Climate change lobby works at making money

I had a piece in the Herald Sun on Friday further addressing the fraudulent and income sapping climate change issue.

The “greatest moral challenge of our time”, is how Kevin Rudd referred to climate change, which was allegedly resulting from human emissions of carbon dioxide.

The issue became prominent during the 1990s and reached a crescendo with the Kyoto Agreement in 1997 when countries solemnly promised to reduce (or, in Australia’s case, only slightly increase) their emissions. Of course, whenever those pledges proved inconvenient they were promptly jettisoned.
The rest of the world was claimed to be acting with great urgency to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide – the Commonwealth Treasury Secretary said national schemes were in place covering 83 per cent of world emissions. But this turned out to comprise just the EU and Australia, responsible for only a 12 per cent share of emissions that was declining as a result of the punitive regulatory measures causing losses of industry competitiveness. In Australia’s case electricity costs moved from among the lowest to among the highest in the world.

A year ago Australia had four different sorts of measures designed to force reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
We had the carbon tax, which alone added 17 per cent to households’ prices but is now repealed.
We also had budget spending, including the subsidies through the “Clean Energy Finance Corporation”, running at $4 Billion a year; these are being reduced and replaced by a far less costly Direct Action Plan, and even that may not pass the Senate.
Then there are regulations designed to force us into lower energy housing and to use lower energy fridges and other appliances. As with all regulations, irrespective of government intent, once in place these are almost impossible to remove.
Finally we had various government renewable energy requirements, including the Commonwealth’s Renewable Energy Target (RET), which added 12 per cent to the price. Most state government requirements are being reduced and the Commonwealth scheme is under review. The original Commonwealth scheme was put in place by John Howard, in what he has since described as his worst ever policy enactment. Labor increased the scheme’s size fivefold as well as introducing the carbon tax and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation slush fund for carbon-light investments.

Australia has a number of taxpayer financed institutions promoting climate change alarmism. These are assisted by renewable energy businesses lobbyists supported agencies looking to preserve renewable subsidies. Two recent government reports estimate those subsidies will cost the economy $29-$37 billion, which is up there with total government spending on transport infrastructure.

Climate change alarmism started to unravel during the farcical 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, which was to build on the Kyoto Treaty. In that year, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, said we had only five years to stop catastrophic global warming. But for the past 17 years, though every heat wave, cold spell, drought and hurricane has been blamed on human induced climate change, aggregate world climate data shows no trend.
We may now be approaching the end game on climate change measures. There have been just too many unfulfilled catastrophes.

Even so, the vested interests in subsidised energy remain powerful and retain the capacity to keep on hitting firms and households alike with measures that add needless costs.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Climate change lobby works at making money

  1. Rafe

    Not strictly on topic, but has the Coalition done anything to release the modeling that was used to support or follow up the Garnaut recommendations for our climate policy? According to Garth Palatridge who was on a committee of review (which was disbanded because it raised awkward questions about the model) it is almost certainly a crock but of course the former government did not release any details.

  2. incoherent rambler

    In Australia’s case electricity costs moved from among the lowest to among the highest in the world.

    Indisputable fact.

    Welcome to the dark ages.

  3. Rabz

    As with all regulations, irrespective of government intent, once in place these are almost impossible to remove.

    How’s that bonfire of regulations going, Abbott?

    Oh, that’s right, too difficult and we didn’t really mean it anyway. Same with the incompetent do nothing liberal state governments.

  4. Andrew

    Unfortunately if A666 reverses every single policy and leaves us back at the 1991 regulatory environment, the industries that have left will never return. No one will ever trust us, or the EUSSR, not to be embraced by Flanneryism again under the next Greenleft grubiment. Especially after the spectacle of independents REQUIRING these horrendous policies instead of blocking them.

  5. sabrina

    Alan – apart from those four measures you state, how much did the network upgrades add to the cost? These were carried out on the assumption that elecctricity consumption would increase, but the last 5 years have seen a decrease in electricity use in this country.

    Meanwhile, my electricity supplier has decided to reduce the charges by 8% following CO2 tax repeal, after having increased the charges as you say by, 17% .

