Tag Archives: NGER

Money For Nothing #147: $1.1m Rort Of Renewable Energy Certificate Scheme

2 Jun

fraud-magnifying-glass

The following story appeared in the print version of today’s Sunday Telegraph, pp. 9. For some reason, it was not published online for all to find:

Woman on $1.1 solar rort charges

Brendan Hills
Court reporter

A Sydney woman allegedly rorted the federal government’s renewable energy scheme of at least $1.1 million.

The Sunday Telegraph can reveal Toongabbie woman Lucie Yeung, 61, allegedly stole 37,600 renewable energy certificates from a solar panel business in Rhodes, in Sydney’s northwest, according to documents tendered to Burwood Local Court. It is one of 147 allegations of rorts of the government’s Renewable Energy Target scheme last year, according to the Energy Regulator’s annual report.

Most of the rorts related to the creation of fraudulent certificates for rooftop solar panels. The business, Inspire Solar, received an allocation of renewable energy certificates (REC) which could be traded as a form of currency under the government’s Renewable Energy Target scheme.

But Yeung allegedly logged in to the government’s REC registration website and transferred 37,600 of Inspire Solar certificates to her own business name.

It is understood Yeung has access to log-in details for the website because she worked in the industry.

Police conservatively estimated the value of each certificate to be $30, court documents said.

The value of the certificates can fluctuate, but police told Burwood Local Court the conservative value of the certificates allegedly stolen by Yeung was $1.128 million. Yeung was arrested in December and charged with dishonestly obtaining money by deception. She has pleaded not guilty. Yeung surrendered possession of the certificates when she was arrested.

Court documents said Yeung allegedly stole the certificates between January and July 2011.

The Sunday Telegraph understands Yeung did some work for Inspire Solar, one of countless companies which emerged to take advantage of the federal government’s solar rebate plan.

Yeung will appear in Burwood Local Court on June 27.

147 cases of rorting the Renewable Energy Target scheme alone — in 1 year — is an epidemic. And one that should surprise no one.

Here are just a few of the countless similar examples from other “green” currency schemes around the world:

Dec 20, 2012 — “Last year, Clean Green Fuels in Maryland was accused of selling 32 million fake biodiesel RIN credits to oil companies and brokers. In June 2012, CEO Rodney Hailey was convicted of wire fraud, money laundering, and of violating the Clean Air Act.

Absolute Fuels in Texas, was sent an EPA Notice of Violation in February this year. On July 19, owner Jeffrey David Gunselman was arrested for having allegedly created on his computer more than $50 million in RIN credits that he then sold. He didn’t even have the facilities to produce biodiesel. Earlier this month, he pleaded guilty to a laundry list of charges and is contemplating a maximum sentence of $20 million in fines and 1,268 years in the hoosegow.

Another Texas company, Green Diesel, received a Notice of Violation on April 30. The issue: 60 million fake RINs. By then, CEO Philip Rivkin had apparently skedaddled to Europe, out of harm’s way.”

Dec 14, 2012 –- “Five hundred German police and tax inspectors raided offices and residences connected with Deutsche Bank in Berlin, Frankfurt and Dusselforf, Wednesday over allegations of conspiracy involving over €300 million in carbon trading tax fraud.”

May 1, 2011 — “Europe’s biggest polluters have made billions out of the European Emissions Trading System (ETS). But a new briefing by Carbon Trade Watch (CTW) says the scheme will ensure industry will not have to cut its emissions until at least 2017.

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

Manufacturers made about 14 billion euros in windfall profits with the same trick.”

And then there are the human rights abuses, of the world’s most needy, by the world’s most greedy, in the pursuit of profit from green “credits”:

Nov 30, 2011 — Carbon Credits in the ‘Valley of Death’

Uncovering the ugly effects of U.N.-backed ‘clean development’ in Honduras.

“Within the last two years more than 1,500 peasant families have lost their homes, schools and communities due to forceful evictions,” all of which have been linked to African Palm expansion efforts in the Aguan valley.

In July, the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) released a report on Aguan alleging evictions and armed attacks against local communities by “plantation security guards and private militia groups” allowed to act with impunity. The FIDH paper forced a couple of powerful European investors to back out of the Aguan CDM project and caused the European Parliament to order a fact-finding mission. So far, however, these measures don’t seem to have had any impact on the escalating violence.

