As I mentioned here, Andrew Norton’s NIMBY watch was a fantastic resource in the leadup to the release of the CPRS. The aim was to “keep track of … the people who don’t question the science, but claim that reducing emissions is too costly or unfair.” My aim is to keep this running but also to keep track of claims that we can’t get organised in time because life’s too hard.
Please drop suggested articles in comments.
15 December 2008
Scheme will still hurt us, miners say
16 December 2008
Dead Heat - Alan Kohler
17 December 2008
Emissions Trading could harm cement industry
14 January 2009
Environmentalism is like Nazism. File under ‘Barnaby’s Choices‘.
19 Jan 2009
Clean coal project ‘will fail’ under emissions trading scheme cf. The Australian
2 Feb 2009
Energy industry wants more money for ETS
Union joins emissions trading talks in bid to save jobs
18 Feb 2009
Steel chief sounds jobs alarm over carbon scheme – The Australian
21 Feb 2009
Kevin Rudd isolated on emissions trading scheme;
White paper is no concrete deal for cement industry – The Australian Rentseekers Review [h/t Peter Wood in comments]
23-27 Feb 2009
Tensions boil over on climate change (Senator Ron Boswell concerned scheme costs jobs). The Age [h/t Peter Wood]
Emissions scheme will cut competitiveness: BlueScope Steel [h/t Peter Wood]
Australian Power Company hurt by carbon rules – Bloomberg [h/t Peter Wood]
Business ‘not ready’ for ETS – ABC (cf. Redundant Ridout)
2 Mar 2009
Emissions trading spells disaster for farmers: MP for Barker Patrick Secker
5 Mar 2009
Carbon scheme should start in 2012 – Heather Ridout in The Age
Rudd delays emissions trading (After this Radio Reportage)
Carbon scheme changes mulled – StuffNZ [h/t Peter Wood]
12 Mar 2009
Scullion says emissions trading scheme will scare off Inpex – ABC
13 Mar 2009
ETS dangerous to dirtiest coal fired power plant in the world, hence whole Economy! – Interview with TRUenergy’s Richard Indoe at Business Spectator
17 Mar 2009
Rudd’s Hot Air Solution – Alan Kohler’s hysterical follow up commentary on interview.
26 Mar 2009
ETS ‘to shrink regional growth’, says secret NSW Government report – Rentseeker’s Review
27 Mar 2009
Wong’s River of Gold – Keith Orchison, Powerline
14 Apr 2009
Energy industry warns of blackout – Rentseeker’s Review
21 Apr 2009
Ford fears ETS will drive jobs out of Australia – Rentseeker’s Review
28 Apr 2009
Carbon plan will cost jobs: steel boss – Rentseeker’s Review
30 Apr 2009
ETS Won’t Cost Jobs: Coalition Study – Business Spectator
Emissions trading will not cost jobs but workers will earn less in the long run, a study has found.
The federal opposition commissioned the Centre for International Economics to assess the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS).
The centre found there has not been enough research done on the impact of the ETS, nor on alternatives.The ETS would cost jobs at first in emissions-intensive industries, the study found. But in the long run the labour market would “return to equilibrium” although real wages would be lower.
Opposition spokesman on emissions trading Andrew Robb said the ETS was a source of risk and uncertainty.
The coalition has not released its policy on what it would do about climate change; it has not said what the 2020 greenhouse target should be, or what scheme should be used to achieve it.
Mr Robb said the coalition was waiting on the outcome of Senate inquiries before finalising its policy.
11 May 2009 – Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy Interim Report
Recommendation 9
5.114 The committee recommends that the CPRS EITE assistance measures:
(a) be reviewed to consider providing assistance on a production basis;
(b) be maintained at commencement levels until Australia’s major competitors face comparable carbon costs; and
(c) not exclude the coal mining industry.Recommendation 14
7.88 The committee recommends that the government properly inform the community how the scheme will impact them and advise of actions they can take to reduce the cost impost of the scheme.Recommendation 18
9.63 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government explore the feasibility, advantages and disadvantages of producing nuclear power in Australia, as a means of reducing domestic emissions and providing energy security for Australia into the future.