  6. manalive

    The “greatest moral challenge of our time”, is how Kevin Rudd referred to climate change …

    Poor Kevin.
    He strutted around Bali at the UN conference in 2007 as the saviour of the world and then at the 2009 conference in Copenhagen he was ignored.
    According to Swan “… he felt it was going to be his moment on the world stage … he came back [from Copenhagen] as best can be described as completely devastated”.
    A rooster one day, feather duster the next.

  7. handjive

    Rafe asks :
    “has the Coalition done anything to release the modeling that was used to support or follow up the Garnaut recommendations for our climate policy?”

    With the speed A666 wiped the embarrassing Climate Commission junk climate science off the interwebs so it could continue with it’s carbon tax regime of Direct Action using the same failed climate science might be an indication.

    The Climate Commission was a treasure chest of failed climate science from which it could have drawn many quotes.
    The LNP always supported the Climate Commission Doomsday Reports.
    It never questioned Garnaut’s failed climate science economics either.
    For what are obvious reasons now.

  8. H B Bear

    Could Kevin’s failure to save the World be the root cause of his undeniable and increasingly well documented mental illness? Or was it sleeping in the car all those years ago?

    Luckily the well established structures and rules of the Liars Party prevent mentally deficient individuals from ever becoming party leader and damaging the Nation.

  9. johno

    A rooster one day, feather duster the next.

    But a Goose is always a Goose!

  10. Alfonso

    It’s probably nothing….but unstable nutters Rudd , Doc Evatt and Latham all led the ALP.
    Say what you like about Labor, it’s greatest claim to fame is that Conroy had no chance at leadership.

  11. Ant

    I suggest we start building a prison into which we can incarcerate these lying and thieving bastards for terms of their natural lives.

  12. nerblnob

    In that year, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, said we had only five years to stop catastrophic global warming.

    Did they never realise what a stupid tactic these deadlines are?

    It doesn’t matter what you believe, if you’re told we’ve passed the final deadline, what’s the bloody point?

  13. John Comnenus

    Rabz,

    No matter how many regs and laws the Libs repeal they will still pass more laws. The net difference at the end of any and every government is more laws, more regulation and less freedom.

  14. John Comnenus

    A Royal Commisdion into Climate Change is well and truly warranted. Followed by vigorous charges for fraud. After all many people helped whip up a scare that led to a truckload of cash being looted from all Australians only to be redistributed back to many of the people who generate the scare in the first place. How can it be anything but fraud if the science was falsified?

  15. alan moran

    Sabrina.

    Network costs account for over half of total costs and have gone up in all states but the increase is greater for state owned networks which have no incentive to save on costs (see the article by Grace in the Australian that showed how the labour costs are padded) and every incentive to spend whatever they are allowed to spend.

  16. manalive

    We may now be approaching the end game on climate change measures. There have been just too many unfulfilled catastrophes …

    Tim Blair has linked to a site where Climate Change™ scientists unload their frustrations and despondency that their longed for climate catastrophe looks like a mirage (although they try to rationalise in terms of people ignoring their warnings).
    Richard Lindzen back in 2009 warned that “… the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake …”.
    He also predicted that “… those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed …”.

  17. Old Salt

    Dos anyone have a list of companies or other organisations that benefit from taxpayer support for the RET scheme?

  18. Walter Plinge

    Re network costs above and the reference to Grace Collier’s op-ed in The Australia: the piece is behind the paywall but is worth reading. Here is an excerpt:


    Vince Graham is the chief executive of three NSW government electricity network businesses. He thinks these businesses should be privatised.

    On Wednesday his opinion piece in The Australian said union power, public ownership and “amenable management” had driven higher electricity prices. Graham’s honesty was refreshing, but is he right? Would privatisation of Ausgrid, Essential Energy and Endeavour Energy be the answer and, if so, what would investors be buying? Would a new owner end up with high fixed costs, a hopeless management culture and overpaid staff who couldn’t work in an iron lung? Is the NSW electricity network a dud investment because it has been booby trapped with bad enterprise bargaining agreements? If so, who would buy it?

