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



Australian Speakers Agency


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

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


State of the carbon market in 2013 is so sick the World Bank cancelled the report

State of the Carbon Market: Started in 2003, but wiped out in 2013

Each year  for nearly a decade The World Bank has published “The State and Trends of the Carbon Market” in May or June with great fan-fare and press releases. It’s the definitive guide telling the world how many dollars are turning over in the global markets (which really means “the EU market plus a few other bits”). I’ve been quoting their figures for years — The 2012 report told us that $176 billion dollars turned over in 2011. So what was the number for the 2012 year? Whatever it is, it’s so bad the World Bank cancelled the report.

Figure what the cancellation of the report tells us about the The World Bank. Was it publishing these figures for the last nine years because they were important for investors and policy-makers? I guess not, or they would still be publishing them. By dropping it at the first major downturn, we know the reason for the report was pure PR, something for whipping up momentum about the market and getting headlines in newspapers. The numbers in 2013 became a PR disadvantage — the World Bank did not want headlines like “carbon market collapses”, or “carbon trading falls by 50%” (or whatever the figure is). So the report had to go. Swept silently under the blanket and replaced with the less ambitious paper: Mapping Carbon Pricing Initiatives 2013.

Here’s the official explanation for the change:

This (new) report prepared by the World Bank together with Ecofys, replaces the State and Trends of the Carbon Market series. Unlike in previous years, the report does not provide a quantitative, transaction-based analysis of the international carbon market as current market conditions invalidate any attempt and interest to undertake such analysis.

You can see in this graph that the average price during 2012 (under the red line) was closer to half the value of 2011, though the graph tells us nothing about volumes.

Each year in the State of the Trends series the Carbon Finance Unit listed all the press coverage. Their priorities are clear, see the lists of their success — stories in Bloomberg, Reuters, Financial Times  (… 2010, 2011, 2012 )

Why would the World Bank be interested in promoting fear of man-made emissions? Could it be that they manage millions of dollars of funds and facilities, all of which would be pointless if man-made emissions are not a catastrophe waiting-to-happen.


Thanks To Scott the trader for help.



VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (74 votes cast)
State of the carbon market in 2013 is so sick the World Bank cancelled the report, 9.7 out of 10 based on 74 ratings

53 comments to State of the carbon market in 2013 is so sick the World Bank cancelled the report

  • #

    So Krudd wants to go straight to the ETS, what if by the time we get there the credits are not worth the paper they are written on? Even worse lets say a coal linked company needs to buy more permits to continue operating only to find the market does not exist?

    What happens then?

    I see the latest opinion poll is 50/50………what morons would vote for these idiots?


    • #

      “what morons would vote for these idiots?”

      Never underestimate the ignorance of the masses.

      I heard someone on the radio today say he will be voting for Rudd because “he paid me to get a new TV”.

      It’s scary that ignorant fools like this actually vote.


      • #
        Andrew McRae

        OMG it’s like the down under version of the Obamaphone Lady.
        (She was later shown how ‘Obamaphones’ were in part paid for by tax increases that Obama said would never happen. Don’t bother watching more than 8 minutes.)


        • #
          Mark D.

          OOOOOhhh! That’s what compulsory voting gets you. Now I understand.


          • #

            Mark D,

            It goes deeper than that, not only are we forced to vote (the penalty is a 100 buck fine so not so bad) but we have a preferential voting system which means there is a good chance that you wil end up voting for someone you dont vote for.

            The TV guy Heywood mentions does not understand how the voting system works, he may vote for Labor (who come third) so his vote would most likely go to the green candidate (first or second) and then whinge and whine about the greens etc


            • #

              As we are not in election mode at the moment I can say this without going to jail for trying to influence an election. with the preferential voting you can make sure you only are voting for who you want by putting a 1 in their box and then a 2 in everyone elses. It is still a valid vote as there is a number in every box, but only the first round of preference can be taken.
              A guy went to jail last election for letting this little tidbit out so don’t tell anyone once the election is announced.


          • #
            Ted O'Brien

            No, Mark. Compulsory voting and a preferential system of vote caounting are necessary to give democracy a chance of working.

