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

micropace


GoldNerds

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



There go those gravy trains in Queensland & Victoria

Australia is stepping back from the cliff

We shouldn’t underestimate shift that has just taken place. The psychology of Australian politics moved as the large swinging center was revealed. Not only was the Queensland election worse for Labor than anyone predicted, the message was clear, voters rejected the lies, and rejected the carbon tax. The smear campaign by the Labor leader (Bligh) did more harm to her than it did to her target. Finally, the Hype-&-Spin Machine ran off the rails.

This is real progress. Today both Queensland and Victoria are peeling back the warmist bureaucracy. I’m happy.

The new premier of Queensland Campbell Newman, is scrapping many state carbon reduction schemes. Who knew that the head of Queensland’s Office of Climate Change was none other than Mr Withers, husband of former Premier Anna Bligh? Who said the Labor Party nowadays is just about government money for supporters and mates?

Campbell Newman has said he won’t sack Withers. Instead he wants him to unwind all the programs he put in place. Newman is keeping the solar subsidies for household rooftops, but everything else is being dumped.

The showpiece of the Gillard government’s $1.5 billion Solar Flagships Program is now in jeopardy, after Mr Newman yesterday pulled the plug on $75 million in state funding pledged for the $1.2bn Solar Dawn solar thermal project near Chinchilla, west of Brisbane. Mr Newman yesterday declared his LNP government would axe seven other green schemes, on the grounds the carbon tax would make them redundant.

Mr Newman announced the closure of the $430m Queensland Climate Change Fund, which provides $30m a year for climate change initiatives, and the $50m Renewable Energy Fund, which supports the Geothermal Centre of Excellence.

The $50m Smart Energy Savings Program, which helps businesses improve energy efficiency, will be axed, along with the Waste Avoidance and Resource Efficiency Fund, the Local Government Sustainable Future Fund and Solar Initiatives Package. The Future Growth Fund – set up in 2006 with the net proceeds from the sale of state-owned energy corporations – will be axed. It had put $405m towards transport and water infrastructure, clean-coal technology and climate change projects last financial year. The LNP will retain the solar feed-in tariff, which subsidises households that generate solar power.

At the same time, the Victorian premier has stated that he’s slashing the state’s commitment to reduce carbon by 20% by 2020.

The Victorian Government is under attack for scrapping the previous Labor government’s carbon emission reduction target of 20 per cent and replacing it with one that looks to reduce greenhouse gases by just 5 per cent.

The Baillieu government says sticking to the 5 per cent target set by the Federal Government will save Victorians $2 billion. But the renewable energy sector says it will cost jobs at a time when Victoria can least afford to lose them.

When will we teach the broken window fallacy at school? Decades after Hayek make it clear, most commentators still don’t get it. Sure the renewable energy sector will lose jobs when it’s not propped up by the forced payments from the Victorian Government, but if there is $2 billion dollars out there to redistribute, there is exactly the same funds available for more useful jobs — jobs the people of Victoria would rather got done.

Don’t you love it, when a politician promises something useful and does it in his first week in office? Go Campbell!

 

Andrew Bolt has an impressive list of programs the next Federal Government could axe. Not to mention half the ABC.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (94 votes cast)
There go those gravy trains in Queensland & Victoria, 9.4 out of 10 based on 94 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/72ckdos

93 comments to There go those gravy trains in Queensland & Victoria

  • #
  • #
    pattoh

    COAG will be interesting.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gnome

    Here was me thinking those anguished howls I could hear were someone’s dog expressing discontent.

    Now it’s time for NSW to step up to the plate.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ally E.

      Yes! What is happening in NSW? C’mon NSW, do something or I, for one, am looking to moving to Queensland!


      Report this

      00

      • #

        I suggest you get a move on.

        The expected cooling of temperatures will mean more and more people will look at moving north to sunny Queensland, just like masses of them did in the 70s and early 80s.

        And if Newman fixes the economy, there’ll be a rush to the border.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Alex

    The following is a list of socialist projects given beautiful titles:

    Solar Flagships Program
    Geothermal Centre of Excellence
    Smart Energy Savings Program
    Waste Avoidance and Resource Efficiency Fund
    Solar Initiatives Package

    which all remind me of beautiful titles that socialists elsewhere have given to their projects such as:
    People’s Democratic Republic of Korea (The worst dictatorship ever)

    They’re all the same really, only the level of evilness is variant.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      J Knowles

      While it is good to see the waste being reined-in I see sense in funding University engineering depts to research geothermal and solar. The era of cheap energy is gradually fading so we need to set our bright young minds to work on new solutions and energy efficiencies but creating a Waste Avoidance and Resource Efficiency Fund sounds like an excuse to waste resources and be inefficient but it probably allowed some ‘greens’ a tick of approval and a warm after-glow.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Peter Lang

        J Knowles,

        I don’t. I think non-hydro renewable energy is a mssive waste of money. It always has been and always will be. It can never be made economic, IMO. The physics do not allow it.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          J Knowles

          When car fuel rises from $1.48 to $2 a litre or electricity reaches 30¢ AU per kWHr, ‘economic’ takes on a different meaning. I’m saying that most alternatives are expensive now but need to be researched & developed while we have the funds and facilities.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            brc

            The only reason petrol is more expensive now than 30 years ago is because of the taxes on it.

            The moment petrol gets too expensive to run cars on, electric cars will come into their own. There is no need to subsidise them now.

            Taxing people for horse dung would have meant that only the rich had horses. It wouldn’t have made the car appear any faster. Instead you would have had large, well-funded government departments trying to breed a shitless horse.

            Here in Australia there is centuries worth of coal and gas to use. Centuries. And that doesn’t count all the uranium. Just as someone in 1812 didn’t attempt to solve the problems of 2012, it’s futile and counterproductive to waste human capital on trying to solve the problems of 2212.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Stephen Brown

            Here in England a litre of petrol is £1.40 minimum. That’s $2.14 Australian dollars. Per litre!
            More than half the cost of that petrol is direct taxation.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Dave N

          “The physics do not allow it”

          Where might one find information that supports this notion? I ask out of curiosity, and in case I need to rebut some alarmist acquaintances.

          I have for years held out hope that someone might find solutions to overcome their inefficiencies, however physical impossibilities put quite a dampener on that hope.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            rukidding

            Maybe this might help you Dave.
            Not so much the Physics of renewable energy but the Physics of the Earth.

