JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

Big-Government incantation creates The Energy Black Hole and drives off businesses

Senator Ron Boswell (National Party) makes the case in The Australian today that Australia is losing manufacturing due to rising energy costs, while the US is gaining manufacturing back from China because it has a cheap energy advantage with shale gas.

I could make the case that when Big-Government tries to change the weather, it has moved into the realm of witchcraft. There is no empirical evidence that reducing CO2 will measurably reduce storms, floods and sea-levels, and there is no economic calculation that suggests Australia can afford to change the global climate (even if it were possible). Business is doing the only sane thing and shifting to countries that are more rational.

Such is the “National Conversation” on these policies, it is impossible to say exactly how much The Carbon Farce has cost Australian business, due to the complexity of supply chain accounting and the rule that the government will put you in jail if you publish an estimate that is wrong. There are other factors at work, but there is no situation where higher energy costs make business easier, unless your business is one of the ones making expensive energy.

Energy taxes are the nail in the coffin of local manufacturing

Ron Boswell  The Australian May 08, 2013
THE collapse of the European carbon price has laid bare the absurdity of the Gillard government’s energy-based taxes on production.

The Australian carbon tax, at $23 a tonne and rising, and the almost-as-expensive renewable energy tax are killing the competitiveness of our businesses.

Boswell lists the businesses cutting production in Australia: Holden, Bluescope Steel, Boral, Penrice Soda, Pentair, Amcor, Goodman Fielder, Caltex…

So Holden will cut 500 jobs in South Australia and Victoria to reduce costs while Labor adds an estimated $550 to the manufacturing cost of every new Holden: $350 with a carbon tax and $200 with renewable energy targets. European car manufacturers gain an immediate advantage because of their far lower carbon price, not to mention the high Australian dollar. Why subsidise the Australian car industry on one hand and penalise it with energy taxes on the other?

Australia’s strong manufacturing sector was based on two great advantages: abundant food and mineral resources and cheap power from massive coal deposits.

By increasing the cost of power, Labor has thrown away one advantage and major Australian manufacturing operations are going out of business or overseas.

Businesses here are cutting jobs to save costs:

BlueScope Steel in Victoria, 170 jobs gone; Boral, 790 jobs gone; Penrice Soda in SA, 60 jobs gone; Pentair, a company that made steel pipes in western Sydney for 60 years, 160 jobs gone; and Amcor, 300 jobs gone. Goodman Fielder is shutting 15 factories, cutting 600 jobs, Caltex its Kurnell refinery, 330 jobs, and the Norsk Hydro aluminium smelter near Newcastle, 350 jobs.

Others are moving production overseas: Kerry Foods, 100 jobs gone; Kresta Blinds, 72 jobs; Cussons soaps, 75 jobs; Aerogard, 190 jobs; Harley-Davidson, 212 jobs; and Bosch, 380 jobs. Golden Circle has moved processing lines and jobs to New Zealand too.

In the US, manufacturing is growing:

General Electric is spending $US800 million ($784m) bringing back production of electrical appliances from China to Kentucky. Apple is spending $US100m on a US manufacturing line for Mac computers currently made in China. Other companies lured back to the US include Caterpillar, Whirlpool, Otis, Electrolux, Google, NCR and Zentech. Foreign companies plugging into the US’s cheap power include German chemicals giant BASF, which has already committed $US5.7 billion to North America since 2009.

US commentators are talking about an extra $US1.5 trillion increase in manufacturing production and 3.7 million manufacturing jobs by 2025. One of the main reasons for this resurgence is cheap electricity, generated by the shale gas now being tapped into by US power companies.

In November Ron Boswell pointed out that one industrial company estimated that electricity costs had risen almost 50% due to “Green” policies. Naturally the company stays anonymous for fear of being jailed:

The carbon tax is placing an $8 billion a year burden on Australia…

One industrial user in Queensland told me it recently received a $244,000 electricity bill. Of that, $32,500 was attributed to the RET and $45,000 to the carbon price. This is an increase of almost 50 per cent on this user’s costs last year, due to the RET and the carbon price. A cost projection prepared for another Queensland industrial user shows that next year it will pay a $5.78 million electricity bill; $495,000 of that will be from the RET and about $1m from the carbon price.

Even companies that don’t use much electricity suffer from higher energy prices

All businesses in Australia hurt when Australian consumers have less to spend. The invisible opportunity cost robs them of customers:

Modelling done for NSW’s Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, the Climate Change Authority and other bodies all show that households would save about $270 a year with the RET and carbon tax gone.

That’s $270 from every household each year that could be used to create jobs in restaurants, holiday towns, local shops, gyms, sporting facilities… instead of Australians enjoying memorable moments, and getting fitter, it funds some bureaucrats, it provides jobs in China, Japan and Germany and other places where “renewable-energy” machinery is made, and it helps to reduce world temperatures by zero degrees.

But it’s true that part of that money props up a small local industry. It’s a group of people who install equipment they hope will change the weather.

We might as well be casting spells and stirring cauldrons.

Welcome to the land of witchcraft.

*Update: Added “Senator” and Nationals to the first line. h/t for proofreading to Themm.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (102 votes cast)
Big-Government incantation creates The Energy Black Hole and drives off businesses, 9.5 out of 10 based on 102 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/btjkzka

199 comments to Big-Government incantation creates The Energy Black Hole and drives off businesses

  • #

    Even Green Europe has balked at passing measures to push up the price of carbon to Australian levels.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/eu-ets-vote-idUSL5N0D31ZM20130416

    We fled the UK to escape astronomical heating and fuel costs – heating bills of $400+ / month, petrol which cost £1.50 (approx. $2) / litre.

    Let us hope Australia’s flirtation with green madness is a passing phase.

    212

  • #
    janama

    I spent an evening with 3 Americans who were involved in manufacturing and they laughed when I suggested Australia. It’s not only the energy costs, it’s the labour regulations as well.

    270

    • #
      crakar24

      Thats true Janama other factors are at play as well however as i am sure you well know most taxes regulations have a purpose they may not work but they have a purpose wheras the carbon tax is futile.

      Also the gimme, gimme, gimme class are to now miss out on another hand out, as of 2015 they will no longer recieve the second carbon tax offset installment ($1.59) another busted promise to throw on the pile.

      152

    • #
      Dennis

      US cost of employing skilled labour per day over $400, Australia over $600, third world less than $200

      90

      • #
        • #
          gai

          That chart is a real crock. It has US unemployment at ~8% when it is actually about 23% and has been increasing since 2009.

          President Willy Clinton changed how unemployment was figured in the USA so he could hide the effects of NAFTA and WTO from the American people.

          ….Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.

          The Clinton administration also reduced monthly household sampling from 60,000 to about 50,000, eliminating significant surveying in the inner cities. Despite claims of corrective statistical adjustments, reported unemployment among people of color declined sharply, and the piggybacked poverty survey showed a remarkable reversal in decades of worsening poverty trends….
          http://www.shadowstats.com/article/employment

          Clinton and the lying bureaucrats must have read How to Lie with Statistics.

          00

          • #

            When I worked in unemployment in the late 80′s as far as I can recall, the method of counting unemployed was basically the same. No one then, or now, seemed to understand that if you were not looking for work, you were not counted as unemployed. This meant people who gave up were not counted. Clinton may have refined it, but it was true before he came into office that people who gave up looking for work were not counted as unemployed. I spent much time explaining this to people but it never really seemed to sink in.

            Clinton may have changed the sampling method, I don’t know. I never understood why there was a sampling method anyway. If we don’t count those not looking for work, the weekly unemployment claim check numbers from each state. If you are going to change the sampling method, why bother to sample at all? Who checks?

            I do think “How to Lie with Statistics” is required reading for politicians, the media and climate scientists. As an instructional manual, of course.

            00

    • #
      Peter Miller

      One of the golden rules of economics is: strong labour unions = weak economy.

      I only just realised that there is a caveat to this:

      Strong labour unions = weak economy = goofy, expensive, greenie energy policies.

      90

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    This is an interesting and informative post. However, the climate scam is meant to make one feel sufficiently guilty about doing something so that the authorities get more money without having to just take it and causing hard feelings. Revolutions, once started, are hard to control. The authorities, of course, know better than the people about how money should be spent and who should benefit from it being used in the manner desired. Everyone knows this transfer of funds will have no climatic expression and the quilt trip is the favored analgesic.

    150

  • #
    pat

    8 May: SMH: Peter Hannam: Solar firm placed under a cloud
    A major solar-panel provider has been accused of making false and misleading claims about the source of its photovoltaic panels and posting fake testimonials on the internet.
    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has begun proceedings against P & N Pty Ltd and P & N NSW Pty Ltd (Euro Solar) and Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing Pty Ltd (Australian Solar Panel) for allegedly claiming since last November that their solar panels were Australian-made when in fact they were imported from China.
    “Consumers should be able to rely on the accuracy of labels, especially when they are prepared to pay a premium for products made in Australia,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims, said.
    “Misleading credence claims can have a significant impact on the competitive process and hurt the local economy.”
    The ACCC said in a statement that it had also taken action against Mr Nikunjkumar Patel for being knowingly concerned in, or a party to, the alleged conduct…
    The competition regulator is also alleging that the company’s website, australiansolarpanel.com.au, hosted written testimonials from January to February this year that were not made by genuine customers of the company’s products. Similarly false video testimonials ran on YouTube and its eurosolar.com.au website from May 2012 to February 2013…
    The ACCC, which is seeking injunctions, publication orders, pecuniary penalties and costs, has filed the matter in the Federal Court’s Fast Track List. It is listed for a scheduling conference in Adelaide on July 8, the ACCC said.
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/solar-firm-placed-under-a-cloud-20130508-2j7df.html

    60

  • #

    Note what you are paying for electricity here in Australia, and each reader is currently reaching for their latest power bill right about now. For the residential sector, that cost is now around 25 cents per KWH.

    When the CO2 tax was introduced, every retailer changed their costings structures, and the new list of all those different plans was released on the Monday morning after the Tax came into effect.

    Electricity is sold into three sectors, residential, Commerce and Industry, and all have different plans, especially Commerce and Industry which have a large number of different scales depending upon the size of the Company and the electricity usage that Company has.

    While every new scale showed an increase, what was done in both Commerce and Industry was to raise the cost to a point actually close to what is being paid in the Residential sector, so while that Residential sector went up (almost minimally) by what amounted to a small amount, Commerce and Industry faced larger increases, and I guess I could use the term ‘The Waterbed Principle’ here, for those of you who have heard the term before, spreading out the whole increase over different areas, while still making the same amount, if you can see that.

    So now, while Commerce and Industry pay almost the same as what is being paid in the Residential sector, I want you to look at this costing structure for the U.S. at the link below and then refer that back to what Joanne has said in the text of her Post, how Industry especially is coming back to the US because of the cheaper cost for electricity.

    Compare what is shown here to the almost 25 cents per KWH being paid by Industry here in Australia.

    Look across the chart to the Industrial sector, and then down the page for both columns, Feb 2013, and last year 2012.

    Right at the bottom, you’ll notice the average cost per KWH paid for electricity in the Industrial sector in the U.S. and that is currently 6.6 cents per KWH, less than one third what Industry is paying here in Australia. There’s only a couple of Mainland U.S. States paying high prices and even then they are only half what is being paid here in Australia.

    What needs to be taken in context here is that the AVERAGE power consumption per Month in that Industrial sector is at least 100 times greater than the average residential consumption, and the same applies here in Australia.

    Link to Electrical Power Costing structures by State in the U.S.

    Tony.

    210

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      And industry in California pays over double that of Washington State. Considering that California is importing large amounts of hydro power from Washington State, the (solar and wind) portion must be costing a packet.

      Anthony Watts in California recently reported that in summer peak time his rate went to 99¢ per kWh.

      Sun and wind might be free, but turning them into electricity is bloody expensive.

      160

      • #

        Graeme No.3, you say here:

        Considering that California is importing large amounts of hydro power from Washington State…..

        And also vast amounts of Hydro Power from Nevada as well.

        Hoover Dam is on the border of Nevada and Arizona.

        It generates 4.2TWH of power each year.

        57% of that power goes to California grids.

        24% goes to Nevada.

        19% goes to Arizona.