Over just two days in August, skirmishes between guards and peasants left 11 people dead. A few days later, two more campesino leaders were assassinated–one of them, Pedro Salgado, was shot down in his home along with his wife. An entire peasant village was burned to the ground.

Sep 22, 2011 — “Across Africa, some of the world’s poorest people have been thrown off land to make way for foreign investors, often uprooting local farmers so that food can be grown on a commercial scale and shipped to richer countries overseas.

But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.

The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.

The company involved, New Forests Company, grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon-dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad. Its investors include the World Bank, through its private investment arm, and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, HSBC.”

“Green” schemes that financialise carbon dioxide, and that create new artificial “currency” in the form of “credits” for renewable energy schemes, are the latest playground for rampant greed and dishonesty.

Designed by bankers, for bankers.

And for the hordes of speculators, carpet-baggers, fraudsters, and other conscience-free crooks naturally attracted to any new profit-making opportunity.

The new class, of green collar criminals.

With 147 allegations of rorting in the renewable energy scheme alone — in just 1 year — clearly, Australia is no different to anywhere else.

And should the government’s planned transition from a carbon dioxide “tax” to a trading scheme come to fruition — I am one of those who remains wholly unconvinced that a Coalition government will revoke the scheme (consider the duplicity of Liberal state premiers Barry O’Farrell & Campbell Newman on the carbon tax) — then the incidents of fraud will only grow exponentially.

As we have seen previously, the government’s own Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) shows that the so-called “regulation” of emissions by the “biggest polluters” is a complete joke — little more than a propaganda exercise, aimed at maintaining “public confidence” in the scheme (see “Government’s RIS Admits Carbon Emissions ‘Audits’ A Propaganda Exercise”).

And the Auditor-General’s report on the OSCAR computer system used by “polluters” to self-report their emissions, is more of the same (see “An OSCAR For The Clean Energy Future”).

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Government’s RIS Admits Carbon Emissions “Audits” A Propaganda Exercise

11 Aug

Have you ever questioned how exactly the government can actually monitor the “emissions” of carbon dioxide of each of the 1,000 … 500 … “more like in the order of like 400” so-called “biggest polluters”?

Are they really going to have an army of “carbon cops”, as Tony Abbott would have you believe, roaming the country investigating people like a 21st century Green Gestapo?

Even if so, the question still remains – how are they going to measure the “emissions”?

Answer: They are not going to measure them.

They are not even going to audit any but a very few of the very largest “emitters” either.

It is all a hoax.

Just as under the present National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) department “system” – one that only came up with 299 companies reporting emissions in their latest Report – the companies “caught” in the system will be asked to “estimate” their own emissions.

Other than that, maintaining public “confidence” in the “credibility” of the scheme scam will be a matter of “additional assurance activities undertaken by the regulator”.

Proof?

Let us take a look at the Government’s Clean Energy Future Regulatory Impact Statement.

It is yet another telling indictment of the total fraud that this carbon pricing scheme scam actually is (emphasis added):

7.4    Ensuring compliance with reporting requirements

Under the proposed reporting requirements liable entities will report on their own emissions. As they will also have to acquire (buy) permits to cover these emissions, they will have an incentive to underreport their emissions. There is also the risk that errors would be made in reporting either through negligence or through other ‘good faith’ mistakes. Errors in the reporting of emissions would have a number of negative consequences.

It is to be expected that most (intentional) misreporting would result in an underestimation of emissions and less permits being surrendered to Government. This would have implications for the accuracy of national emissions estimates and would represent an effective loosening of the cap.

Errors in reporting would also have significant implications for the credibility of the scheme. If there was a perception of widespread non-compliance, community support for the scheme would be much harder to maintain (in the absence of community acceptance and support, the long term future of the scheme could be called into question). At an international level, confidence in the legitimacy of the emissions reductions driven by the scheme is a key consideration in whether other countries will be willing to ‘link’ with the Australian scheme. International linking is an important element in reducing the overall costs of the scheme and the ability to establish future links with international schemes is an important consideration in the design of the Australian scheme.15 Finally, business perceptions of compliance by other businesses with the scheme could have implications for their own compliance. That is, if one emitter believes that other emitters are non-compliant with the scheme, this may influence their compliance decisions. In closing, it is important to note that, in considering impacts on the credibility of the scheme, perceptions of non-compliance can be more important than the actual level of non-compliance.16

Translation: It is “more important” for the public to believe that “polluters” are complying, than for them to actually be complying!