            I would be interested in why these people maybe wrong.
            If they are not then it is goodbye greenhouse effect.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Peter Lang

            Dave,

            In case you are asking a serious question, I’ll answer. The energy source for renewable energy generators, like wind and solar has very low energy density. So they need, for example, around ten times as much material (e.g. steel and concrete) to produce the same amount of electricity. If you try to add energy storage to make these types of generators to provide 24/7/365 power to meet demand (on demand), then the amount of material required increases even further.

            For comparison, uranium when used in Gen III nuclear plants has energy density about 20,000 times greater than coal (think one ship of uranium caries as much energy when converted to electricity as 20,000 ships of coal). Can you see the issue? In a gen IV reactor the conversion is potentially 200,000:1.

            There is a lot more to it than that, but I’ll wait to see if your question was genuine or rhetorical.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Alex

        Peter, there is absolutely no truth, but just propaganda and lies, that, as you wrote: “The era of cheap energy is gradually fading”. The truth is that, quoting Forbes: “The world is awash in energy” and current knowledge says that Canada, USA have more reserves than the whole of the middle east. Gas deposits are enormous, China will become self-sufficient in natural (fracked) gas as would many other countries around the world. Israel and Greece have enormous gas reserves as recently discovered.
        Only the Mainstream Lairs, I mean Mainstream Media are not tellung you. May I recommend you that you carry out some simple research on the current global energy reserves. Also, if you had to take a look at a world atlas and pin point the dots from where we are ectracting oil and gas, you will realise that we are just pin-pricking the earth, we just have scratched the surface. Maybe you believe in the Peak Oil theory.
        The truth is that of all the daimonds, opals, nobel metals and other ores that we have been extracting for millenia, we never eached their peak. We never hear of peak gold, peak daimonds, peak iron, copper, alumnum, or whatever.
        Peak oil is just a scam.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Alex

          CORRECTION: THIS POST WAS IN REPLY TO J. Knowles not Peter Lang. Apologies.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          J Knowles

          I’m just stirring you up to break the echo-chamber here.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          J Knowles

          We’re straying O/T but Alan Knowles wrote a paper in the late 80s on “Energy Requirements for the 21st C” which pointed out that

          “The world is awash in energy”

          but that the best oil and coal had already been extracted so it would gradually increase in cost. He’d just spent 40 years on R & D of the first nuclear power station and subsequent designs and he reckoned that even if we fully developed all the nuclear options he’d been investigating, by 2050 the increasing world population would be putting extreme pressure on energy supply.
          In his 90ieth year he still holds to the basic premise of his paper but sadly he’s not physically up to blogging.

          We’re okay in 2012 but in 40 years it will be a different situation.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Alex

            J Knowles
            You wrote:”………..but in 40 years it will be a different situation”.
            You know what? They’ve been saying it each decaded for the last 60 years. Yaaaawn.

            We were supposed to have run out of oil by 1960 then 1980. or was it 1970? Then 1990, then 2010, now 2052 (2012+40=2052). Do you realise that the horizon is getting farther and farther away?

            As some wit had said, the stone age did not end becasue they ran out of stones but because they discovered metal.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Modern extraction of oil started in 1859.
            The first claim I can find about running out of oil soon is 1863, but that is apparently a quote from an earlier claim.

            In 1910 the US Government reserved an oil discovery from development as future reserves for the US Navy; the Teapot Dome find. (Its subsequent development and the corruption involved led to the Teapot Dome scandal). The US Navy didn’t go short of oil though.

            In 1947 the US Senate issued their report saying that oil would run out in 20 years.
            See subsequent claims in the 1960′s, 1970′s, 1980′s, 1990′s, 2000′s etc.
            We now have MORE known reserves, both in volume and in years of use at current rate, than at anytime in the past 153 years.

            As for the “rising” cost I suggest you calculate the current price in 1971 dollars term, when oil was “absurdly cheap”.. I think you will find that inflation is the major cause of the change.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        memoryvault

        I see sense in funding University engineering depts to research geothermal

        The engineering of geothermal is well researched and understood, since it is only the application of low pressure steam turbines, something we have been doing successfully for around a hundred years.

        The geology of geothermal – as envisioned here in Australia – is practically non-existent and is the chief reason Geodynamics have failed out at Innamincka. Basically we have been applying the known geology of oil exploration and extraction, plus a few tricks learned from gas fracking, and hoping that they would apply to, and work for, hot rock fracturing.

        They don’t and they didn’t.

        Instead a couple of hundred metres of a locally important road dropped several metres into the ground, to the chagrin of the local population and the shire council. And three years down the track we still don’t really know how, or why.

        I point out this distinction simply to highlight the fallacy of governments investing in ANY such field. Grant monies would almost certainly go to engineering concerns promising almost immediate, tangible results (power generation), rather than to the area it was actually needed – geology – where there would be no measurable benefit (if any) for maybe twenty years.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          NigeW

          Actually, there is sufficient knowledge of both the engineering and geology. The elephant in this room , however, is the reality of drilling and resource extraction ( in this case steam, instead of oil or gas)

          The following is my spotty recollection and rehash of a post from a professional driller over at The Oil Drum , so if any such professionals read this, please feel free to correct.

          To extract steam from hot rocks, first you need to drill ( and case, more expense) a hole, down into to the zone of interest. Actually, you need 2, one for water in, one for steam out…more cost. Then you need to join the 2, which in the case of granite, rather than coal, means EXPLOSIVE fracking. This produces the cracks along which your water can propagate, and turn into steam.

          However, you need to keep these cracks open somehow, standard technique is sand ( more expense, the elephant gets bigger). Which is all good, but water is one of the best solvents going, so as it propagates, it dissolves some of the minerals down there, which then get deposited when the water becomes steam, thus clogging up your system.

          The answer to which, is to drill another hole, and start again…


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Apoxonbothyourhouses

      Did Mr. Knowles look into thorium power before saying that the era of cheap power was over? Though abandoned by the USA years ago (rumoured pressure from big oil) it has been taken up by China and India. Might even keep some of the rational greens happy as it potentially offers power at nuclear prices but critically bombs cannot be made from the fuel. How about an article on the subject Jo?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        J Knowles

        Alan K’s preferred reactor design,(after reviewing many different ideas for the UKAEA) was a very high temp, helium cooled, graphite moderated, modular unit, running on Thorium. The Germans had one in the research phase but it was closed down under pressure from the big ‘green’ movement there. The S Africans ran out of funding for the Pebble-bed program but the Wonkypedia reckons the Chinese are still working on it.
        UK has plenty of Thorium so this design was high on the list but it is definitely not cheap. R & D of new reactors is very expensive. Decommissioning and waste disposal also have to be factored-in.
        The energy issue is fairly complex and I’d welcome a Jo post though I can understand her reluctance given her dislike for nuclear.
        For Australia, with it’s huge LPG and coal deposits and small domestic consumption, nuclear would be pointless.
        Mr Newman probably realises that the Qld ‘green’ initiatives are similarly uneconomic.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Roger Colclough

      Fortunately Stephen You don’t have to drive as far in the UK to fall off the edge.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Michael

    You might have missed this story where Mr Mewman advises the PM That “Mr Newman again raised concerns about whether the federal tax was constitutional.