        California claims to be a clean green State. No wonder. A lot of their power comes from out of State.

        Oh, and it’s always handy to have those two big Nukes as well, Diablo Canyon, and San Onofre.

        Tony.

        170

        • #
          John F. Hultquist

          Here’s how power gets 1,000 miles from the Columbia River area to California:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie

          And here is the second source after the hydro:
          http://www.flickr.com/photos/walla2chick/5561635298/

          10

        • #

          Hey! Wait a minute.

          Surely no one has thought to ask the pretty obvious question when you look at this list I linked to above, showing the costs for power in the Industrial sector.

          There’s 36 Mainland States selling power either at or below 7 cents per KWH, and 4 of them are at or below 5 cents per KWH.

          How can they sell it at such a cheap price?

          Remember how for years now, those urgers who support renewable power have been saying that renewables are cheaper than coal fired power, and also cheaper than Nuclear power.

          The next time someone actually says that to you, just refer them straight to this table of costs.

          I wouldn’t expect those renewable supporters to ask the question or to even refer to this table because it would just be too embarrassing for them, for so long telling us that renewables are cheaper than coal fired power.

          So, how come it’s so cheap then, especially for Industry as opposed to Residential, in fact, just a tad over half the price.

          Nearly all Industry is 24 hours operational, so they require their power on that 24/7/365 basis, and remember how I always harp on about that Base Load for power. Take away that power and Industry shuts down, literally.

          Which power sources actually can operate on demand for the full 24 hours?

          Coal Fired Power, Nuclear Power, and to a (much) lesser extent Gas Fired and Hydro.

          If the cost of generation is (supposedly) as high as those renewable supporters tell us, then how come they can sell their electricity (at retail) so cheaply, and yet still make a profit.

          Coal fired power can generate its power for around 3 cents per KWH, Nuclear Power for around 1.5 to 2 cents per KWH, (and some even cheaper) large scale gas fired for around 5 to 6 cents per KWH, and large scale Hydro for around 4 to 5 cents per KWH.

          So when the mix is all added in, they can still sell power at retail for those extraordinarily low prices ….. and still make a profit, both retailers and the generators.

          Industry, operating on that 24 hour basis is consuming the bulk of power overnight and because those huge monster plants run on that 24 hour basis, then they just onsell their power at base price, knowing that because Industry is consuming so much power, then they can spread that profit over the units sold, and the power being generated is actually being consumed, keeping in mind that if you take it away, Industry stops. It cannot operate on the whims of the wind and a Sun that doesn’t shine while Industry works all night.

          For the sake of comparison U.S. Industry actually consumes 980TWH of power each year. The whole of Australia consumes just 245TWH, for EVERYTHING, all power consumption.

          Australia has 8 power plants larger than 1500MW Nameplate, all coal fired.

          The US has 77 coal fired plants greater than 1500MW, and on top of that 65 large scale Nukes as well.

          Their grid structure is infinitely more complex than Australia’s because, while the land mass of Oz and the U.S. is approximately the same size, their population covers virtually the whole of their land mass. The same applies for their Industry, which is also spread out across the Country.

          Keep in mind also, that, as I mentioned earlier, the AVERAGE Industry consumption is 100 times greater than the average Residence, so, when you are selling so much power, then it can be that little bit cheaper.

          For the sake of comparison, now that the CO2 Tax has been introduced here in Australia, those 7 large scale coal fired plants here have a generation cost greater than it sells for retail in 42 of those Mainland U.S. States.

          Now perhaps you can see why those existing large scale coal fired plants already operational in the U.S. have a long future, and not one plant larger than 800MW has closed in the five years I’ve been watching.

          So, when renewable supporters say that renewable power is cheaper than coal fired power, just refer them to this table I linked to above.

          Tony.

          110

          • #

            I try and post actual costs when discussing wind and solar. There are websites that address this difference, especially those discussing the realities of wind and solar energy.

            I would note that while the per Kwh cost is low, our power company took a new direction on its last rate increase: Because people are using less power (as the company asked us to do), instead of raising the costs per Kwh, the fees are raised. My meter cost went up 25%. In a month where I had conserved energy and used less than last year at the same time, my bill actually went up. I’m hoping this is not a trend.

            According to my January bill, I used an average of 37 Kwh per day this year, for a cost of $3.88 per day. Last year, I used 39 Kwh per day and the cost was $3.79 per day. I use less, I pay more.

            The electric bill: basic charge, energy charge block 1, energy charge block 2, Energy Demand Related blocks 1 and 2, Net Power Cost Demand Blocks 1 and 2, Net Power Cost Energy Blocks 1 and 2, Renewable revenue Adj Blocks 1 and 2 (these are actually negative numbers), and customer efficiency services. So, what is the per Kwh cost of my electricity? If you remove the meter (basic charge), it’s around 11 cents/Kw hour.

            20

    • #
      inedible hyperbowl

      I have a Canadian competitor who powers his array of computers (domestic rate) at < 6c / kwh. It costs me around 21c / kwh (domestic). (We do not discuss the cost in SA).

      If you want your power bill to be cut to at least a third of the current cost, it is definitely cheaper to move to Canada than it is to install solar.

      I therefore suggest that upcoming budget introduce a RET (Real Emigration Target) to further encourage Australians and Australian business to move to providers of cheap power. This scheme would also realize a massive reduction of Australian CO2 emissions as we quickly reduce the number of businesses to zero.

      120

      • #
        Dennis

        I know of one high electricity consumption business that moved to India, the rising cost of power was the motivating factor and what sealed the decision to move were operating cost savings relating to labout cost and compliance costs also factory rental. Another once Australian manufacturer of metal products now manufactures in China and only warehouses products here now. The perfect storm of business killer proportions is underway in Australia

        100

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          We recently built a new home on a very tight budget.

          This was made possible by the fact that housing construction was dropping locally and prices were relatively sensible.

          My main point though, concerns some fittings which until recently were made locally.

          We ordered a set of bi fold slat doors with frame to fill a wall opening and were surprised to learn that the measurements were sent overseas and the finished product to came back by boat.

          The Australian dollar is TOO high and the final countdown is under way.

          Local aluminum industry has collapsed, mines are closing and support industries are shedding and as a flow on there are a

          surprising and alarming number of empty shops in small suburban villages which were quite active two years ago.

          There is no vision or leadership in Australian politics.

          KK :)

          80

          • #
            Dennis

            Keith I have been observing activity in four states for over a year travelling by road and cat ferry and believe that a recession is under way in most patches of the patchwork economy Labor has created since 2007 and that this is hidden to a large extent by the mining boom and some other bright spots, and that federal revenue has been far higher than during the Coalition years when the boom started in 2004 or 8 years into their term of 11 years in office. What I observe and read about reminds me of the lead up to the worst recession for sixty years 1990 commencement when the Labor government was bragging that the economy was “going gangbusters” and then it went bust.

            70

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      My cost is an $18 facilities charge per month and for electrons it is $.08750/kWh. via a public utility district (PUD) with much sourcing from Hydro. Service is for 400A or less and connected motors 7.5 hp or less. Central Washington State east of the Cascade Mountains. We have to heat in winter (heat pump – air sourced frequently won’t do) and cool (some) in summer.

      20

    • #
      UzUrBrain

      Has anyone looked at the fact that the boom in production in USA after WWII was caused by the availability of CHEAP electrical power. The Manhattan project was over, Hoover dam was done, TVA had many plants and workers wanting to sell electricity, and it seemed like each state had at least four or five power plants that were used for war production now sitting idle. Coal was cheap and electricity was selling for pennies per kWh.

      20

  • #
    pat

    8 May: Australian: Ben Packham: More cuts to come after carbon tax compensation payments are shelved: Greg Combet
    Climate Change Minister Greg Combet today said carbon tax compensation, worth $1.59 a week to families on $80,000, would no longer go ahead in 2015 due to a downward revision in carbon price forecasts in next week’s budget.
    He said the linking of Australia’s scheme to the EU carbon market from 2015-16, which will slash the carbon price, would force further budget cuts, to be unveiled in next week’s budget…
    Mr Combet said the government’s second round carbon tax compensation, due in 2015, would now be deferred until the carbon price hit $25.40.
    “Because there will be no additional anticipated increase in costs to households in 2015-16, with a lower carbon price forecast, the budget will defer an anticipated further round of additional related tax cuts,” he said.
    Mr Combet said the government’s first round carbon tax compensation, including tax cuts and boosts to family tax benefits and pensions, would remain.
    However, he warned those measures were under threat from an Abbott government, which has vowed to axe the carbon tax and related compensation…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/carbon-compensation-payments-put-off-after-price-slump/story-e6frg6xf-1226637448746

    50

  • #
    Yonniestone

    If Australia was Black Caviar it would be equivalent to adding an extra 200kg, overdosing her on painkillers, and get a blind jockey to ride her for the race.
    How much more does this regime want to handicap this country?
    Sorry I think I just answered my question!

    120

  • #
    cohenite

    There is something weird going on; I do not think the full story of the impact of the CO2 tax is shown by Jo’s list of defunct companies; here is the NGER list of all MAJOR companies affected by the CO2 tax.

    To work out the tax liability of a particular company just add the scope 1 and scope 2 columns and multiply by $23.

    How is that these companies are still in business; are there under the table subsidies or exemptions? And how can the budget be in deficieit given the potential tax revenue from jus the listed companies?

    110

    • #
      NoFixedAddress

      @cohenite

      going by that list labor still have a few companies to get rid of yet.

      Hopefully the budget will get rid of them completely….

      Reserve Bank interest rates should go to zero…

      80

    • #
      John Brookes

      But Cohers, they just put their price up to cover the cost of permits.

      BTW, ever since that nasty tax came in, has anyone noticed how the cost of carbonated beverages has outstripped their still equivalents? Has Guinness, with bubbles of nitrogen, gotten comparatively cheaper than beer with its bubbles of CO2?

      018

      • #
        Backslider

        they just put their price up to cover the cost of permits

        So tell us John. What happens when prices go up?

        So tell us John. You, as a consumer, are happy to pay these taxes that do nothing for the environment?

        Manufacturing requires electricity. Do you think that putting up the price of electricity stimulates manufacturers to use less electricity? If so, how exactly do they use less electricity? By more efficient manufacturing processes (one would assume they do this regardless), or by scaling down their manufacturing (or moving offshore)?

        How exactly, John, does this tax do anything useful other than prop up a free spending socialist government?

        110

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          [Does] putting up the price of electricity stimulates manufacturers to use less electricity?

          Yes it does, but indirectly.

          Manufacturers will try to find ways to pass the extra production costs on to their customers, so unless they make a product that is truly a staple commodity, there will be more buyer resistance and therefore lower sales, requiring less production, and less use of electricity. Of course, with lower production, people loose their jobs, so the overall economy sinks further lowering demand for their products. Eventually the company goes out of business.

          If the manufacturers try to absorb extra costs, it ultimately comes off their profit line, which reduces the share price, which reduces the level of investment, which impedes the future viability of the company, and it will eventually go out of business.

          And when companies go out of business, people lose their jobs, and cannot afford anything other than staple commodities, so the retail market shrinks, and that adds to the velocity of the above two scenarios.

          Sooner or later, the entire economy collapses and falls into a Depression-like state. And that is what John is so smug about.

          140

      • #
        cohenite

        But Cohers, they just put their price up to cover the cost of permits.

        Yes, that’s how the tax is supposed to work; the fossils pay the tax which increases their price and the wily consumers see the price of renewables becoming competitive and start buying them.

        That’s happening, not.

        60

        • #

          Good old Cohenite, nothing if not consistent.

          http://ecoandsustainable.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/7-3-solar-pv-uptake1.png

          http://www.energymatters.com.au/faqs/energy-consumption-australia-large.gif

          http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/ret-report-fig09.jpg

          Looks like the real world disagrees with you.

