Another leading commentator — this time Michael Stuchbury in The Australian — see the Carbon Tax as a dead dog.
ARE these the signs that Labor’s climate change policy is heading for a second disaster? Big unions and big business are in revolt as the mining boom’s strong dollar squeezes the rest of the trade-exposed economy. Households are up in arms over surging power bills.
And since the shambles of the late 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, Labor hasn’t doused worries that its carbon tax would put Australia in front of the world, a critical risk for a carbon-intensive economy.
This treble of jobs, cost of living and international competitiveness engulfs Julia Gillard and Greg Combet as they attempt to reverse Kevin Rudd’s humiliating 2010 retreat on his emissions trading scheme. It is replete with political and policy failures, some of which are only now becoming evident.
…
Facing a revolt among steel industry members, Australian Workers Union secretary Paul Howes last week vowed to oppose Labor’s carbon tax if it cost just “a single job”, even with unemployment below 5 per cent. Remember this is Wayne Swan’s union, which was mostly responsible for replacing Rudd with Gillard.
Tim Blair also points out that virtually every man and his dog are against the tax, and now adds Barley Australia, the QBE and ratepayers to the list.
[QBE chairwoman Belinda] Hutchinson:
“Two weeks ago I would have been in the minority of people in business speaking up publicly against the carbon tax,” she said.
“Today, we have a situation where everyone is talking about a carbon tax.”
Who does the Labor Party represent?
Combet vowed to “put households first” . Yet it’s households who will be forced to pay. But for what measurable benefit — how many degrees will that be Julia? The Labor Party used to be the party of the workers. Instead the carbon trading scheme (which is the “end” result of the tax) is destined to offer advantage to a select few industries. Which industry will make money no matter who buys and who sells and no matter what the price is?
Well lookee here:
Rothschild Australia and E3 International are set to become key players in the international carbon credit trading market, an emerging commodity market that analysts estimate could be worth up to US$150 billion by 2012.
In a move that will re-shape the fledgling emissions trading market, Rothschild Australia and E3 International today announced their intention to launch the Carbon Ring Consortium — an investment vehicle that will provide companies in the Asia Pacific Region with an innovative way of learning about and understanding their risks in the new carbon market.
The CEO of Rothschild must know that unions, industry and polls are all against the carbon scheme, and presumably sees the risk that the news is all bad in Australia (for those who favor the scheme). So he does what any marketing guru would — he bluffs:
Richard Martin, the chief executive officer of Rothschild Australia said, “With recent developments in international climate change policy, the question is no longer if, but when the global carbon trading market will emerge. Rothschild Australia, through Carbon Ring, intends to be at the forefront of this market, providing private investment vehicles to companies seeking to offset their greenhouse gas emissions liabilities.”
Yes, this press release is very much aimed at the mum and dad Labor voters…
Requiring an investment of US$100,000, with a portion returned to investors in the form of carbon credits, the Consortium is intended to provide investors with a low cost, low risk and structured entry into this new market.
UPDATE:
Diogenes adds in comments that Rothschild bought the Weather Channel
Evelyn de Rothschild and Lynn Forester de Rothschild said they are buying a majority stake in weather-data service Weather Central L.P., marking a significant expansion of the Rothschilds’ investments into media and information.
The couple’s private-investment company, E.L. Rothschild LLC, is slated to acquire 70% of Weather Central, which provides weather forecasting services and graphics to local television stations and TV programs such as ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
Hmm
Before the Chicago Climate Exchange closed its doors for good, carbon was trading at 5c a tonne. The closure took a substantial bite out of the personal fortunes of its owners, the most notably of whom was a certain Mr. Gore.
If Chicago thinks they can’t make money out of the thing then it’d be very brave institutional investor who’d put funds into it.
Pointman
10
I have a question for my friends down under, on an article that is possibly even related to the above story, albeit indirectly. Can someone explain to me whether the following is simply indicative of the pervasiveness of the Greens in Australia today, or is there more to it than meets the eye?
“THE Gillard government is planning to enlist a clutch of high-profile Australians, including the conservationist Tim Flannery and the retired High Court judge Michael Kirby, to publicise the $36 billion national broadband network.
…
Also included on the shortlist are: a co-founder of the environmental group Planet Ark, Jon Dee; the executive director of development at the CSIRO, James Bradfield Moody
…
It is unclear if the government is planning to launch an advertising campaign as part of the strategy; in the lead-up to last year’s federal election a $16 million ad campaign attracted controversy.”
