For pure, circular destruction of wealth, happiness and prosperity, it doesn’t get much better than this. Not long back Greenpeace and co were busted for planning a six million dollar campaign to disrupt and delay the coal industry — and today The Australian reports that three of the major organisations involved received close to $750,000 from the government, for “public climate change activities” raising doubts about whether public funds had been misused.
The Nature Conservation Council (NSW), Environment Victoria and the Conservation Council of Western Australia have received grants of $211,000, $213,215 and $319,420 respectively for public climate change activities since last December.
Environment Victoria and the Conservation Council of WA confirmed yesterday they had backed the development of the anti-coal campaign.
The coal miners are an industry that is legal, employs 40,000 people directly, provides the fuel for more than half our electricity and generates about $13b in tax dollars for the Australian government.
Now if the NGO’s wanted to explain to the rest of us why we ought to decide to reduce our coal mining, that would be fair enough, but they aren’t trying to convince us with reason or debate, they’re trying to disrupt a legitimate economic activity, and manipulate the legal system any which way they can. The headline title of the Greenpeace-CoalSwarm-Greame-Wood-Foundation project was not “Saving the Environment” it was “Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom”, as if that in itself was a worthy goal.
It appears to be economic vandalism and propaganda by any other name.
Last week the Australian Taxation Office announced that Greenpeace would remain listed as a charity, and would be “tax exempt”. So if the Coal sector earns money while it provides an essential service, it needs to contribute to the national government. If Greenpeace earns money while it destroys jobs, slows projects, clogs the court system, and helps make electricity more expensive, they get a free ride on the Australian Taxation system.
MEMO to Tony Abbott: when you need to cut government spending, you know where to start. Not just with those grants but with the whole Department of Climate Change.
Gongo– stands for “Government-Organized Non-Governmental Organization. Used by undemocratic governments”…
The Labor Party is learning well from the USA’s EPA. Fund the NGO’s to do your dirty work; that then turn around and sue you to get legislation passed that will enable you to get your way with political leaders, and those same NGO’s can push an agenda (disrupt mining operations) that will give the government a greater bargaining position at the conference table. The trick is to keep the NGO’s pointed in the appropriate direction.
00
Good point Fred,
Follow the money – always follow the money.
The weak point in all this is the ability of Government departments (or Agencies, in the US) to “make donations” to charitable organisations. By what right, can they do this? From whence comes the mandate? How can this be audited?
The same weak point, expressed in a different way, is the ability of Government departments to “purchase” services from non-commercial providers. How can they have a commercial (and contestable) relationship with a non-commercial entity? If it was with a person, it would be graft, so how is a non-commercial organisation any different?
Charitable organisations do not have the same accounting rigour that commercial organisations require. For example, they receive grants and donations based on what they say they will be doing, but unlike a commercial organisation, are not bound to use the received funds to do what they said they would do.
Not even Bernie Madoff thought as big as some of these NGO’s!
A question: If what they are doing is so worthwhile, why do they need government handouts, especially handouts that are not strictly ring-fenced? Surely, if they were acting on behalf of the majority, the majority of people would be willing to front up with a contribution, wouldn’t you think?
00
Government departments would think twice about “making donations” to charitable organisations if their budgets were scrutinised more closely. People I rub shoulders with in the private sector often ask in relation to their taxes, “where does the money go?”. Any party that makes government departments more accountable on how they spend my taxes gets my vote.
00
Yes, I am commenting on my own comment – and will probably go blind – but …
It strikes me that the money-go-around between Governments and the NGO’s has to be exposed for what it is.
As Dirk (in #2) points out there is the same pattern right up to the EU (and the UN). But nobody votes for the NGO’s they have no mandate from the people, they therefore cannot claim to represent the people.
What we need to do is push for Government accountability for every dollar that is “gifted” to NGO’s. If daylight is allowed to shine on “commercial” arrangements with “non-commercial” entities, then that may well expose a whole lot of stuff that the politicians would prefer to keep in the dark.
There, I feel better now.
00
Charities are about helping the needy, be it the old, the poor, animals or whatever..
Where does it stop? Government money to help the needy or to help the NGO lobby for more Government money , policy & favours to help the NGO …. Or to help the needy ?
00
Now wouldn’t it be funny if government money was finding its way to GetUp( or one of its donors)
00
“If it was with a person, it would be graft, so how is a non-commercial organisation any different?”
I like ( and agree) with this point RW. It would be interesting to see someone push it further. Might require one of those extremely rare people –an investigative journalist.
00
Rereke
Thanks to a previous poster some time ago who alerted me to the following, they have no right to do this,they have no mandate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett#Political_career
Maybe one of our American posters could let us know if this is still the case.
00
Maurice Strong facilitated these NGO’s decades ago by redirecting UN funds to them, and since then the NGO’s have established extra income streams via various governments.
His handiwork is now showing results – and the end game?
Guess, but as can be shown scientifically, the socialist experiment doesn’t work and can’t work. Whether the socialist utopia driving the Pilgrim Fathers in the US centuries ago, to the bizarre Australian initiated commmunities in South America, it doesn’t work.
You have to be really truly intellectually dense to believe in such utopian communities.
00
Or completely ignorant of human nature.
00
Funny. In the EU, WWF, Oxfam, FoE and others get up to 70% of their budget from the EU commission. Greenpeace alleges they only take money from private donors but that probably only means they found a way of laundering the money. Didn’t know the GONGO acronym. Very fitting.
Still don’t know why our bureaucrat masters need these shocktroops – they had them screaming at COP15 but it was a rather ineffectual tactic.
Maybe the bureaucrats just park their young in the shocktroop organisations and that’s why they channel money that way.
(Don’t wanna call them “governments” – the EU is ruled by a bureaucracy, not by elected governments.)
So in the EU – BONGO instead of GONGO…
00
“So in the EU – BONGO instead of GONGO…”
I know it’s only a mnemonic, but it’s sounding more and more like Government by a clown.
00
Make that 50,000 clowns.
00
Letter to the editor: Carbon Lies
00
Off topic, but in relation to last weeks floods in New South Wales, Australia’s answer to the NYT (Sydney Morning Herald) is right on queue with story linking the floods to AGW. Reading closely it actually admits only increased incidents of short downbursts are supported by the scientific research to date. However, any casual reading of this story would make people think AGW was the key cause.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/experts-predict-surge-in-floods-20120311-1usn6.html
00
In the UK, about 3 years ago there was started a website fakecharities.org, which looked at government funding for charities. Unfortunately it seems not to have been updated in the last year, but the idea was worthwhile. From the website:-
This could be an idea that could be easily transplanted to Australia. The allegations that you make are somewhat more serious. In the UK the Fake Charities are paid to to tell the government what it wants to know – a bit like the WWF and Greenpeace providing policy advice to the UNIPCC in the form of research papers. The allegations you make here are to pay others to do their dirty work for them.
00
Yes, we’re sorry about that: the two of us that ran it became immensely busy in our real lives. We are looking at how best to revive it, probably using a wiki system…
DK
00
If I was responding to a piece like this in the UK I’d be too exasperated to comment and would just cut to the chase and say – VOTE UKIP.
UKIP hasn’t swallowed the AGW scam and is against the anti-democratic practices of the EU – 75% of UK laws are decided in Brussels by unelected bureaucrats that cannot be voted out.
Have you got an equivalent to UKIP in OZ?