            Even with them democracy is doing it pretty tough in recent times. Too many lies in our education system.


    • #

      Essential Poll: 2PP Labor 48 Coalition 52, Newspoll is unreliable and nearly always reflects the best position of all polls for Green Labor. Coincidently Newspoll has most federal government contracts for the services they provide.

      Published polls are not reliable in my opinion. There are experts like Malcolm Mackerras who study election trends by electorate and can forecast with reasonable accuracy what will take place, after 2007 he predicted a very close 2010 result as it turned out to be. He also forecast that PM Howard would lose his seat narrowly.

      Last time I read the Mackerras prediction a few months ago he gave Green Labor a 10% chance of retaining government in 2013. That is what the numbers indicate.


    • #
      Ted O'Brien

      The price will rise, because governments will make it rise. Kevin Rudd rests secure in this knowledge.

      The price is irrelevant to any quantity of carbon. It is related to the number of permits in circulation.

      The price collapsed because governments handed out too many free permits after selling permits to industry. This not only devalued permits, but also damaged the perceived integrity of the system.

      Governments can, and will if they can get away with it, raise the price of permits by issuing too few new permits.

      This will continue until either the people wake up to the fraud that is being perpetrated on them, or until the whole scam collapses.

      The carbon tax is a Trojan Horse. It must be abolished, even if the principle should be revisited at some future date.


  • #

    A Shot Duck


  • #


    Fair Work Commission

    As the national workplace relations tribunal, it is an independent body with power to carry out a range of functions relating to minimum wages and employment conditions, enterprise bargaining, industrial action, dispute resolution, termination of employment and other workplace matters.


  • #

    “Whatever it is, it’s so bad the World Bank cancelled the report.”

    Along with accurate temperature analysis
    Along with employment contracts of Professors that disagree with them
    Along with polar bear number increases
    Along with penguin number increases
    Along with anything to stop their income stream.

    I can see the CAGW crowd throwing a little tantrum very soon.


    • #

      What they need to do is follow the German and Chinese lead. Build LOTS of coal fired power stations to push the global temps back up ! ;-)


  • #

    Hi Jo….

    Most likely it means that the USA is going to step into saving the planet through the magnificence of their God King so why bother with the EU when you now have the American economy to loot.

    Besides the real money to be made now is in providing on demand diesel powered electricity to cover the failure of “renewable supply” and gouging obscene standing charges and electricity spot pricing.


  • #

    Can I get a grant to recycle pencil shavings? $20 million will do nicely……


  • #
    Not Naive

    Wow, its funny how some people can know so little yet has such a voiced opinion!

    Firstly crakar24, you should understand more about an Emissions Trading Scheme (“ETS”) before making a comment such as “lets say a coal linked company needs to buy more permits to continue operating only to find the market does not exist?”. If the market does not exist then the coal company will not have to surrender permits to meet their liability. Secondly it will not stop the coal company from operating, they will however have to pay a penalty (in $’s) for every ton of CO2-e they do not have a permit for. This is unlikely to happen because the idea behind an ETS is to find the lowest cost of abatement. Most effective way to achieve this is to reduce your emissions.

    Hypothetical: Rio Tinto’s footprint in ton’s of CO2-e is around 22,000,000. At the end of the first reporting period they will need to surrender 22,000,000 allowances. Sector’s are issued free allowance’s from the government which also decrease as the ETS matures. If the carbon price is $23/ton, then Rio Tinto will have to pay excess of $500,000,000 for emitting. So if they reduce their emissions to 21,000,000 they will be hit with a $483,000,000 bill. $17,000,000+ saving for reducing your emissions yes please! Granted in 2015 at a floating price it will be more likely the price will fall, lets say for arguments sake to $7. 22,000,000 x 7 = $154,000,000 or $147,000,000. Saving of $7,000,000 yes please. Forget the price of the emissions unit and concentrate on the market mechanism at hand.