Perhaps the simple explanation is that a part of this effort will try and push the anti-carbon agenda from another angle, i.e. green jobs and innovation?
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/highprofile-group-to-champion-broadband-20110426-1dv4l.html
10
pointman,
I don’t think “brave” is quite the correct term. I suspect “monumentally stupid” or “terminally self destructive” would be much closer to being accurate – at least in polite company.
A catastrophic meltdown is what ultimately happens when you assume reality will follow your fantasies, wishes, or feelings and don’t bother to check with reality before you act upon them. Oh it may feel great as the pyramid is building but eventually you run out of other people’s money to finance the construction. Eventually, it will vanish as a morning fog does in the sunshine.
Reality is a bitch but she is the only reality we have. You have no choice but to live with her on her terms. That is if you really want to live. If you don’t, then it doesn’t matter what you do. You can even do nothing and achieve death.
10
Paul @#2: The current Australian Government is deluded and badly advised. Tim Flannery is a national laughing stock, Michael Kirby is a left-wing judge from another era, the CSIRO is one of chief promoters of the IPCC’s junk science, Planet Ark is just one of the environmental lobbyists with a temporary hold on political power through the Greens, who have 12% of the primary vote Down Under and have the balance of power in the Senate from July. Most Australians are outraged by the minority Labour Government’s kowtowing to the Greens’ economy-wrecking Gaia-worship and will decimate both at the next election, according to the latest opinion polls. The trouble is that may not happen for another two years. The national broadband network is a hard-wired internet architecture that will be obsolete by the time it is rolled out – a giant waste of money of which the Australian Labour Party is now the undisputed world champion.
10
Dead or not …… still a dog.
10
Here we go again – another “dumb arse” quoting IPCC propaganda and asking for peoples money to invest in a ponzi “get rich quick” scheme.
It’s ALWAYS been about the money and NO-ONE has it within their orating/selling abilities to convince me otherwise.
Let’s see whether Paul Howes is a man of his union people or whether he succumbs to the (un)holy dollar or promise of a plum/prize position in a Labor gummint?
The wheels are falling off the cart as I write this and we STILL have people trying to support and promote this scam.
WAKE UP YOU FOOLS – WE ARE NO LONGER LISTENING TO YOUR BS!!!!
Cheers,
10
Rothschild recently bought the weather channel. I am surprised you haven’t reported on that.
[That wasn’t news in Australia. Thanks! JN]
10
It was clear to me a couple of years ago that the Labor party was deep into the pockets of the banking industry. All the while Swannie was talking tough against he banks and their anti-competitive behaviour he was arranging to allow the biggest bank merger in Australian history.
This is not some poor fledgling industry that needs our protection, but the biggest section of the ASX:
http://www.businessreviewaustralia.com/business-features/leadership/top-five-wealthiest-industries-australia
Also during the GFC he was responsible for insuring even less competition by insuring accounts in which banks? Oh yes the big four… So Australians fled from the minors to the majors… masterstroke of anti-competitive behaviour.
Here’s a good synopsis of the changing market shares over the GFC:
http://www.burning-pants.com/wp-content/themes/finance/pdf/Media_GFC_effect_on_Mortgage_Market_Share.pdf
You think the unions run the Labor party? Methinks there are bigger players in this game (financially that is).
10
With Guillard in China this week, I wonder if one of the questions the chinese delegation would be along these lines:
So exactly how many people in china do you expect will suffer or die as a result of your carbon Tax?
I do wonder if this would be the tone.
10
Hahaha:
Gee, now that sounds like a great idea – why don’t they group these carbon credits up into Consolidated Debt Obligations (CDOs) while they’re at it. Maybe they could get it all rubber stamped by S&P or Moodys’ as being a solid investment…
Oh wait, hasn’t this been done before in chicago or something?
10
o/t but here’s Jo at a rally in Perth; impressive performance Jo!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtbuM3OuTZg
10
MadJak @8
Well MadJak, what better investment for worthless fiat money is there than….well….atmosphere….
10
To Paul,
Yes, there is a connection between the the NBN and the ETS. Both are designed as vehicles to ultimately fail, AFTER they have soaked up a sizable portion of the Australian $1.7 trillion superannuation pool.