          Meanwhile, as anybody who pays an electricity bill is aware, prices are skyrocketing:
          http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/World_energy_prices_1991-2010.png/696px-World_energy_prices_1991-2010.png

          And as legacy energy source prices climb, renewables continue to get cheaper:
          http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

          Plant Type Total System Levelized Cost
          Conventional Coal 99.6
          Advanced Coal 112.2
          Advanced Coal with CCS 140.7
          Natural Gas Fired
          NG: Conventional Combined Cycle 68.6
          NG: Advanced Combined Cycle 65.5
          NG: Advanced CC with CCS 92.8
          NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine 132
          NG: Advanced Combustion Turbine 105.3
          Advanced Nuclear 112.7
          Geothermal 99.6
          Biomass 120.2
          Wind1 96.8
          Solar PV1,2 156.9
          Solar Thermal1 251
          Hydro1 89.9

          Now, a *rational* person would celebrate the advance of human knowledge and the progress of our technology.
          At the *very* least, such a person, if they chose to pooh-pooh modern technology, would choose a factual argument rather than an inaccurate dismissal based on personal bias and ideology.

          314

          • #
            Heywood

            “renewables continue to get cheaper:”

            I love it when true believers come out with this statement. Renewables are actually getting more expensive, it is only that the cost of legacy energy sources is artificially inflated at a higher rate that makes them appear cheaper.

            Of course, this is little comfort for pensioners and low income workers who are too scared to turn a heater on in winter because they can no longer afford the power bill. Don’t give me any of the bullshit about compensation either, we all know that doesn’t cut it.

            You provide lots of links and information so you must know a fair bit about the subject.

            Tell me Margot, how much of the warming, in degrees C. please, is being offset by the CO2 Tax and RETs???

            80

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Queue: Sound of Crickets in the underbrush …

              30

              • #
                crakar24

                Do you have crickets in NZ? I just realised that i never heard any for the entire 6 months i was there, maybe you dont have any or maybe it was the bone chilling cold that kept them quiet?

                Cheers

                10

              • #
                Dave


                They found the biggest cricket thing in the world on an island in NZ a few years ago.

                Video of it eating a carrot.

                10

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I don’t think we do. The reference to Crickets was a metaphorical wottsit. Which probably explains why we are so bad at playing the game, as our team is also a metaphorical wottsit.

                20

              • #
                crakar24

                Touché

                You are in fine form today RW it has been a pleasure to read

                20

            • #

              How much warming might we avert?

              Who knows, but let’s hope we avert most of the 8 degrees higher than today that the world experienced last time CO2 levels reached 400ppm.

              http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/09/meteorite-crater-global-warming

              Unchecked burning of fossil fuels has driven carbon dioxide to levels not seen for 3m years when, the sediments show, temperatures were 8C higher than today, lush forests covered the tundra and sea levels were up to 40m higher than today.

              ————————
              REPLY: If only there was a causative link between high CO2 and temperatures, and not just a correlation that usually runs backwards eh? Don’t you worry that if CO2 hits 4000ppm, we might go into an ice age like the world did in the Ordovocian. ;-) – Jo

              22

              • #
                Heywood

                “8 degrees higher than today that the world experienced last time CO2 levels reached 400ppm”

                Interesting…

                So 3 million years ago the earth was 8 degrees warmer @ 400ppm?

                Why isn’t it anywhere near 8 degrees warmer now we are approaching that figure again? Could it be that there is no direct correlation between temperature and CO2??

                10

          • #
            Backslider

            Ok Margot. Now, please tell to the whole world what you do:

            Do you use solar/wind only for electricity or not at all and are simply hooked up to the grid?

            Do you not drive a motor vehicle or if you do, what do you drive (make/model/year)?

            Do you refrain from consuming products that are manufactured and if not why not?

            30

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Since Margo (to use the English spelling rather than the French) has probably finished her work as a government press officer for the day, let me answer for her:

              Question 1: “No I derive all of my power from the byproducts of a composting toilet, driven by a large intake of pre-digested Mung beans and tofu.”

              Question 2: “No, I do not drive a motor vehicle. As a Senior Government Press Officer, I am entitled to a car and a chauffeur. I have no idea what sort of car it is, but it is large inside.”

              Question 3: “Please see my answer to question 1.”

              Disclaimer: I may not be entirely accurate in regard to these answers, but I am sure that Margo will correct any errors of fact when she returns to work in the morning. ;-)

              70

          • #
            cohenite

            Margot; you are wrong; the 2011 Australian Productivity Commission on page 123 shows this comparative cost of the various electricity sources;

            ■ coal-fired power station $79per MWh (megawatt hour)

            ■ gas-fired power station $97per MWh – or 1.2 times the cost of coal power

            ■ wind power $150-$214per MWh

            ■ solar power $400-$473per MWh

            The EIA has done a projection for 2016 and their comparison based on 2008 prices is:

            • Conventional Coal Power $ 78.10
            • Onshore Wind Power $149.30
            • Offshore Wind Power $191.10
            • Thermal Solar Power $256.60
            • Photo-voltaic Solar Power $396.10

            But this is not the whole truth because there is no comparison between renewables and fossils and nuclear because renewables are intermittant which has the effect shown by Miskelly and Quirk.

            Looking at Table 1 we can see the usual suspects; if we use Cullerin range we can see that the Installed Capacity is 30MW and their Capacity Factor is 34% or 10.2 MW.

            That 10MW is the actual power produced as an average over a period, usally at least a 1/4, more commonly a year.

            The Reliability Point is the crucial indice; it shows the odds of the Cullerin installation producing 90% OF ITS MAXIMUM RATED POWER is 3/100, or 3%.

            Taking this further, say I wanted a guarantee of constant power for 3 hours next Tuesday week; what is the probability I would have that power from wind and solar?

            According to Miskelly and Quirk I would have a 3% chance of having the power I need for 90% of the 3 hours; I would have no chance of having power for 100% of the time; but here is the problem: the probability of having power at any one minute would not rise from 3% but decrease.

            It would decrease because wind and solar are inherently variable; unlike nuclear and fossils which power from a constant, wind and solar power from that intermittancy; that is their base and I think that fact is being masked by averaging. So, if there is a vanishing probability of power 100% of the time then each period of time will also have the same low probability as the period of time becomes smaller.

            The fact is wind and solar don’t work; at least they don’t work if we want to maintain the current lifestyle.

            Margot doesn’t care about that but the poor and elderly in cold places do; with the dearer, unreliable wind and solar replacing cheaper energy people are already dying in places like England.

            60

            • #
              Winston

              Cohers,
              I think it is pretty obvious who is “rational” and it certainly isn’t Margo. Perhaps she meant to say “rationable”, since that would make more sense, and be a lot closer to the truth.

              30

            • #

              Cohenite, you seem a little confused about the capacity factor, as demonstrated by your incorrect assertion:

              this is not the whole truth because there is no comparison between renewables and fossils and nuclear because renewables are intermittant which has the effect shown by Miskelly and Quirk.

              The EIA uses the capacity factor to obtain the 99.6 (Coal) v. the 96.8 (Wind).
              The EIA’s projection for 2018 is 100.1 (Coal) v. 86.6 (Wind), which demonstrates the fact that:
              a. Wind is cheaper
              amd
              b. It is getting cheaper over time while coal gets more expensive.

              Not sure where you got your false figures from.

              In other news, while Cohenite tells us that, “Solar and wind don’t work”, here in the real world, I visited the following the other week, which proves Cohenite is making assertions not based on fact:

              http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1008

              A town in Western Australia has officially unveiled a world-first – A solar diesel power station that stores energy in flywheel “batteries”.

              Located at Marble Bar in the eastern Pilbara region, the power station incorporates the largest single axis tracking solar farm in Australia, combined with the latest diesel technology and an innovative flywheel energy storage system.

              The 1,350 SunPower solar panels follow the path of the sun and produce a generating capacity of 1,160 kW. It’s expected the solar farm component will provide up to 89% of the town’s electricity needs during peak periods in summer.

              The solar hybrid power station will save 1,119 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year and save between 35-40 per cent diesel consumption per year (approximately 412,000 litres of fuel annually).

              Fantastic to see modern technology evolving, isn’t it?

              12

              • #
                cohenite

                Sorry Margot, you still don’t know what you are talking about and you are still naive and gullible when it comes to the claims of the AGW and renewable spruikers.

                You say this about Capacity Factor:

                The EIA uses the capacity factor to obtain the 99.6 (Coal) v. the 96.8 (Wind).

                That is impossible; for wind to have a cf of 96.8 would mean that the wind would be blowing at a perfect constant rate for a year; examples please where that happens.

                You then uncritically quote from some blurb about a new ‘solar’ town. Flywheels are ingenious and very good at storing energy from intermittent sources such as wind; BUT here is the rub; you cannot use energy twice; either you use the energy from the windmills when it is produced or you store it in the flywheel for a regular supply later on.

                That is why your town has constant deisel backup which is running all the time; the fact that green energy does not replace fossil but is in addition to it, at greater expense and CO2 emissions is well known.

                In fact when you include the production of the wind structure and include the support motors which turn the windmills towards the wind direction, wind actually uses more power then it generates. Solar is slightly better as Charles S. Opalek, PE notes:

                The Energy Returned On Energy Invested for a typical solar panel installation is 0.48.

                An EROEI rating of less than unity (ie: 1.00) means the alternative energy will never return more energy than went into its design, manufacture, installation, operation, maintenance, and decommisision.

                Why would you burn two barrels of oil to find one barrel? This is the legacy of solar pv power.

                Wind power is worse. By my calculations the EROEI is 0.29 at best.

                Margot, it’s good to have faith in something but when you let your faith interpret reality then at best you are a nuisance and at worst you become an AGW zealot costing vast amounts of money, all wasted, and lives.

                20

              • #

                Oh Margot, you poor gullible fool,

                The 1,350 SunPower solar panels follow the path of the sun and produce a generating capacity of 1,160 kW.

                Oh wow!

                1.16MW (Nameplate Capacity) from Solar PV.

                Umm. let’s see now. 4MWH per day on average spread over the full year, and you would be surprised how much of that power is actually used to drive the heliostats.

                Because it’s Solar PV, it does not supply that power during peak consumption periods of time, 5PM until 11PM, and 6AM till 8AM. That power is provided by the diesel.

                4MHW per day, the same power provided by Bayswater in, umm 10 seconds.

                Oh, and please go away and learn about Capacity Factor.

                Tony.

                20

              • #

                Did you not read the EIA saying these power sources are NOT comparable? Can’t read your own link?

                Did you read the evolution theory? Useless and impractical technologies die out from natural selection when the government cuts off life support.

                00

          • #

            Oh Margot, you prat!

            Read Comment 5.1.1.2, visit the site linked to, and then explain that will you.

            You fools can’t even believe what’s shown to you in front of your own eyes.

            This isn’t modelling done by morons with a barrow to push.

            This is actual data from right efffing now, you dolt.

            Explain that away.

            Your green scotoma blinds from from the actuality.

            You must be so embarrassed.

            Tony.

            40

          • #

            “The duty cycle for intermittent renewable resources, wind and solar, is not operator controlled, but dependent on the weather or solar cycle (that is, sunrise/sunset) and so will not necessarily correspond to operator dispatched duty cycles. As a result, their levelized costs are not directly comparable to those for other technologies (even where the average annual capacity factor may be similar) and therefore are shown in separate sections within each of the tables. The capacity factors shown for solar, wind, and hydroelectric resources in Table 1 are simple averages of the capacity factor for the marginal site in each region. These capacity factors can vary significantly by region and can represent resources that may or may not get built in EIA capacity projections. These capacity factors should not be interpreted as representing EIA’s estimate or projection of the gross generating potential of resources actually projected to be built.”

            These technologies are clearly not equal to coal, NG and nuclear. They are given a separate section/table because of that. There is no valid comparisons between variable and continual power. You have wind and solar when nature says so. You have coal, NG and nuclear when you need it.

            30

      • #
        Joe V.

        BTW, ever since that nasty tax came in, has anyone noticed how the cost of carbonated beverages has outstripped their still equivalents? Has Guinness, with bubbles of nitrogen, gotten comparatively cheaper than beer with its bubbles of CO2?

        The typical CO2 content of a litre bottle of soda, is about 5 grammes.
        The CO2 produced by consuming a litre of gasoline is typically around 2,500 grammes.
        How much Carbon Tax would you put directly on a bottle of soda ?
        The energy used to produce and bottle the soda is far more significant than it’s CO2 content.