    “You cannot place a tax on the states – there is an argument that putting a tax on the electricity generators in Queensland is a tax on the Queensland state government,” he said.

    Personally I think that talking to her is a waste of time. This is a matter for the High Court to decide. Either section 114 of the Constitution applies or it doesn’t. If Clive Palmer takes this to the courts as he’d said he’d do,Campbell Newman could easily support Clive Palmer and bring up his case as well.

    Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/pm-promises-to-listen-as-newman-warns-20120327-1vw0w.html#ixzz1qPUza2gb


    Report this

    00

    • #
      brc

      I’m sure that Clive and Campbell decided this course of action long ago. Not that Clive is running the show, but I’m guessing he’s willing to bankroll some lawyers. He seems to love spending money on lawyers.

      You can’t take a high court challenge without at least first telling people that you will, in case they blink first.

      I’m guessing it will be a 4-state challenge to the high court. Interesting times ahead, although they need to get cracking.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Grumpy Old Man

    “Keeping the solar subsidies for rooftops”. So the comparatively well-off middle classes get a subsidy paid out of taxes and power bills of the less well-off.
    Probably good, cynical opportunistic politics but it still stinks to high heaven, and it’s still legitimising CAGW climastrology


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      Does “Keeping the solar subsidies for rooftops” apply to the PVs alled or to new ones.

      If it is to existing ones, I can see that the contracts should be honoured. NSW premier got into strife with hois own supporters by trying to back track on existing contracts.

      However, I agree subsidies should be stopped for nes PV installations as soon as possible (but without breaking an election promise).


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Alex

      Pointman, or cliMYTHology…..


      Report this

      00

    • #
      bobl

      Grumpy,

      They have to do this, the Government has a contract with the people who bought Solar under this scheme. NSW tried to cut back this rebate and came unstuck in that the contracts allow purchasers of solar energy to claim compensation for the withdrawal of the scheme. The QLD Government learned from this experience and are smart enough not to repeat the folly of the NSW government. This in itself is quite a promising sign, a government that learns from the mistakes of itself, and others


      Report this

      00

    • #
      brc

      I would say it is three-pronged political expediency.

      1. It’s probably more expensive to wind back the contracts than to just keep paying them out and hope people lose interest as the years go by. Not increasing the FIT will mean that inflation will eat it away, and it’s doubtful the panels will last the 25 years they are supposed to.
      2. A lot of LNP voters probably got sucked into the scam, and don’t want to (a) have their money yanked, and (b) be made to look like fools for believing in it.
      3. A lot of small businesses have been created around solar. While I detest everything about subsidised solar, it’s very unfair to the small businesses who are making a living out of installations at the moment.

      Better to signal the long-term decline of the industry by letting it wither on the vine, rather than go through and cut it off at the knees.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Can Do Campbell! Starve the beast!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This is most welcome news indeed. I care about the environment, yet do so with a rational mind and logical approach – throwing good money after expensive bad ideas is never going to end with anything worth keeping. Mr Newman would get my vote!

    Now only of those in power in NSW would take a leaf out the Queensland book and trim the Green Fat with equal gusto!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    BTW, this may be a bit of a shock to your American readers, that a couple of days after the election the new government is in place and already kicking things around. Not even time for the outgoing lot to remove the “N” keys from the computers!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Brett, You are right about that! It seems there must be moving crews standing by when the polling ends.

      I kind of like it. Keeps the shredders running into late hours……..


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Speedy

    Evening all

    Mr Newman yesterday declared his LNP government would axe seven other green schemes, on the grounds the carbon tax would make them redundant.

    Which implies that they serve some useful purpose in the first place.

    Perhaps Mr Newman would be convinced if Julia Gillard would explain exactly what the carbon tax is supposed to achieve. Ex Gratia (e.g.)

    How much will a carbon tax affect global warming?
    What is the accuracy of this prediction?
    Why won’t she face open debate on this tax?
    Why did she lie and continues to lie about it?

    Show us the truth, Julia, and Mr. Newman might show you the money.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Defunding Green. These are great days. What would have been the unthinkable a few years ago, is now greeted with open arms. Let’s hope he redirects the money saved into creating real jobs.

    Pointman


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Bruce

    But Campbell may be no sceptic. He just doesn’t want to pay twice.

    Following the first post-election LNP party room meeting today, Mr Newman said the cost of the looming carbon tax would affect the state economy and public sector, and argued Queensland would be “paying twice” if the green programs were not dumped.
    But the Premier told reporters the programs would not be axed if the federal government walked away from the carbon pricing scheme.
    “If there wasn’t a federal carbon tax coming in we would have direct action programs. If the federal government were to say in three months’ time this has all been a terrible idea … then we wouldn’t be winding the programs down,” he said following his first post-election party room meeting.
    “The reason we’re winding these programs down is because we’re paying twice.”
    Asked about the course of action the LNP government would take if federal Coalition leader Tony Abbott won the 2013 election and scrapped the carbon tax as promised, Mr Newman said he would support direct-action climate programs.
    “The point is we do favour direct action, that’s what I did as lord mayor of Brisbane. Totally hypothetically that’s what we would do if there wasn’t a carbon tax,” he said.
    The comments come amid doubts over the future of the Solar Dawn project, near Chinchilla, to which the state government had a conditional contract to provide $75 million, while the federal government was to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more.
    Federal Energy and Resources Minister Martin Ferguson has warned that the federal government would “consider its own position” if the new LNP government walked away from the contract.
    At his media conference at Queensland Parliament today, Mr Newman said he hoped the Chinchilla solar project continued.
    He said the LNP would examine any contractual commitments entered into by the previous government and would not “in some silly way” scrap the contract if the cost would outweigh the saving.
    “If we can exit this project and save $75 million we will,” he said.

    Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/state-election-2012/state-cant-do-climate-doubleact-newman-20120328-1vy5r.html#ixzz1qPOhJwHr


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      Bruce,

      “Asked about the course of action the LNP government would take if federal Coalition leader Tony Abbott won the 2013 election and scrapped the carbon tax as promised, Mr Newman said he would support direct-action climate programs.”

      I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem if the direct action policies are economically irrational.