11 May 09
Nats will say no to emissions scheme – news.com.au
Senator Joyce said the Nationals would not support an ETS in any form.
“No, no, no, no, no,” he said.
The only benefactors from the scheme would be the “wonderful” people in stockbroking houses, he said, while producers, including miners and farmers, would ultimately go out of business due to the plan’s excessive costs.
“We’re making those who don’t pass any export dollars wealthy and making those who do make us export dollars broke,” he said.
22 May 09
Carbon plan will cause jobs carnage – Opposition Organ
28 May 09
National Farmer’s Federation very late to the party – ABC online. (nb. Note this 2007 press release)
3 June 09
Revealed: Rudd’s $500m coal compensation fund – AM
3 July 09
States should get compo under ETS Sky News – Greens argue that Hospitals, Schools and Universities deserve compensation under the scheme.
Govt to investigate ETS worries AFR
“The Rudd government has ordered a high-level inquiry by a top investment bank to test claims by electricity generators that the emissions trading scheme could cause them financial distress and lead to major disruption in the national energy market”
Scheme will still hurt us, say miners”: Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche, Dec 15.
There was quite a bit of whingeing from Woodside Petroleum and their Emo CEO Don Voelte. It worked too – they managed to qualify as an EITE and have access to the trough of free permits. Here is a small selection of their whinging…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/18/2307156.htm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24491292-36418,00.html
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/20080828/woodside-says-aussie-co2-plan-threatens-lng-project.htm
http://www.fluidhandling.com.au/Article/Woodside-demands-emissions-trading-scheme-compensation-for-LNG/431134.aspx
The sad thing is, if Woodside really was serious about how emissions trading would affect their business, they could relocate to East Timor, but hang on, they ruled that out…
http://in.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idINSYD8149020080731
It is interesting to hear about all the problems an ETS will bring to the Queensland cement industry. I wonder if any readers can confirm that Queensland cementers – perhaps even the three multinational investors that Sen. Boswell is so concerned about for Gladstone – still use old vehicle tyres to fire their limestone curing kilns. It used to be the case that southern states could dispose of their used tyres by trucking them north. Even if this practise has now been superceded, I would hesitate to place much value on Queenslander cementers whinging about carbon trading.
An uncontrolled climate change debate could be devastating to all Marxist – Leninist ideological imperialism .
This is an industry predicated on production worship, statism and economic-determinism.
They will need a lot of bail-out funding just to tread water in this hostile environment.
Thanks Peter… I’m in two minds about keeping track of the shite the Opposition Organ publishes. On the one hand, most of it ticks the boxes listed above; on the other, … I have to read the damn stuff.
pablo, thanks for that annecdote – I wasn’t aware that they were burning old tyres! There are some serious environmental efficiency gains to be had…
Dk: “serious environmental efficiency gains to be had” ( by cementers)…
At the risk of being scolded again, but there is no where else here to place a good eco-news cement manufacture story.
Imagine if they were serious, and took something like this to market: from The Inventors
“
Scheme will still hurt us, say miners”
Well – d’uh!
Another perhaps:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24820742-7583,00.html
Pablo et al: Cement manufacture releases about 4% of total global CO2 emissions. They are intrinsic to the process. CaCO3 + heat = CaO + CO2 – to a crude approximation.
However most of the heat can be recovered and used to generate electricity; amazingly this is not a mandated process. In fact the Australian government is funding a program to incorporate electricity generation into Chinese cement manufacturing plants. The next biggy is steel production. It is one thing to sequester Carbon in steel (that’s what steel is) it’s another to use coal (carbon) to reduce iron oxide (ore) to iron.
30 years ago I worked on the direct reduction of Iron ore to iron (powder) the physics and chemistry are well understood and it is a far more energy efficient and lower CO2 emitting process than the current methods (200 years old). In fact given a supply of Hydrogen it can be entirely CO2 free. No I am not advocating the fuken Hydrogen economy – it is horses for courses. No way do I want fuken hydrogen around my house or down my street thanks.