    When you look at the countries that already have a scheme, and the countries scheduled to have an operational scheme by 2020, I tell you now it is an emerging market (even if it is slow moving) and the next 7 years will be very interesting. I wouldn’t be quick to judge the complexity of the carbon markets because you will be eating your words in time.

    In terms of 2012, Volume of transactions in global carbon markets grew yet value decreased (not surprising considering the largest market (Europe) was suffering economically). Just because prices are low doesn’t mean the mechanism doesn’t work, it does reflect on other parameters such as the economy. Company in Europe where consumers are not spending, therefore purchasing less, therefore less production is needed leading to less emissions derived from productivity.

    Believe me I am no ALP supporter but don’t mock something you don’t know enough about.

    Their are currently 7 enforced emissions trading schemes globally; EU, California, Australia, New Zealand, Quebec, Tokyo and the Shenzen pilot scheme. Their are another 6 provinces in China that have the implementation of an ETS scheduled and Korea does as well.Another 13 countries have an ETS under development.

    Ending with that, I agree with the many comments stating that “the carbon markets are set to be the largest commodity market globally”.


    • #

      Wow… thats a lot of facts.

      I liken it to Richard Dawkins comment on “have you read the bible” and his answer “why would I waste my time”

      I see you spent yours well.


    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      But the whole market is actually artificial, is it not?

      When I studied economics (a long time ago now), our lecturer gave us a “mind experiment” to play with.

      He proposed a new currency, called a Rallod. Each citizen would be allocated a certain number of Rallods each day, which they had to get rid of, by the end of the financial year, or suffer stiff penalties. To get rid of Rallods, you had to provide goods to, or perform services for another person, and in receiving those goods or services, that person had to accept a pre-arranged number of Rallods from the provider.

      His question was, “How well would such a society function?”

      At first glance, it looks as though a Rallod is no more than a negative Dollar (hence the name), so it looked as though this economy would function normally.

      But then somebody pointed out that you could just burn your Rallods, and get rid of them that way, without providing any useful goods or services. You could then agree with anybody who wanted your goods and services, that it would be provided “under the counter”, and no Rallods would need to change hands.

      Therefore, a state is quickly reached where a Rallod has no tangible value at all, and is superfluous in what becomes a barter economy.

      Now, from my perspective, there appears to be a lot of similarities between a Carbon Market, and one based on Rallods.

      Would you care to explain the differences?


    • #

      Not Naive,

      Lets go back a step, under the ETS if a company is allowed to emit X amount of tons of CO2 per annun but at some point they realise they are going to exceed the amount they have two choices.

      1, Reduce production (remember this ETS only affects people that actually manufacture something) and thereby reduce CO2 emitted however if they dont produce a product then they will go broke.

      2, Continue to produce products as per the supply and demand prnciples, exceed their amount, buy extra permits from overseas market (EU market) to cover the amount exceeded and cop a fine from the Oz government to boot.

      My question is if no such overseas market exists then where do they buy the permits from? If they cannot buy the extra permits to cover the additional Co2 emissions then they cannot emit the extra CO2 which means option 2 is off the table.

      This only leaves option 1 whic as i have alraedy stated is not good for business ergo no ETS market no Oz manufacturing, simple as that.


      PS, you username is an oxymoron


    • #

      Why would you or anyone else want to spend all that time and effort trying to promote a Ponzi scheme? You do realise that’s exactly what you just described in perfect detail?

      If you create a market based on trading something intangible which can’t ever be redeemed (unlike even the worst types of derivatives) and simply imposes costs on its victims which they pass on to their customers etc, eventually moving the same money around in spirals and other pretty patterns, it’s called a Ponzi scheme. Nothing is created, traded or added to the total, it just recycles the same money until the supply dries up.

      Carbon trading was created by Enron, and before it became law got them into prison for serious fraud. Now it’s compulsory, welcome to the 21st century. And why do you feel it’s so important to ‘put us all right on it’?