      However, there is a lot of economically rational policies that should be implemented. First, we need to remove all the mass of conflicting regulations that have been imposed on our energy industry by bad direct actions over the past 50 years. The most obvious ones are all the subsidies, mandated renewable energy targets, tax breaks, feed in tariffs and many more hidden distortions. And, of course, banning nuclear energy.

      And even if the bans were lifted nuclear would still be far too expensive to be competitive in Australia while a mass of other impediments are in place. All these impediments need to be removed. Doing so would be economically rational because it would be direct action to remove past bad direct actions.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Peter Lang, Australia has over 45% of the world’s known uranium reserves. Why would it be “too expensive to be competitive” in Australia?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          because of all the other impediments in place.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Peter Lang

          Truthseeker,

          The fuel cost is a nuclear power plant is about 3% to 5% of the cost of electricity. Even if you double or halve the cost of nuclear fule it makes almost no difference to the cost of electricity from a nuclear power plant.

          Most of the cost of electricity from a nuclear power plant comes from the capital cost, and the return on investment that must be repaid to the investors. It is inflatedf by the investor risk premium because of the finanacila risks involved (due to Greeenpeace et al).

          Australian construction costs are about twice as much as in the USA and four times as much as in Korea.

          Therefore, one of the most important direct actions we need is to remove the investor risk premium and the construction risk premium.

          Australia’s Industrial Relations laws and regulations are a major contributor to the costs of construction. The Desalination plants, for example, cost twice what they should have thanks to the construction unions ability to hold the governments to ransome when there was a perceived risk of running out of water.

          Repeal of Athe ‘Fair Work Australia’ act is an example of a “direct action” the next governemtn do.

          This is an example of what I mean by direct action.

          I’d urge everyone to support “direct Action” for economically rational polices.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    rukidding

    Maybe Mr Newman might like to hold a royal commission into the desalination plant to see how many lives lost in the Queensland floods might have been saved had the money been spent on flood mitigation instead of drought mitigation.
    Let the desalination plant be a lesson to all those people who subscribe to climate change mitigation.
    Before you can mitigate something you need to know what it is you want to mitigate against.
    As the above shows no good building a desalination plant when you need a dam.
    Maybe the first witness should be that crazy hooter who was running around the country telling anyone who would listen that we were going to have drought on drought.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    I am impressed with how Campbell Newman has started, especially with regard to how he has begun with the handling the Mr Withers issue.

    Campbell Newman’s approach demonstrates the excellent leadership qualities which are trained and developed into military officers, and for which they are selected and promoted.

    Here is my reasoning:

    Mr Withers is a professional public servant. His job is to do the job he is appointed to do and directed to do by the elected government. It is also his job to give frank and fearless advice to the government, but in the end, if he is truly a professional, he must do what he is told to do by the elected government. Having given his advice, he should then knuckle down and do the job, applying all his skills and competence to achieving the goals he has been given top the best of his ability.

    Since Mr Withers knows the most about what he has set up, he is obviously the best person to undo it (if he is a true professional).

    If he is not a truly professional public servant, and he chooses to resign instead of doing the job, he will do a lot of damage to the reputation of public servants, not just in Queensland but right across Australia. Because he will reveal that some (perhaps many) of them are ideologues rather than true and honest servants of the public’s will that they are employed to serve.

    Of course, if he chooses to resign rather than do the job, he will also save the Queensland Treasury some $100,000 plus, because if he was fired the government would have to pay him that amount to break his contract.

    If he cannot perform the job satisfactorily, or he whinges, makes a fuss or obfuscates, he should be demoted and disciplined. If he is not competent in the next role he is given, he should be put on quarterly performance reviews until he is competent.

    I think Campbell Newman is showing excellent skills at the start of his tenure.

    I wonder how the ‘Sir Humphries’ (the senior public servant in ‘Yes Minister’)will respond and what tricks he has up his sleeve :)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Brett_McS

      Yep, this guy is operating at a very professional level – no doubt the military (and engineering) training is part of that. He’s way above the classless amateurs and posers of the outgoing mob. Notice also how he lead the crowd listening to his acceptance speech in applause for the former Premier’s efforts during the floods – not a hint of rancor over her viscous attacks on him and his family. A real man.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Speedy

      Nigel Hawthorne played Sir Humphrey Appleby (not sure of spelling) and is the bloke you’re thinking of. As distinct from Mr. Humphrey’s (“I’m free”) played by John Inman in “Are you being served?”

      And I do like the way Campbell has started by sorting out the green bureacracy.

      cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Peter Lang

        Speedy,

        Thank you for that correction. I went to see the show in Canberra just a week ago. It was great. There was a lot about climate change in the second half. I got the impression that many in the Canberra audience were not at all comfortable with the climate change part. It was excellent. I laughed even louder as it seemed a bit of tension crept through the audience :)


        Report this

        00

    • #
      brc

      The move on Withers is an absolute, rolled gold, classic. Nobody saw it coming, much less Withers himself. I bet he and Anna had a long overseas vacation planned, and now Newman has collared him and said ‘but Greg, we need you back here’.

      The insult of having to pull apart your own kingdom brick by brick at the instruction of your sworn enemy. If he stays he loses, if he quits, he loses. Checkmate!

      I agree with others that it’s far too early to get celebratory because official LNP policy is still ‘believer’, but it is a significant step in the right direction, and the reaction so far from the media has not been the shrieking outrage that others (I suspect like Abbott and Bailieu) seem to be scared of.

      Sure, the comments in the Courier Mail are running hot with ‘woe is us!’, but I think the general mood is a bit like where someone has convinced an annoying guest to leave a party and everyone breathes a sigh of relief.

      It will never move fast enough for the readers of this blog, but the ocean liner has turned around, and will never, ever reach the shores of the green nightmare state now. The rest of the public have to slowly awaken from the nightmare, and the political leaders have to lead them out of it slowly, and with reasons that don’t strain the cognitive dissonance too much.

      If you ever think it’s not happening fast enough, pause and think of people in the UK, who have had a conservative PM for a while now, and they’re still on the good ship Green Madness, and going full steam ahead.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      If Withers doesn’t spit the dummy and resign forthwith, sacrificing his salary without waiting to see what well paid job Federal Labor can organise for Anna, then he will forfeit his standing with the Greens.