    The most recent union EBAs, all signed by Graham’s managers under his oversight, prove concerning reading.

    Across the network fixed labour costs of an approximate average of at least $125,000 a person a year and rising form the foundations of an inefficient enterprise. The EBAs across all three businesses are very similar, but for this article, Ausgrid’s EBA is quoted.

    Workers have a nine-day fortnight with rostered days off. Sick leave benefits accrue across time to reach about double the normal community standard of 10 days a year. Employees who have used up all their sick leave may be granted extra paid leave “if the circumstances warrant it” — translation, after union pressure.

    People can cash out their long-term accruals of sick leave whenever they want, or when they leave, unless it is in circumstances of a misconduct dismissal.

    An employee “experiencing domestic violence will have access to 20 days per year of paid special leave”. This leave can be taken “without prior approval”.

    If work at Ausgrid all gets too much people can apply for a “career break to meet personal, family or community responsibilities” for up to two years; when they come back they are entitled to return to their old or equivalent position.

  19. Leo G

    There have been just too many unfulfilled catastrophes

    The Climate Change public policy catastrophe is nearing fulfilment.

  20. GK

    Climate change demonstrates pure human nature of looking after one self, as the key proponents, “the scientists” have had a successful and prosperous career on writing what their employer wants. Many scientist would have fallen into this vicious circles, believers and non believers, because who would write themselves out of a job, knowing full well the limited prospects of scientists in the private sector, because the bills for everyday living will just keep on coming.

  21. GK

    And I don’t expect Abbotts LNP to do much in ridding us of this expensive ponzi scheme because it seems after the election they have shown themselves to be lefties who could not get in the ALP so they joined the LNP.

  22. Demosthenes

    We had the carbon tax, which alone added 17 per cent to households’ prices

    17% It raised electricity costs an average 9%, and overall inflation less than 1%. Where is your figure from?

    We also had budget spending, including the subsidies through the “Clean Energy Finance Corporation”, running at $4 Billion a year

    You have the always-available case for the inefficient use of funds (bureaucratic red tape, “picking winners”, principal-agent problems, etc), but to quote cost without benefit is… well, part of the job of a professional lobbyist, I guess. The CEFC averages a >7% yield – it makes money.

    Finally we had various government renewable energy requirements, including the Commonwealth’s Renewable Energy Target (RET), which added 12 per cent to the price.

    Apparently your memory is going. I corrected this misleading claim of yours quite recently. The RET will lower prices, according to ACIL Allen. If you don’t like their modelling, that’s fine, but you’ll have to explain why Deloitte’s was any better. At the very least, it shows that confident claims of increases are misleading.

    Two recent government reports estimate those subsidies will cost the economy $29-$37 billion

    Using obsolete assumptions, as seems de rigueur among the grey-hairs making policy about fast-moving technology. See the set-top box fiasco, the NBN, etc.

    aggregate world climate data shows no trend.

    That’s just a flat-out lie, even when you ignore what’s happening to the Earth’s oceans, glaciers and land ice, polar sea ice, flora and fauna, (all of which show evidence of the continuing warming trend) and autistically fixate on one particular instrumental record out of many.

  23. Leigh Lowe

    And I don’t expect Abbotts LNP to do much in ridding us of this expensive ponzi scheme because it seems after the election they have shown themselves to be lefties who could not get in the ALP so they joined the LNP.

    At least with a good old-fashioned Ponzi scheme the victim gets to decide whether or not to participate. With Climate Change fraud we just get pillaged without consent.

  24. gabrianga

    Whilst the Coalition fart around, the “Global Warming” zealots and snake oil merchants such as GE, John Hewson and the AC F’s’ “Business Round-table” we pay for unused desalination plants, salaries for quangos who still believe in the Rudd “theory and subsidies to solar and wind farm operators.

    Like 18c, this funding will remain unchanged until we have a Minister for the Environment who will declare “abatement” plans are delayed indefinitely and who is/was ,not a Global Warming believer.

  25. Tel

    A rooster one day, feather duster the next.

