JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Climate money: Bigger money moves in

Climate Money is poised to rocket—creating even larger pools of vested interests. Once it starts, how could we unwind trillions of trading rights?

Say hello to the real new force in climate science—banks.

The Shadow of big banking climate money

The Shadow of Stratospheric Climate Money. Far north South Australia, Aug 2009.

First Up. Governments Up the Ante.

In the 2008-2009 financial year, Bush threw billions on the table with financial rescues and tax credits, only to be wildly outdone by Obama.

The new funding provisions made since the financial emergency of Sept 2008 are not included in the previous table of climate funds that amounted to $79 billion (so far). It’s difficult to assign the rescue package figures into strict financial years—yet the new numbers are titanic, and step right out of the scales drawn on the past funding graphs.

The financial recovery legislation that President Bush signed1 on October 3 last year included the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 20082 which contained about $17 billion3 in tax incentives for clean energy services.

Then in February 2009, the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act4 was signed into law, containing some $110 billion5 in clean energy investments in the bill. Many of these “investments” defy easy categorization. For example, research into alternative energy has value regardless of whether carbon dioxide is a problem—though arguably there is less urgency. But expenses like the $3.4 billion for carbon sequestration have no other purpose or use. They depend 100% on the assumption that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant. That’s a 100% vested interest.

What’s Bigger than Big Government—Big Banks

The stealthy mass entry of the bankers and traders poses major threats to the scientific process.

Even though the US government has poured in around $80 billion dollars of influence over the last 20 years, that pales in comparison with the rapidly growing force of carbon trading. According to the World Bank, turnover of carbon trading doubled from $63 billion in 2007 to $126 billion in 2008.6

Not surprisingly banks are doing what banks should do: they’re following the promise of profits, and hence urging governments to adopt carbon trading.7,8 Even though banks are keen to be seen as good corporate citizens (look, there’s an environmental banker!), somehow they don’t find the idea of a non-tradable carbon tax as appealing as a trading scheme where lo-and-behold, financial middlemen can take a cut. If you are a bank who believes in the carbon crisis, taxes might “help the planet,” but they won’t help your balance sheet.

The potential involved in an entirely new fiat currency has banks and financial institutions “wholly in bed” with a scientific theory.9 And that might be good for banks…

For the rest of us, a new fiat currency in carbon gives us the chance to support a whole new layer of parasites.

The 10-Trillion-Dollar Gorilla in the Kitchen

Commissioner Bart Chilton, head of the energy and environmental markets advisory committee of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has predicted that within five years a carbon market would dwarf any of the markets his agency currently regulates: “I can see carbon trading being a $2 trillion market.”10 He ought to know. Ominously he adds: “The largest commodity market in the world.”11

Chilton puts it into a global financial perspective:

“It wouldn’t be as large as some of the financial markets — Treasury bills — but it would be larger than any physical commodity market.”12

What a relief, it wouldn’t be as big as all the loans issued to the largest financial entity on the planet—the US government—but it would be larger than iron, coal, oil, gold, copper and uranium. Can anyone else see a new species of carbon-CEOs with 100 million dollar bonuses, all paid for, ultimately, by guess who?

New Carbon Finance, a London-based investment adviser that tracks the market, predicts the carbon market will reach $3 trillion by 2020.13

Richard L. Sandor, chairman and chief executive officer of Climate Exchange Plc, which owns the world’s biggest carbon dioxide exchange in London, sees an even larger market:

“We’re going to see a worldwide market, and carbon will unambiguously be the largest non-financial commodity in the world.” He predicted trades eventually will total $10 trillion a year.14

In other words, carbon trading will be bigger than oil, and even the promise of a market that massive and lucrative represents a pretty considerable vested interest.

As Bart Chilton says:

“This issue is too important to our economy and to our world, and we need to get this right from the get-go.”

Too true. But the “get-go” starts with the science. If there is no evidence that we need to curtail carbon, there is no need to trade it.


References

1    Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, The Library of Congress. H.R. 1424, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:6:./temp/~c1109OQL0p::.

2    Division B–Energy Improvement And Extension Act Of 2008 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:6:./temp/~c1109OQL0p:e137069:.