      They are very keen on others making sacrifices.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    You lucky people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    LNP/Coalition still need to fess up and admit CAGW is a from the following lengthy piece the bits of reality, but read the lot:

    27 March: Bloomberg: China Beats U.S. With Power From Coal Processing Trapping Carbon
    China passed the U.S. as the top carbon polluter in 2007; it now emits more than the U.S. and India combined, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
    ****Yet with 1.3 billion people, power-hungry industries and scant oil or natural gas, it has no immediate alternatives to coal for fueling its economy. China gets 70 percent of its energy from coal, three times the U.S. figure. It even converts coal into diesel fuel and ammonia that’s used for making fertilizer.
    ****After consuming as much coal as did the rest of the planet combined in 2010, China still can’t muster enough electricity to avoid blackouts or accelerate the rise of its western provinces out of poverty, says Zhao Gang, director of a research institute at Beijing’s Ministry of Science and Technology…
    ****China can’t quit coal…
    Scientists say China must act now. The world has just two or three decades to avoid irreversible climate change, says Kelly Sims Gallagher, an energy professor at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, and author of two books on pollution…
    David Fridley, at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, says it may already be too late to avert higher temperatures, rising seas and melting glaciers. He says China’s emissions won’t stop increasing until its population peaks at 1.45 billion in 2030 — that’s 15 years after he predicts immutable global warming.
    “If global emissions don’t start declining after 2015, all we can do is adapt to a world that will be highly disrupted,” he says…
    Environmentalists say efforts to improve coal power are shortsighted because they divert attention and money from renewable energy.
    “Electricity from coal plants that are designed to avoid filthy and uncontrolled pollution is two to three times more expensive than alternatives like wind and solar,” says Bruce Nilles, deputy conservation director of environmental advocacy group Sierra Club. “Coal is the biggest part of our carbon problem, and we’re fighting to keep it underground.” …
    Companies may adopt carbon trapping because governments are likely to limit CO2 through taxes or emission caps, according to the 2011 annual energy outlook published by Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), the world’s largest energy company by market value.
    ????By 2040, carbon costs may reach $80 a ton in the U.S. and $30 a ton in China, the report says…
    John Lippert and Chua Baizhen, with assistance from Richard Weiss in Frankfurt, William Mellor in Sydney and Mark Drajem in Washington. Editors: Gail Roche, Jonathan Neumann
    To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: John Lippert in Chicago/Chua Baizhen in Beijing
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-27/china-beats-u-s-with-power-from-coal-processing-trapping-carbon.html

    the piece attempts to prove China is doing something about CAGW, so the US/EPA rule to block all new coal-electric generation goes down better with the public. sounds like there are plenty of carbon vultures feeding off this particular gravy train (i.e. funding from the Chinese Govt which is willing to go along with the charade, as China is also cleaning up on carbon dioxide credits).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    stop the madness, Federal Election Now:

    29 March: Daily Telegraph: Australian families in the dark on real cost of carbon tax
    EXCLUSIVE by Steve Lewis and Simon Benson
    The power companies fear that itemised power bills, based on estimates of the affect of the carbon tax, may inadvertently inflate bills and lead to action from the ACCC…
    Acting Greens leader Christine Milne said greater transparency on energy bills “can only be a good thing”.
    But she said it was important that energy bills “set out how much the community is getting back through lower taxes, higher support payments and, of course, cleaner air and a safer climate”…
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/australian-families-in-the-dark-on-real-cost-of-carbon-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226312943016


    Report this

    00

    • #
      brc

      Itemised energy bills is what will sink the Carbon tax, like a stone.

      It’s not hard to do. Most electricity bills already contain the carbon dioxide emissions. Just take that and multiply by $23 – there’s your carbon tax.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    An interesting bit of sluething, with possibly some Australian topspin, going on at Bishop Hill.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/3/28/who-leaked-the-hintze-correspondence.html

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      It seems the world wide warmists are suddenly worked up in their own conspiracy theories over “secret funding” of skeptic forces. If they only knew what “grass roots” was…….


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Hi Mark. As long as they’re busily employed fighting against non-existant conspiracies, we can get on with doing more effective things without interruption.

      Pointman


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ross

      These guys are like young kids in a playground. You know you have one group saying ” you can give lollies to us but not to those in that group over there because they have not been good kids” Its pathetic !!
      If they have not worked out that the sceptics work on extremely low funding relative to them and accept that fact then they are not very intelligent. Maybe that is why they are still on that side of the fence.
      For those who missed it the following gives a reply from Heartland to a simple polite question posed by Judith Curry
      ( look at the bottom of her thread)
      http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/24/why-target-heartland/#more-7356

      The simple fact is the sceptic side with WUWT , Jo , Heartland etc are much more effective communicators and much more efficient with their efforts.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Note how Premier Newman effectively handled Greg Withers, and before going any further compare that with how Anna Bligh handled Lisa Newman.

    In fact, the cleverest thing he is doing is to offer to keep him on, as long as he dismantles everything in that Office of Climate Change.

    He could have been vindictive after the way Lisa was targeted and sacked him outright, which would have necessitated a $600,000 payout of his remaining recently renewed contract, a personal and satisfying win for Campbell, but a big dollar loss for Queensland. I suspect Withers himself was even thinking this sacking was on the cards, chuckling on his way out, a sort of ‘Gotcha’ on his way out so to speak, taking the huge payout and splitting.

    Instead, what Premier Newman has done is to effectively place Withers between Scylla and Charybdis. He quits, and loses his payout, or he suffers the ignominy of having to dismantle all those Labor boondoggles, and then being so marginalised afterwards that all he can do is resign ….. after the dismantling, a lose lose for Withers.

    It’s a huge win win for Campbell, because what it also does is engender goodwill with the public, showing so publicly that he is not vindictive.

    Now, having said that Federal Labor is dead in the water.

    Why?

    Campbell has that goodwill, and even well into next year will still be in his honeymoon period. People will see that with the slow dismantling of each of these programs, the World has not ended, especially as Campbell details how much has been saved for the State, showing the people just how much all this has cost them.

    So, instead of gradually losing votes at the Federal level, there is the distinct possibility that he may even keep this huge majority, which will rub off at the Federal level. Labor in Canberra knows that currently they would lose every seat in Queensland, and if that holds to next year, they can claw back in other States (fat chance that) but those lost seats in Queensland will see them turfed out.

    They know this, and while they say (publicly) that this was State Issues, they privately know the opposite.

    Keeping that in mind, the only guy who may possibly win his seat, Kevin Rudd will ‘pull the pin’ (something I suspect was going to happen all along) and without his sympathy vote and his personal vote, that seat will also fall.

    Labor must know it’s on a hiding to nothing here in Queensland, and they can send all the Ministers they like up here to spruik how great they are handling things, because that will most probably not work in their favour.

    However, what is of interest is the Senate. The Coalition got more Senators than Labor at the last Half Senate, and with NSW and now Queensland, there is the distinct possibility that they will do the same this time around, and the Coalition will have control of The Senate as well.