    But a Goose is always a Goose!

    As the saying goes, ‘this hard to soar like an eagle.

  26. Tel

    ’tis stupid word corrector. ’tis ffs

  27. cohenite

    Good old Penny. Really one should do a compilation of the dud, hysterical predictions by so-called authorities.

    But no matter we have Demosthenes peddling bullshit to play with. D for dumb says:

    That’s just a flat-out lie, even when you ignore what’s happening to the Earth’s oceans, glaciers and land ice, polar sea ice, flora and fauna, (all of which show evidence of the continuing warming trend)

    Links please dropkick.

  28. Tel

    http://isthishowyoufeel.weebly.com/this-is-how-scientists-feel.html

    I feel it is ethically wrong to adjust raw data and report the adjusted data as if it were real measurement.

    I feel it is scientific malpractice to apply adjustment without fully traceable documentation covering each and every adjusted temperature.

    I feel that the burden of proof rests on those who would take my money by use of force.

  29. Peter from SA

    and autistically fixate on one particular instrumental record out of many.

    Yes, best ignore temperature when considering global warming?

  30. cohenite

    From the link about climate scientists [sic] having a whinge about their feelings:

    Knowing how much is at stake, knowing that I am one of the few people who understand the magnitude of the consequences and then realizing that most of the people around me are oblivious. Some of the people are not only oblivious, they also do not want to understand. They have made up their mind, maybe based on the opinion of someone they trust, someone in their family, or a friend, maybe based on a political conviction, but certainly not based on facts.

    It makes me feel sick.

    Arrogant bastards; they have wasted billions and subverted science but their arrogance is implacable.

  31. Demosthenes @ 11:34am

    And the public may have gone along with you if you hadn’t let the whole thing turn into the ‘greatest global fraud since the Yalta Agreement’. You could have had a simple revenue neutral tax and left it at that, but no, you wanted regulations as well with scams, green slush funds and corporate handouts all the way down.

    So now you’ve killed trust in public science funding for a couple of generations. This is what happens when you let socialists join you in solidarity.

  32. manalive

    … aggregate world climate data shows no trend …
    … That’s just a flat-out lie …

    Well, you don’t believe it.
    But if it were true (which it is), it would be good news wouldn’t it?
    Catastrophe cancelled.
    Maybe Demosthenes is into ‘post normal’ science:

    ‘The danger of a “normal” reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth… self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking … scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence ….’

    … Mike Hulme The Guardian 14 March 2007

  33. Giorgio

    By increased prices caused by green taxes this government will Reduce energy prices to all consumers ,said the minister for higher energy prices,we dont know how that will happen said the minister for higher energy costs,the research was done by professor flannery and we can vouch foe the acuracy of his predictions,the minister concluded saying ” trust me I am a lawyer and politician,who used to sell pink batts and used cars.”.

  34. Demosthenes

    You could have had a simple revenue neutral tax and left it at that, but no, you wanted regulations as well with scams, green slush funds and corporate handouts all the way down.

    Actually, a revenue-neutral tax and nothing more was what I have always advocated, and never wavered from. I’ve universally opposed all green slush funds and corporate handouts regardless of target. I don’t even like the RET, and have repeatedly publicly said so. However unlike Moran, I don’t see the need to manufacture half-truths to support my arguments, probably because my paycheck doesn’t depend on being wilfully blind to mainstream science.

  35. reached a crescendo with the Kyoto Agreement

    Well, reached its peak or zenith of hysteria—its nadir of awarmism, even—, but hardly a gradual increase in loudness. No, the apogee of the delerium, I reckon, was when the triumphant Lord Obama gloated that the very Earth would begin to heal, and the very oceans cease their arrogant disobedience, following his assumption to the heavens presidency.

  36. alan moran

    Demosthenes,
    You are a strange creature who believes increased taxes bring us lower costs, a nirvana recipe par excellence.