        00

    • #
      FijiDave

      Here ’tis

      Sum of Total scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions (t CO2-e) 102,466,057
      Sum of Total scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions (t CO2-e) 344,101,087
      Sum of Tax @ $23/Tonne CO2 $10,271,044,312
      Average of Tax @ $23/Tonne CO2 $23,941,828

      50

      • #
        Dennis

        I believe that most people do not understand that carbon tax flows along the whole supply chain and at each link there is a supply chain feeding in. At each link a profit margin is added to the CO2 tax component of production cost or service cost. By the time consumers pay the retail price there is a considerable amount relating to carbon tax in the bill. The federal government published a leaflet last year claiming that $9 in every $100 of electricity bill (9%) is carbon tax and GST on it however I read later that $14 is closer to the truth. Add renewable energy levy by the federal government which is around $10 in every $100. I would like to know what percentage the average retail price relates to the carbon tax and the levy plus profit margins.

        40

  • #
    handjive

    Treasury reference modelling showed that without a carbon (sic) tax, manufacturing was expected to grow more slowly than the rest of the economy, by about half a per cent annually to 2020 in real terms.

    Wayne Swan says the cost to economy of switch to carbon tax will be ‘very modest’
    .
    Now I get it.
    The way to get manufacturing businesses going is to tax them more heavily.
    If the carbon tax does that then why not double it?

    80

  • #
    Dave

    .

    Manufacturing is the biggest loser.

    1. Manufacturing lost over 100,000 jobs between 2008 to 2012
    2. Manufacturing went from the highest contributor to gross domestic product in 2000 to the lowest in 2012.
    3. Manufacturing is expected to lose another 85,000 jobs in the next five years

    Why, When Australia has it’s own coal, iron ore, lime, etc etc, yet it’s cheaper to send these products overseas and import the manufactured product.

    1. Power costs are 3 to 4 times other countries.
    2. Labour is also more expensive.
    3. Government wasting Billions on rubbish schemes.
    4. NBN is not going to help the majority of manufacturers.
    5. Government RED tape is largest it’s ever been.
    6. 25% of ALL Australians (Men, women and children) are on a government pay role of some form.

    The fallout then goes to the construction industry, the service trades, and finally to the administration areas.

    The place is currently a huge mess, with many small businesses just waiting for lower costs, cheaper power, and less regulations before they reinvest in their own business. Everyone in the trades are totally fed up with this government and it’s failed schemes, lies and talk of an Australian economy saved by the ALP. What a load of SHlT this government is feeding us at the moment. The real ALP has gone to the pack, there are no true blue unionists left, they are all lawyers and politicians and parasites. And the GREENS – don’t get me started.

    200

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Dave, 100% agree.
      The real ALP went to the pack back in 1955 with “The Split” preceded by communist party infiltration via trade unions.
      I support the DLP purely for their constitutional values and the opposition of what you point out above.

      60

      • #
        Dennis

        Earlier, the start was 1950s when DLP split to escape the Commmunists, th

        30

      • #
        Peter Miller

        Greenism is the new communism.

        Greenism adherents infiltrate ‘respectable’ socialist organisation in the way the communists did in the past.

        Both groups shared a similar goal: influence way above their actual numbers and a burning desire to transform society into something where universal poverty and suppression of individual rights is guaranteed.

        60

    • #
      ianl8888


      Why, When Australia has it’s own coal, iron ore, lime, etc etc, yet it’s cheaper to send these products overseas and import the manufactured product

      An extremely key question, and not just for today’s situation. This question has been asked and asked for about 75 years now … and never answered in public with any honesty

      Several factors include:

      small population for a very large geographical area, mostly contained within 3 well-separated cities. The relatively small population size limits the opportunity scale of mass markets – this means we are subsidised by large-population markets in the US, EU and Asia

      city-based unions (and their political party) that constantly squeeze the life out of city-based manufacturing. When was the last time a new large-scale manufacturing entity was set up in one of our 3 big cities ?

      Given these parameters, farming and mining are what we do best and have comparative advantage with

      I’m sure outraged lefties will scream at this post, but they then need to answer the question quoted in the first sentence to have any credibility

      120

      • #
        John Brookes

        Its pretty easy Ian. Its your fault. You won’t get out of bed for the sort of money people in China and India will work for. So its your fault!

        120

        • #
          Dave

          .

          JB NFI

          60

        • #
          Shevva

          So Australia should start treating their people like India and China?, oh wait never mind.

          50

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Good idea; I am sure we could get a really cheap physicist from Bangla Desh.

            Now, where would we employ him?

            60

            • #
              Greebo

              Can’t do that. Dear Leader is cracking down on 457 Visas. Isn’t she? Actually, who could tell?

              30

            • #
              Ace

              Used to be able to get really cheap nuclear weapons blueprints from Pakistan.

              30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                You can still get relatively cheap nuclear weapons from Pakistan, if you know who to ask.

                30

              • #
                Ace

                Reminds me…I once shared a flat with an inorganic chemistry phd student from Pakistan. He was totally frank with the fact he was destined to work in nuclear “power” when he returned. That was, thirty years ago. I wonder what part of nuclear “power” hes in now?

                Could even be the guy to ask, Rereke.

                00

              • #
                Ace

                …I wont be asking though, I’ve clean forgotten his name!

                00

              • #
                crakar24

                It would not be Abdul Qadeer Khan by any chance would it?

                00

              • #
                Ace

                Crackar I know you jest but for what its worth, I believe AQKahn was at that time working in a nuclear centre in the Netherlands. I think it was him… or someone among his associates….who afterwards was discovered to have stolen reams of classified documents. Those documents were the basis of Khans subsequent empire. Last I heard he is both a national hero and had been in jail.

                00

        • #
          ianl8888


          we are subsidised by large-population markets in the US, EU and Asia

          How does your jejune comment relate to this ?

          I’ve avoided your little non-sequitur bon mots – they’re akin to walking through the Looking Glass with Alice

          Farming and mining have and still do support all manner of parasites, even those who wish to close these industries down :)

          Note that even after 200+ years of farming and mining activities, the sophisticated equipment used in these Aus industries is still imported from manufacturing centres in the Northern Hemisphere, notably Germany (not a sweatshop country, as I have observed); not one large-scale manufacturing centre ever developed in Aus, despite the fact that we are a major customer

          30

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            As you have tried to move the focus to some other part of your earlier comment, presumably this means you agreed with JB that the main cause of no manufacturing in Australia is that labour costs are cheaper elsewhere?

            Since JB did answer your question, does that mean he now has “credibility”?

            On the market size issue, are you trying to say the root-like-rabbits option worked well for China and India? Their surplus of people kept labour prices low more than anything else. Presumably you don’t want labour prices to be as low here, but you still want locally manufactured products to be affordable, which leads us to…

            As for Germany not being a sweatshop, indeed, because robots and CNC mills don’t sweat. They use robots to make robot parts, with only final assembly done by people. Doesn’t sound like a major employer even if the decreased foreign dependency and increased export earnings are attractive.

            If there was some reason other than labour and energy prices for our wide brown No-Man’Land, what is it? Are you implying there is some non-economic non-free market reason? A conspiracy perhaps?

            Should we have used leftist protectionism to prop up a local manufacturing sector? (Serious question.)

            10

      • #
        Dave

        .

        Other factors also come into play with development in Australia – and it is the GREEN policy again. This is regurgitated from an old poster Memory Vault who highlighted this aspect years ago in regard to the BHPB Olymic Dam project.

        I am just trying to recall his comment at the time but here goes:

        “Electrowinning” is required by BHPB’s development of Olympic Dam project! Basically it needs huge amounts of low voltage high amperage electrolysis that uses massive amounts of electricity that has to be continuous! Supply of this electricity in SA is limited and Olympic Dam required the same amount of electricity as Adelaide! So, if Olympic Dam starts it would require 100% supply 24/7 and then if SA demand exceeds supply all of SA would be in blackout. WHY? This is because bringing the electrowinning process online and taking them offline is done in cooperation with SA’s power supply providers! SA cannot guarantee this power supply – BHPB then offers to build its own power generator at Olympic Dam because SA can’t promise the electricity which is so dependent on wind turbines, solar etc!

        So the SA government says YES – because their own grid is only delivering when the wind blows and the sun shines – BHPB agrees, and can supply the shortfall of the inadequate power capabilities of the SA electricity supply! So BHPB plans to build a huge new power station to guarantee it’s own suppy plus make the SA electricity supply less reliant on importing electricity from the Eastern States because all the wind turbines are in reality not delivering anywhere near the SA requirements.

        Problem Solved! Great result! BHPB builds its own power station and helps SA in the process!

        Wrong – lets deal with the federal government next – BHPB is now identified as a “POWER PROVIDER” (Of both SA and Olympic Dam) and as a result has to source a specific, and ever increasing amount of the TOTAL supply from “renewable energy sources”! So BHPB has to supply from windturbines, solar, wave etc! Same as all the rest of Australain energy suppliers!

        This all occured some 3 months ago that changed the BHPB managements course of action! They don’t blame falling commodity prices nor the Australian dollar! BHPB simply put Olympic in the TOO HARD basket because of the above! They will come back on track if the carbon tax and all the REC’s etc governing power generation gets relaxed! It is also the Opposition as well as the ALP that support this power generation demand of supply from renewable energy!

        That in a nutshell sums up this governments ability to stuff up companies ability to develop our resources. Gillard, Rudd, Swan et al are all greedy parasites on the gravy train of money. They all will retire on massive pensions paid by us. BASTURDS – the lot of them.

        Also my apologies to Memory Vault for the lack of wit I have displayed in interpreting his comment. He is sadly missed.

        110

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      New Zealand turned a corner when Rob Muldoon de-registered some of he major unions, and did away with the legislation that made union membership compulsory.

      Just sayin’ …

      80

    • #
      Dennis

      Don’t forget the green tape impact too

      50

  • #

    Notice, gentle people, that while Holden has it’s hand out for yet more taxpayer dollars AND laying off workers at regular intervals, their PARENT Company is busy importing very similar OPEL Cars into a parallel Dealership network.
    How’s that for playing off both ends?

    90

    • #
      gnome

      It isn’t playing both ends, it’s laying the groundwork for a total withdrawal from manufacturing in Australia. Like everyone else, GM can’t afford to manufacture goods in Australia without the subsidies.

      30

  • #

    There must be something very scary going on when Governments and the MSM are happy to hide this sort of information away from the very people they are supposed to be looking after.

    The problem is that the opposition parties, everywhere, seem oblivious to the problem as well. If they’re not, then why aren’t they shouting about it out from the highest hill?

    In the UK we do have a lone voice in the dark – UKIP – and it’s to be hoped that the current wave of support for them continues to hold firm and slowly grow.

    There are dark days ahead for our ‘democracies’ and very few breaks in the dark clouds building up on the horizon.

    Apart from that, have a nice day!

    150

    • #
      NoFixedAddress

      Speaking of opposition parties…

      Check out the pricing of Carbon according to Liberal Hunt…

      http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/04/greg-hunts-carbon-buy-back-scheme-for-australia/

      20

      • #
        Dennis

        Hunt was questioned by Bolt and his answers left much to be desired, climate change is real according to Hunt. Abbott called it “crap”. Some people are easily led

        70

    • #

      Hi Grumpy, as far as I can make out, there doesn’t appear to be any significant opposition party; it’s effectively a one party state in Oz.

      http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/the-creeping-betrayal-of-democracy-in-australia/

      Pointman

      61

      • #
        John Brookes

        Come on now Pointman, we’ve got Clive Palmer and the UAP now!

        011

        • #

          Like I said …

          Pointman

          70

        • #
          NoFixedAddress

          I would like to see a referendum to get rid of ‘federation’ which has failed the original States (except for Tasmania).

          20

          • #
            CameronH

            The main problem is not Federation, it is that the constitution was not strong enough to protect the States rights. It is also the fact that party politics have corrupted the original intention of the Senate whose major role was to be the protection of the States from encroachment of the Federal government. This is why the number of Senators is the same for each State regardless of population.

            The States also willingly passed their rights to raise their own taxes to the Federal government. This was done through a combination of cowardice at having to face an election on taxes and as a short term issue during war time which was, of course, never reversed. How many short term government programs are ever removed I wonder. Probably none.