Since most savvy people in the investment world know this, and know when the time comes there will be rioting in the streets and howls for blood, there are only a few “prominent” people foolish enough to attach their names to the promotion of either scheme.
That is why complete idiots like Professor Panasonic keep showing up. If ever there was a “useful fool” being set up as the fall guy, Flim-Flammery would have to be it. The heck of it is, that he really believes he’s getting these cushy jobs on his “merits”.
10
And of course, we all know this is why Turnbull supported Rudd’s ETS. Once a merchant banker, always a merchant banker….
I perceive Turnbull as talented, yes, but a slippery sucker and no less dishonest than Gillard and co. He’s just a more polished, cosmopolitan version of dishonest pollie, to Gillard’s Bogan dishonest pollie who stands for nothing. Both are quite willing to sell out the Australian people for what they can get – money and/or international influence. I’m happy the Liberals have him, but even happier that Abbott is the checkpoint.
Some twits are still calling for him to replace Abbott as Liberal leader. I’m thinking most of those twits though are Labor people desperate to inject some perception of disunity into the Coalition and give Labor the break it needs by taking the focus off them and their woeful performance for a bit.
10
Why do you think Westpac acquired Enron’s carbon trading business?
Just read their submission to the CPRS – you can almost see them salivating.
10
Thanks for that link Val.
Great to watch Jo in action. Also very much enjoyed watching Dave Evans scientifically skewer the warmists!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di5FyndJbz0&NR=1
I’m looking forward to the Brisbane protest on the 7th.
10
Rothschilds and Rockerfellers – two names one needs to be familiar with. While the Chicago carbon trading exchange imploded, legally forcing us into a carbon trading scheme is how the bankers will skim off the profits, and enable them to independently fianace the UN. And Rhodes Scholars – strange all the major players in this thing have surnames starting withh “R”.
10
I cannot see a retail-level carbon trading instrument ever taking off. Perhaps it might for a year or so, then collapse under the weight of itself, like a pump-and-dump IPO scheme. The only market that would take off would be the derivatives market – as you’d have to be bonkers to actually own any of the things. You’re effectively buying a promise not to emit an invisible gas. That’s like me selling promises not to fart, or buying a permission to fart three times. Neither would stop me slipping around the back of the shed and letting go a couple of silent-but-deadlies.
Of all the bubble worthy pyramid schemes dreamed up over the years by get-rich-quick merchants – carbon dioxide permits have to be the crowning glory, the ultimate in getting people to pay real money for nothing but a promise. At least with Tulip bulbs you ended up with a flower. The South Sea bubble was actually about ships and spices. The Mississippi company did actually own land in Louisiana. Internet companies did actually exist, for a while.
Soon enough the EU scheme will collapse completely – anything with a price floor is doomed to failure as supply overwhelms demand. And the whole thing will go into the history books under ‘cautionary tales soon to be ignored’.
10
The story this morning in the SMH backs up what I was saying about the consolidation of the Big Four during the GFC:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/revealed-banks-escape-tough-rules-20110426-1dv2p.html
What can the Feds do about the Big Four? Nothing. That is the gist of the Fed inquiry, so the focus will be on developing competition from foreign banks and smaller local institutions (read credit unions).
10
Goldman Sachs’ Turnbull dances to British carbon trading tune…….
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=releases&id=2009_10_13_Turnbull_CO2.html
10
Although comments like this one from the LA Times are common:
See:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg-climate-change-20110426,0,3346901.column
… Our Labor Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, at present overseas is still preaching that the Climate Change is the world’s biggest challenge. It is difficult to see how our government will change its determination to introduce the Carbon Tax, in line with its UN commitments for which the public has had no say.
10
Just watched that link to Jo’s talk in Perth.
Great to see a speech with some passion exposing willful STUPIDITY.
Loved the little girl with the No Carbon Tax T-shirt and sign at the front!
10
MadJak @ 7
I suspect its for a version U/G or possibly a complete OS rebuild.( complete data miners & proxy server redirections)
10
Hmmm
“Who does the Labor Party represent?”
I think that’s a trick question.
My answer: The Greens.
NOT Australians, because Australians are BAD people (according to the Greens).
11
Actually Jo, yer bank hatred, blinds yer. Some FIs like other Industries support the GP, some don’t.
But in the main it’s been scientists and journalists who have universally betrayed Australia in the great CC.