  • #

    i put this on unthreaded earlier todyay; however it is on topic here:

    8 July: ABC: Q&A: Transcript
    DANIEL SKEHAN:…With the Rudd Government’s plan to move to an ETS and the Coalition’s policy being to scrap it, what would your position be?
    MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I’m part of the team and we have a collective policy.
    ANTHONY ALBANESE: You’re not.
    MALCOLM TURNBULL: You know how politics works. And we have a different climate change policy. We have the same target, that is to reduce our emissions by 5% from 2000 levels by 2020…
    TONY JONES: Well, hang on a sec. Well, to bring an emissions trading scheme forward by at least a year, let’s say. If that happens, then Tony Abbott won’t be repealing a carbon tax, he will be repealing or attempting to repeal an emissions trading scheme. Would you support that?
    MALCOLM TURNBULL: I will support the collective wisdom of the party room.
    MALCOLM TURNBULL: So you would help campaign for the repeal of an emissions trading scheme?
    MALCOLM TURNBULL: There would be more convincing advocates but I would certainly – I will certainly – you know, you’ve got to – look, I have a track record there. I mean, you know, I have been a very strong advocate of market-based mechanisms.
    ***I have to say, however, being very honest – frank about it, that emissions trading schemes to date have worked better in theory than in practice. The over-allocation in Europe has really been something of a disaster in terms of the emissions trading scheme there…
    TONY JONES: So have you reformed your personal view about emissions trading schemes?
    MALCOLM TURNBULL: No. I think if you want to reduce your emissions over the very long-term, by which I mean, you know, 50 years or something, then you are going to have to have a long-term, market-based price on carbon and that may well be – I imagine that is where the world will get to. I might be wrong. To date emissions trading schemes, as I say, have worked better in theory than in practice…
    BILL LEAK: I was just wondering about how you feel about the concept of the green army, Malcolm? I mean, I am imagining Field Marshal Abbott and Brigadier General Turnbull. I would have thought amassing a green army, you know, people armed to the back teeth with shovels and pitch forks. That would be fraught with danger, wouldn’t it? …
    TONY JONES: How many will there be?
    MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, it is 15,000 but I think it will be…
    BILL LEAK: What if you get a mutiny? The ADF has only got about 20,000 people…
    TONY JONES: There’s a couple of questions. Will they be getting the basic wage.
    MALCOLM TURNBULL: I am not sure what the remuneration arrangements…
    CORINNE GRANT: It is $400 a week. It’s $400 a week.
    MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, I’m sure they’ll be adequately paid…
    MIRIAM LYONS: Malcolm is right, the push to renewables has largely been driver by the rate but the carbon price has also played a part. It does seem to be working and, you know, I can certainly see why you are looking at changing it so that Tony Abbott can’t use the word tax anymore. But, you know, let’s look at the bigger pictures here for a moment. You know, the Coalition policy on climate change has rightly been criticised and you are probably rightly uncomfortable with the holes that are in it…
    MIRIAM LYONS: …But we are in a situation right now where the Climate Commission has told us that 80% of fossil fuels have to remain in the ground in order to prevent runaway climate change. You know, the International Energy Agency, is a very conservative international body, told us, I think almost two years ago now, that we only had five years before we had to stop building coal-fired power plants in order to prevent runaway global warming. So in that context, a bipartisan 5% emissions reduction target really just tells us how unambitious that target is when, you know, you’ve got a party leader on one side of that bipartisan position who used to say that climate change is crap…
    TONY JONES: Okay. I’m going to leave it there because we’ve got a little time left to go to a couple of other questions…
    MALCOLM TURNBULL: …Barack Obama gave a great speech about climate change recently. A lot of initiatives, an Emissions Trading Scheme is not part of them. The measures he announced are more like the Coalition’s policies, in fact…
    TONY JONES: Okay. We are nearly out of time. I’ll go to Anthony Albanese to wind up and the concept there that Tony Abbott is Australia’s Barack Obama.
    ANTHONY ALBANESE: Barack Obama certainly doesn’t think so. If you have a look at what he’s had to say about climate change, it’s very different from Tony Abbott. It’s much more in line with what Malcolm’s real views are and with what my views are…


    • #

      Turnbull is just a smiling Jack, looking to be popular and “with it”. Small wonder he can’t hold down a job.