Misreporting of emissions would also have a number of implications at a firm or industry level. The emitter that underreported emissions would be placed at a competitive advantage vis a vis other market participants (as they would need to surrender fewer permits). This advantageous position would be a result of non-compliance with the law rather than legitimate business practices and could entail significant costs for competing entities.

For these reasons, assurance arrangements to certify the accuracy of emissions reporting are required. Three options exist:

* ex-post audits undertaken the Government

* ex-ante audits undertaken by third party auditors

* a hybrid option involving third party audits for very large emitters (those emitting over 125 kt CO2-e/year) and Government assurance for liable emitters below this threshold.

Before continuing to examine what the Government thinks about those 3 options, let’s first take a look at footnote 16 annotated in the above paragraphs. It sheds further light on the fact that the reporting/auditing of so-called “polluters”, is really all about perception management.

Propaganda, in other words:

16 While perceptions of non compliance should be linked to actual levels of non-compliance, this need not be the case. Importantly Government actions to ensure compliance can improve perceptions of compliance with the mechanism even in the absence of widespread non-compliance. For instance, even if there were widespread compliance with the carbon pricing mechanism, the absence of an auditing mechanism could lead some stakeholders to question the accuracy of reported emissions. This would have impacts on confidence with the carbon pricing mechanism even in the absence of widespread non-compliance.

The RIS document goes on to waffle on, about the 3 different potential options for “audits” and the estimated costs associated with each.  You can download and read it all for yourself here (pages 58-61). Just for background, following are a few key excerpts regarding costs etc for each option – we wish to move past this to the punchline of the scam:

Under the second and third options it is expected that (at least initially) many audits would be undertaken by large accounting and consulting firms. The extent to which specific training and qualifications will be required before a person can undertake these audits is currently the subject of an auditing regime established under the NGER Act. Over 170 persons are currently registered from a diverse range of organisations.

…

For those businesses that are required to obtain third party audits, the cost is estimated to be $150 000 per year. It is also likely that companies would incur some costs associated with liaising with the auditors. On average these are estimated to be around $11 500 per business per year. Obviously the overall compliance costs would be largest under option 2 — all business would be required to obtain audits. With around 500 liable entities, this would entail total aggregate compliance costs of around $80 million per year.17 The third option would require less than 200 businesses to seek third party audits. The total compliance costs of this option are estimated to be around $32 million per year. The compliance costs associated with the first option are minimal.

In terms of administrative costs, it is estimated that the cost to Government of the third (hybrid) option would be around $5 to $9 million per year. This represents the costs to Government of undertaking audits of a selection of emissions reports submitted by liable entities both to double check the reports of vary large emitters and assure the accuracy of reports by smaller liable entities. The administrative costs of the first two options have not been separately estimated …

Overall, it is expected that the first option (no third party audits) would be the least costly option while the second option (third party audits for all liable entities) would be the most expensive.

Ok.

Let’s just check that footnote 17:

17 This is likely to be an over estimate of the compliance costs for this option. The per business costs were estimated in the context of assurance for very large emitters (over 125 kt CO2-e/year). The costs of obtaining a third party audit for smaller emitters (the bulk of the 500 liable entities) are likely to be lower than this amount.

Hang on?

Hasn’t the Government been labelling the “polluters” as “1,000 … 500 … more like in the order of like 400 of the BIGGEST“?

But in the RIS, “the bulk of the ___ liable entities” are here called “smaller emitters“!?!

There’s an old saying – If you’re going to lie, then you’d better have a perfect memory.