00
I was going to click “Like” on the article. However, I do not like what you are reporting at all. It is one of those low-down things that normally leave a “bad taste in the mouth”. Today is an exception, as I am supping a strong English Ale. 🙂
00
Um, I think the “Like” on the article refers to the way it is written, rather than the subject matter. Very few people (and I don’t count trolls as people) “like” what Jo writes about, but somebody has to do it, to give the rest of us a focus for our opinions and ideas.
I would be interested to know what Ale you are drinking – I am partial to a drop myself, occasionally.
00
FIXED
MEMO to Tony Abbott: when you need to cut government spending, you know where to start. Not just with those grants but eliminate the Department of Climate Change.
00
If we have less wealth as a nation there is less opportunity for greed. The politics of envy.
00
.
O/T but figured others would like to know.
Access to Andrew Bolt is now behind a login – you have to register for a two month “free trial”.
00
I guess, he and a few other heraldsun bloggers were too popular for someones liking.
ABs read (not hit) rate was (as far as I can tell) about 3 times the circulation of the heraldsun.
1. The concept of moving a “blog” behind a paywall is rather strange. Paying for access to a newspaper is one thing, paying for access to a blog is another.
2. Me, I refuse to enable 3rd party cookies. They are not enabled in most browsers for good reasons.
3. I perceive this as another step in the slow death of the MSM as a news source (discussed many times on this blog).
4. If AB ends working for the SMH, do not be suprised.
00
.
Just signed up – from AB:
Right or wrong, it will kill his column.
00
MV
I note the payment only applies to his columns.
I think it was inevitable that this would occur to online content for the reasons AB writes about.
But I think the publishers have got the model wrong. They are still working from the way readers bought a paper to read all or most of it. I think the online reader approaches a “paper” in a different way –they only read parts or articles of direct interest and they read from a number of papers/sites on any given day –they will probably be from differnt parts of the globe. That is , the publishers have to re-educate themselves as to what the online readers are doing and adapt or die.
PS. The charges that the HS is proposing are stupid.
00
Ross. (Just to clear this up).
“I note the payment only applies to his columns.”
From Andrew’s blog.
Common misapprehensions: no, you are not being charged to read this blog. No, the $2.95 is not just for my columns, but for everything on the Herald Sun site, including on-line-only content.
00
The payment gives access to all herald sun comment
“As you can see below, you will now need to register to read my newspaper columns. For now it’s free, but eventually you’ll be asked to pay $2.95 a week to get all the Herald Sun articles on line, plus on-line only coverage. “
00
the payment would apply to the whole Herald-Sun access not just Bolt’s blog. and I see that he has acknowledged feedback that all New Limited newspapers including The Australian would be available. That’d be good for me as I have an iPad subscription for both the Herald-Sun and The Australian …..
00
Thanks for correcting me , guys. So on the payment basis they propose I think their charges are OK.
00
This happened on Fairfax’s Farm Online. We had to start to pay so many dropped out. Farm Online were getting a hammering from the Sceptics such as Ian Mott.After the shameful Carbon Dioxide Tax was passed, Farm Online became free again. It is still free.
00
I get free unhindered access to Bolt’s blog via The Daily Telegraph? Or is this a different blog to the Herald Sun?
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/
00
I herby confess that I did read ABs blog for the comments, not so much what he wrote.
WUWT more for Willis Eschenbach than Anthony Watts.
This site I read first and foremost for what Jo writes. Speedy, Rereke and too many others to mention are worth reading.
The point of this, is that what made blogs like ABs attractive was the unpaid contributions from readers. Hence my perception is that news ltd has decided to charge to read voluntary contributions. So yes, they need to do some work on their business model.
By contrast this site is worth a donation just for the articles posted by Jo. Rephrased there is no substitute for good journalism.
00
Why would anyone be suprised at this?
This is what happens when you have communists like the greens with any level of power. In fact this is a mild situation to what we can expect.
The whole carbon tax was an assault on the coal mining sector – a clear and blatant targeting based on nothing more than the communist command economy ideology.
After all, it worked so well for Cuba and the soviet union. Why on earth wouldn’t it work here in australia?
00
… and a thumbs down from the resident communist ignoramus.
I would call them the village idiot, but really, that would be degrading to village idiots.
00
What’s worse memoryvault is I’m registered and still get no access !!!
00
I think paying only entitles you to high quality informative content.
00
Right … so the media have two types of output – the free stuff – and the quality informative content. What a lot of extra work. And they must have people who are specially trained to dumb down the real news … Whoda thunk it!
00
no rereke I was just hypothesising why Aussieute’s payment was resulting in no content.
00
This post just adds to Donna L’s exposure of the IPCC’s selection of “the Top Scientists in the world” for their climate bible work. As long as your in the Global Warming Club it matters not what your background or education is, your on the panel. (I like the way that the world press has just ignored such information on the “Club”, suggests they are paid-up members).
Like all power driven psychopathic goupings in history they operate on the basis – Your either for us or against us, and if you are against us you are in deep shit.
However, our growing mob (assisted by the work that people like Jo put in – thanks mate) seems to have them on the back foot [Gleick’s actions] so we must be doing something right.
00
Sure,,Greenpeace and the boys take the grants and use them to destroy the coal industry which means no more tax income, so no more grants??? seems fundamentally stupid to me.
Just chatting, cheers J.C.
00
How much cognitive dissonance can you fit in one room?
Come one, come all to the ‘Tent of Sustainable Salvation’!
26 April 2012 Melbourne
Corporations, People & the Planet
A once in a lifetime opportunity to see Sigourney Weaver, Sir Bob Geldof, Dr David Suzuki and Prof L. Hunter Lovins in one day of keynote presentations, case studies and discussion exploring a sustainable future.
Catch the nearest fossil fuel burning jet to the far end of the planet & blaze a hole through the atmosphere to listen to hypocrites discuss sustainability like.. not flying…
AND, win a voyage to the Galapagos Islands to see first hand the environmental damage done by burning fossil fuels when flying, driving or turning the aircon on!
Corporations, People & the Planet will be run in conjunction with the United Nations Global Compact Cities Programme (UNGCCP) & RMIT University.
00
You need to understand that it is OK for celebrity environmentalists to fly everywhere.
This is because they weigh considerably less than most folk. Firstly they have little substance, and secondly, they are air-heads.
00
I’ve heard a few are light in the loafers too…
00
So which is worse?
That there are those, such as Weaver and Geldof whose careers are pretty much dead and gone, who are trying to remain relevant and in the public eye by posturing for this sort of thing.
OR
That there are people out there whose lives are so lacking in purpose and meaning that they will pay to, or otherwise go out of their way to, listen to them in the hopes of finding some.
00
.
Fat chance Jo.
Straight from the Liberal Party’s “Climate Change” Policy:
Listed headings for action – presumably through the (probably renamed) Department of Climate Change:
Action on Climate Change including the creation of a $2.55 billion (over the first four years) Emissions Reduction Fund,
Whale and Dolphin Protection through the establishment of a National Whale Stranding Action Plan
Action on Water Conservation including grants to community groups, schools or local government for projects
Establish a ‘Green Army’ – The Coalition will establish a 15,000-strong environmental workforce to tackle local and regional environmental priorities.
And so on and so on down through a few billion dollars worth of pork-barrelling to the Eco-Fascists, culminating in a billion plus for good old, reliable solar power.
http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/Environment%20Policy.ashx
But wait, there’s more. Vote for us and we’ll throw in a
set of steak knivesparental leave policy as well, forfree$4 billion.LABOR = Tweedle-Dee, LIBERAL = Tweedle-Dum.