Huggy
Pablo
Cement Australia in Gladstone Qld, uses a solvent based liqued fuel and scrap car tyres as a substitute to their main fuel, coal:
http://www.cemaust.com.au/driver.asp?page=main/operations/manufacturing%20operations/gladstone%2C%20queensland
Blue Circle Victoria uses 1.5 million used tyres annually and waste oil to substitute other fossil fuel use. That’s a real toxic soup and an ideal breeding place for dioxins, not least, in fly ash – particularly when Australia’s maximum permitted emissions for the cement industry exceeds those of the EU. Even Brazil’s maximum allowable emissions for dust are 77mg/m3 where Australia permits 100 mg/m3.
Similarly the EU permits 800 mg/m3 for NOx, for existing plants and 500 mg/m3 for new plants. Australia permits 940 mg/m3 for NOx though I’ve yet to see any proper enforcement of these guidelines and of course guidelines are unenforceable unless they are written into the Conditions of Licence.
If the regulatory system in Australia has altered over the last couple of years, I’d appreciate someone advising me or do pollutant industries continue to control their hazardous emissions by “persuasion” only?
http://209.85.175.132/search?q=cache:RMOHuBRTCUsJ:www.boral.com.au/Annual_Reports/reports/HTML_Annual_2005/s-cement.asp%3FAUD%3DCommunityEnvironment%26site%3DCI+limestone+cement+kilns+australia+used+tyres+fuel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=au
No wonder Australia and the US have a reputation as the bad boys!
14 Jan 09 – Environmentalism is like Nazism. File under ‘Barnaby’s Choices’.
dk: interesting.
We’ve (rightly, in my view) decried the government’s pissweak ETS as a political wedge.
On that level, it seems to be working just fine.
Indeed Robert – I’ve drawn out the broader points from Barnaby’s spray in a post here
19 Jan 09 – Clean coal project ‘will fail’ under emissions trading scheme cf. The Australian
I was under the impression (since I don’t take Andrew Bolt seriously) that there was just as mich scientific evidence for global warming as there is historical evidence for the Holocaust. Barnaby’s emotive language is nonsense. What is it about RWDBs that they seem incapable of assessing evidence on CC that contradicts their a prori assumptions.
Hey, you can’t eat cement any more than you can eat money. When our agricultural areas become non-productive, and the food we grow to eat dies,because of CC, maybe we’ll realise that. Too late.
I don’t think there’s any chance that a clean coal project would succeed under any circumstances, dk.au. I think technical infeasability trumps the consequences (or not) of an emmissions trading scheme every time.
Energy industry wants more money for ETS
There will be ‘premature retirement of [coal-fired power] plants’ according to Ms Savage from the link in #17
Yes, Ms Savage, I think that is the point of the CPRS. It’s not a climate pollution reward scheme, though at times it does look like that…
Energy industry wants more money for ETS – Canberra Times
Steel chief sounds jobs alarm over carbon scheme – The Australian
Gawd – could the mining and forestry industries of this country hire any fewer people? What does Gunn’s of Tas hire? 12 blokes and a dog? Im only exaggerating slightly. The idea that shifting our enrgy base will elad to a net loss of jobs is a JOKE. A net increase is far more likely – which incidentially,is why industry opposes it. It will create too much employment.
In any case, our coal industry is 75% export-only so you could shut down every coal-fired station in the nation and the industry would still kick on.
But YES: get your head around this, jobs WILL be lost in unsustainable industries. Thats the whole point. Thats a GOOD thing. They will created in new ones which wont kill us all off in the long run. Maybe they’ll even pay their submerged costs. Im sick of big polluters expecting Joe Public to pick up their costs. Stand on your own feet costs-wise and then we’ll see how “efficient” you are at producing energy. Let the market truly decide.