Let’s move on to that punchline, shall we? (emphasis added):

The benefits associated with the third (hybrid) option are lower than under the full third party assurance option as only a subset of emissions reports are assured. However, the benefits are not likely to be significantly lower. The majority of emissions are accounted for by very large emitters (over the 125 kt CO2-e/year threshold). As a result, assuring the accuracy of these emissions will ensure that overall emissions data are largely correct. Moreover, the very large emitters are likely to be the most  ‘visible’ and ensuring the accuracy of these reports should provide confidence in the accuracy of emissions data for the majority of stakeholders. Any concerns with the accuracy of reports by smaller emitters can be alleviated (to a degree) by additional assurance activities undertaken by the regulator.

…

On balance, it is considered that the hybrid option represents the best balance of risks to scheme credibility and compliance costs for reporting entities and is the preferred option.

Translation: So long as we can assure accuracy of the tiny number of “very large emitters”, who are “the most visible” to the public, then the public will have “con-fidence” in our scheme scam.  And if any concerns are raised about accuracy of (self)reporting by “the bulk of” emitters (who are “smaller”), the regulator can deal with that by “additional assurance activities”.

Otherwise known as “propaganda”.

Or … “cooking the books”.

Something that this Government have a history of being very good at. Just ask former Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner.

Ladies and gentlemen …

IT.

IS.

A.

SCAM.

Tags: , , , , ,

Barnaby: Putting The Lie To The Government’s 500 “Biggest Polluters” Claims

1 Aug

Media Release – Senator Barnaby Joyce – 1 August 2011:

Local government to pay the carbon tax

Local councils will be hit the hardest by the news that landfill sites will be up for a $200 million carbon tax bill, Shadow Minister for Local Government, Barnaby Joyce said today.

“There are 565 local governments in Australia and all will have higher costs imposed on them as a result of the carbon tax. At a stroke this puts the lie to the government’s deceitful claims that only the 500 “biggest polluters” will pay the tax.

“Under the carbon tax, local governments will have to pay to turn on the street lights, they will have to pay to build a road and they will have to pay to take out the rubbish.

“All of these extra costs are being shifted on to them without any form of compensation or even consideration by the federal government.

“Ultimately, just like any other business, local governments will have to pass these costs on in the form of higher rates. I am sure everyone will be thankful for the carbon tax next time they get their rates notice.

“The Brisbane City Council has already warned that rates will have to go up by 2%, the Dubbo City Council has estimated that its power bill alone will increase by $500,000, while the Tamworth Regional Council estimates an impact on their electricity bill of $300,000.”

What a crying shame that Barnaby’s office staff – and those of numerous other Opposition Senators and MP’s – have apparently not bothered to check my 3-weeks-work-in-1 research analysis of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) department’s official Register of “polluters”.

Because it shows conclusively that there are only 16 local councils listed in the NGER Register of “polluters”.  And, that the entire government presentation of its official claims concerning “1,000 of the biggest polluters” … oops, make that “500 of the biggest polluters” … is an absolute litany of lies.

From alpha to omega, from beginning to end.

Tags: , , , ,

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.

Tags: , , , , , ,

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

18 Jul

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

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

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

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

Which 500 companies pay the tax?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Showing NGER Registered corporation names.

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

But.

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

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

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

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

Perhaps those readers who

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

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

Oh.

Just one more thing.

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

Most are companies operating large facilities (with over 25,000 tonnes annual CO2-e emissions) that directly emit greenhouse gases, such as power stations, mines and heavy industry.

Got that?

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

Enjoy –

Registered Corporations

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

Oh … you noticed.

Yes, that is only 299 “biggest polluters”.

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

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

Like …

The universities.

All of them.

The Royal Flying Doctor Service.

The Royal Children’s Hospital.

The Alfred teaching hospital.

The Melbourne Cricket Club.

Really, really evil “biggest polluters” like that.

Tags: , , , , , ,

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

13 Jul

How many “big polluters” does Australia actually have?

Indeed, how many “polluters” of any size does Australia actually have?

For months leading up to Carbon Sunday, the Government’s mantra was “1,000 of the biggest polluters”.

Then, just before Carbon Sunday, it was suddenly halved – “5oo of the biggest polluters”.

Now dear reader, I have a question.

How do you get a carbon dioxide trading scheme scam covering “500 of the biggest polluters”, when the Government’s own National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) department – whose official data is referenced in support of the claim – actually has only 295 registered “polluters” listed in their latest report?

With just 4 more listed as “Reporting Transfer Certificate Holders”?