Done with yer Under graduate protest bullshit. Mainstream Science and Mainstream Journalism are the criminals in the mess.
MSM and universities, it’s a science and free speech issue.
I am of the finance guild not ashamed of it. Most people I know in finance hate this pseudo science bullshit.
[John. Yes, scientists and journalists have let us down, and I do keep pointing out that banks are just doing what any good business should. Perhaps I ought to add that to the post each time. My beef here is with the Labor Party who ought not be helping banks make profits at the expense of the people, and for no benefit to the environment. I also am aware that thousands of good people work in finance and banking. This is not about them. –JN]
10
John Van Krimpen # 25
No-one is saying that financial houses have been the perpetrators. The heads of these global organisations, which I assume you are not, merely recognise the strategic opportunity being presented. This is a rationality. They just want to cash in on the scam, and get in on the action, and as such, are egging on the pollies. To me it is all a question of ethics though and how profit incentive schemes paid to CEO’s may have hijacked their usual sense of morality (I’m assuming they do know the difference between right and wrong and just because something might make you a legal bucket of dosh, doesn’t make it right). So what’s the harm? Ultimately, and here comes the ethics, it is the people who can least afford this scam who will end up paying for it, either directly through purchases of basic goods like food/electricity or via our taxes or even our economy when the house of cards falls over.
10
I don’t blame banks for wanting to trade carbon credits. If it’s a legitimate (in the eyes of the law) business they can make money from it, and their competitors likely will. You could easily lose customers in other, profitable areas if you didn’t offer the full suite of services.
Banks and trading houses are businesses out to make money under the set rules. If a government creates those rules, then you can hardly expect them to abstain from the market based on skepticism. Sure, an individual could put their hand up and say ‘I’m not going to do it’ but it’s ridiculous to expect an entire company to withdraw.
However, if the bank didn’t take part because they had clear insight that the entire thing is a money losing proposition, well, that’s another scenario altogether. But given the ticket-clipping nature of profits and optimism of most people involved in trading I wouldn’t expect that to be the case.
10
[…] Well lookee here: Rothschild Australia and E3 International are set to become key players in the international carbon credit trading market, an emerging commodity market that analysts estimate could be worth up to US$150 billion by 2012. More » […]
10
What price Carbon-When Al Gores Chicago Carbon Exchange closed the price was 5cents a ton,what does that tell you?
10
If carbon trading opens, there may be money to be made by shorting the stock :), but with the caveat that the market will be rigged by government.
10
@Damian Allan – thanks for the Turnbull/Goldman link. It never ceases to amaze me though, that for all the general speculation about Turnbull’s “former” relationship with Goldman, seemingly noone is on to the specifics of *how* and *why*. And, why it is still of crucial importance.
It all goes back to MT’s days as the head honcho of GS’s Australian division, and their/his alleged role in covering up the figures revealing the true (dire) state of FAI’s financial position, directly resulting in the collapse of HIH on purchasing FAI. Our biggest ever corporate collapse. To cut a long story short, Goldman *owns* MT. All thanks to an “undisclosed” settlement made by Goldman on MT’s behalf, to keep him out of court. Not a good look for a politician. You see, MT was a named co-defendant in the $500M lawsuit that came out of the HIH saga. Goldman paid up on the quiet in a little side deal to save MT’s hide. They have been (and still are) pulling MT’s strings all along. That’s why he’s still in Parliament; he announced his retirement from politics early last year, immediately took a little trip abroad to meet his GS masters in NY, and less than a month later he was back having had a change of heart about retiring after all. These bankster #%&^! don’t give up easy.
Read the whole story here – be sure to follow all the links to MSM news stories confirming the truth of it.
10
BRC #27,
“If a government creates those rules, then you can hardly expect them to abstain from the market..”
Read Matt Taibbi’s famous Rolling Stone expose of Goldman Sachs. The truth is, the banksters create the rules. That’s why so many bankster (usually Goldman) alumni feature as the heads of every major financial position in the US government. And why, even down here in little ‘ol Australia, we have our own bankster-in-waiting lurking in the Parliament (Malcolm Turnbull), one who came within mere hours and a single vote of giving Goldman their way down here. The banksters (via their former colleagues et al) create the rules to create the market (bubble) they want to exploit. And the toiling masses all get shafted. Again. And again. And again.
It’s how the real world works.
10
The carbon credit trading market will fail; its not really a question of if, its a question of when.