00
Sadly MV, you are right. After nearly 60 years as a voter I realise that Australians are once more faced with the choice of voting for the political party they think will do least damage to the economy and the well-being of the public.
The only hope is that the public will see through the massive vote-buying spend-a-thon Labor will launch over the next eighteen months, the control-freak Greens will keep showing their real Green Agenda* until enough people wake up to it and that the CAGW scam will keep crumbling at the same rate as in the last few years.
Abbott and the Liberals may then grow another set of you-know-whats and return to his original assessment that the CAGW hypothesis was crap and act accordingly!
*http://green-agenda.com/
http://green-agenda.com/agenda21.html
00
.
Since the last election the “wets” have had the numbers, and therefore control of the Liberal Party. The ONLY reason they have not re-installed their own man – Malcolm Turnbull – to the leadership, is the perception that Abbott is more likely to win the election for them.
That will change when the time is right.
Please keep in mind that Abbott’s personal promise, “signed in blood”, to scrap the carbon tax / ETS, is exactly that – his PERSONAL promise. It is NOT, repeat NOT official Liberal Party policy, which is to spend pretty much the same amount – if not more – on their “Direct Action Plan”, their “Solar Towns Plan”, their “Tidal and Geothermal Towns Plan”, their “One Million Solar Roofs Plan”, their “Boosting Renewable Energies Plan” – in fact, sixteen such “plans”, all requiring their own bureaucracy, plus attendant QANGOS, GONGOS and BONGOS.
00
It really is depressing, isn’t it.
One, that the Australian public thinks that all this money wasting is a good thing.
Two, that the members of the Liberal party haven’t got enough backbone to stand up and say ‘NO’. No more climate action of any kind, given that every single example thus far has been a costly waste of time, effort and resources. No more solar, no more subsidies. No more ‘research funding’. Just a tax system that encourages innovation and new company formation.
I can see the sense in a maternity(or partenity) leave policy. I can also see the benefits of having large businesses subsidise the cost of maternity leave for small business. But the way they have gone about it is bad, and they just don’t bother to try and quantify the benefits for people to discuss. They just give the impression of shovelling money out the door.
00
With you on that Memoryvault ,When we vote for a Party ( Liberal, Labor , Nationals , Republicans , Sillyparty , Greens , Gofigure )we vote for a Party, We all love a party.
A party is a gathering of people who have been invited by a host for the purposes of socializing, conversation, or recreation.
The confusion is we think we are voting for a party.
Regardless of which party anyone votes for ,Its a vote for Government .
The Question is who is the Host.
00
I think the only way you could turn this around is to vote for a Senator that has voiced his opinion that AGW, Climate Change, Climate Susceptibility or whatever you want to call it is a load of Hog wash and needs to be voted against.
In the Senate this is possible but unfortunately the Major parties in OZ have a stranglehold on the House of Reps so a piece of Legislation could pass the House of Reps and could get squashed in the senate. I have been waiting for this to happen but unfortunately we have so many gutless pollies it won’t happen in my life time.
I intend to choose my Senator with great care at the next election and not stick with the party model. Whether this works out for the best is only an assumption but I live in hope 🙂
00
What the Liberal party’s policy is and what is Abbott’s thoughts on it are two different things. Did you see Malcolm Turnbull on Q & A last night? Perfect example of that.
Also Memory Vault, I don’t see what is your problem with protection of sea animals,water conservation on what is a traditionally dry country and developing group(s) to work on real environmental issues. What is wrong with that? I see a lot more hope in the Liberal party than the Labor Party or any other Party. If I look at other issues in the community I would much rather the Liberal Party policies on issues because they match what I think. I also don’t share such a negative view of the major political parties who will screw up the economy.
If you are stupid enough to think that there is a party who is going to meet your every demand and thought in Australian Politics then you really are kidding yourselves. I think the bashing of Politicians and parties that people like Memory Vault seem to enjoy in some respects gets really old.
00
Apologies Jo. This is a re-post of one I did late last night on the previous thread which many may have missed, but I feel is more appropriate here even if still slightly O/T.
To expand on my suggestion in the last paragraph, I do feel that with your increased status as best blog in the region and the talented bloggers you have, a permanent updating post exposing the costly bureaucratic nightmare that the unwieldiness and impracticality of the carbon dioxide tax has created, would be a winner.
We can continue to argue the pros and cons of CAGW as we have been doing but IMO that alone is not making the inroads we would wish. As well as exposing the foolishness behind the tax, ultimately people want to know what it’s going to cost us on all fronts, both individually and nationally.
I feel that your blog could become a beacon of truth on these matters, to which any people desperately seeking answers could and would come, and/or to where they could confidently be directed.
Re-post: The Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer has released the latest NGER information on some of Gillard’s ’500′ ‘derdy polluding’ companies.
I count a little over 420 listed, some only as business numbers, but there are other very interesting names there which expose the government lie that the “derdy polluders” are mainly mining and energy producers.
Perhaps Tonyfromoz and/or others with the necessary expertise might pull the list apart and categorise the unfortunates together with estimates of what carbon-dioxide tax they’re likely be paying on the figures given. As none of these figures would have been available to Treasury when they did their modelling, one wonders on what it was based!
Given the financial and implementation shambles this government has made of every other scheme it has started, many of them subsequently scrapped after widespread rorting, it’s odds on this will be the greatest bungling bureaucratic stuff-up yet.
You might even consider it worth having a permanent updating post as additional figures etc., become available. Concerned Australians are desperate for a place to come for reliable information and we sure as hell won’t get it from this duplicitous rabble of a Government!
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/national-greenhouse-energy-reporting/publication-of-data/nger-greenhouse-energy-information-2010-11.aspx
00
[…] A GONGO idea – a government funded job destruction program… […]
00
Firstly Greenpeace in NZ had its charitable status revoked http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/09/greenpeace-loses-charity-status-in-new-zealand/ so the same should be done here to Greenpeace.
Secondly, mightn’t the willful destruction of Australia’s economy fall into the category of treason of the economic kind?
Incidentally, in Australia causing harm to the Prime Minister under Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code, contained in the schedule of the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995 is considered treason.
Wonder where that would have left the tent em-bassadors has they gotten hold of Ms Gillard?
00
According to the Constitution the Prime Minister does not exist.
00
read this Patmore quote in a library book on Australian animals by Adrian Franklin (ABC’s The Collectors) and found it mentioned online here:
2006: The Humanity of Wilderness Photography?
by Adrian Franklin
The bushwalking, Green-voting social profile is in just a bare handful of theses and reports. Patmore described them as humanistic professionals–tertiary-educated, urban, relatively affluent and employed in those parts of the public sector not engaged in the provision of the production infrastructure (Patmore 2000. p. 244). They are clearly a political and cultural minority, since their values are out of kilter with both the working class and the commercial middle class…
http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-April-2006/EcoFranklin.html
and look who is on Q & A tonite. note he is the once humble Malcolm, while Abbott is Abbott.
12 March: ABC: Q & A:
Malcolm Turnbull
Malcolm Turnbull is the Opposition’s spokesman for communications but still casts a long shadow as the Opposition Leader who was replaced by Tony Abbott. Even though the coup that led to his demise took place in 2009, much political commentary about the Liberals assumes a continuing Turnbull-Abbott rivalry. Some of Malcolm’s public comments have angered Abbott supporters, who accuse Malcolm of implicitly seeking to undermine his successor…
Though frequently described as the richest man in Parliament and regarded by many as having a privileged background, Malcolm’s early years were spent in comparatively humble circumstances…
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/coming_up.htm
apart from wondering why the Liberals have kept Turnbull in the party, i have no doubt the Coalition is as deeply mired in the CAGW scam as Labor/Greens. u don’t have to believe me, u only have to read their policies. shame on them all.