3    Clean Tech Advisory newsletter. Congress Extends and Approves New Alternative Energy Tax Credits. http://www.goodwinprocter.com/~/media/256D1BFFA62A4145924B772DED1BE58A.ashx.

4    Committee on Appropriations: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Conference Agreement, http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary02-13-09.pdf.

5    Congress Approves Clean Energy Provisions of Stimulus; Consistent with Apollo Economic Recovery Act. http://apolloalliance.org/feature-articles/clean-energy-provisions-of-stimulus-are-consistent-with-apollo-economic-recovery-act/. Table 1, page 7.

6    World Bank, State and Trends of the Carbon Market, 2009. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/State___Trends_of_the_Carbon_Market_2009-FINAL_26_May09.pdf.

7    Banks Urging US to adopt the Trading of Emissions, James Kanter, Sept 26, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/business/26bank.html?scp=1&sq=banks%20urge%20carbon%20trading&st=cse.

8    Banks Seek Carbon Trading. New York Times, Sept 26, 2007. Today in Business. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE4D61630F935A1575AC0A9619C8B63&scp=4&sq=banks%20urge%20carbon%20trading&st=cse.

9    Carbon Credits: Another Corrupt Currency? Science and Public Policy Institute. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/corrupt_currency.pdf.

10    US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Commissioner Bart Chilton: U.S. Regulators Gearing-Up for Climate Change, Chilton Says “Carbon Markets Need Sure-Footed Oversight” http://www.cftc.gov/newsroom/generalpressreleases/2009/pr5648-09.html.

11    Carbon as a Commodity, Marianne Lavelle, Feb 24, 2009. The Centre for Public Integrity. http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/articles/entry/1179/.

12    Bill on climate change offers hope to Wall St., The Hill.com. Brush and Snyder, May 20 2009. http://thehill.com/business–lobby/bill-on-climate-change-offers-hope-to-wall-st.-2009-05-20.html.

13    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aLM4otYnvXHQ.

14     http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aLM4otYnvXHQ.


Climate Money: PARTS 1- 5.

1. Climate Money Massive Funding Exposed.

2. How auditing of the Climate Industry is mostly left to volunteers.

3. How the monopolistic funding ratchet slows scientific progress.

4. Why blaming Exxon is a smoke screen to disguise the real vested interests.

5. Climate Money: Bigger Money Moves In. (You are on this page).

The full report is an SPPI Original, 4400 word pdf.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
Climate money: Bigger money moves in, 10.0 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2dkfppr

41 comments to Climate money: Bigger money moves in

  • #

    The financial and political inertia of climate change activism is going to be very difficult to stop…, unless the world’s climate fails to warm over a relatively long period or begins to cool significantly. Unfortunately many of the big players aren’t in it to “save the world.” They’re in it to stay out of glare the alarmists’ spotlight and — oh, by the way — make money, because, right now, that’s where a lot of money is going.

    Personally, I prefer a little bit of warming over global cooling. My opinion on warming and additional CO2 is that it is beneficial to the planet and would not have the dire results claimed by the alarmists. Extended global cooling, on the other hand, is very scary.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Joanne, you’re on a roll! Great post! Mike, I too would have warmth over cold but do we have a choice?? No in it’s simplist terms. Climate Change is what it is! Man doesn’t have control over it and I pray He NEVER acheives that purpose. For war will be obsolete, and the one who controls it, controls EVERYTHING!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MDM

    Love the $-shadow graphic. Launch several more of those sun blockers and global warming will be solved.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Joanne,

    This is tremendously significant and you’ve done a wonderful job researching it. I suspect the “carbon” issue is now so embedded it could persist in popular perception for a hundred years even if glaciers arrive in New York and London tomorrow. Your conclusion is unimpeachable. I’ll be passing the information on every chance I get.

    I rate this site highly and visit most days but have never left a message; please keep up the good work.