    In fact, it is Labor who may actually think it has a better chance with a double dissolution. This way they will get approximately the same number of Senators in a DD as with two Half Senate elections, and if what is happening with the (early days yet) lowering of the Greens vote, then Labor may look upon this as actually doing what its Base wants …. for them to distance themselves from the Greens, and in fact Labor would probably fancy their chances as taking a Senator away from the Greens in two maybe three States. This in fact might be a parting shot at The Greens, who Labor is beginning to realise is dragging them down

    The Coalition will win the bulk of the Senators, and Labor knows that, whichever way it goes Half Senate or DD.

    It’s the Greens who will lose out here.

    However, in the big picture, Campbell Newman obviously has his eyes on the prize, a personal one here in Queensland, and also the big picture of ridding Australia of Gillard and her cronies.

    Of interest here is something I have said all along, that this has nothing at all to do with the environment. It’s just about the money. The interesting part is that Campbell is removing that source of money, and with that gone, there’s nowhere for them to go, and nothing for them to do.

    The MSM can’t really complain as Campbell can do what Prime Minister Gillard mentioned she was doing only last week. Campbell will just point to the scoreboard. His scoreboard shows it more emphatically than Gillard’s does.

    Labor would like to tell you that they govern with Heart. It seems, Campbell might actually be using his brain.

    Also, Premier Newman is seeking to hold the by-election for South Brisbane on the same day as the Local Council elections here in Queensland. He mentioned the money that would be saved by doing it in this manner. However, doing it like that effectively means any campaigning Labor might be able to muster will be nullified in the Council election throng, again, very cleverly marginalising Labor. I really hope the LNP go all out to take this seat away from Labor.

    We live in hope now that the light at the end of the tunnel does not seem to be the approaching locomotive we thought it might be.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] turn have the delightful knock-on effect of undermining eco-lunacy at the national level. We learn via Jo Nova: The showpiece of the Gillard government’s $1.5 billion Solar Flagships Program is now in [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bruce

    TonyfromOz – not so – of course Newman is being vindictive – for Withers it’s either his integrity and resign or the big money.

    But nobody will feel sorry for Withers – a hard-ball behind the scenes ALP player who turns over staff like underwear. Staff will cheer and party for days ! Withers responsible for revisionist erasing of the previous 1996 Borbidge Qld Govt era work on use of El Nino and La Nina advice for farmers.

    But ponder the conflict of interest – Bligh getting major revenue from Queensland coal mining but hubby Withers running a climate change agenda. Just how does that work for frank and fearless advice. It doesn’t – it’s just pure hypocrisy. And so typical of her government.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    in relation to the Solar Dawn project

    Premier Campbell Newman says he’ll halt $75 million in state funding for the solar thermal power plant if he can do it without risk to taxpayers.

    The $1 billion Solar Dawn project near Chinchilla is part of the Federal Government’s Solar Flagship Program.

    It’s $464 million contribution is now in doubt after federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said his Government had to reconsider its position.

    “If the new Queensland Government chose to breach the existing financial commitment to the Solar Dawn project, the Australian Government would naturally need to consider its own position,” he said.

    Solar Dawn operators said they signed a conditional agreement with the Queensland Government last month, had not been notified of any change of intentions and continued to work on developing the project.

    Mr Newman said he was seeking legal advice on withdrawing the state funds.

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/premier-campbell-newman-to-halt-75-million-in-state-funding-for-solar-thermal-power-plant/story-fnbt5t29-1226312894959

    so at this stage it’s not known whether State funding can be withdrawn without risk to taxpayers
    But let’s hope so


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      If the funding cannot be withdrawn, it is another case of where Labor has been irresponsible with tax payers money.

      Labor has a habit of doing this. It is so sure it knows what’s best it goes out of its way to lock in the legislation it wants and make it too expensive for new elected governments to unwind them. The most obvious example of course is the “Clean Energy Future” legislation. Labor has made it as difficult and as expensive as possible for the next government to unwind it.

      If the government was responsible they would have used a good risk management approach – they would have ensured the legislation cou ld be repealed or modified at minimum cost to the tax payer just in case the voters decided they do not want such a scheme.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] got to stop stealing other people’s land”. It’s good to see State Premiers in Campbell Newman, Barry O’Farrell and even Ted Baillieu start to wind back these ridiculous green [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I am glad someone is finally following the advice of the Producitivity Commission which was charged to look into the application of a CO2 tax and/or ETS. The key points follow:

    http://www.pc.gov.au/research/submission/emissions-trading/key_points

    I draw your attention to the last key remarks:

    If it were decided to introduce a national emissions trading scheme:

    * to constrain costs, the emissions price should be kept modest via a ‘safety valve’ until a multilateral regime that comprised major emitting countries was in place;
    * to limit adjustment costs and international relocation of production, it may be appropriate to mitigate the most adverse competitive impacts on energy-intensive producers until an international regime is in place;
    * existing regulations that substitute for emissions trading should be discontinued.

    In particular the last point. If you are going to use a market mechanism to control CO2 emmissions it is critical that you remove other market distorting regulatoions/taxes/subsidies. Unfortunately the Dullard Government does not get this, so instead we have massive Greens projects on top of the dreaded CO2-tax/ETS legislation.

    This is what happens when your Government becomes a slave to ideology over rationalism…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Meanwhile I see the IPCC is scaremongering again…

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/extreme-weather-its-about-to-get-worse-say-scientists-20120329-1vz7p.html?rand=9743247

    Note the use of spurious statistics like dollars of damage due to storms. No points for guessing why this is extremely unscientific, because a child could work that out. I have posted a comment to that effect.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    In unrelated but interesting news, UWA Geology Prof Emeritus Cliff Ollier lays into the alarmist IPCC and CSIRO sea level rise predictions at the Oz:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/csiro-alarmism-more-dangerous-than-co2/story-e6frgd0x-1226312898312

    Do the usual thing to get around the paywall. Give me a holler if you don’t know how.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Michael

      Would you mind explaning how to get around the pay-wall as I can’t quite figure out how to do it?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Catamon

        Click on article and get short version.

        Hi-light the title and google search it.

        Click on the link in the google search and get full article most of the time.

        Ltd News hates Google. :)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    KeithH

    I’ve rather painstakingly gone through the list of the 450-odd of Julia Gillard’s 500 “derdy polluders” who have so far filed their details on the NGER and will evidently have to pay the carbon dioxide tax, checked them on the Internet and roughly grouped them according to their principal activities shown there. I think many in the general public will be rather surprised to find how widespread across most activities and services the tentacles of this destructive tax will reach including Hospitals/Healthcare orgnisations, Universities, Food producers, Supermarkets etc.