            The Federal government is now also operating way outside the constraints of the constitution. As examples we can look at just Education, Health and Environment. In the Australian Constitution in the section that lists the areas where the Federal government is allowed to legislate, Education, Health, and Environment are not included. Why then do we have 10s of thousands of government employees combined in these department sitting around in Canberra interfering with our lives and the functioning of our States. Why do we even have Federal government ministers for these areas. Take education, my understanding is that we have 5 different Federal Government ministers running various forms of education bureaucracies in this area when they employ not a single teacher and have no constitutional mandate to even be involved. How many billions of dollars are spent here making up all sorts of rules and regulations to interfere with our choices in these matters?

            40

      • #
        NoFixedAddress

        Labor gets in to ‘gummint’ to do what the Liberals can’t do and the Liberals get in to ‘gummint’ to do what Labor can’t do…..

        30

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Business people are basically rational; people who tend to believe that reason will prevail.

    This is why so many of them have hung on to their businesses despite the obvius stupidity and theft by Government.

    In this case however, the thought that the ship would eventually right itself has been proven wrong.

    Stupidity is going down with the ship.

    locally in and around Newcastle, just in the last week, there have been crazy reports of businesses shedding workers and obviously

    THEY ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE.

    We have been led into quicksand and are now up to our necks.

    The Lucky Country; an amazing country led by cretins.

    KK

    80

    • #
      Dennis

      A spending problem for federal government, revenue is higher than at any earlier time. And they are building roadblocks on top of exit plans for manufacturing since Whitlam Labor signed thy 1970e Lima Protocol in the early 1970s.

      71

    • #
      Greebo

      We have been led into quicksand and are now up to our necks.

      I won’t have that. There has been no leadership on display here; we have been driven, not led. The rest was spot on though.

      40

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    Not sure if this has been posted before but I encourage everyone to read and reflect…

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/the-golden-apple-socialist-fairy-tale.html

    70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I agree — this is exactly the way bureaucracy evolves. There is no evil plan. In fact, there is no plan at all. Bureaucracy just lurches from one bad solution to another, and constantly misses the fact that the original problem was too much interference in processes that were already working.

      40

      • #

        Well said. There is no conspiracy or plan in bureaucracy–it just happens along predictable paths. Humans really are quite predictable. Unfortunately, they’re very changeable so they continue to repeat the same patterns over and over.

        10

      • #
        Joe V.

        When is the bureaucrat’s answer to too much bureaucracy ?

        00

  • #
    Dennis

    Of course high electricity costs drive businesses offshore, added to green and red tape expenses and impositions, and cost per day of skilled labour being 50% higher than the US which is 50% plus higher than third world.

    40

  • #
    Gamecock

    This is why the Left wants world government. If you raise taxes in Australia, businesses move to the U.S. If you have world government, businesses – and people – will have no where to escape to.

    70

  • #
    Themm Nunnov

    .
    Aaah – that would be SENATOR Ron Boswell of the NATIONAL PARTY – something you seem to have gone out of your way to avoid mentioning, Jo Nova.

    That would be the same SENATOR Ron Boswell, of the NATIONAL PARTY, who in 1990-91 used Parliamentary Privilege and the Assembly of God Church, to destroy the whistleblower who was trying to warn people we were about to have the “Recession We Had To Have”.

    You know, when Australians were subjected to 18% interest on their home loans, half a million Australian families lost their homes to the banks, millions more suffered severe financial hardship, and the Big Four banks increased their asset holdings from $32 billion to $280 billion in four years.

    NOW you are quoting that Ron Boswell as some kind of “reliable source”?

    .
    Strange bedfellows, Jo Nova, strange bedfellows.

    —————————
    REPLY: Thanks for the proof-reading. “Senator”, and “Nationals” added (will help foreign readers). No thanks for the baseless ad homs, and wierd innuendo. If Boswell got a number wrong, tell us. – Jo

    17

    • #
      John Brookes

      Yes, I’m almost too weary to say it, but its by a member of the National party, and its in The Australian.

      Which means it can be totally ignored.

      17

      • #
        Heywood

        ..and the point that “Themm” is trying to make is relevant because???

        20

      • #
        Themm Nunnov

        Yes,

        It was a NATIONAL party politician selling out the Australian people to support a plan to enrich the Australian Big Four banks, introduced by, and steered by, an AUSTRALIAN LABOR Treasurer.

        If you think collusion between the between the major political parties to sell ALL working class Australians down the creek to the interests of Big Banking “can be totally ignored”, then you are even bigger fool than I originally credited you for, Brookes.

        If the idea of an Australian politician (of any political persuasion) being able to successfully use an ultra extreme Christian church to peddle political propaganda aimed at impoverishing ordinary Australians and enriching the banks doesn’t scare the living daylights out of you, then you are in for a very rude awakening when the roundups begin.

        11

        • #
          Heywood

          And again…

          What is the relevance to this discussion?

          Nice own goal though. Brookesy was being sarcastic and agreeing with you, but you attack him. Funny.

          00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    This figure set me on a train of thought which culminates in a sinister possibility.

    That’s $270 from every household each year that could be used to create jobs in restaurants, holiday towns, local shops, gyms, sporting facilities…

    Is that all? My rent rise in April will add up to $520 extra per year. $270 per household per year is quite small in the average annual budget. And I say that as someone who presently has a negative income.

    The Principle Not the Price
    I’ve always felt the main objection to the carbon tax (i.e. ETS) was on the principle, not on the actual cost consequence. If this tax can be introduced based on unreal pseudoscience then who knows how many more laws can be created based on imaginary nonsense?
    Of course that was back when this nonsense hadn’t been implemented and we didn’t know what the actual cost would be. We were told it was only going to steal 0.8% of national GDP – but that was based on “treasury modelling” that is probably now located on a USB flash drive inside the mouth of its treasury intern author whom is presently walking the bottom of Lake Burley-Griffin with concrete Reeboks, if you catch my drift. Never to see the light of day.

    What is the price impact?
    Just got my electricity bill for the last quarter. $216. versus the same period in 2012 which was $187.
    The nonsense tax impact on the main item (T11) looks like +$0.024/kWh, which is exactly what the helpful note from the QCA says at the bottom of the bill. On totals that would be about +$115/year in electricity, so the other +$155 per year of the estimated RET+CTax impact is spread across all the other things I buy that use electricity in either production or storage. Does this really add up?

    Consider that (unlike the GST) these quasi-religious indulgences accumulate through the supply chain, with each value-added step indirectly gaining carbon tax roughly in proportion to how much energy is expended in that step. Leaving aside the electricity bill I pay, the estimated net effect of this accumulated tax on my purchases has only amounted to $155 per year? Buying a coffee from a cafe once per week would add more!
    Pull the other one. The tax impact must be higher than $270/yr/pp if it is the sole cause of even half the effects on industry that are described in the article.
    Otherwise you are telling me we could have prevented all these closures and layoffs by NOT buying 1 coffee a week and spending those meagre savings on any other Australian-made items we would have probably bought anyway.
    If that doesn’t sound quite right, please tell me where the mistake or omission was made in the reasoning.

    Does the estimated price impact explain all the effects?
    I think diagnosing the ETS+MRET impact is difficult. We have had a difficult economic climate. The MRET + CTax were added at the same time as the GFC recovery. How can one apportion blame to these three causes in some quantifiable way? Take a thought experiment…

    If companies are closing or cutting costs it’s because they couldn’t or wouldn’t pass the tax cost on to their direct customers while maintaining sales. There’s at least three different classes of producers.
    A) If they could pass on the cost locally but didn’t then they are second-guessing the reaction of their next customer in the chain due to a price rise. Yet the end result for the consumer was the price of 1 coffee a week – so in that case the tax bark would be worse than its bite. The fear of a backlash made more difference than the reality would have if they’d just passed on the cost. That’s even before the short term consequences of the Household Bread And Circus Assistance Package is considered which would soften the impact further (for the first 3 years anyway).
    B) If the higher Cost of Goods Sold makes a foreign-sourced input preferable over the local sourced one in the domestic market then this could lead to closures and cost-cutting, but again I return to the 1 coffee a week figure, so it is not terribly believable that all these layoffs and closures occurred due wholly and solely to the estimated ETS impact on consumers.
    C) The remaining case is if the company can’t pass on the “tax” impost locally because they are export focussed, but the Trade Exposed Industries get special exemptions from the ETS charges… don’t they? Surely they must be exempt? Ah!
    When looking up this question, I hit what may be the jackpot, the smoking gun, the watermelon-shaped fingerprint of Green/Left policy.

    The Property Poison Pill is Back!
    You see as early as 2009 when the WongBot was trash-talking a carbon tax in favour of the kind of ETS that did eventually pass, the eggheads at LaTrobe university had already figured out a rather important difference between a emissions tax versus a CPRS/ETS:

    In short, a BTA (border tax adjustment) works by charging imports as they enter Australia and rebating the charge as exports leave the country. This is how the GST BTA works. The net effect of this design feature is that it does not matter whether Australia goes it alone on the matter of carbon pricing, at least in terms of our international competitiveness. Domestic producers do not have to compete at home against imports unencumbered by the impost, nor are exports expected to compete in countries that do not tax their own domestic producers.

    The major concern around a BTA is its consistency with the provisions in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Certain BTAs, such as that for the GST, are well established as being consistent.

    A charge for carbon emissions, or any other form of energy tax, though, has proven problematic on a number of grounds. Under the CPRS, a BTA is unlikely to be allowed since provision is only made to adjust taxes. The permits issued under the CPRS, though, are a form of property, a fact noted on several occasions in the Green and White Papers. While a tradeable permits scheme has the same economic effect as a tax, these problems arise due to the different legal form of the charge.

    With respect to a carbon tax, the property issue does not arise since this form of carbon pricing is recognised as a tax and, therefore, potentially qualifying for adjustment.

    Under WTO rules they can’t insulate exporters from the carbon indulgence precisely because tradeable emissions permits are a property right not a tax. This was known BEFORE the ETS was even proposed! They intended to leave trade-exposed industries hanging out to dry from day one!

    The export price rise is one obvious reason why the closures and layoffs we are seeing exceed what would be predicted from only the estimated “$270 per year per household” figure. It’s an underestimate of the impact.

    70

  • #
    Robber

    Can someone in the Liberal Party please explain why they continue to support the renewable energy tax (RET)? In part it is due to Greg Hunt,Shadow Minister for Climate Change. a “warmist believer”, who says on his website: “By contrast, the Coalition’s approach is very simple. We aren’t going to tax companies, we aren’t going to drive up the price of electricity and we aren’t going to make our budget hostage to other parliaments. What we are going to do is support incentives for those reducing emissions, which is precisely the environmental outcome we should be seeking”. “It will be supported by an Emissions Reduction Fund beginning at $300 million a year to buy back carbon, in a similar way to the Australian water buy back system.”
    But Greg, oh yes you are going to continue to drive up electricity prices by maintaining an RET that supports high cost solar and wind to in excess of 20% of supply by 2020, and will progressively drive out low cost, internationally competitive, coal-based electricity generation.
    Looking for budget savings? How about eliminating the role of Minister for Climate Change?

    160

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Robber

      TEN THUMBS UP for that one.
      GREG HUNT is a dangerous test tube baby of Malcolm Turnbull’s mind. Being a GREEN type he should be referred to as a MARCOT.

      40

    • #
      handjive

      From Climate Spectator:

      Hunt readies for Direct Action examination

      “At the National Environmental Law Association annual conference (NELA), Greg Hunt convincingly won a debate against the Greens Queensland Senator Larissa Waters and John Connor from the Climate Institute.

      To avoid being bogged in the sceptics debating quagmire, Greg Hunt said right up front that he believes in the science and that humans are impacting on the climate calling it “a fundamental challenge for the next 30, 50 or 100 years.”
      .
      It is fraud, not worthy of my vote, even after preferences.

      40

  • #
    Mattb

    So our almost full employment and massive salaries due to the mining boom have nothing to do with it?

    015

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Matt,

      Would you care to quote us the actual latest official employment figures, as a percentage of total population, and as a percentage of job seekers?

      And then please explain your definition of “full employment”, because it is possibly different to the one that most people would have.