    Warm regards,
    Richard Treadgold,
    Convenor,
    Climate Conversation Group.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” — Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
    Maurice must love emissions trading. I hope he has a plan B for the likely economic winners China, India, Brazil etc. Wow! finally an egalitarian society until we start fighting over who gets the best cave.
    Time for some Leonard Cohen and a razor blade.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Mike Goad: “The financial and political inertia of climate change activism is going to be very difficult to stop…, unless the world’s climate fails to warm over a relatively long period or begins to cool significantly”

    I agree, and my additional concern is that if the various national and international carbon reduction measures are given the go-ahead on a massive scale, the legislators/activists are going to take the credit for the cooling: “Look, it was worth it – we’ve made the temperatures go down! Let’s do more of it!”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew Simpson

    Great post, Joanne.

    I always new carbon trading was going to be a nice little earner when the Macquarie Bank got its nose in the trough.

    They don’t do anything unless there are good profits in it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    If you are a bank who believes in the carbon crisis, taxes might “help the planet,” but they won’t help your balance sheet.

    You missed the two-way nature of the deal. Delivering a simple carbon tax would force some politician to stand in front of a crowd of voters and say, “You are being taxed.”

    The bank delivers a service to the government, and the service is hiding tax from voters. The bank not only obfuscates the fact that you are being taxed, they make it downright impossible to figure out how big the tax is, and where exactly the money goes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    I agree, and my additional concern is that if the various national and international carbon reduction measures are given the go-ahead on a massive scale, the legislators/activists are going to take the credit for the cooling: “Look, it was worth it – we’ve made the temperatures go down! Let’s do more of it!”

    Yes I do believe this is their strategy, which is probably why they will push much harder as some signs of cooling start to show. They don’t want to miss their opportunity.

    Once the dogma is established, then any warming will trigger a “need more to make it work” response, and cooling will trigger, “look it’s working, do more”. They can chug along that way forever, making the sun rise every morning. Hmmm, I seem to remember you need a rooster or something…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Geoff Larsen

    I agree, and my additional concern is that if the various national and international carbon reduction measures are given the go-ahead on a massive scale, the legislators/activists are going to take the credit for the cooling: “Look, it was worth it – we’ve made the temperatures go down! Let’s do more of it!”

    I think this is unlikely to happen because even with a “best case” scenario it will be many years before mitigation efforts begin to have any effect on slowing & stopping CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere; IMO 15- 20 years if they’re lucky. In the meantime, if over the next 10+ years global temperatures continue to flat line, as they have over approximately the past 104 months, or cool, as CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, public opinion will swing drastically against the hypothesis of catastrophic AGW (CAGW).I wouldn’t want to be any of the scientists, politicians or involved businesses in the firing line; it will be nasty.

    In following this issue for around 8 years I’ve noticed, particularly in the past 3 years or so, a significant change in the scientific debate with those arguing for CAGW increasingly on the defensive. Most of the hard observational data over this recent period points against CAWM yet governments around the world are embracing CO2 mitigation policies & huge money, as professionally documented by Jo, is being directed to this end. Why is this given the way the scientific debate has gone?

    The answer to this I believe is quite simple; inertia. Surface warming from around 1975- 1998, plus other factors, mobilised the formation of the IPCC followed by their 4 assessment reports, 1990, 1995, 2001 & 2007. Largely as a result of these reports governments started formulating mitigation policies & by & large public opinion, at least initially, got on board. It took a long time for this to happen. However we now know for example that the 3rd assessment report (2001) contained blatant bogus science (aka Mann et al’s hockey stick) which was used in the report to promote CAGW. IMO a lot of the science (e.g the effect of clouds in models and the calculation of climate sensitivity)supporting the conclusions of the 3rd assessment report, is built on very shaky ground. Furthermore a lot of scientific papers & reviews of evidence presented were either ignored or grossed over in this recent report. In public debate it’s almost as if the process as taken on a life of its own & any evidence that points against CAGW must be attacked at all costs, regardless of its scientific merit.

    However this large inertial wheel will change. No matter how it’s formulated (direct tax or trading) people will realise that the cost of mitigation, of a level to stabilise CO2 levels, will be huge. Couple this with the realisation that although CO2 levels in the meantime continue to increase, global temperatures don’t, and then you have the recipe for retribution I alluded to earlier.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Joanne

    Good post – the Fabians are almost there, and Hayek’s prescience seems vindicated but what for individuals to do.