The first fundamental problem is that the good being traded has no ‘intrinsic’ value of its own; rather its given value by being falsely restricted and controlled. The second fundamental problem is that there are very weak controls over how the supply is actually managed on this ‘value added’ good. Hell, you don’t even trade it directly you trade instead paper that ‘represents’ it in equivalent terms. Bit like buying shares in a company that has an undefined market cap and no financial reporting… you would have to be utterly bonkers and several screws short of a sideboard to even think of investing in it.
Mind you, if all the Eco Sillies end up putting their money into it and it goes bang and the money vanishes – it might actually open peoples eyes to what is going on; although it will be an expensive education – when you can come here and to sites like it and get such an education for free…
10
o/t but relevant to us Australians
Warwick Hughes has a post up about the latest CSIRO’s State of the Climate Report
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=909
for temperature, rainfall, greenhouse gas theory, sea level rises and other enthusiasts check out the report (in whichever discipline the report Linked to Warwick’s blog has chapters) and leave a comment
I’m no scientist but I’ve been moved to make a comment
and you will see how shocking I’ve found the context by reading the intro
Am I mistaken? As I say I’m no scientist
10
keith (30):
To assist my own understanding, I like to analogize an ETS with (say) the taxi licence market. Apparently Victorian Taxi Licences have outperformed every other asset other than Grange Hermitage since 1981.
Taxi licence values had grown from $265,000 in 1999 to more than $470,000 in 2008.
Now I can see the need for government regulation of drivers’ skills, vehicle safety, passenger comfort and safety, provision of disabled access etc. (which is a bit like government regulation of genuine pollution), but I can’t see why any additional regulation of taxi numbers is required — why the government must create an artificial monopoly — let the market decide (I’m not involved in the taxi business in any way).
The problem is that once the artificial market is established, no government can afford to buy-back the licences.
The Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme, a commitment to ensure that 20% of electricity supply will come from ‘renewable’ sources by 2020 in a country with no nuclear generators is deranged enough (is there another ‘Ralf Sarich’ out there with a remarkable new energy storage invention?) without giving any government, this government particularly, the power to issue licences to emit CO2 with all the attendant potential for suff-ups, corruption and crime.
Those set to make hugh profits will go to extraordinary lengths to protect their monopoly — once established, an ETS is with us indefinitely.
10
The part of the Rothschild empire that bought the weather channel is also engaged in insurance. So now they can predict the weather and charge according to their own projections.
This is more than a bank being a sweet middle man.
10
The difference with a Taxi licence and co2 permits are multiple:
1) a taxi licence can be used to make money. It is a real, physical thing. If you drive a taxi without the licence, presumably you can get fined. It’s very easy to detect a taxi that isn’t licenced.
2) taxi licences have a vested interest group, as you point out. They can make more noise if more taxis licences are available.
3) taxi licences are geographically constrained. They’re only good for certain locations.
In contrast with this, carbon permits are:
1) impossible to make money with. As of itself, it can’t pay a dividend, or be invested. All you can do is buy low and sell high or sell high and buy low. Thus, it is an entirely synthetic instrument.
2) co2 has a very fractured interest group. It will be very easy for governments to issue more to gain favor with certain groups, ie steelmakers. If you think this is not possible consider the US government was printed trillions of dollars in plain view in the last couple of years. This is to bail out the banking sector and to rescue the government from it’s liabilities. Any time a union starts to get rattled or an industry is crying poor they’ll quietly get a few permits printed up for them.
3) co2 permits are designed to be internationally traded one day (the whole point of the exercise). As such there is no check on any one government over-issuing certificates. Unlike a currency, over-issue of co2 permits doesn’t have a lot of drawbacks for a government because they can gain cash payments for permits or favor their exporting industries without significant kickback. So you can expect the price to crash to nothing within a pretty short timeframe.
Add to all of that the already mentioned fact that there is no way to physically check what you have is real. The only way of checking is convoluted auditing and self-reporting. You are buying and selling promises that cannot be verified easily.
The European market already has price floors. Any market with a price floor is a failed market because supply has overwhelmed demand.
The whole thing is doomed from beginning to end and will fill history books of the future with tales of folly and stupidity. Future students will review it and say ‘what were they thinking’ in the same way we regard the dutch tulip bulb mania, or even the dotcom boom – which, despite only being 10 years ago, seems like a fantasy from another time.