      • #

        So Malcolm is black, black or white ?

        “well its kind of grey really”

        He is as you say just a populist trough swiller hanging around in hope of a crack at the leadership. I actually like the guy and wish he would go do something constructive with his time. Sticking around in the stinking mire of Australian Politics is just demeaning for anyone involved.


    • #


      What a TRAITOR to Australia and all Australians !

      A thoroughly despicable and disgraceful “individual” !!


    • #
      Ted O'Brien

      Talk of a “market based price” on carbon is sheer and utter nonsense.

      This “price” is not based on any free market. The basis of its market is government regulation. You know, politics.

      That is why KR thinks he can con the people again.


  • #
    Dave Broad

    The reason the prices dropped is because the demand tanked. I expect World Bank would feel it’s not in our interests to view the volumes.


  • #

    9 July: SMH: Jonathan Swan: Market system best to reduce emissions: Turnbull
    Coalition frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull has characterised his party’s climate change policy as ”short term” and says he hopes the world moves to a market-based mechanism to reduce emissions.
    But Mr Turnbull, who has previously described Tony Abbott’s Direct Action policy as ”a con” and lost his leadership of the Liberal Party in 2009 due to his support for an emissions trading scheme, chose his words carefully while appearing on the ABC’s Q&A program on Monday night.
    ”I will support the collective wisdom of the party room,” Mr Turnbull said.
    ”The big difference between our [climate change] policy … is that it is not designed to go any further than 2020. So it is not a long-term policy.”…
    Both Mr Albanese and Mr Turnbull agreed that the most efficient way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions over the long term was to implement a market-based scheme.
    ”I hope, I imagine, that is where the world will get to,” Mr Turnbull said.
    Asked whether he would join Mr Abbott in campaigning to repeal an emissions trading scheme, Mr Turnbull admitted ”there would be more convincing advocates”.
    Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said he thought that Mr Turnbull “did a very very good job on Q&A last night” but he contradicted Mr Turnbull’s view that the world was moving in the direction of carbon pricing.
    “As I’ve always said, the world is moving away from carbon taxes and emission trading scheme, not towards it,” Mr Abbott said.
    “The world is moving towards the kind of Direct Action measures that the Coalition has long been proposing.”…
    On Tuesday, shadow treasurer Joe Hockey suggested the Coalition was open to considering an emissions trading scheme if the circumstances were right.
    “If the world comes together in pricing carbon across their whole economies, then Australia stands prepared to look at joining them,” Mr Hockey said…
    Mr Turnbull said it was probably ”harsh” of him to have described Mr Abbott’s Direct Action policy as a ”con” in a 2009 opinion piece for Fairfax Media. In the same article, Mr Turnbull said the Liberal Party was ”currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is ‘crap’ and you don’t need to do anything about it”.
    The Direct Action policy, Mr Turnbull said then, was ”an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing”…


    • #

      Businessman, merchant banker, lawyer Malcolm Turnbull was on side with PM KRudd for establishment of an ETS, his solidarity with KRudd on that issue made me suspicious of his motives, with Al Gore clearly in mind. However, considering the EU scheme imploding now it is difficult to understand, issues of pride aside, why Turnbull keeps pushing this barrow


      • #

        It’s said Liberal Party parliamentarians range from social conservatives to classical liberals.
        Malcolm Turnbull, in my view, belongs in a third probably small group of one, the crony capitalist faction.


      • #

        Yep, Turnbull can see a big quid in it for him & his mates.

        They still don’t understand the planet has decided to get colder, & they have missed the boat.

        Could take the dummies a decade or more to catch up.