    The mob will accept it as long as their lifestyles are not threatened.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom Collins

    What an absolutely refreshing website, packed full with information on, probably, the most important subject in the World, at present.

    To stop the scandalous waste of money, time and resources, on this nonsensical Ponzi-style project must be the aim of all rational people.

    More power to your elbow.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Well, I see the Alarmists down there are not giving up! Here it is!

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html

    Keep knocking them down Joanne!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Thanks, Dennis – here’s a statement from the “news” story that makes me feel rather ashamed to be an American:

    But to see what role greenhouse gases played in the recent intensification, the scientists used sophisticated American computer climate models.

    What ineffible twaddle, I never read such rubbish in my life. There is n way to discern such a thing on a local scale.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    But Brian, ineffible twaddle is all they have left…they’re out of bullets!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard s Courtney

    JLKrueger:

    They do not need “bullets” because they have money. And money can buy politicians, journalists and science administrators seeking research funds. Indirectly, it buys scientists because they need incomes and so going along with the bought research is a sensible thing for them to do.

    But AGW-alarmists do not have arguments. They only have assertions. For example, they assert that “AGW-Deniers” such as me have been bought by “Big Oil”. OK, if they think that then prove it by trying to buy me. They have far, far more funds to do it than “Big Oil” (that has never paid me anything). And buying me would be a coupe that they could assert as proof of their assertion. But none of them has tried to buy me, and that demonstrates they know their assertion is a falsehood.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Denny, good link. I followed through to the SEACI website.

    http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/seaci/publications_factsheets.html

    In the factsheet, “Living today with a future climate,” is a bar-chart covering 100 years of rainfall in the Murray-Darling Basin. It shows that we had a patch of high rainfall around 1950 to 1980 and that the overall trend in the last 100 years is a very slight drift toward a wetter climate.

    From the text of the factsheet:

    Rainfall over much of the southern Murray-Darling Basin has declined by around 15 per cent in the past 30 years,

    Coming down the back of an earlier high-rainfall period and returning to where it was this time last century. Note they conveniently ignore the 100 year trend.

    If global warming really is the cause of the draught, one would expect a long-term drift to a dryer climate along with the gradual warming observed last century. Strange how correlation can be used to prove the link between CO2 and warming but gets completely ignored in the context of rainfall.

    In a story you might have heard before, all of their conclusions are based on computer models instead of direct examination of the data.

    The best estimate is that average maximum temperatures in south-eastern Australia could be as much as 2 degrees higher than the historic average by 2050.

    “We are not very sure about rainfall projections, but we’re very sure about temperature projections,” Dr Cai said.

    So in a project designed to track rainfall, they are very sure about temperature… presumably because temperature was an input parameter and saying they are sure about warming is a condition of their funding.

    If they are “very sure”, then why the “could be” predictions?

    By the way, how exactly do I calculate “historic average” temperature? What does it mean?

    Such biases contribute to model drift – at shorter lead times, the model is quite accurate in predicting reduced rainfall associated with cooler sea-surface temperatures in the tropics, but POAMA’s predictions progressively diverge from real-world conditions at longer timescales, reducing the accuracy of its forecsts.

    So over the 100 year timescale, the model doesn’t work anyhow. At least they are honest enough to admit it, sadly when it got translated to the Age newspaper a few of these rather important points were dropped in order to better fit the bias of their readership.

    When I read this stuff I think of a bunch of basically enthusiastic researchers who have been told by their funding administrators that they can do their studies, on the proviso that they come up with the conclusions they were told to come up with. So they go through the motions, make their best effort then splot down some arbitrary statements to make sure everyone knows they are still on the team and haven’t had any slip-up thought crimes.

    I find that sad, more than anything, and a bit scary too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    In the USA, the US Chamber if Commerce is trying to force the EPA to hold a “trial” to bring forth the evidence for “regulating” CO2.

    Meanwhile interest groups are doing all they can
    to prevent such a “trial” from happening.