“Even in the most benign circumstances, the (emissions trading scheme) is effectively a tax on investment and growth,” said Virgin Blue general manager Simon Thorpe”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25085266-11949,00.html
“THE cement industry has accused the federal Government of being “fork tongued” after learning it would qualify for fewer free permits under the emissions trading scheme than it had been led to believe.”
White paper is no concrete deal for cement industry, Rentseekers Review, February 21, 2009
That an ETS is a tax on investment/growth is pretty indisputable – which is one reason why there’s a good case for offsetting it with reduction in other taxes (in particular corporate tax rates). However, of course, the cost of not reducing CO2 emissions is far higher than doing so, so an effective (hence global) ETS should be a significant money saver in the long run, even without other tax adjustments.
Emissions scheme will cut competitiveness: BlueScope, ABC Online
Why are they worried? I thought they had a special deal where the NSW government would pay for their emissions?
Tensions boil over on climate change, The Age
Yesterday it was BlueScope Steel, last week it was the cement industry, today it was the turn of coal fired electricity generators to emote about carbon pricing and how much debt they have.
Some would think that with all of the handouts in the White Paper, emissions intensive industries would quieten down a bit. This is not the case — the marginal benefits of
whingingrent-seeking have not decreased significantly.Heather Ridout again Business wants emissions trading delayed, The Age, February 26, 2009
The rent-seekers seem to have gotten louder over the past week or so.
Thanks Peter. Busy week for emoters…
Emissions trading spells disaster for farmers: MP
Carbon scheme should start in 2012 – Heather Ridout in The Age
Boy, there’s either a skills shortage or a credit shortage. Those poor managers just can’t catch a break!
Coming soon: LP Climate Emo Bingo! GFC Edition
Meanwhile is worried that if it introduces and ETS, there will be carbon leakage from New Zealand to Australia because our targets will be much weaker.
Carbon scheme changes mulled.
heh. we own most of NZ anyway.
It is interesting to hear about all the problems an ETS will bring in all fields..
By the way, for your readers interested in funding for climate change ideas. Check out http://www.justmeans.com/challenge/climate Four winners will receive $200,000 each to pursure their ‘Changing Climate Change’ idea. This initiative is being run by Green Mountain Coffee Roasters.
Scullion says emissions trading scheme will scare off Inpex – ABC
ETS dangerous to dirtiest coal fired power plant in the world, hence whole Economy! – Interview with TRUenergy’s Richard Indoe at Business Spectator
Rudd’s Hot Air Solution – Alan Kohler’s hysterical follow up commentary on interview.
“…uncertainty about subsidies after 2015 will result in the bankruptcy and probable closure of the Latrobe Valley coal-fired power stations in 2015.”
Yeah keep going with those predictions/rent-seeker spruikings buddy.
ETS ‘to shrink regional growth’, says secret NSW Government report – Rentseeker’s Review
Energy industry warns of blackout – Rentseeker’s Review
A survey by the Energy Supply Association of Australia has found the sector will need to find $100 billion over the next five years for refinancing, essential upgrades and new investments in low-emission generation to comply with the emissions trading scheme and new renewable energy targets.
Keane in Crikey today:
It gets better:
Senate committee hearings are broadcasting live here.
oops wrong thread for the previous comment…
There was a bunch of stuff on the ESAA rentseeking exercise in the April 14 AFR too. Quotes someone from Rio Tinto saying that the CPRS will “cost jobs”. One thing that I find really annoying about much of the media coverage of these exercises is that the journalists don’t bother to ask any independent economists or policy experts or environmentalists about the validity of these claims.
Yes, Peter, in the front page AFR article they were not only threatening jobs, but the lights were said to go off in NSW specifically, with the suggestion that a Ruddbank style facility be set up to provide the $100 billion they reckon they need for refinancing and new investment in the next few years.
It reminds me of the financial crisis. The generators make bad invsestment decisions by building brown coal fired power stations – assuming that nothing will be done about climate change – and doing their best to make sure nothing is done about climate change. When something is done about climate change 30 years after they first knew about the problem, the firms want to be bailed out with cheap loans – and are still doing their best to ensure that as little as possible is done about the problem.