  • #

    “Zombie” CO2 projects on the rise as CDM hits 7,000
    LONDON, July 9 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A U.N. programme to channel climate finance to poor nations said it approved its 7,000th greenhouse gas-cutting installation last week, but warnings of “zombie projects” and more companies pulling out of the struggling scheme made the number appear increasingly irrelevant…

    EU carbon dips 1.7 pct as allocation delay deters buying
    LONDON, July 9 (Reuters Point Carbon) – EU carbon prices dipped 1.7 percent on Tuesday as traders said uncertainty over how many permits will be handed out this year was discouraging buyers and dragging down prices…


  • #

    I believe that the Coalition, bearing in mind that at the height of global warming hysteria the Howard government signed the UN Kyoto Protocol and later established their Greenhouse Office and developed common sense plans to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions”, are afraid to come out and state clearly that global warming/climate change is a con in case of a backlash from the electorate that is drip fed daily lies by ALPBC and other compliant MSM. And that Green Labor would turn the Coalition “backflip” into political theatre of deception and ridiculing.

    Tony Abbott did once comment that the issue was “crap”, therein lies one clue.


    • #

      I believe that the Coalition, bearing in mind that at the height of global warming hysteria the Howard government signed the UN Kyoto Protocol…….

      Every single Country on Planet Earth added that first and virtually meaningless signature to The Kyoto Protocol, when they all agreed to the broad outlines of emissions targets.

      However, the all important and most vital second signature, (the only one that meant anything) meant that as a Country, they agreed to abide by, and implement what that Protocol called for was not signed, until Kevin Rudd signed at Bali in a flash of camera bulbs.

      Only one other Country did not add that all important second signature, the U.S.

      As expected, those green supporters blamed that rotten George W Bush for this.

      The original Kyoto Protocol was presented to the Clinton Administration for ratification. BillyJeff thought that a Republican controlled Lower House might not agree to ratify, so he asked his Vice President, a former Senator, Al Gore to take it up the road and present it to all his good Democrat buddies in the Senate, and after they agreed, then send it back to the House of Representatives.

      So, all of Al Gore’s good Senator buddies voted on ratifying The Kyoto Protocol. They voted all right.

      95-0 to NOT ratify Kyoto. Not even One Democrat would support it.

      From that point it was a dead duck, and wasn’t even considered again.

      Even in four and a half years of the Democrat controlled Obama Congress, still no ratification.

      The sunset clause saw Kyoto expire on 01Jan 2013, hopelessly mired, without a replacement, and temporarily extended by the UN.



      • #

        Astute John Howard was amongst the first not to ratify Kyoto.

        I keep returning to the developed world attack on pollution, 30-40 years ago, establishment of Environmental Pollution Agencies, policing polluters, rightly so, and as a result a much reduced pollution developed world.

        I believe that the extreme Green movement realised that their game was over and global warming became their political agenda.


        • #

          Tony, as you know only too well, the 30-40 years ago new generation coal fired power stations are due for replacement now, and you advocated gas turbine.

          A mini ice age is approaching, about 27 years away if the cooling trend continues on line, we need to rid ourselves of the extreme Green Labor socialist fools and do what is necessary to help people to cope. The modern way.


          • #

            Could people please stop suggesting gas turbines as a quick-fix answer to our looming energy crisis?

            To power gas-fired turbines, you need gas.

            And there isn’t any to be had.

            End of story.


          • #


            I’ve only just seen this and thought I had better offer a reply, if only to clear up what may become a misunderstanding.

            I realise that this Thread is almost expired, and not many people will be visiting here, but I haven’t really advocated Gas Turbines as replacement for coal fired plants.

            In all honesty, the only thing that can realistically replace large scale coal fired power plants (well, here in Australia anyway) are newer and more recent technology large scale coal fired plants.

            Gas turbine plants are good, for their correct application, which isn’t particularly best suited to 24/7/365 operation. Gas turbines are best suited for Peaking Power applications, in other words, running for periods of 4 to 6 hours to contribute power to the grids as that extra power is needed during periods of greater power consumption.

            A typical large scale coal fired unit will have a very large turbine driven by steam and this turbine then drives the large generator. The turbine is robust and can actually handle long constant periods at its optimum speed, which is flat out, around 3000RPM.

            A typical Gas turbine unit has what is similar to (note the word similar here) a jet engine. The Natural Gas fuels the turbine which via a shaft then drives the generator, typically smaller than any unit at a large scale coal fired unit. For additional power, the superheated turbine exhaust can be used to boil water to steam to then drive an extra turbine/generator complex, smaller than the turbine driven generator, but adding to the total power delivered from the overall unit, and also increasing the unit’s efficiency.