00
I know this is utterly shameless of me, but now that Joanne has a new Post up, not many people will go back and look at earlier Posts, but this is important.
In the ‘Prius Post’, KeithH linked into the new NGER, (now with a tick over 400 names on it) listing the implications of this CO2 Tax. I have some preliminary things that might prove interesting, so rather than just hope people go back and read it at the Prius Post, the only way I can draw your attention to it is by linking back to that specific Comment here in this Post, so please, accept my apologies for doing it like this.
It would seem that there may be some unintended consequences in all of this, er, including some for some contributors at Joanne’s site here.
Tony.
00
It really is a deep, deep rabbit hole.
I don’t think the Labor party realises just how deep this particular hole goes, and how much of it’s finger pointing will end up directed at itself.
Talk about revenue neutral – the government will eat up billions just complying with it’s own legislation.
Anyone familiar with the work of financial auditors will know how complicated and tricky things can get, and that is with well recorded transactions. Trying to measure invisible gasses and account for them properly is, well, to put it mildly, impossible.
It’s like trying to calorie count in a pie eating competition done in the midst of a food fight.
I pity the poor idiots who signed up for ‘environmental audit’ type jobs in universities in the last 5 years, thinking they are going to be part of something big.
After a couple of years of this nonsense, a lot of centralised fudging, guessing and modelling will take the place of actual measuring. And then after that the whole thing will be abandoned as unworkable.
They’ll all be at the steps of parliament house within a couple of years, wondering what on earth happened to their industry, a la insulation installers.
00
brc says:
“Trying to measure invisible gasses and account for them properly is, well, to put it mildly, impossible. It’s like trying to calorie count in a pie eating competition done in the midst of a food fight.”
God I love this blog and it’s bloggers! The mind pictures you fellows create!
00
yes – the whole item is full of good reading.
00
Okay, and I even detest mentioning his damned name, but remember how Ross James mentioned that this CO2 Tax was just a cost placed on the pollution of a few Industrialists, and how Julia has mentioned those major polluters.
I wonder how they feel about just these 6 of many like entries now subject to this iniquitous Tax. I won’t detail their emissions listed there, but this is Scope 1 + Scope 2 and then multiplied by the $23 per Tonne, so this is the amount each of just these six will need to pay to the Government.
1. Brisbane City Council – $6.5 Million. (just one of numerous City Councils)
2. Hunter Water Corporation – $2.4 Million. (just one of a few Water Corporations)
3. New Zealand Milk (Australasia) – $8.8 Million. (just one of numerous Milk, Cheese, and Dairy Companies)
4. Monash University – $3.2 Million. (just one of numerous Universities)
5. The Uniting Church Of Australia – $2.3 Million (A Church no less)
6. Snowy Hydro – $12 Million (and this is a renewable power entity)
Six among over 400.
A few industrialists. Major Polluters, all of them, eh, Julia!
Wait till this starts to get out.
Tony.
00
Sorry, I also wanted to include an example from the Hospitals section, also with numerous hospitals and health organisations.
7. Central Northern Adelaide Health Service – $1.8 Million
Tony.
00
Tony,
So Lion Nathan (my brand of ale) gets charged, Toll Holdings transport the ale gets charged, and then Wesfarmers (BWS) gets charged – how much will simple items go up across the board. This is double and triple dipping out of our money jar.
Also in Feb just gone Greg Combet announced:
Reuters
CANBERRA – The federal government on Tuesday released rules governing $8.6 billion in free carbon permits to polluting industries, a key part of a package of sweeteners needed to win support for a nationwide price on carbon emissions from July.
So if you are Alcoa – and reduce your CO2 emmissions (by closing down a few smelters) they will be able to onsell the CO2 credits (given to them) and make a profit on it. The only way to reduce the CO2 emissions is to shut down!
Didn’t Mr. Combet say that all this was only going to cost the equivalent of one sausage sandwich per week – must be a big sausage!
00
Nothing new here see what Tarta industries did in Britain.
would be funny(NOT) if all the electricity generators all shut down and sold there permits.
00
The Uniting Church in Perth had a person from Al Gore’s trained presenters speak at their church services in Perth. The Carbon Tax hit hopefully will cause them to sober up.
00
Len,
The Government set up Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC) in May 2011 and were given $53.6 million over 4 years – so won’t be long before they get that back through CO2 tax – Saint Vincents Health alone will provide $20 million plus!
The recent press release announcing the extended start date of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission to 1 October 2012 will allow further consultation with the sector on the exposure draft of the ACNC Bill
Bet they won’t discuss the CO2 Tax.
Uniting Care has about 3,500 employees plus has 24,00 volunteers – won’t they be happy!
00
One I got a laugh out of was the CSIRO.So the CSIRO is one of the 500 “dirddy polutters”.They must be shut down immediately.:-)
At least the BoM was not there now that would be funny.:-)
00
11 March: Reuters: French aerospace firms want help on China -report
(Reporting by Lionel Laurent; Editing by Christian Plumb)
European plane-maker Airbus has teamed up with French flag-carrier Air France and supplier Safran to call for France’s help in resolving tensions with China over the European Union’s controversial carbon emissions tax, which they say is threatening orders, French daily Les Echos said.
The heads of all three companies have written a letter to French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, copied to European Commission head Jose-Manuel Barroso, warning that a refusal to negotiate is threatening $12 billion in Chinese orders and jobs, the newspaper said in an advance preview of its Monday edition.
“The (EU) measure is threatening more than a thousand jobs (at Airbus) and another thousand throughout the supply chain,” Les Echos quoted Airbus CEO Thomas Enders as saying.
Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space (EADS) publicly took on the EU’s controversial emissions rules earlier this month, exposing growing fears that China could make good on a threat to retaliate by cancelling plane orders.
Hong Kong Airlines was reported last week to be ready to scrap a $4 billion order for 10 A380s over the row over European plans to charge airlines for their emissions…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/11/airbus-airfrance-safran-idUSL5E8EB34Q20120311
11 March Financial Times: Delay EU carbon levy, says air industry
By Peter Marsh in London, Joshua Chaffin in Brussels and Simon Rabinovitch in Beijing
Airbus and six large European airlines said the plan to bring global airlines into the EU emissions trading scheme for carbon dioxide, which the industry has steadfastly opposed, is creating an “intolerable” threat to the European aviation industry by opening up the possibility of trade battles with China, the US and Russia…
According to Airbus and its airline partners in Europe, three state-owned Chinese airlines are refusing to finalise orders for 45 Airbus A330 long-haul jets worth up to $12bn…
Airbus – which employs more than 50,000 people across Europe – argues the proposals will damage competitiveness at a time of economic weakness, wants the EU to “put on hold” the extension of the scheme to airlines until a global plan for regulating carbon emissions by airlines can be agreed…
The industry executives also said they expect “suspensions, cancellations and punitive actions” by other countries to grow “as other important markets continue to oppose [the extension of] ETS”.
Airbus said half of the 2,000 jobs threatened by the stalled Chinese orders were located at its own plants in France, Germany, the UK and Spain, with the rest parts suppliers.