    As for the numbers behind the increased costs of renewables and the carbon price, they are all laid out here. Pick your own jurisdiction to do the numbers – and here is a test, try to work out which jurisdiction I used.
    http://www.aemc.gov.au/Markets-Reviews-Advice/Retail-Electricity-Price-Trends-2013/Final/AEMC-Documents/2013-Residential-Electricity-Price-Trends-Final-Re.aspx

  37. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Tel at 12:00 pm:

    “’tis stupid word corrector. ’tis ffs”

    More stupid to blame it for being on and to not turn it off. But.

  38. Peter h

    The latest play as discussed in the australian is the BOM apparently getting every temperature they ever took wrong. Luckily the have decided that they can alter the figures retrospectively with a technique known as hommegenising. This results in all the bad work they did for 60 years being corrected, with a totaly different trend, fancy that. I think this hommegenising method of altering records could be used on everything.

  39. David

    hommegenising

    I always thought that had to do with milk. But then I aren’t a scientist with impeccable credentials like Flim Flam the Dinosaur Man.

    :-)

  40. Giorgio

    Homogenising ! Sounds like something dodgy embezellers do to the books?

  41. cohenite

    However unlike Moran, I don’t see the need to manufacture half-truths to support my arguments, probably because my paycheck doesn’t depend on being wilfully blind to mainstream science.

    Half-truths now; promoted from flat out lies. Alan thinks you’re a strange creature; I suppose dickheads are strange; common though. Produce your links about temperature still rising or the heat going into the ocean or big, fat Al’s bank account or something.

  42. wreckage

    The CEFC averages a >7% yield

    That’s a shitty ROI. Fuck off.

  43. Bons

    Unfortunately if A666 reverses every single policy and leaves us back at the 1991 regulatory environment,
    You elect a priest (even a scarily moral one), you get regulation always based upon the exception.
    As opposed to Andrew McKenzie. “Support the unassailably successful – sack the rest. What is wrong with that.

  44. AP

    Re: network costs:
    Renewables are to blame, too

    In recent years, much of the increase in prices has been attributed to the need to invest in the network component because of previous underinvestment in maintaining the network or to increase capacity. Also important has been the impact of policies to address environmental issues.

  45. john constantine

    If petrodollar bill looks like winning the next election, how about setting up a
    “royal commission into where all the climate change money has gone,and what difference did it make?”

    leave them landmines.

  46. jupes

    Re network costs above and the reference to Grace Collier’s op-ed in The Australia: the piece is behind the paywall but is worth reading.

    Yep. Actually everything Grace has written over the last few months is worth reading.

  47. cohenite

    Obviously this Demosthenes is a fucking troll, flinging bullshit everywhere without a skerrick of evidence.

  48. sabrina

    Thanks for clarifying the network charges, Alan and others.
    My calculations based on my usage pre-CO2 tax and 8%-reduced bill now is well below $550 pa that I was told prior to the election. Not that I care, knowing well that I can not really hold politicians accountable for what they promise.

  49. .

    The CEFC averages a >7% yield – it makes money.

    Seriously – you believe this bullshit?

    If it makes money then it doesn’t need funding and it can raise debt on the market like an ordinary corporation with bank loans and commercial bonds and bill facilities.

  50. Leo G

    ” The RET will lower prices, according to ACIL Allen. If you don’t like their modelling, that’s fine, but you’ll have to explain why Deloitte’s was any better.” – Demosthenes

    Slide 39 of the RET Review Workshop Preliminary Modelling results shows a 16-year comparative estimate of the Net impact on annual household bills (comparing the reference case with the RET Repealed case). Note the RHS ordinate is poorly labelled as Change($/yr) when it should be labelled Difference($/yr).
    ACIL Allen has not applied any discount rate to the estimate, which is unsurprising considering that applying the current Australian differentiated discount rate for periods of 15-20 years (5.3%) indicates that the NPVs of accumulated household bills are initially higher with the RET and start to become lower only in the longer-term after more than 15 years.
    Moreover, I believe there are indirect costs which are not included in the estimate.

  51. Demosthenes @ 2:51pm

    Actually, a revenue-neutral tax and nothing more was what I have always advocated, and never wavered from.

    I’m very glad to hear that.

    So will to be voting with the socialists next time?