      40

      • #
        • #

          Margot. You and I both know that graphs (why graph it anyway?) like that are meaningless without knowing the source of the data. Every country has its own way of calculating employment levels or workplace participation, and Australia’s has changed substantially over the years. So are these figures comparable? The ABC even has a convenient and recent article on this (there are many better out there in blogs and in reviewed publications if the topic interests readers) http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4674322.html

          on topic. Manufacturing’s problems as stated by industry groups and others, and along with a long historical background not mentioned here, don’t seem to overlap much with the convoluted proposal put in this post.

          42

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Well, that graph may be useful for the tabloid press, but it doesn’t actually tell me anything useful.

          Does the 5.2 figure represent the total registered unemployed?

          If so, is it the average for a period (and if so which period)? Or is it the maximum figure within a time range (and if so what was the time range)? Or is it the minimum figure for ten minutes on some date several years ago. Without context, it is rubbish.

          Does the 5.2 figure exclude those people who are not in work, but looking for work independently through recruiting agencies, or through their own efforts?

          But in any case I would not call 5.2% registered unemployed, “almost full employment”, especially since there may well be a sizable number of independent job seekers.

          41

    • #
      Backslider

      Perhaps also you can give us an indication of the “massive salaries”. Are you on one of these, huh?

      What is the average wage?

      50

      • #

        How about $60/hour for a tyre-fitter:
        http://www.seek.com.au/Job/tyre-fitter-mining-heavy-earthmoving-equipment/in/cairns-far-north-cairns-far-north/24453176
        – with accomodation and meals supplied, with 1 day in 2 off.

        Not bad, huh?

        Plenty more even better ones for people with even the most basic skills.

        37

        • #
          Dave

          .
          Margot

          How about $60/hour for a tyre-fitter & Plenty more even better ones for people with even the most basic skills

          You are the classic new ALP Lycra Latte Lawyer type. You’d probably call NRMA if your Peugeot racing bicycle got a flat tyre on the way to the coffee shop.

          A lowly tyre fitter with basic skills you say, you pompous little upper class McTurd progeny.

          How easy are these tyres to change on the Caterpillar 797 you ask?

          The tires are size 59/80R63 XDR, and made by Michelin at the cost of $40,000 each. They stand over 4 meters tall, and weigh nearly 5 tonnes per tire.

          Little Margot, what licences do you need to change one of these tyres? I can tell you wouldn’t have a clue about any of this at all.

          Go back to your little government gravy train job and don’t talk SHlT again. Your snobby little nose in air type with random comments like the above is exactly the reason why this present government is going to get booted out.

          I am printing your little weasel comment and taking heaps of copies to work tomorrow, you’ve just helped me to gain some votes against the ALP. :)

          113

          • #

            Printing yours as well and taking them to the local debating society. They’ll be scoffing about this into their brandies all night.

            04

            • #
              Dave

              .
              I would GA, but we don’t have a local mass debating society where I come from.

              But you feel free to go for it Gee Aye. :)

              40

              • #

                A clever double entendre! On the other hand those that deny their own participation in such societies are truly in denial.

                15

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              They’ll be scoffing about this into their brandies all night.

              Thanks for the warning. If I feel the earth shaking, I shall be reassured that in this instance, it is not an earthquake.

              50

              • #
                Gee Aye

                this might be a NZ definition of scoffing or Brandy that I am unaware of.

                scoffing present participle of scoff (Verb)
                Verb
                Speak to someone or about something in a scornfully derisive or mocking way: “department officials scoffed at the allegations”.

                12

              • #
                Dave

                .
                Rereke

                Don’t think GA quite got that one. :)

                10

            • #

              GA, I’m sure your debating society will appreciate the full extent of Dave’s argument fail.

              A lowly tyre fitter with basic skills you say

              It should be perfectly obvious to anybody who reads my post that I didn’t say anything remotely resembling either

              A lowly tyre fitter

              or

              A tyre fitter with basic skills

              and that the

              you say

              of Dave’s is just plain wrong.

              [Snip. Inflammatory. Can we get back to the topic instead of two anonymous names tossing insults at each other? - Jo]

              13

              • #
                Gee Aye

                clever Jo… you thought we would not notice the context of your use of ‘tossing”?

                01

          • #

            What are you trying to say, Dave?

            Are you aware that average weekly earnings for a full-time employee in this country are $56k/year?

            is $125k/year not a huge salary, by comparison?

            Do you consider vile insults a suitable substitute for actually making your argument?

            13

            • #

              Huge salaries are merited when work is dangerous and difficult. Earnings based on job difficulty are supposed to be higher for more dangerous jobs. The problem comes when we pay people in air conditioned offices who produce virtually nothing the same as guys risking their lives.

              Actually, by comparison (using statistics to say one is “double” the other–learned that in climate science, right?) it looks big. Looking at say comparison of how many people earn the $56 K, then the $125 K and then the really top end of say $1 million, $125 K doesn’t really look big at all. Looking at the lifestyle differences, taking into account tax rates, etc. it is really not so very big. One of my siblings makes twice what I do. There really isn’t much difference in take-home pay. He pays higher federal, state, and local taxes. Or do you not understand the difference between earned and “take-home” pay?

              20

        • #

          As Dave says, the job of tyre-fitter in a mine is not low skills. Mistakes can KILL you–my husband knew a tire changer that was killed when a tire exploded.
          The ad would indicate that you are on call 24 hours a day when working, in a remote area. The ad says “Contract/temporary”–in the US, that means no benefits like health insurance and no guarantee of length of employment. I do not know if it means the same in Australia. The reasons mines pay high wages is it’s a HARD WORK AND DANGEROUS. People don’t often work in remote locations for minimum wage–can’t think of anyone I know who would. My husband worked in a uranium mine–minus 50 degrees (F) in the winter, high wind, and you are in the weather oiling and fueling equipment. Yes, he got paid very well. No one works in conditions like that without high pay. There’s nothing outrageous or inappropriate about the pay. If it sounds so easy and lucrative to you, maybe you should try getting training in changing tires the size of house at 3 AM. Then run out and lap up some of that gravy train, dear.

          60

          • #
            Robert

            I suspect that Margot has no idea what real work is. I also suspect this person thinks it’s like changing the tire on a car when it has a flat. I learned long ago that even taking the tire off of a semi can be hazardous. The tire is on a rim, the rim itself slides onto the hub and is held in place by wedges that are tightened down. During the course of operation tensions build up and if they are not released prior to removing the nut that holds the wedge in place the wedge can launch itself off the stud with enough force to hospitalize or kill. Not something you want the untrained doing if you’d prefer not to pay death benefits or disability benefits for someone who would still be working for you if they knew what they were doing.

            40

        • #
          Backslider

          Poor little Margot. Shot down in flames yet again.

          Isn’t it amazing that, even when we are not talking about global warming the trolls still feel the need to troll?

          40

  • #
    Shevva

    Well at least your be left with strip mining your beautiful country and sending the rare mats to China or be a government shill

    30

  • #
    john robertson

    I like this theory.Witchcraft it is.
    As with the cooling of the little ice age, the new dark ages complete with cooling temperatures, crop failure and social stress, will be greeted by a rational populace ;”Burn the Witch”.
    I will propose the “sciencey” explanation for burning the CAGW wretches.
    The inactivity of the Sun is to blame for us freezing our asses off, the sun is liken unto a god,we must activate/appease this new/old god, with human sacrifice.
    Those most responsible for offending against the sun, are those denying the solar influence, denigrating the sun’s power whilst blaming the innocent molecule CO2.
    30 years of sacrilege by these solar deniers has wrought our doom.
    Additional matter added to the solar furnace,will produce more heat saving us all.The hungry sun.
    Therefore for sciencey and religious reasons, CAGW alarmists must be fired into the sun until the solar activity picks up again.
    And using IPCC (TM) logic, if there is no change in solar activity, we will have to fire more bodies into the sun.
    I have computer models “proving” this gospel to be true. You must obey.

    70

  • #
    Backslider

    And here go all the carbon tax promises:

    Government shelves $1.4b carbon pledge

    Are any of us surprised by this?

    50

  • #
    gai

    If you want to know why governments are intentionally trying to kill off the economy of their countries, Pascal Lamy Director-General of the World Trade Organization answered the question. You have to have a ‘CRISIS’ to give ‘legitimacy’ to the world government that has been in the planning stages since the 1930s.

    The challenges posed by globalization are far from simple….

    In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared. Can we maintain an open trading system without a more coordinated financial system?

    Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? These may be complex questions, but they demand answers.

    At the same time, globalization is blurring the line between national and world issues, redefining our notions of space, sovereignty and identity……

    The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

    All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty….

    The profound shock of the recent financial crisis, our inability to face (let alone solve) global warming, the failure to halt nuclear proliferation, even the WTO’s stalled Doha negotiations illustrate that the status quo is no longer good enough. Events are passing us by.

    So what is to be done? ….

    To improve policy coherence, we need to build consensus….

    To achieve consensus, we need to strengthen the system’s legitimacy by better reflecting the interests and concerns of citizens. This means integrating global governance into democracy….

    Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization?

    It is much easier to ‘reflect the interests and concerns of citizens’ if you manufacture those concerns in the first place. That is why Lamy’s buddy Bill Clinton ratified WTO and NAFTA that shipped US jobs over seas, signed into law the five banking bill that setup the financial collapse in the USA and the rest of the World. OH and do not forget that Clinton is the TR**TOR that shipped US military and technology secrets to China, giving China a huge boost from third world to first world status. The US tax payer as well as the EU, Canadian and Australian tax payers are the ones funding China’s industrial expansion through direct grants, via World bank loans and directly by buying products from industries that were shipped overseas thanks to the WTO agreement.

    Chasing the Dragon: Clinton’s China Policy
    …Bill Clinton took contributions he knew came from China, and played another angle as well. US companies wanted to sell China military technology, but the sales were prohibited by law….

    In return for campaign contributions, the President shifted regulation of technology exports from the State Department to the free-wheeling Commerce department. The administration also relaxed export controls and allowed corporations to decide if their technology transfers were legal or not. When easing restrictions wasn’t enough, Clinton signed waivers that simply circumvented the law. The President’s waivers allowed the export of machine tools, defense electronics, and even a communications system for the Chinese Air Force.

    Bernard Schwartz and Michael Armstrong, the CEOs of Loral and Hughes, each donated over one million dollars to Clinton’s re-election campaign. These companies had an interest in seeing China develop reliable missiles to loft their satellites into orbit. Clinton arranged direct talks between Bernard Schwartz and a Chinese general to improve China’s rocket technology. Michael Armstrong was made head of the Export Advisory Council. Both companies were allowed to upgrade the launching and guidance of China’s missiles.

    Clinton even involved the Department of Energy, caretaker of our nuclear weapons, in his fundraising schemes. In 1994 and ’95 then Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary accompanied Johnny Chung, John Huang, Charlie Trie, and Bernard Schwartz on trade missions to China. Shortly afterward the DOE relaxed security at US weapons labs. Wen Ho Lee, an ethnic Chinese physicist assigned to Los Alamos, illegally transferred data on nuclear warheads to his private computer files.

    In June of 1995, the CIA learned that China had stolen the crown jewels of our nuclear arsenal, including the neutron bomb and the W-88 miniaturized warhead….

    Proof of China’s military intentions came in March of 1996, on the eve of Taiwan’s first democratic elections. China used the threat of force to intimidate the island nation into electing a pro-Beijing candidate. Military maneuvers included bombing runs and launching ballistic missiles that impacted within twenty miles of Taiwan. When the US sent an aircraft carrier into the Taiwan Straits, a Chinese general threatened to “rain down nukes upon Los Angeles”…..

    70

  • #
    Alfred Alexander

    I love reading the comments here until I come to
    that picture of Brooks. I have one question ,are
    people who run the gov. in Aus. nuts?
    Alfred

    70

    • #
      Backslider

      I love reading the comments here until I come to
      that picture of Brooks

      Yes, I deplore vomitous tilted heads also.

      I have one question ,are
      people who run the gov. in Aus. nuts?

      Yes.

      90

      • #

        Glad you raised this topic. I find Brooks’s photo a bit odd too. He looks airbrushed. The avatars that cause me most disquiet though are grumpydenier and manicbeancounter. I actually find it difficult to read their posts without positioning the browser window so as to put them out of frame.