A spokesman for Connie Hedegaard, Europe’s climate commissioner, reiterated the bloc’s determination to press ahead with the scheme next year, but added the EU was “keen on exploring the different possibilities and flexibility that the legislation allows”…
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3362d176-6b9c-11e1-8337-00144feab49a.html
Hedegarrd’s latest comment would suggest the pressure is building. where is Qantas? where is the Coalition?
00
Thanks Tony. Modestly, great minds think alike (? ahem!) but our posts seem to have crossed in cyberspace. See my comment (or re-post) at 17.
Jo, I rest my case! What about making Tony’s substantial comment that he linked on the Prius thread the lead post on a new dedicated thread I suggested? Or perhaps you may have in mind doing a similar informative post as a thread and the one fom Tony can be posted as an example. What I envision is something the same as Anthony has been doing with updates on the Gleick thread at WUWT. There is a veritable mine of golden possibilities in the NGER information which are just begging to see light of day to expose this rotten, useless destructive tax on carbon dioxide for the deceptive nightmarish fraud it is!
00
OOPs! That should have been a reply to Tony at 20!
00
12 March: IATA DG: Europe must be sincere in ETS talks
Europe’s go-it-alone approach on its controversial airline carbon tax is driving discord where there needs to be harmony, IATA DG Tony Tyler told a Washington audience Thursday…
The European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) tax was described as “very, very bad law” and “plain wrong” by US regulators and airline CEOS attending the conference (ATW Daily News, March 9).
Tyler’s speech concurred with their view that Europe had made matters worse by implementing a unilateral tax without international discussion and negotiation. “Unfortunately, Europe has chosen a go-it-alone regional approach with the inclusion of international aviation in the EU ETS from this year (ATW Daily News, Feb. 23). This is driving discord at a time when we need harmony. Why? Because non-European states, the US included, see the intention to tax non-EU airlines for emissions over non-EU territory as an attack on their sovereignty,” Tyler said.
“No one wants a trade war. But the prospects are growing more likely.”…
“If I understand the international mood correctly, non-European states will be looking for some proof of Europe’s sincerity. That will mean doing more than simply reiterating its determination to implement its scheme even as it professes to support a negotiated agreement through the ICAO process,” he said.
http://atwonline.com/international-aviation-regulation/news/iata-dg-europe-must-be-sincere-ets-talks-0309
00
no name given for the female Climate Change Dept spokesperson, who obviously hasn’t got a clue about business and recommends applying for Govt (aka taxpayer) handouts!!!
12 March: Border Mail: KATE COUGHLAN: Carbon levy cost denied
THE Climate Change Department has denied claims the carbon tax will affect grape growers.
Last week Annapurna Estate owner Ezio Minutello said the carbon tax had played a part in his decision to pull out his vines and sell more than half his land.
The Tawonga South grape grower said natural disasters, the carbon tax and declining visitation all played a part in his decision.
But a spokeswoman for the department said Mr Minutello was mistaken about the impact the carbon tax would have on growers.
“The carbon price mechanism will only apply to around 500 large emitters of greenhouse gases — these are big industrial concerns like power stations, steel mills, aluminium smelters and coalmines,” she said…
“This means a winery like Annapurna Estate will not have any direct liability under the carbon price mechanism,” she said.
But she admitted winemakers may face cost increases due to the impact of the carbon tax on such things as electricity prices…
But Mr Minutello said that the flow-on effect would be much more serious.
“Even in the product we’re buying now they’re charging a carbon component on it,” he said.
“It’s more than 0.07, that’s for sure.
“The minister needs to get outside and actually see what’s going on.”
Mr Minutello said his suppliers would all pass on the cost of the carbon tax.
“Packaging, electricity, chemicals, you name it, it’s straight across the board,” he said.
“It is in absolutely everything, to me it’s just another form of GST.”
The Climate Change spokeswoman said to help reduce costs, winemakers could seek handouts under the federal government’s clean technology food and foundries investment program…
She also said the federal government’s carbon farming initiative allows farmers and land managers to earn extra revenue by selling carbon credits — if they store carbon on the land or reduce their emissions.
http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/carbon-levy-cost-denied/2484492.aspx
00
Not a bad way to retire. If I’m not going off half-cocked; wait for the carbon credits to be issued, then sell half the land and then the carbon credits. Pocket the profits. Take advantage of the high value in the Aussie dollar and move overseas and start up again away from the carbon tax.
00
??
12 March: The Australian: Graham Lloyd: Climate outpost of Cape Grim a breath of fresh air in carbon debate
The public interest is a far cry from the days in the early 1970s when a team of young CSIRO scientists towed a caravan to Cape Grim, a windy outpost on a hill straddling Bass Strait and the Southern Ocean in Tasmania, to establish what has arguably become the world’s most important weather station…
On Wednesday, the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO will release their updated climate summary based on a review of the latest climate change data from stations including Cape Grim…
It ensures the weather station receives the purest air possible after it has spent a week circulating and blending over the great Southern Ocean sink. Cape Grim’s readings provide the benchmark for measuring the level of carbon dioxide in the southern hemisphere’s atmosphere. A similar station in Hawaii does the same for the northern hemisphere but Cape Grim, Cleland says, can lay claim to the cleanest air in the world.
CSIRO chief research scientist Paul Fraser was one of the Cape Grim pioneers who would spend a week at a time in extreme conditions to take samples of the air. He says Australia’s involvement came about because of a spur-of-the-moment decision by the Australian delegation at the 1972 Stockholm Convention.
“Australia put its hand up and said it would build one and later tried to get out of it,” Fraser said…
Air from the top of the tower is fed into a series of instruments, including an unassuming electronic box in the centre of the main Cape Grim laboratory. The box has a screen, measuring about 23cm across, with a real-time read-out of the atmosphere’s CO2 reading.
This week it was 387.19 parts per million.
According to Cleland, the standard base line is 388ppm, which is up from 330ppm when the Cape Grim station was first opened, and 275 that had remained constant for 2000 years until the start of the industrial revolution…
And it is today helping to answer one of the great mysteries of climate change science: what makes clouds form.
Melita Keywood, senior research scientist, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, says clouds are one of the hardest things to simulate in climate models.
“There has always been a big discussion about how important aerosols are,” she says. “But only in the past four or five years have the aerosol teams and the cloud teams been working together to try to understand cloud-aerosol interactions, which is one of the biggest uncertainties.”…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-outpost-of-cape-grim-a-breath-of-fresh-air-in-carbon-debate/story-e6frg6xf-1226296512907
00
Pat,
Yes! I read this in the Australian today!
They are releasing a Climate Summary based on the latest Climate Change Data???
What is the LATEST CLIMATE CHANGE DATA???
What is CLIMATE SUMMARY???
And then this from the same article:
So what have they been simulating then? Matresses????? No wonder the clouds are getting lower according to their research????
00
I live in WA, msm are reporting we have had 8 heat waves, I Say BS , This has
been a mild summer.
00
Yep, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere.
That much I believe. It’s the bit about catastrophic climate change that remains to be proven.
So far the world’s just not doing what the CSIRO has projected. If they can’t adequately account for the effect of clouds… It’s hardly surprising.
I’m no Nobel prize winning expert but I would say perhaps cloud cover is kind of important. I’ve always noticed how much cooler it is on cloudy days, and how much warmer it is on cloudy nights. It’s almost like clouds form a layer of thermal insulation slowing heat transfer across them.
I would bet money that if the extent of cloud cover was to increase globally (day and night) our surface temperatures would be lower (certainly the extremes would be lower) Could whatever drives cloud formation play a large part in climate change?