            Still, (and here think of that similar jet turbine) running it at its maximum for extended periods of time (24/7/365) then this will considerably reduce the life expectancy of the jet turbine.

            So for constant power like large scale coal fired, then replace with large scale coal fired, and for smaller plants, then we would use Gas fired units, be they open cycle or using that second function for increased power delivery.

            I hope this clears it up somewhat, and as MemoryVault suggests, gas availability is problematic, so gas turbines on the scale required would be almost stupid to even consider.

            I know that some greenies would prefer gas turbines to coal fired,(if that was the only choice) but be aware, they know absolutely zero about power generation if they even suggest that in the first place.



            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Excuse me? The people who matter are still here … bloody cheek … mumble mumble.


  • #

    ↩ Back to the future … to the “good ole days” … October, 2008 – Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme: $1 a day to save planet

    ❝ Treasury modelling showing the scheme is affordable, with households paying up to $7 a week more for electricity and gas, and no industries forced offshore.

    Wayne Swan described the imposition on growth as “a whisker”.

    The modelling finds the carbon price would start at between $23 and $32 a tonne in 2010, depending on the emission reduction target, rising to between $115 and $158 in 2050, and that the trading scheme would cut average annual growth by 0.1 per cent.

    … and – critically – that next year’s UN summit in Copenhagen succeeds in reaching a climate change agreement under which developed countries immediately begin to reduce their emissions and developing countries join in the global effort over time.❞

    How did that work out again?


  • #

    Good Evening Joanne,
    This is truly an “OMG moment”!
    This is something that truly demonstrates that the “global renewables-scam” is more and more like a house of cards, and getting incredibly close to itself meeting the very same catastrophe that it has in fact been trying to warn us that the planet is heading for. (Life’s full of ironies isn’t it.) I can’t wait to raise this “horey old chestnut” at “Labor’s next community cabinet meeting north of the Tweed. (By the way, keep up the good work Joanne.) – RW/L


  • #

    Christopher Booker and Richard North have done a couple of extensively researched pieces on renewable power in Britain:

    The Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR)
    Because of the complexity of the issue and its novelty to most readers, I have agreed to publish this longer post alongside the Booker column, explaining the issues more fully than space allows in the column, including the referencing links which are absent from his online piece and the print version.

    Energy: the back-up bonanza
    For some many years, as wind turbines have proliferated through the land, Booker and I have been asking the same question: where is the back-up to cover for the many periods when the wind does not blow?

    With no apparent evidence of conventional back-up plants being built, little did we imagine that, under our very noses, the capacity was being provided in a form undreamed of.

    Energy: winter outlook
    However, this might be interesting – National Grid’s winter outlook. Regarding electricity, it sees peak normal demand this winter at 55.1GW, while available generation capacity at the start of winter is seen at 77.1GW, two GW less than last winter.

    For serious students of the energy scene, there is the full report.

    Energy: STOR – the birth of a rip-off
    There has always been something like STOR, a system for balancing out the fluctuations in the grid supply – dealing with the sudden peaks that the big power stations cannot deal with.

    This used to be called the “standing reserve”, the operation of which is exemplified in the 2008 BBC video extract above.
    *For TonyfromOz, resident energy engineering guru, who might need a cup of coffee. : )


  • #

    We cannot blame a politician for telling stupid journalists to calm down, compared to the rorter Slipper leader of the opposition was three years ago advised that expenses claimed were not legitimate and the refund was repaid. One of hundreds of MP related expense errors by staffers. But when a foreign left newspaper online local website reporter wasth shrill, rude, accusing, the lefties fainted and recovered shouting AbbottAbbottAbbott.

    Pathetic nonsense.


  • #

    When the news is bad for the cause, don’t mention it …



  • #

    Abbott and the coalition cannot be trusted;dolts! Politics aside and the low profile position you still have Turnballs and whatisname shadow environment minister still inflexible and brainwashed.Sorry cannot vote for opposition and will consider drinking myself into oblivion on polling day.


