08 Budget, Treasury “estimated” Revenue of $287.3 billion for the year 2010-’11.
And they “projected” Expenses of $272.7 billion for the year 2010-’11.
Now, from the 2010-11 Final Budget Outcome, here’s what the Labor government actually achieved in 2011-’11:
Final Budget Outcome 2010-11, Part 1, Table 1
Oops.
$302.0 billion in actual Revenue, versus the $287.3 billion they “projected” just 4 years earlier. An error factor of 5.1%.
And ‘Payments’ (ie, Expenses)?
Double Oops.
$346.1 billion in actual Expenses, versus the $272.7 billion they “projected” just 4 years earlier. An error factor of 27%.
Yup. The Labor Government spent more than one-quarter more money in 2010-’11, than Treasury had “projected” in 2007-’08.
Isn’t it interesting how the Treasury department’s “forward estimates” actually turn out?
What a shame for all Australians, that the lamestream financial and economic commentariat never bother to go back and compare what Treasury originally said, versus the reality of what actually happens.
Instead, sheep-like, they lap up and bleat on to the public whatever nonsense “projections” the Treasury puts out on Budget night … as though it has actually happened.
When as you can see, the Treasury’s “forecasts” are not worth the paper they are printed on.
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 –
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 speculategamble 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’);
* 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):
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 purchasedat 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.
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):
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)?
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.
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 –
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?
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.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Barnaby Is Right 
Comments