Is this the CSIRO tacitly acknowledging that their previous models did not adequately consider cloud cover? And does this mean that when Gillard quoted the (2-5 degree) rise in temp over the next hundred years that she was quoting the output of a model that is fundamentally flawed? And does this mean that Australia has been subjected to the harshest form of carbon taxation for absolutely no gain for the climate?
00
Random Q for Peter Lang. Do we know if Tristan here is Tristan from Climate Spectator? Maybe it is just a case of getting used to a new style of writing but personally I used to find that Rob Giles presented a good argument (regardless of whether one agreed with particular conclusions) but this new guy – well I feel I’m reading some undergraduate environmentalist newsletter or something.
00
MattyB,
I asked Tristan (from here when Edis was appointed) is he was Tristan Edis of Climate Spectator – he said no!
But haven’t seen him since Tristan took over from Giles.
You are right on this – the articles are all very emotive – until Giles who had good content and seemed to back up some of his viewpoints. Tristans are virtually all based on “everybody is calling me a communist theme”???? I don’t read it anymore!
You may be right on this one!
00
Keep an eye on the value of the AUD. Its been dropping lately and, if it continues to drop, inflation will eventually follow. I realize you can’t say much about changes to the price of goods and services but at some point the International Financial Community will put two and two together — assuming they already haven’t.
00
John,
I hear you. Sounds like a great time to introduce a great big tax on everything eh!
I just about made a mess the other day when I saw a govt minister claim that when the Tax on Carbon based life forms takes effect in July that the people will swing towards supporting their government again – apparently in gratitude for the big tax.
There should be intelligence tests for leaders methinks.
00
Why? We already know that you can’t prove a negative.
00
LOL!
00
Unlikely to see much fall in the AUD.
The USA and EU are competitively devaluing their currencies. They know when it comes to currency wars, first movers capture most of the benefits.
The Australian RBA appears to be still trying to play to an honorable playbook, while the Fed and ECB have no such intentions.
It’s already working – the US export market is ticking up and signs of economic growth are visible, particularly in manufacturing and other export sectors.
Australia is getting smashed around the park from this blatant money printing, but doesn’t, so far, appear to be doing anything in response apart from bending over and taking it and insisting that everything is fine.
There won’t be any real change in the value of the AUD while the interest rates are high, and while the Fed continues to pummel the dollar.
00
Our dollar is being influenced by the Baltic Dry Index which is at 25 year lows. Which means, aussie iron and coal is in for some pain over the next couple of years. As long as the US and Eurozone keep printing money there’s no threat to our comparative currency advantage and our economy won’t start to buckle until we get some significant signals on mortgage foreclosure rates. That will be one of the first signs of our money supply, I mean economy(*cough), contracting.
00
Could be right but I think it has more to do with declining demand — BDI is a heading indicator. We’ll see how things stack up in July related to commodity pricing and corporate forecasting. I was just pointing out an AUD indicator that can’t be hidden from sight.
Recent Chart
http://blog.kimblechartingsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/audusdcrxtiredmar121.gif
00
s/b BDI is a leading indicator
00
The conservatives ought to run as an election policy that they are going to defund troublesome and treacherous NGOs.
00
.
See my post at # 16 for current Liberal Party policy in this area.
Anybody expecting “salvation” from this madness by the “conservatives”, is in for a whole lot of hurt come the next election.
00
enough with the quotes already. If there is a meaning to them, spell them out so we all know,
00
.
Gee Aye, if you don’t understand why there are “quotation”* marks around the words “salvation” and “conservatives” in the above sentence (or in this one for that matter), I suggest you give up trolling for a while and go and do a course in remedial English.
* – Actually, in the use implied here, they aren’t even quotation marks.
00
Personally I like MV’s use of these so-called “quotation marks” to make a point.
00
MattyB
And gave them 3/4 million dollars?
Yet you’re quite happy for Saint Vincents Health Australia to be taxed $5.5 million a year and increasing every year for providing essential services? You can’t see reason on this at all, regarding that a charity will be Tax Exempt except for CO2 TAX???? So how is all this money being used to reduce CO2 emmissions. Saint Vincents spend approximately $1,400 per patient (out & permanent) so this will result in approximately 3,850 plus patients being denied health care?
00
.
Actually Dave, MattB’s position on this is quite clear.
All those 3,850 sick people have to do is wear an extra jumper.
.
It’s MattB’s “Plan B” to counter any and all “unintended consequences” of his cult’s beliefs.
00
I think you should at least be able to claim back the cost of jumpers from your private health insurer. More honest approach than most of the alternative treatments they pay for now.
00
MV
Yeah – you’re right! Unfortunately!
He just equates each patient as expelling 60 tonnes CO2 PA (or $1,380 each) when you’re sick!
00
You know what?
If the government didn’t ‘control our money’, it wouldn’t be destroying our wealth, prosperity & happiness by giving it to conservation organisations to waste on attempting to destroy an industry that produces a product everyone, including conservation organisations, utilise in one way or another.
You should stop it Jo. You’re just giving me material to ‘hack’ at you with. I remind you this is a ‘public’ blog, so you’ll have to ban me if you don’t wanna ‘hear’ it.
00
if unneccessary “quotes” were financial and intellectual currency, you’d be rich in money and followers.
00
No, JMD – this is Jo Nova’s blog, and you are here only because you are tolerated – for the time being.
I would suggest you don’t push your luck or you’ll quite rightly find yourself in permanent moderation – like Ross James and Adam Smith.
00
JMD, ISTM that you are threatening to wield a limp carrot to attack a battle tank; thinking that the carrot is a light sabre.
Now that you’ve outlined your objective; that of attacking Jo and not the ideas she presents; your further efforts here are wasted.
00
OK JMD, where is the “hack”?
00
US economy is not exactly improving, tho the MSM do keep saying it is. real unemployment is nothing like the figure quoted, for example. plenty of websites explain why;
btw, this is a good racket:
9 March: Washington Post blog: Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog: Banks are using government loans to repay TARP
Posted by Suzy Khimm
The federal government seems to be on track in recouping the $414 billion in taxpayer money spent under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, with $120.7 billion now outstanding. But it turns out that over 130 bailed-out institutions paid back their TARP money simply by taking out loans from yet another government program, suggesting that the government–and taxpayers–actually haven’t gotten paid back yet.
A new report from the Government Accountability Office, flagged by the Roosevelt Institute’s Matt Stoeller, shows that 40 percent of the 341 institutions that have exited TARP’s biggest single initiative–the $205 billion Capital Purchase Program–simply refinanced their loans through a separate, $30 billion government program known as the Small Business Loan Fund (SBLF below)…
Some deemed it to be a flop for having failed to disperse most of its funds, so it was an obvious choice for qualifying TARP banks who still need government loans. But like the original TARP, the Small Business Loan Fund–dubbed “TARP 2.0” by its opponents–wasn’t paid for up front, so its ultimate fiscal impact will depend on if and when banks finally pay their loans back…
Update:
Treasury spokesman Matt Anderson e-mailed me to point out that the law creating the Small Business Lending Fund “specifically required that banks who participate in TARP could participate in SBLF,” adding that the banks capitalized through the fund also have “the same incentive to increase their lending to small businesses under the program.” This doesn’t change the fact that TARP is being repaid with other public funds, though it does show that the government was well prepared to provide alternate ways for firms to exit TARP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-government-has-recouped-tarp-money-by-accepting-other-government-funds/2012/03/09/gIQAHgdT1R_blog.html
a business-killing racket in Britain?