    Time to hold their feet to the fire and make them prove some assertions for a change!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Hey Brian, where have you been??? Vacation? Or did they catch ya on the Internet??? It’s good to see you back! Yes, here’s Inhofe’s response to a editorial by the “National Journal of Energy and Environment”! Looks like another Alarmists Site. Brian, read the response by the Sierra Clubs President. This guy doesn’t have a clue!

    http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2009/08/should-epa-bow-to-chambers-dem.php#1349897

    Joanne, what’s your take on the article I posted???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Richard, sooo true! You head the nail on the head! Money is what this whole fiasco is all about! Joanne complements it with Her article above!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Tel, I can understand you being scared. Droughts are no fun to be a part of..but that’s the nature of Austrialia, Right? Weather is the “abnorm”, not the norm…and it last for years just like the Climate Changes in Africa!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Wow, even “Liberal” Senators are complaining down there! Now that’s a twist or He’s a Conservative in “Sheep’s Clothing”! :) This Senator is Cory Bernardi from Southern Austrialia…check out what He has to say!

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/08/cory-bernardi


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Denny,

    The Liberal party *is* the conservative party in Australia. The socialists are the Labor party.

    Not that the Liberal party isn’t fond of big government, intervention and middle class welfare also. Neither party has much commitment to freedom.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    No matter how low your expectations of politicians are they can still slither well below the bar. NSW Premier Nathan Rees took a brave stance on AGW by banning bottled water in all government offices and at the Eureka Awards, Austrailia’s highest science awards, compared AGW skeptics to Nazi appeasers.
    Strangely Rees has no trouble with the issuing of $400 million in coal exploration licenses and reselling water allocations that were voluntarily returned by the states farmers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I think some of these politicians are simply competing in a [something] contest, wherein one politician tries to outdo another:

    “I can out-enviro you, Senator!”

    The end results, however, may not be something the Public cares to live with.

    Or has much input into the development of.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Re 18,

    I would prefer televised whiteboard discussions among a balanced group of scientists so that the masses can see just how flaky the AGW arguments really are. It will be difficult to find an unbiased judge whose decision would be accepted, so individuals must arrive at conclusions on their own.

    While the technical details will certainly be over the heads of most, the self righteous indignation of AGW zealots, how they squirm when confronted with contrariwise evidence, how they fail to answer or even acknowledge questions whose answers would undermine their beliefs, how they digress into irrelevant tangents, their smug questioning of motives and blatant ad hominem attacks would all be noticed and properly interpreted. It’s certain that they will resort to such tactics, as the data and science is not supportive of their position.

    Since science, logic and reason don’t seem to sway the AGW believers who frequent this list, maybe watching their hallowed prophets of authority falter will have an impact.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    About all the interest groups seem have left to stop a “trial” is thuggery


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    The Sierra club petition is clear evidence that the fear of climate change includes a fear of being wrong about why.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The Sierra “club” comprises some five hundred thousands of members (so they say).

    These noisy, noisome, and self-righteous blowhards seem to feel compelled to control the behaviour of some 310 millions of US citizens, and God-knows how many others throughout the world they can help to subject to abject poverty.

    They are Losers with a capital “L”. I hope this “sign the petition and quit the Chamber of Commerce” stunt blows them right off the map.

    That won’t happen soon enough for me


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Mike Borgelt,post 23, thanks for the input! I would think that the term “Liberal” would be defined the same way all over this World…guessed wrong.

    Brian, have you read the article from Washington Posts Andrew Freedman “Obama needs to give an Climate Speech-ASAP”! http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/09/obama_needs_to_give_a_climate.html

    Then Marc Morano of Climate Depot gives he rebuttal.
    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2717/Shock-Wash-Post-Blames-Obama-For-Failure-of-Global-Warming-Movement-Presidents-mistakes-may-cost-the-planet-dearly


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Tel

    I would think that the term “Liberal” would be defined the same way all over this World… guessed wrong.

    May I suggest: http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/

    The meaning of “Liberal” has drifted greatly over time, and drifted in different directions depending on country… which just shows that politics has a great many more dimensions than the meaningless left/right division that is constantly pushed at us.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Denny, you know how to hurt a guy – calling me a Liberal in the US sense of the word! ;-)

    I am a conservative and AGW sceptic and proud of it. Have a look at some of my other musings at http://www.corybernardi.com . You might like what you read.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Senator Bernardi, my apologies,I’m already back stroking from above comments. Is it amazing Cultural differences in such a small world! I’m impressed with your comment at your Web Site. I agree with you and will try my best in the future to keep this in proper perspective. I’m VERY proud of you for knocking down Austrialia’s Cap & Trade Bill. Wish you could come to America and do the same here and slap a few heads around…or maybe take a few of OUR Liberals back with you.Woa, just kidding,I wouldn’t wish that on my 2 ex-wives!