        10

        • #

          Gee Aye
          My Avatar is “Mr P’nHead“, a papier-mâché sculpture I bought from an exhibition at my local library over twenty years ago. The vast majority of visitors to my house share your opinion, when they see the original peering down at them from the top of a bookcase.

          30

  • #
    Alfred Alexander

    To the people of Aus. I am truly sorry for my question.
    Years ago people here were wanting to move to Aus.
    All thought it must be a nice place to live.I thought
    about it once in the late 60′s.
    Alfred

    40

    • #
      Bulldust

      It’s still a great place to live. Reading here you might not think it, but that’s like reading forums about mobile phones. People congregate on those forums to speak about problems, generally not the good things.

      Having lived in half a dozen countries, including the USA, UK and Holland, I would pick Oz first, wihout hesitation. IMHO I think Australians have managed to get the whole politics-work-life balance thing about right. It simply feels about right, relatively speaking. That doesn’t mean there is not room for improvement.

      70

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Alfred, It’s a great country, Australia’s strength still lies in the peoples ability to say “that’s enough” and do something about it.
      I think after September we will think a lot harder about who we give our vote to, this latest Communist experiment just about pissed off every one in the country.
      I highly recommend you go to POINTMAN’S site and get an honest idea of what Australia’s about.
      Oh but still come to JoNova LOL, I’ve been reading and learning here for years and I can’t say it enough that the range and quality of information here is fantastic.

      40

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Australia’s strength still lies in the peoples ability to say “that’s enough” and do something about it.

        It has not happened in 30 years to my knowledge, so I doubt it. Can you name any important examples?

        00

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Andrew my point in saying this was to express the Australian spirit was not dead, even though others are trying their best to kill it.
          Examples, besides the ability to vote politicians out when needed how about Snowy Hydro who funded and built the Lake Argyle 36 MW hydro power station in 1995.
          Not to mention any other entrepreneurs form small to large businesses who take the plunge against advice, odds, red/green tape and economies to succeed and give people the option of not relying on more government handouts.
          I can understand your cynicism in the last 30 years of less private enterprise but it’s still there and maybe after September we’ll see more come out that’s been held back by this anti development regime.

          20

  • #
    Bulldust

    I find it odd that exchange rates haven’t been mentioned once on this page. I’m sorry, and I know I will get thumbed down, but the persistently high Australian dollar has far greater impact on industry than any other factor mentioned on this page. It’s a fact … not debatable.

    Sure the CO2 tax doesn’t help, but it is the ripple on top of the tunami that is our ‘Steven Bradbury’ currency. The RBA is finally reacting to this by dropping interest rates. Problem is that we are now a small part of major economies’ reserve holdings, and that will prop up our dollar despite economic downturns … that is the harsh reality about to dawn on Australia in the next year or two.

    So yes, all the more reason to get rid of pointless constraints on the economy, like redundant taxes, inefficient laws and regulation duplication. Don’t think the CO2 tax is a silver bullet … it is just one small problem in a host of problems facing the country.

    100

    • #

      Precisely.

      And changes to tariffs and the tax on luxury goods over the years has had far more impact that the Carbon Tax, which has mostly left the affected companies *better* off since its introduction – they have received compensation for their additional costs AND they have had an excuse to hike their prices.

      14

    • #
      Mattb

      Bulldust indeed the high aussie dollar. Unfortunately I fear that when it falls it will do so significantly and on balance we’ll end up wishing it was high again and the economy was still going ok!

      12

      • #
        Bulldust

        Won’t happen. It will fall a bit, but probably not below 90c on the USD, or perhaps the 80s. I think 50-80c exchange rates are not likely given how debased the USD has become (read Euro, JPY as well).

        Like one article said last year, we are the Steven Bradbury of world currencies. To force the AUD lower we woud have to drop interest rates to near zero and increase the money supply like the aforementioned countries. There is no justification economically other than racing the others to the bottom.

        I have asked myself several times over the last year:

        What happens when all the major world currencies simultaneously debase themselves?

        We will find out in the next few years…

        40

      • #
        Bulldust

        Incidentally, if one reads the State Budget one might notice a section on sensitivities regarding key parameters and revenues. Every penny our currency moves against the US dollar has more than $50 million impact in royalty revenues… per year.

        20

  • #
    JFC

    Don’t worry Alfred people are still wanting to move to Australia in droves. Not surprising really given our wonderful standard of living and climate. Can you think of somewhere better? I can’t, all things considered.

    06

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Can you think of somewhere better?

      Yep, New Zealand. Just like Australia, but with stronger beer, better scenery, more affordable housing, and no snakes.

      Oh yes, and less Australians.

      :-)

      90

      • #
        Dennis

        Have you checked with immigration how many Kiwis have gone west? NZ was having similar problems of a left leaning incompetent government when Helengrad was the socialist centre of power, she is now working with her UN comrades. I was pleased to read that now NZ is rising from the ashes in economic terms with the socialists out of office while we continue on the downward path. Liberation Day 14 September.

        80

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Yes, Dennis. I am aware of those facts, and it is a sad case.

          It is true that many bailed out from under Comrade Helen (figuratively speaking, of course), and now they are trapped in Australia because they can no longer earn enough to bribe their way onto a plane home.

          We weep for our lost cousins, and they are forever in our hearts.

          80

      • #
        Manfred

        …and a carbon tax.

        40

      • #
        Greebo

        Oh yes, and less Australians

        Less kiwis too. Most of them live in Queensland.

        70

      • #
        crakar24

        Now hold on a second RW lets not get carried away here, i know for a fact that you have a beer over there which i believe is called “DB” for short and stands for Despicable Beer, it maybe stronger but as the name suggests…………..

        I cannot argue against the rest of your comment…..i wish i could but alas i cannot………sigh.

        40

        • #
          crakar24

          Oh just remembered we are better at cricket (just) and no i am not going to mention Rugby.

          50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Ha, fooled you.

          They try to tell you that DB stands for Dominion Breweries, but that is wrong.

          It stands for Drongo’s Beer, and is brewed for the Aussie tourists. We keep the good stuff out the back.

          50

          • #
            crakar24

            The only German i know is Snell which means hurry up and Snell, Snell which means hurry the Ficken up oh and of course schisenhousen.

            10

            • #
              crakar24

              What the…how..did….28.1.4.2.1 (God i love having numbers, usually i dont) should be down a bit in response to my German question.

              Anyway as i was saying RW, i was not a tourist but yet they still sold me that crap? How where they to know i suppose, at one point i tried to find a beer that was not owned by Lyon Nathan (check spelling) and i believe there is a beer in Canterbury that has not been taken over or at least not then.

              I thought it stood for Dunedin Breweries or something?

              10

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        better scenery, more affordable housing, and no snakes.

        Yes but what’s the point of living there if you get used to the nice scenery and take it for granted, and since there’s no snakes there’s no adrenalin from walking around in it either. See that’s why bungee jumping and extreme sports are big in NZ, they are overcompensating for their safe and serene surroundings.

        Nice place to visit, still wouldn’t want to live there. Keeps it fresh. Like a living museum.

        When that global cooling kicks in we might even get some decent snowfalls in Perisher for a change. Hahahaa I’m dreaming. It’s still better and cheaper to fly to Queenstown for a week than go to Perisher / Falls Creek. The “Snowy Mountains”, haha, what a joke. Is that snow painted on with white-out fluid or what?

        PATRON: `Scuse me waiter, but there’s some bloody snow in me bloody soup!
        WAITER: Don’t talk too loudly or all the skiers will want some!

        Laugh aussies, you know it’s true.

        30

    • #
      Backslider

      Not surprising really given our wonderful standard of living and climate.

      Oh! So you liked “The Angry Summer”??

      In truth it was a non event, isn’t that correct?

      40

  • #
    Alfred Alexander

    Thanks to all for responses.
    Alfred

    10

    • #
      Dennis

      Alfred an author once wrote about The Lucky Country that is Australia but his meaningof luck was that despite periods of very poor government decision making we survive because of natural resources that provide wealth creation opportunities. Unfortunately since 2007 our nation has suffered the worst of all time government adding red and green tape to strangle farmers and other business people with and a carbon tax con new business cost and more. But Australia and New Zealand remain great countries to live in and here it will get better after the September federal election and follow NZ back onto the path to national prosperity and nation building.

      30

  • #
    Manfred

    Such is the “National Conversation” on these policies, it is impossible to say exactly how much The Carbon Farce has cost Australian business, due to the complexity of supply chain accounting and the rule that the government will put you in jail if you publish an estimate that is wrong.

    ‘Unlike the major parties, the Greens’ policies have not been subject to rigorous costing by Treasury or independent experts. The Victorian Treasury recently claimed that the Greens’ policies for the state election would cost $20 billion.[125]‘

    ‘In 2007, the minimum cost of implementing the Greens’ federal policies was likely to be over $100 billion.[126]‘

    ‘In 1996, (Bob) Brown wrote: “There are other, virtually untried, powers that the federal government could use to protect the environment. Among them is the power granted under the Constitution to the Commonwealth to regulate trading entities, including logging, mining and energy corporations.”[124]

    ‘Clearly the use of constitutional powers is good if it is to advance a Green cause, but bad if it leads to an outcome they reject.’

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/1/the-greens-agenda-in-their-own-words#_edn126

    I have been unable to track down the references, others may have greater success. Reading the full text is worth the time it takes.

    As most here will realise, the Green vision is a re-badged version of hard left policies and extreme environmental doctrine. It encompasses Global governance, cessation of international trade, travel, mining and a range of noxious, choice depriving policies. This Gaia-esque, enviro-centric perspective dictates humans should be seen (in limited numbers) and not heard and projects economies down a pathway leading literally no where but abject impoverishment. This is the whole depressing point, which I hasten to add we are privileged to both witness and to prevent.

    50

    • #
      Dennis

      Pickering has written today about the federal green fund of $12 Billion commencing 1 July with so many billion a year allocated for some years into the future. Any crazy green emissions savings scheme will be considered for funding no matter how small. Watch the gravy train passengers line up for their share of the money. The claim is that the government has been signing contracts already with applicants even though the fund has not yet opened for business meaning the new government will not be able to get out of paying without facing compensation claims. Climate change extreme green mischief continues as the next mini ice age approaches.

      40

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Maybe we are all missing an opportunity here. Lots of smart people on this site, maybe we can come up with a “hyper green energy module” (wow even sounds good) that operates similar to those boxes you can buy to improve your cars fuel efficiency (ie. not at all lol) and get some funding for it, which we then spend wisely on sex, drugs and rock n roll, have to be better than how its being spent now and why should we miss out just because we have morals ?

        40

    • #
      Dennis

      To prevent requires us to inform people about this and in my past experience that is a very difficult task. I first became aware of the new world order Fabian socialist and now Green socialist plans in the 1970s and only a couple of people I know wanted to listen. I pointed out the the United Nations which was established to look after WW2 refugee issues had been hijacked by the left including a plan created by Labor attorney general Evatt that as many international treaties be created and signed to enable left side governments to get around sovereign laws of a nation when they needed to do that, as in signing to a new world government and not having borders. Main objective: Control.

      I do not believe that a so called new world order can be achieved for a number of reasons and not the least being that the Islamic world would not cooperate, the US Constitution would not allow it there and more including that humans prefer to live on their own portion of the planet and will fight for it.

      However the left have been pursuing their dreams since the Fabian Society (Google) was formed in the late 1800s in England from where it spread to other lands including Australia and is affiliated with socialist groups internationally.

      It makes me frustrated and angry that $Trillions have been wasted on projects driven by these fanatics that could have been far better spent on much needed projects that are not a plan to waste money to impoverish wealthy nations and weaken them. As Australia is watching right now, one in every eight living in poverty and the money is going offshore by the $Billion or wasted on whatever here while illegal immigrant arrivals and welcoming adds to the undermining of society. Divide and conquer!

      40

      • #
        Manfred

        I agree with you Dennis and I think global collectivisation will fail fundamentally because it is unsustainable. Isn’t that an irony? It is unsustainable on two if not more, key issues: economic grounds and more importantly, that of individuality. Humanity is by its nature trapped in a tension between belonging to the group or asserting individuality and being ‘free’. Most, if not all the measures associated with moving towards Green collectivisation do not bring an improvement in any personal or economic indice. The Green ‘elite’ remain, of course, the exception.

