- JoNova - https://joannenova.com.au -

“Insanity”. Feel the angst — should the Emissions Reductions Fund pay money to coal?

Let’s set national policy by “Embarrassment”? Great way to run the country (into the ground).

Skeptics: send in your submissions  before July 12.

A coal generator has asked the Emissions Reductions Fund to pay for carbon credits if it upgrades its turbines and makes less CO2. “The Specialist Reporting Team’s” Penny Timms, of the ABC, quotes two activists, asks no skeptics, no engineers, no electricity consumers, and no hard questions. They call the owner of the generator a “coal baron”. Where are the “wind and solar barons”?

Here’s the ABC standing up for their own ideology:

The chief of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Kelly O’Shanassy, said “it would be a mistake.”

“We would be the only country in the world to be using a climate fund to fund coal-fired power, and that would just be a global embarrassment,” she said.

So a know-nothing activist sayth it would be embarrassing. Who cares? Does it reduce CO2 or doesn’t it? Japan the World Bank and the UN green fundshave funded coal power.

Hypocrisy unbounded — does CO2 matter or not?

If CO2 is reduced by upgrading a coal station is it really a CO2 reduction or it is an unthinkable Sin? Apparently we cant fund a reduction in CO2 if it involves the coal word. Lordy, it might keep old clean reliable assets alive at the expense of welfare dependent uneconomic renewables? Once again, the evidence supports the Jo Nova test of green behaviour — when faced with a choice to reduce CO2 or fund a fellow freeloader on taxpayer dollars, the Green activists always choose to fund a friend. CO2 is just a scare-means-to-an-end. The Ends is power and money, the environment is just the excuse.

The hypocritical Green angst proves once again that this is a religious hate campaign against coal and nothing to do with CO2 reduction. If CO2 mattered, the choices of where the money went would be limited too: 1/ Does it reduce CO2, and 2/ is it cost effective?

Which expert has a religious objection to coal?

Tim Baxter, photo

Tim Baxter. Seriously, his profile pic at Melbourne Uni

According to the ABC, an expert said this is “insane”, which gets repeated three times in the article but Penny Timms does not ask one hard question of the said expert to expose his  hypocrisy.

A man with a conflict of interest perhaps?

ERF expert Tim Baxter, a fellow of Melbourne Law School and associate of the Climate and Energy College, said the potential inclusion of coal-fired power stations was worrying.

“We’re asking whether a scheme, designed purportedly to reduce Australia’s emissions, should be funding some of the most polluting sources of electricity generation in the country,” he said.

“This is an insane question to ask.”

You are not even allowed to ask (because Baxter has no answer, so he has to effectively say “shut up and go away”).

Mr Baxter is not convinced the committee will end up recommending the changes being considered.

“I don’t think that there’s a principled reason for this method to exist at all, and if there is a reason for it, I don’t think there’s a principled reason to expand its availability,” he said.

How about the principle of reducing CO2 in a cost effective manner? Skeptics think that’s a waste of money, but judging the way climate activists act, they do too. His target is the coal industry, not CO2.

The Climate and Energy College is a safe space at Melbourne Uni that is entirely dependent on a belief that CO2 is bad, bad, bad, and obviously has a religious hatred of coal power.


The ERAC is The independent Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, which of course is not independent. They have three calls out for consultation:

Consultation Comments close
 Consultation on the National Environmental Science Program Sunday, June 30, 2019
 Review of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Facilities) Methodology Determination 2015 Friday, July 12, 2019
 Proposed variation to the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure standards for ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide Wednesday, August 07, 2019

$3.5 billion dollars to Fund a green Friend?

The ERF is Tony Abbotts Direct Action plan rebadged. It’s still the cheapest form of carbon reduction at $13/t:

In a statement, Mr Taylor said the “Government’s Climate Solutions Package (CSP) was a $3.5 billion investment which maps out how we will achieve 328 million tonnes of abatement needed to meet our 2030 target”.

“Building on existing measures, the CSP includes a further $2 billion for the ERF, which has already contracted around 193 million tonnes of abatement at an average price of around $13 per tonne.

Angus Taylor will decide if he should follow the advice of the ERF committee. So send submission to both him and the committee.

When will the ABC serve the other half of the country — the ones who pay the taxes that fund the ABC?

That coal-power could cut CO2,
For alarmists can never be true,
As their ultimate goal,
Is to starve man of coal,
To coerce, control and subdue.


h/t David B and Pat

9.6 out of 10 based on 69 ratings