  52. wreckage

    household bills are initially higher with the RET and start to become lower only in the longer-term after more than 15 years.

    ie., well beyond the Bullshit Event Horizon of 3 years. Any projections further out than that are slave to very, very “tuneable” parameters. By the time you get to 15 years it’s pure fantasy.

  53. wreckage

    Actually, a revenue-neutral tax

    Is bullshit. If it doesn’t raise money for the government, it shouldn’t exist at all; invariably “revenue neutral” or “behaviour modification” taxes either 1) actually exist to raise revenue or 2) are useless, with the added bonus of enshrining an continual torrent of waste in the form of government spending.

  54. Demosthenes

    As for the numbers behind the increased costs of renewables and the carbon price, they are all laid out here.

    Thank you for replying. You said “We had the carbon tax, which alone added 17 per cent to households’ prices”. The AEMC report says:

    The carbon pricing mechanism, renewable energy target and state and territory feed in
    tariff and energy efficiency schemes impact on electricity prices and currently make up
    around 17 per cent of the national average residential electricity price.

    So not “the carbon tax alone” after all. You wanted to use the biggest number possible, even when it didn’t measure what you said it did? Naughty. I wonder what Sinclair would call that sort of thing. In case there was any doubt, a little further down, the report confirms my figure of 9%.

    You said: “Finally we had various government renewable energy requirements, including the Commonwealth’s Renewable Energy Target (RET), which added 12 per cent to the price.”

    Added? You mean to the 17%? According to your own source, the 17% included those requirements, you can’t count them twice. As it says:

    In 2012/13, renewable energy target costs made up around 6 per cent of the
    representative market offer price.

    Finally, the report does not contain any numbers for the CEFC, so I guess not all your figures are laid out there. But at least I got a reply this time :-)

    Now that I read your source, you should try reading mine. If you’re short on time, the important bits are highlighted in a ghastly red-on-beige.

  55. john constantine

    There are too many layers for me to really focus on, but can i ask a simple question as a high school dropout?.

    Does the clean energy finance corporation really pay crony socialists to force the taxpayer to borrow money, to allocate to crony socialists, to enable crony socialism to build schemes to milk subsidies that the taxpayer has to borrow to pay?.

    to my spinning guestimates, claiming that paying people to give people borrowed money to enable them to milk subsidies is a profitable enterprise—surely that only works for those passing the real costs along, and aint anything like a profit in the taxpayers pocket?.

  56. Robert O.

    The depth of propaganda success on global warming can be measured by comments on a recent Q & A, whereas all the panellists, and not one with even a basic degree in science, Ridout, Jones, Wong, Palmer, even the Deputy PM, were saying we had to reduce carbon emissions (meaning carbon dioxide) to save the planet for our descendants.
    First, there hasn’t been any global warming for 17 years; Second, there is no valid relationship between levels of carbon dioxide and global temperature; Third, what minimal effect of carbon dioxide has, if any, is drowned out by other factors such as solar activity; Fourth, there is a lot of evidence suggesting that the globe may be cooling rather than warming.

    It beggars belief that a gas which is 0.o4% of the atmosphere is controlling our climate, which in fact, is controlled by solar input, and distributed from the equator through various weather systems. Of the theories about climate variability that of Svensmark and the effect of cosmic particles forming cloud nuclei is interesting: with an active sun, and solar flares these particles are deflected by the magnetic fields and less cloud is formed, so it’s hotter; and conversely when the sun is quiet there is more cloud and it is a little colder. It’s not proven, but there is quiet a good relationship with actual data.

  57. alan moran

    Demo

    Oh I have indeed read the IPCC Summary for Policymakers! Doubtless you’ll find the upcoming IPA book I am editing riveting. ESp the parts which analyse the costs and benefits of taking climate action.

    Now you have seen the AEMC data you can pick and choose which jurisdiction to use to build up the costs and you can decide what costs to include. Whatever you choose it comes to a VERY LARGE NUMBER that the rentseekers are imposing on the community. Hope you will repent on the impositions that you have been promoting! Hope but do not expect

Comments are closed.