        In the meantime, Safetyguy66 suggests a hyper-green-energy-module. For my money, some might consider IQ lowering medication to better cope? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pD_UK6vGU

        40

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    At work are force fed a media update everyday and of course it focuses heavily on the sheer brilliance of wind power and how coal is destroying the universe.

    This morning was a classic criwing exercise about how power use is declining in Australia.

    I just fail to see how pricing power out of the reach of people and businesses can possibly be a good thing.

    We are led by people who should be kept in soft rooms for their own safety.

    50

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      At work are = we are
      Criwing = crowing

      sorry… maybe I need a soft room too, its been a long day.

      And in fact its been a long day staring at 56 non functioning turbines(4 weeks and counting) all drawing about 4kwh because the freakin “grid isnt ready for the power yet” or at least thats what we are being told.

      40

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        “grid isnt ready for the power yet”

        LOL! I can see the turbines talking amongst themselves now…
        Yeah I know I’ve been taking more than I give lately, but this is just a temporary phase. It’s just a flesh wound! Pretty soon, any week now, I’m gonna generate so much power that grid won’t know what hit it. Dude, that grid just isn’t ready for the power I’m gonna dish out! One of these days… one of these days… pow! Right in the transformer! Yeah. I think I can, I think I can….
        __

        Ah yes, that reminds me… (cue wobbly wavy blurry video effect) …of the time wind power saved the day

        40

    • #
      Mark

      We are led by people who should be kept in soft rooms for their own safety.

      You are too kind by half Safetyguy66.

      30

  • #
    Dave

    .

    More manufacturing businesses fail:
    1. The Lidi Group, A Melbourne-based manufacturer of commercial and high-end residential blinds with a $4.5 million T/O
    2. Two companies, Stainless Tube Mills and Stainless Tanks & Pressure Vessels, both part of the STM Group of companies, have been placed in receivership. A third company, Duraduct, which manufactured stainless steel products, has been closed.
    3. Rebar Prefab, a Melbourne-based manufacturer of steel-based concrete reinforcing materials, was placed in administration on April 8.
    4. Spillane Fabrications, a stainless steel manufacturing company based in Brisbane, has gone into administration.
    5. Victorian uniform manufacturer Kombat has entered administration
    6. Trade Fusion, a builder of modular homes based in Griffith, New South Wales, has collapsed into administration.
    7. Poolrite, a manufacturer and supplier of pool equipment and supplies has slipped into administration.
    8. Capital Steel Buildings Australia was placed in voluntary administration they manufacture cold rolled steel buildings
    9. RPG Australia has entered administration and 154 redundancies have already been made, with a total of 310 jobs at risk.
    10.Hines Dairy Farm, near Warrnambool in Victoria, has been placed into receivership by the Commonwealth Bank.
    11.Alan Fisher Pastoral Company in February, which operates a significant dairy farm near Warrnambool went into administration.

    This only the start, so many companies and the above are only in the last 6 months. Unfortunately there are so many lives affected by these collapses. But the Government tells us everything is JUST FINE. BULLSHlT.

    50

  • #
    crakar24

    I dont speak German so can anyone out there check out the first page of this pdf and tell where the data comes from as it claims the temp was +15.5C in 1998

    http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/image/show.html?did=13529172&aref=image036/2006/05/15/cq-sp198802801580159.pdf&thumb=false

    The holy bible back in 2007 says it was +14.5C

    Here http://youtube/gaq5vLEet4A Latif says it was +14.5C in 2012

    Has the Earth cooled by 1C or have they simply given up on manipulation post 1998?

    Here is a good explanation (in German maybe Bernd can translate for us)

    Cheers

    20

  • #
    • #
      Joe V.

      “Prince Charles’ attack on climate sceptics is significant. As he nears throne many expect him to back off – he isn’t.”

      When he gets the throne he can just command the climate to back off.
      Another Canute case

      20

    • #
      Joe V.

      We like to give him the benefit of the doubt, that at least his heart is in the right place and that he’s not a shill for big monied family interests, with lots of land to build wind farms on.

      20

  • #
    Manfred

    Data From Leading IPCC Scientists Show Global Temps Have DROPPED Unprecendented 1°C Since 1990!

    By P Gosselin on 16. August 2012
    http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/16/data-from-leading-ipcc-scientists-show-global-temps-have-dropped-unprecendented-1c-since-1990/

    After being written to, the ‘official’ line (NZ Minister of Climate Change Issues NZ Groser) uses to explain the apparent discrepancy shown by Gosselin arises because of ‘different datasets, different averages, satellite v ground based measures used to generate different mean values. He goes on to state that actual global mean temperature increase in this period (1988) was 0.17C.

    Now, this may well be the case, but Global Mean Temp is Global Mean Temp and it appears to have “declined” by 1C, as Gosselin suggests above.

    Searching about the net for values of ‘Global Mean Surface Temperature’ is not as easy as it first might appear and in any case, because it is inherently tricky to justify as meaningful (eg. the associated range and standard deviation is very large), the focus remains on temperature change or temperature anomaly.

    Nevertheless, for sales purposes, and pure conjecture of course, but were one to want to amplify the miniscule temperature rise such as it is, wouldn’t one prefer to state an apparently lower global mean surface temperature value…?

    10

  • #
    Streetcred

    O/T hope this has not been overlooked or maybe I’ve missed it here :

    New Climate Scandal Hits Australia

    EXPERTS on a panel responsible for handing out $200 million in government research funds have awarded so many grants to entities linked to each other or colleagues that independent MP Rob Oakeshott has referred them to the Auditor-General.

    An analysis by The Australian reveals the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s advisory panel chaired by Melbourne University professor Snow Barlow has awarded members or collaborators $23m from a pool of $77m in the first two rounds of a four-year program aimed at climate change mitigation and adaption in agriculture.

    [ GRAPH: A map of the links between individuals who have published together and how the individuals who are awarded grants are linked to those on the panel. ]

    Mr Oakeshott said the issue had been raised with him by academics working in the area.

    “I am not in a position to know the difference between perception and reality, but I am hopeful the Auditor-General can sort fact from fiction,” he said.
    Panel member Richard Eckard, a methane specialist who runs Victoria’s Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre, was named lead researcher on one project and secondary researcher on four in FtRG (Filling the Research Gap) round 1, netting $4.2m. PICCC “actively facilitated nine projects,” Professor Eckard wrote in the PICCC newsletter last June. “Eight (the ninth is still in negotiation) . . . were successful in securing funding from this round of FtRG..”

    When Oakeshott refers something that he has helped to create, for investigation, he either didn’t get to clip the ticket or it’s a duesy !

    40

  • #
    pat

    we are among the CARBON MARKET CHAMPIONS!

    10 May: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: Carbon Champions Undeterred by Kyoto Dead-End, EU Envoy Says
    Carbon-market supporters from China to California will push for emissions trading even as they prepare for the end of the United Nations Kyoto Protocol in seven years, Europe’s top climate negotiator said.
    Nations including China and New Zealand and some U.S. states have formed an informal group, “kind of the champions of the carbon market,” Artur Runge-Metzger said in a May 2 interview in Bonn, Germany. “It’s that club that’s going to set international standards” rather than UN talks, he said…
    California last month approved rules that allow companies in the world’s ninth largest economy to trade pollution rights in Quebec, while Australia in 2012 agreed to use European permits to cut costs…
    Future agreements under the UN’s 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change may never be implemented in “the real world,” U.S. climate negotiators led by Todd Stern, said in a March 11 submission ahead of the Bonn talks…
    China is unlikely to link its existing and proposed carbon markets to those with emissions targets set by the UN, including the EU market, Su Wei, the nation’s lead climate negotiator, said May 2 in Bonn.
    “It’s too early to talk of a linkage with the EU market because that is a failed market,” Wei said in an interview. “If there are no ambitious targets there will be no demand. The carbon markets aren’t running very well.”…
    Both international and national efforts to combat climate change are “absolutely critical” because efforts by countries and industries don’t match what’s required to stop temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, told reporters in Bonn…
    Climate envoys are debating whether allowances and credits used to comply with the Kyoto treaty can be used under a new market system beyond 2020 that may include more nations. Russia has the biggest stockpile of Kyoto units, according to UN data on Bloomberg.
    The debate over the use of the credits is “going to be quite political,” Runge-Metzger said. “The majority of countries don’t have them.”…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-08/carbon-market-champions-undeterred-by-kyoto-dead-end-eu-says.html

    10

  • #
    crakar24

    OK a slight change of topic,

    We are very fortunate to be living in this moment because we are entering the golden age of Nostrodamus like predictions. Over the next few years many reputations will be put on the line and the first one will be tested over the next few months.

    http://bze.org.au/media/radio/dr-wieslaw-maslowski-predicted-2013-ice-free-summer-arctic-five-years-ago-now-he-says-ma

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/8877491/Arctic-sea-ice-to-melt-by-2015.html

    http://www.northpolewatch.co.uk/polar-science-2/

    This link contains predictions dating back to 2008 and 2012 which were a flop, regardless they soldier on and come up with a few more prophecies.

    http://www.climatecodered.org/2012/08/big-call-cambridge-prof-predicts-arctic.html (Date of calamity: 2015)

    So lets see how the Arctic is doing

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    I suggest a few scientists are feeling a little nervous right now but of course only time will tell.

    30

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    Jo, in my mind this AGW scam started in 1986 when the Hawke government put its own brand of “social scientists” in charge of the real scientists at the CSIRO.

    At the time I had no idea how this redirecting of Australia’s science to suit the ALP would be manifested, but in the AGW scam we have it.

    Without being a scientist I know that the AGW “science” does not meet the rules for science, and therefore is not science at all. I saw scientists employed by the AGW machine try to justify their non science on the basis of some “precautionary principle”.

    My call always was: Show us your data. I saw substantial problems with their data, in that so much of it has been “adjusted”. As for computer models, GIGO is the first call. A computer can only tell you what you have told it.

    To view things this way I had been conditioned by two precedents where I suspected a scam.

    First was the banning of the herbicide 2,4,5,T. This was a herbicide widely used for killing and contolling “woody weeds”, some other hardy weeds including prickly pear, and trees. It was viewed as public enemy No 1 by the tree hugging Greenies.

    It was also cheap and effective, and, so far as I know, its patents had expired.

    There was never any evidence that this chemical harmed any people, even though there were people who worked with the stuff daily. But the Greenies maintained a barrage of accusations against it.

    Eventually the chemical companies paid “compensation” to Vietnam veterans who had been sprayed with a mixture including 2,4,5,T, and may have included toxic chemicals which were not in the agricultural product.

    Then it was banned. We were then forced to use modern, vastly more expensive, patented chemicals to do the same job. In a matter of months the chemical companies would have recouped the “compensation” paid to the vets, and from then on their profits would have increased greatly.

    Very fishy.

    Then there was the “Hole In The Ozone Layer”.

    If I remember right, this “hole” was announced about 4 years after the satellite which ‘discovered” it was launched. Prior to that time the only available data came from balloons launched from a very limited number of sites in Antarctica. The quantity of that data in comparison to the satellite was infinitisimal.

    So where is the evidence to show that the “hole” was new? I very much doubt that it existed.

    Yet with the banning of the long used refrigerants the chemical companies holding patents on the replacement refrigerants would have made a fortune.

    I would like to see an inquisition into that “Hole In The Ozone Layer”. It, too, may be a fraud.

    10

  • #
    Beth cooper

    The Australian carbon tax at $23 tonne and rising is killing
    Australia’s competitive edge.Business going off shore or
    shedding hundreds of jobs. Hmmm … what happened to Julia
    and Waynes’ promises to look after working families? Oh well,
    guess they meant the dads and mums who are actually able to
    keep their jobs.

    20

  • #
    Beth cooper

    As a serf meself, livin’ on the littoral, out in all weather, knowing
    its vicissitudes and variability, I have no trust in suss – attain -able,
    unreliable, inter – mittant energy that fails if the sun ain’t shinin’ or
    the wind ain’t blowin’. And serfs sure don’t need no goddam tax on carbon.

    20