10 March: UK Telegraph: Harry Wilson and Richard Tyler: British banks hit by new mis-selling scandal
Britain’s leading banks are facing new allegations of mis-selling complex financial products to hundreds of small businesses despite them having little knowledge of what they were buying, a Sunday Telegraph investigation has revealedAll of the UK’s major banks, including Barclays and HSBC, as well as taxpayer-backed lenders Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland, are facing legal action which could lead to billions of pounds of damages for small and medium-sized businesses.
The businesses claim the banks profited at their expense from pushing them to take out highly complex interest rate derivatives…
James Dean, managing director at Legal Plus in Bolton, is handling dozens of claims on behalf of small firms. He says he has seen hotels, bars, boarding kennels, care homes, garden centres, farmers, publicans and small shop owners all caught.
“They are not sharp suited companies,” he said. “They are ordinary businesses.”…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9136132/British-banks-hit-by-new-mis-selling-scandal.html
00
inevitable:
12 March: Andrew Bolt Blog: Spare me the praise that damns
How depressing has Q&A been in just its first 10 minutes?…
UPDATE
Malcolm Turnbull claims alarmist Tim Flannery was “verballed” by those who say he predicted the end of dam-filling rain. Really? Here, Malcolm, is what Flannery actually said that he seem to wish away:
We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.
Don’t defend the indefensible, Malcolm.
I give up. I’m going to bed. A parade of the stupid, vain and vicious…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/spare_me_the_praise_that_damns/
00
Pat, ya gotta stop watching Q & A, ya just gotta. Do you wanna go blind? Or worse? Do you want us all to think you’re a masochist? That Turnbull is a regular guest should tell you all you need to know.
Sometimes I think he’s having it off with ….oh, never mind, I think you can guess.
00
mining is soooo bad for the climate:
11 March: UK Telegraph: Robert Mendick: Tony Blair expands his African empire into mineral-rich Guinea
The agreement coincides with a deal to explore new mining opportunities signed by the government of Guinea and a Middle East investment fund, which also employs Mr Blair as an adviser on business matters.
That contract potentially opens Mr Blair up to accusations of a conflict of interest — as an adviser to both parties.
Guinea is the fourth state in Africa — after Rwanda, Liberia and Sierra Leone — to invite Mr Blair and his entourage into government. The formal partnership between Guinea and Mr Blair’s charity, the African Governance Initiative (AGI), was sealed at the end of last year after six months of negotiation…
Mubadala Development Company, a £20 billion sovereign wealth fund set up by the Abu Dhabi government, signed the “collaboration agreement” with Guinea in November. It includes investing in new bauxite and iron ore mines. Mubadala is well known to Mr Blair. His private consultancy Tony Blair Associates has been a paid adviser to the company since 2009.
It has been speculated that Mr Blair, who has seven properties to run including a town house in London and a country estate in Buckinghamshire, earns around £1 million a year from Mubadala, although a source at the company suggested that sum was too high…
It is not known if Mr Blair was involved in Mubadala’s decision to move into Guinea. Another acquaintance of Mr Blair also has an interest in the country. Oleg Deripaska, oligarch and friend of Lord Mandelson, owns a bauxite mine and a smelting plant in Guinea through his company Rusal, the world’s largest producer of aluminium.
Rusal also held talks in November with Sierra Leone’s president, Ernest Bai Koroma, over a new bauxite mining project. Separately Mr Blair is an adviser to Mr Koroma.
***Mr Blair has previously benefited from Mr Deripaska’s largesse. Another of Mr Blair’s charities — an environmental campaign group called Breaking the Climate Deadlock — was given £300,000 by Mr Deripaska in 2009.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/9136126/Tony-Blair-expands-his-African-empire-into-mineral-rich-Guinea.html
00
Don’t forget how, when he was UK Premier, self-proclaimed “pretty straight kind of guy” Tony Blair also snuggled up with Mr Gadaffi back (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284132/Tony-Blair-special-adviser-dictator-Gaddafis-son.html) – but what else do we expect from our “Honourable and Right Honourable Gentlemen & Ladies. They have such poor salaries, expenses benefits and pensions that they have to do something to support themselves in their old age.
Best regard, Pete Ridley
00
*************
Attention Jo
************
Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a very comprehensive and original 6,600 word document outlining cogent reasons (based on traditional physics including quantum mechanics and radiative transfer theory) why carbon dioxide has no significant warming effect and almost certainly a net cooling effect.
The paper is only the sixth to gain acceptance by Principia Scientific International – an organisation with a very strict code requiring the use of traditional physics and other scientific disciplines. No less than six scientists have read it and endorsed it prior to publication. I am not a member of the Slayers, and nor are some of the above.
The paper was not commissioned: I wrote it in my own time and submitted it gratis for publication with nothing but altruistic motives. My climate websites carry no advertising and are fully self funded.
I am willing to send a confidential copy for your decision as to whether you wish to run what will be inevitably a top thread. I am limiting this to three blog sites as I do not have the time to respond on more than that. I am confident I can counter any contrary item and you would not be wise to attempt to write a rebuttal for I would rubbish such. This is the result of over 1,000 hours of specific study on the matter of radiation and climate, and it is accurate and ground-breaking.
If you are interested please write to me at [email protected] and i shall answer in about 7 hours from now and confirm that you will not release any detail on the paper prior to publication which is expected Tuesday morning (13th), UK time.
00
lol Principa Scientific International. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on!
00
gah… must..ignore…pseudoscience…
…must…stay..on…topic… 😀
00
GE, as major media owners, and the UN’s Figueres, get political:
11 March: Financial Times: Pilita Clark: GE rejects Republicans’ climate change doubts
The US industrial and financial conglomerate said it had long seen climate change as a valid concern after an internal evaluation of the scientific case in 2005.
“We found enough data there to have a company like GE respond and we have responded,” said Mark Vachon, head of the “ecomagination” sustainable business initiative GE launched in that year. He said revenues generated by operations in his portfolio now totalled $100bn and were growing at more than twice the rate of those in the rest of the company.
GE’s environmental strategy had also helped it shave $140m from its own energy bill and meant “we’re viewed as relevant in the world”, he said…
Separately, Christiana Figueres, the official who heads the Bonn-based UN secretariat that runs global climate negotiations, said the Republicans’ views posed a choice for US voters about whether they wanted to benefit from the global push towards new clean energy technologies some of their rivals had already embraced.
“Is the US electorate willing to allow the competitive edge on technology to go to China or to Europe, or would they prefer to be the leaders of technology? That is a question that they need to answer,” she said at a news conference in London on Friday…
Mr Romney and Mr Gingrich, along with many other Republicans, had previously supported both the scientific case for climate change and the need to address it, as did the party’s 2008 presidential candidate, John McCain.
Observers have attributed the party’s shift since the last election to a range of factors, including the rise of the anti-regulatory Tea Party and fears about unemployment. Others suggest the change is due to fossil fuel interests using so-called super PACs – the new generation of political action committees empowered by a 2010 Supreme Court ruling allowing businesses and unions to spend much more on political campaigns than previously permitted.
The Republicans’ stance puts them at odds with politicians from many other countries, especially in Europe, home of some of the world’s most ambitious climate legislation.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/85e8629e-6a20-11e1-b54f-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world/feed//product#axzz1orZmPEnV
FT means London is the Carbon Trading centre of the Universe:
City of London: Carbon Trading and Carbon Offsetting- A Beginners Guide
To buy permits customers need to go to a broker. The world centre for this
type of trading is the City of London, and the Carbon Markets are one of the
City’s fastest growing areas of business. As other countries set up their own
trading schemes this market is likely to become the largest commodities
market in the world.