10
Just an aside to those who wrote above that Al Gore et al took a beating when the Chicago Carbon Exchange folded.
Wrong!
“Sandor and the other shareholders of parent company Climate Exchange cashed out of this big idea for about $600 million. The IntercontinentalExchange (ICE), an electronic futures and derivatives platform based in Atlanta and London, announced it had agreed to purchase the three exchanges, the Chicago Climate Exchange, Chicago Climate Futures Exchange and European Climate Exchange.” The other shareholders included the Goracle. They could see the train wreck coming and jumped in time.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/05/03/03climatewire-sale-of-chicago-climate-exchange-to-ice-reinfo-362.html
10
brc (34),
My analogy may be imperfect, but by “taxi licence” I mean the ownership of a taxi plate which are tradable.
As far as I’m aware, all you need to drive a taxi in Victoria is an ordinary drivers’ licence and no criminal record (you don’t even have to understand english).
10
@ BRC #18
Thanks for the laugh – gave me hysterics.
It reminded me of those DASTARDLY little “Sea Monkeys’ every family worth their salt bought their children.
Little monkeys didn’t do much (and soon died) – but at least you had something tangible for a while.
Cheers,
10
You know what, whenever the issue of a mining super profits tax comes up, or the carbon tax, isn’t it fascinating how nobody seems to want these taxes except Julia Gillard’s buddy… Marius Kloppers, CEO of BHP.
I just can’t figure out why Kloppers is so keen to pay these extra taxes, but I will say this… BHP is the biggest miner in Australia and biggest company in Australia. The government should get BHP to pay the mining tax and the carbon tax, seeing that BHP is so happy to do so… and just leave the rest of us alone to get on with our lives.
10
@lionell
LOL
Pointman
10
Manalive I knew what you meant by taxi licence. It is only a permission but it does have a real use. Unlike carbon permits.
Popeye : what I really need is to make my dog buying permits. Those canine SBD’s are real nose curlers!
10
@MadJak: 10
“why don’t they group these carbon credits up into Consolidated Debt Obligations (CDOs) while they’re at it”
They already have MadJak.
Google GREENX or ICE
It’s the making of the next ‘Eco Freindly’ GFC.
10
Re #14:
“And of course, we all know this is why Turnbull supported Rudd’s ETS. Once a merchant banker, always a merchant banker…”
Rhyming slang???
10
@George: #15
“Why do you think Westpac acquired Enron’s carbon trading business?”
Nice Pickup George.
I knew they had pre-purchased a heap of credits before the start of the NZ ETS, but I hadn’t picked this.
10
@BRC: #18
“I cannot see a retail-level carbon trading instrument ever taking off”
Hmmm. The UNFCC think they can make heaps from it, maybe even double what
us poor suckerscountries contribute to them in ‘Carbon Pollution’ revenues.The main market at the moment appears to be Futures. although the Toxic CDO’s are on the Horizon.
10
@Popeye: #6
“It’s ALWAYS been about the money and NO-ONE has it within their orating/selling abilities to convince me otherwise.”
From my reading of hundreds upon hundreds of pages of UN documents, you are 100% correct Popeye.
Climeate Change is secondary to the UN, it is all about Wealth Redistribution, from Developed countries like Australia, mainly to Africa.
That is why our Foreign Aid budget has recently doubled, and is now quarantined.
The proposed ‘Carbon Tax’ is just a way for Gillard to pay off the UN ‘Mafia’, because Rudd made the promise of funds in Copenhagen and combet signed it in Cancun.
.
10
@John Van Krimpen: #25
“Actually Jo, yer bank hatred, blinds yer. Some FIs like other Industries support the GP, some don’t.”
I’m gonna cut you some slack here John cos I’m from the financial (Dark) side as well.
SO:
I am going to drink the half bottle of wine, and 10 cans of beer I have in the fridge.
Then I am going to re-read your post, and hopefully it will then make sense.
.
10
@fred nerk: #28
“What price Carbon-When Al Gores Chicago Carbon Exchange closed the price was 5cents a ton”
Yeah, and the RGGI in the US (America’s other defunct ETS) had to be underpinned at $1.36 per Tonne to stop it going the same way as the CCX.
Funny how Gillard holds this up as an example of the ’10 AQmerican States’ fighting climate Change.