    Although many State government owned enterprises are included, noticably absent are any Federal Departments, some of whom must have a huge “carbon fotprint”! Some firms only show a Business Tax Number and with some other firms it’s also difficult to know what it is they actually do.

    In no way do I claim the information to be entirely accurate but it does give the general picture which is far different from the impression Gillard/Swan/Combet?Brown/Milne etc., and other Government members try to give that the “derdy polluders” who will have to pay the tax are only mining companies, fossil-fuel power companies and the like!

    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/initiatives/national-greenhouse-energy-reporting/publication-of-data/nger-greenhouse-energy-information-2010-11.aspx

    I apologise for the poor layout but sadly I’ve forgotten how to do spreadsheets etc., plus a few other basic computer skills I used to have!

    Carbon Tax Categories. Totals

    Agriculture supplies … 4
    Airlines … 7
    Airport Corps. … 2
    Banking, Insurance.Finance Inv … 21
    Building Products … 23
    Construction, Engineer … 15
    Councils … 2
    Communications … 9
    Electronics … 2
    Entertainment.Hosp.Leis.Tourism … 11
    Fertilisers … 3
    Food Products/Manuf. … 42
    Hospital Health Services … 13
    Mining /Explor … 103
    Packaging Co. … 4
    Paper Products(tissues etc) … 3
    Power gen./Energy … 69
    Property … 12
    Retailers … 9
    Shipping … 8
    Supermarkets … 6
    Timber & Paper … 12
    Transport/Freight … 32
    University/CSIRO … 11
    Vehicle sales/manufacture … 5
    Waste Man.Recycling … 10
    Water Corporations … 13


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Dave

      Great work Keith,

      This highlights the multiplying factor associated with this CO2 Tax.
      There is an article in The Climate Spectator today by our mate Tristan Edis on how little this Tax will impact.

      Just as an example he’s used:

      .
      .
      Carbon price impact on food prices (carbon price = $24.15tCO2)
      Rump steak (1kg)
      3.03kg Embodied kg of CO2 per unit
      $19.00 cost per kilo before CO2 Tax
      $19.07 cost per kilo after CO2 Tax
      0.38% percentage increase

      It is based on data prepared by Tim Grant, Australia’s leading life-cycle analysis practitioner to illustrate the amount of CO2 embodied within a range of staple food products – but this is where the problem lies. In this case the increase in cost by each factor (transport, packaging, fertilizer, communications, electricity, retailer, butcher etc etc) all compound in cost – it is not simply adding up all the embodied Carbon in each product and multipling by the CO2 $ rate per tonne at the supermarket shelf. Each individual company handling the MEAT will add the dollar component of the TAX in – and each time it gets further down the line – the dollars compound – while the embodied CARBON stays the same. (THIS WILL BE DOUBLE, TRIPLE DIPPING etc etc etc on the cost).

      Using this type of modeling – which Treasury has and supports – there is going to be some big variations in the cost – and the GREEN groups (including ALP) will blame business for simply marking up to make extra profit from the CO2 Tax.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Peter Lang

      I wonder what will be the compliance cost by the time a carbon trading system is established that has measurement of emissions sufficently accurate for trading the commodity?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dave

        .
        Compliance & cost of?

        They don’t have a clue on accurate measuring of Carbon or CO2e emmissions for the associated Tax, never mind the cost of implementing this. Their website details to everyone on how it is to be worked out – yet Treasury as I said above worked all their predicted retail cost increases on embedded Carbon per item – and then deducted the increase cost of living from that. The real cost will be massive. No modelling has been done on each increase through the supply chain. Cost plus, cost plus etc. Embedded carbon per item is the con job in telling people the associated cost increase that should occur per item?

        The other con trick is Carbon sequestration (trees) by groups – they have general Carbon sequestering rates by different areas & species – and nothing will be checked initally – but auditing of the carbon farms will be massive also when implemented.

        Trading? This alone will be another Pink Batts scheme! Billions bigger!


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Dave

        .
        This example of waste has already started – CARBON FARM gets $9 million!

        Paid to get rid of the cattle – and then just let everything return to GAIA!! :(


        Report this

        00

  • #
    val majkus

    Keith H that’s a huge amount of work you’ve done – however I read yesterday (don’t know where) that the Fed Govt’s share of the carbon tax is $45M

    Oh here it is
    http://www.news.com.au/national/battling-taxpayers-pay-pms-growing-power-bill/story-e6frfkvr-1226313004113
    it’s the Fed’s power bill


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    don’t miss Delingpole
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100147742/queensland-turns-the-tide-of-environmental-lunacy/

    As Andrew Bolt notes, this hardly augurs well for the prospects of Australian prime minister Julia Gillard come the next general election. Gillard’s carbon tax is, of course, proving about as popular with Australians as a Sydney funnel web at a picnic. Really, I can’t think of a better moment in history for an evil climate-denying bastard like me to be visiting Oz. It’ll feel like Caesar’s triumphant entry into Rome. I apologise in advance that, owing to current health and safety laws, I shan’t be dragging Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut in chains behind me, before having their eyes put out and thrown to the sharks in the harbour from the roof of Sydney opera house. No, I think I’ll reserve that treatment for the authors of the $370,000 taxpayer-funded report suggesting that commemorations of the centenary of the Gallipoli landings – Anzac day – in 2015 might prove a “double-edged sword” and a “potential area of divisiveness” in multicultural Australia.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    With the election of Campbell Newman in Queensland, there is a very interesting possible symmetry arising in Australian politics. As you’ll see below, Campbell has an impeccable political heritage with both his parents having served with distinction in the Federal arena. I have bolded the possible symmetry we may be able to look forward to but I’ll repeat it here.

    “Newman took the seat off Labor with a massive 14-point swing—a shock result that is reckoned as the beginning of the end for the Whitlam government.”

    I clearly remember Kevin’s election with great pleasure as there was exactly the same feeling in the community then about the hapless and hopeless Whitlam Government, that I feel is out there now against the hopeless and hapless Gillard Government which is showing even more destructive potential than Gough’s mob ever threatened!

    “Kevin Eugene Newman AO (10 October 1933 – 17 July 1999) was an Australian soldier and politician.

    Army career: He rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Australian Army, serving in Malaysia and the Vietnam War.

    Political career: Newman entered political life through a 1975 by-election for the Division of Bass, Tasmania, in the House of Representatives, as the Liberal candidate. The previous member, former Labor Deputy Prime Minister Lance Barnard, had held it for 21 years without serious difficulty. However, Newman took the seat off Labor with a massive 14-point swing—a shock result that is reckoned as the beginning of the end for the Whitlam government.