The Price of Carbon
Obviously for trading to be effective, the price of carbon has to be sufficiently
high. Unfortunately, during the first period of the EUETS, countries were less
than frank regarding their emissions, and a s a result their was over allocation
of EUAs. As a result the price of carbon crashed. In the second period, allocation has been tightened up, and the price of carbon has risen
substantially, thus making the scheme far more effective…
Why is the City of London Corporation an Expert in this Area?
The City of London Corporation, the body which looks after the square mile,
was instrumental in founding the Carbon Markets. It conducted the research
which spotted the opportunity in 1999, and lobbied the government to set up
the UKETS, which established the registers and expertise that enabled the
City to become the world centre for Carbon Finance.
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4F6F3D35-93BF-4CDD-8C13-7B73FDD57831/0/SUS_carbontradingguide.pdf
the usual hypocrisy:
Wikipedia: General Electric
In December 2011, the non-partisan organization Public Campaign criticized General Electric for spending $84.35 million on lobbying and not paying any taxes during 2008-2010, instead getting $4.7 billion in tax rebates, despite making a profit of $10.4 billion, laying off 4,168 workers since 2008, and increasing executive pay by 27% to $75.9 million in 2010 for the top 5 executives…
GE has also been implicated in the creation of toxic waste. According to EPA documents, only the United States Government, Honeywell, and Chevron Corporation are responsible for producing more Superfund toxic waste sites…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric
00
http://openeye.99k.org/The%20Crown.html
00
Sorry for the gross OT Jo, but this might interest you. Lord James of Blackheath evidence of $15T theft. Yes, that’s T. Here’s that hansard link in case YouTube shuts this down when it goes viral.
Hello, MSM? Hello…
00
Perhaps this has gone around already:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/03/10/another-eu-greenfail-as-poland-vetoes-carbon-targets/
Dead, no.
Dying yes.
Do we keep sticking it with needles? Hell yes!!
00
Bluescope has given the Port Kembla steelworks 20 months to return to profitability. We wont make it with an over valued dollar and a carbon dioxide tax. Its a state of the art technology integrated steel works. It produces 90% of our steel. Employs over 5,000 men and women. The employment multiplier is another ten thousand men and women. Our over valued Australian dollar created largely by the carry trade (no not coal and iron ore prices – they slumped this quarter) is killing steel industry exports against the undervalued Chinese currency. Chinese steel mills are running at 70% cpacity. O and their carbon dioxide tax is the equivalent of $1.00 a tonne. Ours is $23. Bluescope will make a killing with the closure of the Australian steel industry by selling the carbon credits. Thats what Tata Steel did in the UK. The ALP would rather kiss the Greens arses than save one Australian job. This is an economic train wreck just about to happen. The ALP should hang their heads in shame. As for the Greens they are shameless.
00
[…] Gov’t funded destruction of industry: For pure, circular destruction of wealth, happiness and prosperity, it doesn’t get much better than this. Keep reading → […]
00
[…] A GONGO idea – a government funded job destruction program… […]
00
I see that Doug Cotton is pushing his pseudo-scientific article wherever and whenever he can but shies away from trying to get it published in a proper scientific journal where it will be reviewed by scientists who know what they are talking about. Instead he has had to resort to having his article published by the nondescript )then changed to “insignificant”) publishing company Principia Scientific International.
Anyone interested can find out more about this on Professor Judith Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread (judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-184339).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
00
Others (excluding Ridley):
You may wish to start here http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf
Kindly read the paper and quote Section or FAQ numbers (for the benefit of others) if you have any enquiries.
I do have a dedicated thread on tallbloke’s talkshop where I would prefer to handle genuine enquiries, but I don’t respond to any who have merely assumed what I might have said without reading the paper. I trust you consider that reasonable. Comments such as Pete Ridley’s will be ignored and deletion requested.
If he wishes to rebut my paper he is welcome to do so with any peer-reviewed paper of his own. Comments on blogs rebut nothing.
.
00
Doug says “You may wish to start here .. ” and links to an article by none other than “ .. The PSI frontman .. ” John O’Sullivan, . In my opinion Doug should have taken the opportunity to have a careful read of all of the comments on Professor Judith Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers) before getting involved with John and his publishing company Principia Scientific International.
Doug first commented there on 30th Jan. and the next day I drew his attention to the fact that some of the “Slayers” had dissociated themselves from the group and their publishing company (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-164480). In Doug’s case the most significant one was Professor Claes Johnson because Doug has simply accepted Professor Johnson’s hypothesis as the basis for his own arguments. As I pointed out to Doug on 1st Feb. QUOTE: .. Although we have no disagreement about Professor Claes Johnson’s status as a mathematician you appear to have missed his comment here on 15th October “ .. I am not a member of any group subject to group thinking, in particular not the slayers group .. ” . UNQUOTE (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-122522).
As I said in my previous comment, anyone interested can find out more about this on Professor Judith Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread. I repeat what I suggested to Doug in my comment of 13th March “ .. If you find that there is too much to take in from the full complement of comments then focus on those of Andrew Skolnick and me, but you really should also read the responses from the few “Slayers” and their (one-time?) supporters who joined in, such as John O’Sullivan, LLB, BA Hons, PGCE; Ken Coffman, Professors Joseph Reynen and Claes Johnson .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-184339).
Doug, especially for you “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.” (http://kingjbible.com/jeremiah/5.htm Verse 21).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
00
To the moderator. If you decide to delete any of my comments please would you give an indication of what in them you find objectionable so that I can make appropriate changes that satisfy the blog’s “rules of engagement”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
[We do not delete posts unless they are defamatory, excessively rude, off topic, etc..] ED
00
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/a-gongo-idea-a-government-funded-job-destruction-program/#more-2073… […]
00
.
Ridley seems to make an issue of everything except actual physics. I am not really interested in who considers themselves a ‘Slayer’ and who doesn’t. I see that group as a group of authors of the book, most of whom are now members of the fast growing Principia Scientific International whose membership is approaching 40 and of which I am proud to be a relatively new member.
Prof Claes Johnson was one of four reviewers of my paper prior to publication, and he indicated that I was one of only a few who really understood his own paper.
Yes by all means read the thread on Judith Curry and also Roy Spencer’s one on the Slayers as well. I have been more attentive to those threads.
Of course you’ll find Ridley everywhere in his relentless attempts to support the AGW hoax in which he must have a personal vested interest, I suspect.
Jeff Condon made a real mess of his attempt to rebut my paper. It seems he was so embarrassed that all he could do was delete the post and ban me from his site.
My response (linked below) could apply equally to our friend Ridley. So here is a screen capture of what he deleted within a few minutes …
http://climate-change-theory.com/response.jpg
.
00
At the moderator’s suggestion I have posted a detailed response to Doug(las Jeffrey) Cotton’s comment on “The Skeptic’s Case” thread (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/#comment-1027662). His pseudo-science is taking a pounding over there just as it is over at Roger (Tallbloke) Tattersall’s blog (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/).
In true “Slayer” style Dougy keeps his head firmly where the sun don’t shine. At least there he runs no risk of his head absorbing any of that e/m energy, converting it to molecular kinetic energy and frying his grey matter – but he’d deny that happens anyway, just like he denies that ice absorbs e/m energy in a microwave oven.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
00