    Tel,thank you very much! I love your style of comments! Keep it up and thanks for not coming down hard on me! :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    On the subject of money and senators… the New South Wales government seems determined to lose the next election in spectacular style. Electricity prices have just been hiked by around 40% and there seems to be very little mainstream news about it (hmmm). Off peak hot-water prices went up (from around 5c / kWhr to 7c / kWhr) and the normal peak rate went up from approx 14c / kWhr up to a bit over 19c / kWhr (note that residential electricity runs on a quota system so for heavy users the rate goes from approx 17c up to 21c which is only a 24% hike… this hits households, families and small business much worse than the heavy users).

    Admittedly, the recent stimulus spurge was inevitably going to cause inflation and part of this is no doubt attributable to inflation. However the retail and wholesale markets are split in New South Wales so electricity production is delivering wholesale electricity into the grid at around 3c / kWhr. This winter was a bit milder than expected (mostly due to almost constant rain all winter filling the night sky with heavy cloud) so the normally high winter demand didn’t happen — thus wholesale rates actually went down this year.

    http://www.aemo.com.au/data/avg_price/averageprice_main.shtml

    It costs this much to produce the electricity:

    |–|

    Sells to householders for this much:

    |——————–|

    The difference being (supposedly) the cost of some copper wires and metering. Why are these wires and meters more expensive than last year? Hard to explain really.

    I’d very much appreciate some public attention paid to where the money actually goes, if anyone knows how to track that down.

    As background to Yankee readers: the “Premier” is roughly our equivalent to a state governor and Morris Iemma was our premier who handed some millions of dollars to the Catholic Church as a thankyou for the pope making a visit, then tried his best to run the state bankrupt but used the money supply shortage as a grandstanding manoeuvre in an attempt to sell off the electricity supply. The unions (who form the basis of Iemma’s own party) didn’t like the idea of selling off the electricity, the established party decision making process concluded that selling off the electricity should not happen, but Iemma defied both the unions and his own team in a weird act of public political suicide resulting in both the failure to push through the sale and the Iemma’s own sacking.

    Now the replacement Premier is trying to sell off the state lotteries (one of the few parts of the government fully guaranteed to make a consistent profit forever), and quietly pumping up the retail price of that very electricity distribution system that remained in government hands. Presumably it can only be seen as a punishment for the people and industries of this state in revenge for the failure to privatise.

    As further background, New South Wales has been consistently amongst the lowest performing states in Australia, regularly beaten by our east-coast neighbours Queensland and Victoria in growth, employment, manufacturing, etc.

    The carbon tax and ETS legislation at the federal level actually failed to get through, but we are being made to pay extra anyhow — this seems to be how Democracy works these days.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neal

    When I look at all the money tossed into the “carbon pool” I have to ask myself, “Why in the heck did they not just buy everyone a windmill for the yard and solar panels for their roofs?”

    And if you think South Wales is asking questions I still have a few for Florida Power and Light (FPL). Primarily, “Why the heck am I being charged a “lost revenue” charge on my electric bill?”

    I mean, heck, a couple of hurricanes and they (FPL) can’t deliver electricity to my house and I have to pay for the electricity that was never produced or used.

    Oh wait that kinda sounds familiar…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    jay

    Hello, Jonova

    Thanks for this article. I am making a video clip on the upcoming COP15 conference. would it be possible for me to use the image at the top of this great article please? It expresses very well the carbon-trading approach to the issue of climate change!

    thx
    Jay


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #

    [...] Morgan Stanley, Fortis Bank Nederland, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Westpac, and many others… [more info] Carbon Trading: $144b in 2010 Plus: Climate change exchanges, auditors, insurers, reinsurers… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Climate money: Bigger money moves in « JoNova [...]


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>