    Newman was married to Jocelyn Newman, a Senator for Tasmania, and Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women in the Howard government. They had two children: Kate and Campbell. Campbell Newman was the Lord Mayor of Brisbane 2004-11, and was elected Premier of Queensland in March 2012.

    Let’s hope it’s “deja vu all over again”. I’m spitting chips that we don’t have Campbell in Tasmania in place of all the “I believe in climate change” Green/Labor political twits we have in charge of wasting money on Wind Farms and other untouchable sacred cow useless “Green” schemes whilst cutting services and doing their best to ruin us!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Newman_(politician)


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Roger Colclough

      Yep, pardon the pun but there aren’t many chips left to spit in Tassie.

      Jokes aside I worked for Hydro in the Franklin period. We supplied a helicopter each day to rescue protesters who had entered wild rivers in their Kmart dinghies.
      We also calculated that the average Tasmanian burned 9 tonnes of wood per year for heating thus releasing massive amounts of stored carbon.
      Despite Bob ‘Green’s’ protestations Hydro is cleaner and more efficient.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    KeithH

    Thanks for the accolades Dave and Val. Now if we could just get “our ABC” 4-Corners or World Today mob to do something similiar, but there I go – impossible dreams again of what used be!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.H.

    WHOOOOO HOOOOO…. The de-funding of the Queensland Eco Fascists has BEGUN.

    Oh Happy, Happy days….

    Please forgive my Clive Palmer like joy… But Queensland Labor destroyed my business and livelihood and I am reveling in their utter downfall.

    ………I am going to do a little dance now. :-)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roger Colclough

      Glad you’re happy mate but given that 50% of new businesses fail in the first three years regardless of government make sure that it was really outside influence


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Shevva

    My mums friends visited there family in OZ the last month they have done this every couple of years to be able to save up enough money to stay for a good three weeks, apart from their lovely Grandchildren the other thing they say that sticks with them this trip is the cost of everything since they where there two years ago. They are now looking at having to go every three years now becazuse of this cost.

    And thats just a nan and grandad wanting to see their grandchildren imagine if your a buisness.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Schadenfreude is the pleasure derived by someone from contemplating Mr Withers’ predicament.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Juliar

    Good to see some common sense governance from Campbell Newman. Great work!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Let’s hope he keeps his promise. He also warned about Brisbane being built on a flood plain, months before the last flood.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] JO NOVA BLOG There go those gravy trains in Queensland & Victoria Australia is stepping back from the cliff March 28th, 2012 http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/there-go-those-gravy-trains-in-queensland-victoria/#more-21108 [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roger Colclough

    ELECTRICITY PRICING IN QUEENSLAND

    The following submission is a brief description of the electricity pricing regime in Queensland.

    Research has been hampered by an institutionalised unwillingness to openly communicate with the public.

    Structure:

    1. The minister delegates responsibility to the QCA, (Queensland Competition Authority) to set tariff rates and metering arrangements.

    2. The AEMO, (Australian Energy Marketing Authority), accepts pricing from the generators in $ per Mega Watt hour.

    This wholesale price varies according to demand on a 30 – minute cycle.

    Since 1988 this wholesale price has steadily fallen as new generators have come on line.

    AEMO passes this pricing on to distributors.

    The distributors add distribution costs plus their margin to the retailers.

    3. The QCA use an economic modeler, (ACIL Tasman), and input from generators, distributors and retailers in order to set domestic tariff schedules.

    The QCA also accept submissions from other stakeholders the main one being QCOSS, (Queensland Council Of Social Services).

    The Minister responsible delegates the power to set retail pricing to the QCA.

    To the best of my knowledge QCA have acceded to the demands of all but consumer groups i.e. QCOSS who have largely been ignored.

    The problems:

    1. Generators are now in the main owned largely by foreign countries due to privatisation by successive QLD governments.

    I.e. Gladstone was sold to CRA who had a US company as an operator.

    CRA then sold to Transfield.

    Transfield have recently sold to TRU Energy, (aka China Light and Power).

    Mr. Michael Kadoorie, Chairman of the board and 33% owner of CLP has also purchased major assets in Tasmania, South Australia, NSW and Queensland.

    As well as owning generators CLP also operate in the retail market as TRU Energy.

    It is CLP’s stated objective to integrate, (control), generation, distribution and retailing.

    This is indicative of huge profits being made in this area.

    CLP during the Global Financial Crisis increased profits in Australia by 128% in one-year period using facilities already in place.

    This is in addition to an $HK 800 million tax break from the Federal government.

    2. Distributors, due to a lack of infrastructure some 15 years ago were given huge financial incentives by the AEMO.

    Gas water and power industry pays the lowest tax of any industry group in Australia

    This, despite the needs being fulfilled this continues to be the case.

    The AEMO have accused the distributors of overinflating the need for more infrastructure.

    3.The distributors are investing in an inefficient High Voltage Alternating Current Transmission, (HVAC).
    49% of retail costs are absorbed by this inefficient system.

    World’s best practice is now to use High voltage Direct Current Transmission, (HVDC).

    A Swedish company based in Zurich, ABB is constructing an HVDC line to connect the Queensland grid to the NSW grid because of this efficiency.

    Hammersly Iron in WA is also using HVDC in their internal grid. HVDC is extensively used in Europe, the Philippines, India and China.

    4. Retailers are guaranteed 8% ‘headroom’ in their pricing structure by the QCA as well as the cost of acquiring customers.

    This was recently quoted as being $94million pa.

    The AEMO have recently accused the retailers of ‘price gouging’.

    The solutions:

    Ideally there should be a buyback of generation infrastructure that was and should be a public utility.

    A complete overhaul of the management of our distribution networks and an installation of a team with an efficiency ethos is needed.

    There should be maintenance of the present domestic tariff structures namely 11 and 33.

    Allow the distributors/retailers flexibility in switching of tariff 33 at their discretion – at present they must guarantee 18 hours per day of supply.

    Remove the requirement that appliances connected to economy tariff 33 in order that consumers have the ability to unload the grid.

    This will smooth out the demand cycle and has already been allowed with pool pumps.

    Conclusions:

    There is both the technology and the need to implement change as soon as possible in order to prevent the upward and out of control electricity pricing.

    The need for more power stations and transmission infrastructure would be obviated.

    With an overall smoothing of the demand cycle the carbon footprint would be reduced considerably.
    yours sincerely

    As has already been pointed out solar is a farce in it’s present form, wind generators have problems with waveform and the only real alternative is Hydro


    Report this

    00