Come with me on a little journey, as we uncover yet another monster lie from this government.

First, we’ll take a look at the Government’s freshly minted website explaining their scheme, and the page that tells us about the alleged “500 Companies”.

I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting the weasel words. Those wonderfully vague, non-committal, makes-it-easier-to-weasel-my-way-out-of-it-later words, that tell you the statements being made are not worth the digital binary code they’re written with:

The Carbon Pricing Mechanism is expected to cover around 500 businesses operating in Australia.

Which companies will be required to pay a carbon price?

Most are companies operating large facilities (with over 25,000 tonnes annual CO2-e emissions) that directly emit greenhouse gases, such as power stations, mines and heavy industry. Some are public authorities responsible for emissions from landfills.

Of these businesses, it is estimated that around:

* 135 operate solely in New South Wales and the ACT
* 110 operate solely in Queensland
* 85 solely in Victoria
* 75 solely in Western Australia
* 25 solely in South Australia
* 20 solely in Tasmania; and
* fewer than 10 solely in the Northern Territory.
* a further 45 liable entities operate across multiple states.

Of the 500 businesses:

* around 60 are primarily involved in electricity generation
* around 100 are primarily involved in coal and other mining
* around 40 are natural gas retailers
* around 60 are primarily involved in industrial processes (cement, chemicals and metal processing)
* around 50 operate in a range of other fossil fuel intensive sectors; and
* the remaining 190 operate in the waste disposal sector.

It should be noted that these numbers are estimates only, and are largely based on emissions data previously reported under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting system. In particular, the number of landfills covered will depend on regulations to be developed prescribing the coverage of smaller (over 10,000 kilotonne) landfills that are in close proximity to covered landfills.

Approximate breakdown of covered entities by state and territory [1] State Companies operating each state (excluding companies operating in multiple states)
New South Wales & ACT 135
Queensland 110
Victoria 85
Western Australia 75
South Australia 25
Tasmania 20
Northern Territory 5
Operating in multiple states 45

1. Source: Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency: National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting data; Hyder Consulting (2008) Options for covering waste facilities under an emissions trading scheme Final report 10 June 2008; state and territory government gas retailing regulations.

Right from the beginning, all those weasel words are telling us something.

The original “1,000 of the biggest polluters” suddenly morphed into “5oo of the biggest polluters”, just days before the grand unveiling.

Now, in the official documents – the written record – it is “around” this, and “expected to be” that; “largely” this, and “these numbers are estimates only“ that.

Confidence inspiring, no?

I’ve highlighted in red the footnote that points us to the source of the data used as a basis for their claims.  The “fine print”, that Labor’s ex-Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner belatedly warns us to “examine very carefully” , “whenever a politician cites … figures to show what a fine job he or she is doing”.  The key details that you are not supposed to notice, and certainly never check up on.

According to the Government footnote, they have based their (now) vaguely worded claims of “around 500″ companies primarily on source data “previously reported” from their own National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) department.

So let’s take a look at the NGER’s latest report, Greenhouse and Energy Information 2009-10. The document itself is titled “NGER Publication April 2011”. Here, we find the following (emphasis added):

Information included in this publication

The information in this publication is a subset of the total information reported by corporations to the GEDO. Only some corporations will have their information published due to one or more of the following reasons:

• Some corporations may have de-registered since reporting for the 2008-09 financial year.
• Some corporations are registered for the 2010-11 financial year, but not for 2009-10.
• A registered corporation may not have met one of the reporting thresholds.
• A registered corporation may not have met the 2009-10 publishing threshold.
• A registered corporation may not have submitted its NGER report in time for this publication.
• A registered corporation may have applied under section 25 of the NGER Act to have all or part of its greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption totals withheld from publication.

The information contained in this publication is as reported by a registered corporation, including any resubmissions, as at 24 February 2011. Information published for the 2009-10 financial year will be updated from time to time as a consequence of resubmissions that change corporate group totals.

Note carefully, that it indicates this is a “subset of the total information reported”, and explains why. We will return to that important point shortly.