Peter, I think this is why Hansen is targeting the coal industry directly. He says ETS initiative have been a demonstrable failure, so go for a tax.
Forget percentage reduction targets and just go for the main culprit. The combination of percentage targets and relying on the market through ETS just gives scope for playing the games that big industry is so good at with paid lobbyists, PR spin, and ignorant journalist processing copy at the rate of knots to serve the commercial interests of the corporate MSM.
Ford fears ETS will drive jobs out of Australia – Rentseeker’s Review:
Wow. I hope my Senate submission makes headlines too!
From Carbon+Environment Daily:
Wong fails to name single ETS backer
Seems like as good a note as any on which to conclude Climate Change Emo Watch.
Thanks to everyone who participated – particularly Peter Wood
A bit late to the party, but a worthy inclusion:
Carbon plan will cost jobs: steel boss – Rentseeker’s Review
Thanks for setting up the Emo Watch dk.au, it is a useful record of much of the recent nonsense from business that we have seen, which is playing a major role in undermining climate policy.
On Bluescope Steel, I find it ironic that they are complaining about the CPRS, I thought they stitched up a deal with the NSW government so that NSW will pay for their emissions, in exchange for Bluescope setting up a steel cogeneration plant in Port Kembla.
End of Emo?
ETS Won’t Cost Jobs: Coalition Study – Business Spectator
That’s a startling conclusion about the EITEs considering they’ll actually get a windfall profit from the scheme for BAU technology improvements (contrary to what the government asserts).
Am looking to get hold of the report but can’t download it from the CIE site…Recall Brendan Nelson back in Aug 2008 . I’d be more tempted to conclude that Emo has won, rather than lost.
Update: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/05/06/the-pearce-review-the-liberals-cprs-report/
11 May 2009 – Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy Interim Report Here’s a flavour:
Nats will say no to emissions scheme – news.com.au
Carbon plan will cause jobs carnage – Mitch Hooke in the Opposition Organ
dk.au, the Oz reported the Minerals Council as saying:
This turned out to be a lie, as Tony Maher from the CFMEU points out:
Earlier in the day the ABC had been repeating the Minerals Council lie. But tonight in the news bulletins they got it right on TV as well as radio.
National Farmer’s Federation very late to the party – ABC online. (nb. compare with this 2007 press release)
ETS to put 25pc of beef producers out of business — Queensland Country Life
“I can see the beginning of an environmental campaign saying that beef is really bad for the environment and it’s starting to get out into more mainstream literature.
“The problem for the beef industry is that even if they have a successful argument, the public relations problem is quite a big one, so that’s where I think agriculture needs to become a bit more involved and look for some of the better news stories out there.”
Interesting acknowledgement – especially given how feverishly the Kiwis are working on sheep fart abatement technologies; a The Global Farting Cow Institute can’t be too far off.
Coal company claims emissions trading scheme favours eastern states – http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200905/s2583101.htm
dk.au, it’s burping, not farting, or if you want to be technical enteric fermentation.
Peter W murph said a bit here and I think Quiggin had a go at it recently too. It’s really recycling carbon, but I think the problem comes from methane being so much more potent than CO2, so it’s a greenhouse booster.
The maths in Prof John Rolfe’s piece indicates that he rates methane 21 times as strong as CO2. But it really should be 70 times or more.
dk.au the Kiwis might be good at spruiking what they do, but it seems we are doing quite a bit.
No doubt, Brian. Thanks for the link…
Revealed: Rudd’s $500m coal compensation fund – AM
States should get compo under ETS Sky News – Greens argue that Hospitals, Schools and Universities deserve compensation under the scheme.
Govt to investigate ETS worries AFR
Well, I’m sending a letter to the Prime Minister next week to point out that I am going to be severely disadvantaged by the ETS, and I should be compensated.
And why not?? Everybody else is!!!