10
@manalive: #32
I liked your analogy, and get your point.
A very smart Indian guy has already started a company that sells REC’s.
(Talk abour ‘vapourware – Renewable Energy Certificates).
No doubt some stupid Government will buy them.
10
@Mervyn Sullivan: #38
“nobody seems to want these taxes except Julia Gillard’s buddy… Marius Kloppers, CEO of BHP.”
Marius Klophead is no fool, he runs with the hare and he runs with the hounds.
The link below provides some insight in how BHP would profit from an ETS, (it is research by Macquarie).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51353353/mac-1
10
@Stephen Brown: #35
“Just an aside to those who wrote above that Al Gore et al took a beating when the Chicago Carbon Exchange folded.”
I seem to recall that Barrak Obama had something to do with the setting up of the Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX).
Is this true, and did he escape with all his money like Al Gore?
10
Surprised that you still see any sort of distinction between traditional parties down under.
Here in the UK it’s been a long time since any major party represented anything, let alone “workers” or “business”.
Their main purpose these days is to implement EU directives, steal money and to hold down the population while they get
gang raped by the likes of Goldman Sachs.
Here is the “centre” party hiding behind armed police and a steel fence for their deliberations (but there’s nothing wrong with UK politics you understand)
10
Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam………
http://www.thealexjonesshow.com/articles/2009/march/033009-obama-in-carbon-trading-scam.html
10
Brc (43) I get your point.
A tradable taxi plate does represent something tangible (a vehicle which serves a demand), while an ETS trades in thin air.
10
An interesting article from Gary Johns in The Australian.
Dodgy figures, wrong question
“Ask an economist the most cost-effective way to abate carbon and they will tell you market pricing. Right answer, wrong question. Ask an economist the most cost-effective way to prepare for the risk of climate change and you will get answers about priorities and adaptation. You hear about research and development, and spending money on things to make people (especially in developing countries) more able to cope with change: health infrastructure, skills, cheap energy.
Instead, the Gillard government walks headlong to its political death with its Climate Change Minister Greg Combet spruiking nonsense.”
10
You people just can’t comprehend how urgently we need a fertiliser tax down under, in order to catch up with the moral majority busily saving the planet-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/25/carbon-cuts-developed-countries-cancelled
10
A tradable taxi licence is but a piece of paper and a piece of tin. The vehicle does not go with it when traded. This piece of paper and piece of tin is magically transformed into an asset worth $470,000 because of the coercive power of the government. This is why taxi fares are so expensive. The existing licence holders have an interest in restricting the numbers of licences issued in order to protect their investment.
When the government deems it necessary to issue additional licences because passengers are revolting in long queues, the licences are offered first to existing licence holders. This preserves the value of their investment. There will be an initial respite but then the shortages will inevitably re-emerge and the whole sorry cycle will continue. The public will continue to be ripped off mercilessly.
During WA Inc the Western Australian ALP government issued a licence to Rothwells? to build a petrochemical plant. It then purchased back that licence for an enormous sum – IIRC more than $300M to bail out Alan Bond and Lawrie Connell.
That licence was but a piece of paper but became an “asset” worth $300M and that amount of taxpayers money disappeared down the drain.
So now they are going to licence thin air!!! We think taxi licences and industry licences are a ripoff. We have seen nothing yet.
10
political parties can not represent anything but their own self interest they prove it every election and we poor have to vote for the effing morons by law.Excuse me sir but how do I make a choice between a heap of garbage and a pile of rubbish and where does my vote go in a 2 heap preferred erection????????????
10
political parties can not represent anything but their own self interest they prove it every election and we poor fools have to vote for the effing morons by law.Excuse me sir but how do I make a choice between a heap of garbage and a pile of rubbish and where does my vote go in a 2 heap preferred erection????????????
10
Observa # 58
This line is telling
“If Russia and Ukraine – which cut their CO2 emissions rapidly in the 1990s due to economic collapse – are excluded, the rise is 12%.”
Seems to me that ‘economic collapse’ will achieve the Greenies dream.
10
[…] Combet vowed to “put households first” . Yet it’s households who will be forced to pay. But for what measurable benefit — how many degrees will that be Julia? The Labor Party used to be the party of the workers. Instead the carbon trading scheme (which is the “end” result of the tax) is destined to offer advantage to a select few industries. Which industry will make money no matter who buys and who sells and no matter what the price is? Source […]
10