  • #

    So much time and talk about carbon tax, when the subject is so moot. Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions should be abandoned entirely and replaced by efficiency drives and distribution systems. Bring people out of poverty is a better spend than going to so called renewables. It’s also shown that higher standard of living reduces population growth. This then lowers need for a greater total consumption demand. If renewables were so promising more commercial ventures would be making and selling them. They will grow from subsidies because of the money grab. I do hang out for the day when a political party comes out and says CAGW is crap and debunked. Not soon enough for my liking.


  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Two odd things:

    1. By not identifying the volume, and it looking bad, they take the risk that someone will calculate the number themselves. They must think that it is very, very difficult not to do so,if not impossible.

    2. If it so difficult to calculate from other, public data, then all the years the data was collected were not verified. Because they couldn’t be.

    So: was the previous information real?


  • #

    Imagine that you have a reasonable amount of money to buy some shares.
    Hands up all those who would buy into anything to do with “carbon”?
    Petroleum companies yes, but…..”carbon”?


  • #

    You can be sure the banks, brokerage houses, Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and the rest of the scam artists involved with this Carbon Trading nonsense made out very well, financially. As usual, it will be the little guy in the end holding the empty bag.

    How could anyone with a shred of common sense invest in a new commodity that has no intrinsic value other than the frenzy of the moment. Has no one learned the lessons of Tulip Mania?

    As P. T. Barnum said: “There is a sucker born every minute”.


    • #

      Exactly what I was thinking. The money shufflers will have got rich from this. The ordinary people, the people who do real, productive, useful, work, will get screwed yet again.


  • #

    9 July: Huffington Post: Michael Northrop: Obama to Nation on Climate: Get Ready, Get Set, Go
    President Obama’s climate plan, announced at Georgetown University on June 25th, is the most profound and important step the U.S. federal government has ever taken on climate change…
    Presidential political advisers, please protect your president. Do not let him suffer the slings and arrows of a disappointed Keystone mob. He will have so much more fun with the climate agenda if you protect his back on Keystone and unite all the potential forces of yes on this issue…
    Though the president has enormous executive authority, he also needs to know that his actions are broadly supported..
    Inside and outside the federal government, practical, determined efforts are also needed to smartly engineer the solutions agenda that is now possible given the president’s impressive leadership.
    Europeans meanwhile must also maintain the resolve internationally that they have shown for the last dozen years, and push for such things as ending public financing for dirty energy and for crafting a next generation international climate agreement. Europeans have been incredible leaders during the past twelve years…
    Anyone who reads the science on climate change knows how serious it is…
    Let’s use the clarity of the nearly unanimous climate science and the broad and growing public support for practical action and for clean energy to push back on the fringe deniers and move forward to a clean, healthy, bright economic future.

    our all-knowing climate expert Northrop!

    Rockefeller Brothers Fund: Michael Northrop directs the Sustainable Development grantmaking program at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in New York City, where he focuses on energy and climate change. He also moonlights as a lecturer at Yale University’s Forestry and Environmental Studies School, where he teaches a course on environmental campaigns. Previously he was executive director of Ashoka, an international development organization that supports “public sector entrepreneurs” and an Analyst at First Boston, an investment bank in New York City. Mr. Northrop also serves on Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s PlaNYC Sustainability Advisory Board, the City of New York’s Waterfront Advisory Board, and on the boards of directors of Oceana and Princeton in Asia. Northrop has an Master of Public Administration from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton, where he was an English major as an undergraduate…


  • #

    EU allows more industries to get free CO2 permits
    LONDON, July 10 (Reuters Point Carbon) – EU officials approved measures on Wednesday that will allow plasterboard and French fry manufacturers to join a long list of industries entitled to free carbon permits for use in Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)…

    below 4 euros now:

    EU carbon falls for fifth day as utilities absent
    LONDON, July 10 (Reuters Point Carbon) – European carbon prices fell for a fifth day on Wednesday, dropping below 4 euros for the first time in a week as traders said utilities, the main buyers of CO2 permits, were absent from the market…


  • #