Further down, we find an alphabetical list of registered “polluters” corporations, under the following title (emphasis added):

2009–10 GREENHOUSE AND ENERGY INFORMATION BY REGISTERED CORPORATION

Information reported to the GEDO as at 6 May 2011

Then, there’s the list of registered corporations, and, their voluntarily reported green house gas emissions data.

And if you cut and paste all those listed corporations into a spreadsheet, you will see that there is a grand total of … 295.

With 4 more listed separately, as “Reporting Transfer Certificate Holders”.

Hmmmm.

Julia? Bob? Andrew? Tony? Rob?  How do you get “500 of the biggest” … out of only 299 in total?

Out of interest, in the footnotes to the NGER report’s list of registered corporations, we find the following:

Footnotes
1. These corporations have voluntarily provided information to the GEDO concerning GreenPower renewable energy purchases or voluntarily surrendered Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). This information has been published on the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency website – http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reporting.

That’s just grand, isn’t it. Who knows whether these 295 + 4 registered “polluters” emitted the amount they have reported; or really did make renewable energy purchases, or surrendered REC’s? Clearly the Government doesn’t. By their own admission, they are just taking the “polluters” word for it.

Now for completeness, we need to note the following.

In the Explanatory Information, we find that this latest NGER report only represents “part” of Australia’s total GHG emissions (emphasis added):

Nature of the information

• The greenhouse gas emissions and energy information reported under the NGER Act only represents part of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy consumption. The NGER legislation covers corporations in all sectors of Australia’s economy, however it does not cover:

– corporations that are below certain reporting thresholds;
– entities that are not a constitutional corporation, such as individuals or most government entities;
– reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, land use change and forestry sources in relation to biological processes (but emissions from all other sources, energy production and consumption are included from these industries); and,
– reporting of emissions abatement from greenhouse gas projects.

• In addition to this publication, the information captured under the NGER Act is used to inform government policy formulation; help meet Australia’s international reporting obligations; assist Commonwealth, State and Territory government programs and activities; and, can be used in any future carbon pricing mechanisms.

So, the report does not cover any individual or entity (other than “government entities”) that really matters. That is, in context of their being an insignificant “polluter”.

Does that mean “case closed” … that there are definitely only 299 registered “polluters” in total?

No, we can’t quite leave it there just yet.

Because to an inquiring mind, the NGER report does imply the possibility that there could be other “polluters” out there, that were not included in this particular report. Even though it is supposedly current to 6 May, 2011.

And indeed, it appears that there is.

If we check the NGER’s National Greenhouse Energy Register dated March 2011, we find that there are in fact a grand total of … 771 “corporations” listed.

Now ladies and gentlemen, it is important to note that this register includes lots and lots and lots of rather unlikely candidates for the label of “big polluter”.

Indeed, in the disclaimer information at the beginning of said register, we read that (emphasis added):

The table below is an extract of the Register. It provides information for all registered corporations, including holders of Reporting Transfer Certificates, which are registered under section 17 of the NGER Act. This extract of the Register may include corporations that do not meet a threshold for the trigger year in which they have registered.

This register includes corporations like … family trusts. Trustees for family trusts. Faceless, nameless entities only identified by an ACN number (seriously!). City and shire councils. The Uniting Church property trusts. Area health services. Hospitals. The NSW Forestry Commission. And, universities galore.

Now, as this is the definitive, official list of all registered “polluters” in Australia at March 2011, then Julia … you have got a big problem.

Because according to your own NGER department’s official register and latest Report, there is no way that there actually are “500 of the biggest polluters” existing in this country, for you to include in your global bankster-driven “hot air” derivatives and futures trading scam.

Much less “1,000 of the biggest polluters”, that you have been lying about to this nation for month after month.

In the words of another famous redhead …

“PLEASE EXPLAIN!”

Footnote:

This most recent game of “we really don’t have a clue but we’ll keep on lying and pretending to” by our Green-Labor minority government is amusingly reminiscent of the side-splitting exchanges in Senate Estimates, between Barnaby Joyce and the (air) head of the Treasury department’s Climate Change Modelling Unit, over questions of climate “mitigation” and “green jobs”.

Read on to boggle your mind and split your sides with one of the most popular, most retweeted posts in this site’s history – “Barnaby Bamboozles Chief Of Climate Change Modelling Unit … Again”

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: