Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] corporate climate coup

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Nicholas Roberts" <nicholas@themediasociety.org>
  • To: "permacultue discussion list" <pil-pc-oceania@lists.permacultureinternational.org>, permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org, scott@wa.greens.org.au, "Peter Wood" <drwoood@gmail.com>
  • Subject: [permaculture] corporate climate coup
  • Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:23:58 +0100

the real meaning of Apocalypse, is *revelation at the end of the world*...

think about that for a moment

now

its not suprising that the actions *vs rhetoric* around the latest battle in
the climate war i.e. Australia's Emissions Trading Scheme are basically as
expected.. a giveway to the corporate carbon polluters and a PR angle for
Rudd to sell to the average consumer addicted to the products of such
pollution .i.e. plasma tvs, big houses, suburban lifestyles, cars, air cons,
cheap stuff, foreign wars for oil, a global system of slavery and
exploitation.. Australia does sell a lot of stuff like coal and nuclear
material remember....

appalling, despicable, disappointing... but in no way suprising is Rudd's
actions

I AM disappointed by the climate change movement... what did you expect ?
did you really think emails and ad spends would do it ?

Obama style change you can believe in ? cough, cough... think Tony Blair,
Bill Clinton, Bob Hawke etc etc
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections

in my view, the cimate change movement has played itself... it had betrayed
the working class by using the language and sided with of a totalitarian war
against climate change... see Climate Code Red, FOE... when the reality of
the war against terrorism, the war against poverty, drugs, climate change
etc... has been actually a war on real, orginary *mostly poor* people... so,
why should a war on climate change be welcomed by normal people, as Hansen
says below, people arent stupid. Maybe because they didnt do Macroeconomics
101 at uni...

if you really want to move past the current thinking, read the Corporate
Climate Coup, fomer MIT historian
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12771


the climate change movement has reduced its popular base by haggling over
details of a deeply flawed financial solution to a very basic problem. The
Emissions Trading Scheme is being introduced at a time when bankers,
financiers and multinational corporations have basically ruined the
fialnancial system .i.e. the debt/financial crisis.. and its starting to
effect everyone in the world

it would of been really easy to have associated Emissions Trading with
Financial Crime... intrdouced a nice simple tax on pollutors...but no, the
green elites had to play a smart game... play the system... well boys and
girls... I think its you that got played

no-one dared say, *hang on, you guys should be going to jail, not finding
solutions to the financial and ecological disasters*

so its been real easy for Team KRUDD to indtroduce a scheme thats good for
pollutors *the Australian corporate-states* real constiuency.. not the
netroots or the greens...

my guess is most working people, i.e. real Australians will be glad of the
low rates, considering the official scheme pushes all costs on to the
punters anyway... so a low emissions reduction means less cost passed on the
ordinary Australians who are either really poor or basically addicted to
debt so in real terms... very poor, but with cars, big houses, plasma tv's

wake up green elites, the trading scheme is not popular, perhaps
deliberately so

basically, I am more disappointed by the responses of 'I am so shocked*...
why? perhaps you should spend less time reading blogs, listening to the the
ABC and the spin from Fairfax and read the business press *or better still
the radicals who read the business press*

the good cop bad cop Liberal/Conservative/Republican vs
Labor/Labour/Democrat game is a dangerous, dangerous illusion

its revolution time people, forget reslience, forget reform, its revolution

or perhaps we can send them emails or do TV ads ? i.e. GetReal.org ? or get
really busy on FaceBook... yeah, right !

and the sooner you folks have a personal Apocalypse the better.. for me,
anyway, as they said in the South American revolutions... *all of the of
them out*


*Obama Should Impose a Carbon Tax * *Junk Cap-and-Trade *

By RALPH NADER and TOBY HEAPS

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader12052008.html
The most efficient way to apply a carbon tax is at a relatively small number
of major carbon bottlenecks, which cover the lion's share of GHGs. The key
points where flows of carbon are the most concentrated include: trunk
pipelines for gas, refineries for oil, railroad heads for coal, liquid
natural gas (LNG) terminals, cement, steel, aluminum and GHG-intensive
chemical plants.


some alternatives and some views from Crikey

*Scientific reticence and sea level rise*

J E Hansen

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025,
USA

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/2/024002/erl7_2_024002.html

*Abstract. *I suggest that a `scientific reticence' is inhibiting the
communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is
dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with
future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a
panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt
plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.


Climate Expert James Hansen Supports Cap-and-Dividend
System<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/hansen-cap-dividend.php>
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/hansen-cap-dividend.php
Not only would Hansen's plan help slash emissions further than other
alternatives, it would return the proceeds to taxpayers through the
disbursement of regular dividend payments. Here are a few choice selections
from an e-mail exchange Revkin had with Hansen (the rest of it can be found
in Revkin's post):

op Stories * 1 . Polluter assistance and 5% target: Rudd's CO2 fail*

*Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:*

The Government has restructured its emissions trading scheme
<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=48d37b37-f7e8-4e26-81be-ae4464c9383d&rid=56aacd75-139e-4169-8912-7a7da4498ba8>to
deliver even greater assistance to Australia's biggest polluters and to
scale back its commitment to participate in any international agreement,
well below that advocated in the Garnaut Review.

The emissions trading scheme White Paper released this morning proposes that
Australia commit to a unilateral 5% reduction in carbon emissions on 2000
levels by 2020, equivalent to a 27% per capita reduction given Australia's
population growth.

In the event of an international agreement, the Government has proposed
committing to up to a 15% reduction by 2020, equivalent to a 34% per capita
reduction.

The unilateral target of 5% is in line with that recommended by Garnaut, and
the 15% target would reflect an international agreement somewhere between
the 550ppm realistic goal discussed by Garnaut -- which would require a 10%
cut -- and the 450ppm ambition that would require a 25% cut by 2020.

However, the Government has rejected Garnaut's recommendation that it commit
to a 25% cut if an international agreement around 450ppm is reached
(equivalent to a 40% per capita reduction). Australia will go no lower than
a 15% cut, even though the White Paper specifically states that "the
Government believes that it is in Australia's national interest to achieve a
comprehensive global agreement to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases at around 450ppm".

In the event such an agreement is reached, the Government has only committed
to reconsider its post 2020 targets.

Advertisement
[image:
ad]<http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/jump/newsletter.crikey.com.au/daily;newsltr=daily;pos=1;date=15122008;sz=300x250;ord=633649445051636250?>

The Government strongly argues that its 5-15% effort is comparable to that
adopted by Europe on a per capita basis -- Europe's current goal of 20-30%
below 1990 levels equates on a per capita basis to 24-34% below 1990 levels;
Australia's 5-15% goal would be 34-41% below 1990 levels.

The Government has also made significant concessions to Australia's biggest
polluters in the design of the scheme. Under the White Paper scheme, the
carbon price will be reduced by permitting unlimited importation of accepted
international permits, and there will be a $40 price cap for the first five
years of the scheme. The Government expects the initial permit price to be
around $23 a tonne, and some borrowing of the following year's permits will
be permitted in addition to unlimited banking.

The compensation arrangements have been significantly broadened to include
industries that previously missed out on compensation and to provide greater
flexibility for companies in determining their eligibility for compensation,
through providing a value-added option in addition to the tonnes per million
dollars revenue, and extending the period on which the calculation is based.


The threshold of 2000t per million dollars revenue/value added has been
retained from the Green Paper, above which trade-exposed firms will be
eligible for 90% free permits. But in a big victory for the LNG industry and
other previously borderline industries, the lower threshold at which 60% of
permits are provided free has been dropped to 1000t per million dollars
revenue/value added.

As a consequence the proportion of free permits under the scheme has
increased from 20% to 25% -- with another 10% for agriculture, which will
remain excluded until at least 2015.

The Government has also clarified that such firms will receive increasing
numbers of free permits if they increase production, meaning there will be
no cap on emissions from our worst polluting sectors. There will be a 1.3%
"dividend" deducted from caps each year but under normal economic growth
conditions, it means that by 2020 45% of permits will be handed out free to
polluters.

The Government will also provided $3.9b over five years in handouts to the
coal-fired power industry, as well as a $2.15b "climate change action fund"
for handouts to businesses, community groups and the coal mining industry.
The petrol excise offset from the Green Paper has been retained, and the
Government has strengthened its household assistance measures, promising to
overcompensate nearly all low-income households with 120% of their
additional costs, and committing that most middle-income households will not
be out of pocket.

The Government expected to generate $11.5b in permit revenue in 2010-11,
with all permit revenue recycled back into assistance, and a substantial
risk that if big polluters grow faster than the rest of the economy, the
Government will be forced to fund some assistance measures from the Budget.

Now the Government's selling task begins, commencing with Kevin Rudd –
having bumped Penny Wong -- at the Press Club today. Next stop, the Senate.
------------------------------

*Join a Crikey liveblog to discuss the Government's ETS White Paper
here<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=c8f51da9-d218-47d6-8fe6-5cd64afc2381&rid=56aacd75-139e-4169-8912-7a7da4498ba8>
.*
<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=6971f5d8-02dc-4303-a5e7-6f2f37179257&rid=56aacd75-139e-4169-8912-7a7da4498ba8>

Comment on this
article<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=fd8edbf8-616d-485b-91a9-89a1deed4418&rid=56aacd75-139e-4169-8912-7a7da4498ba8>

Send this article to a
friend<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=a4dd2a91-b389-43be-909a-45a5fd1b94c1&rid=56aacd75-139e-4169-8912-7a7da4498ba8>

Back to
Index<?ui=2&ik=692ba0f0a1&view=lg&msg=11e389653419941a#11e389653419941a_top>
------------------------------
* 2 . Our biggest polluters have won*

*Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes: *

The surrender is virtually complete. Our biggest polluters have won, and the
rest of us will be paying for it under a joke of an emissions trading scheme
that encompasses a significant transfer of wealth to our largest polluters.

The Government has rejected the two fundamental truths at the heart of the
Garnaut Report -- that it costs less to act now rather than delay, and that
acting within an international agreement significantly reduces the costs of
curbing carbon emissions.

By taking a 450ppm option off the table until after 2020, the Government is
in effect saying that such an agreement in Copenhagen isn't merely
improbable, but that we wouldn't cooperate with it for a decade even if it
eventuated, despite modelling consistently showing that the costs of
pursuing even ambitious emissions reductions targets are much lower when
there's an international framework. The signal to the rest of the world is
clear: Australia is still a climate change recalcitrant.

Remember we're not talking here about unilateral action. The Government has
said it will not take action until after 2020 to comply with a 450ppm target
even in the event the rest of the world manages to agree to such a target
next year.

And on compensation, too, our biggest polluters have won a major victory. In
addition to increasing the flexibility with which eligibility for
compensation will be calculated, the Government has lowered the arbitrary
threshold at which 60% of free permits are allocated, dropped from 1500t per
million dollars revenue to 1000t per million dollars revenue or value added.
That will bring in the LNG sector -- although presumably won't shut up Don
Voelte, corporate Australia's biggest whinger. Doubtless there are firms
around the 900t per million dollars mark who are already preparing to lobby
for further relaxation.
In the absence of an international emissions trading agreement, if eligible
industries grow at about the same rate as the rest of the economy between
now and 2020, at that point 45% of all permits will be handed out for free
to polluters, even with a sort of carbon efficiency dividend each year.

And each time more permits are handed out to polluters, the burden on the
rest of the economy increases. Low and medium-emission firms ought to start
lobbying now for the retention of the price cap through to 2020, otherwise
it's going to be very expensive bidding for the remainder of the permits
left over after they've been gifted to polluters.

And if heavily-polluting industries grow any faster than the rest of the
economy, the impact on scheme revenue will mean taxpayers will have to start
funding some of the assistance measures, which are meant to be
revenue-neutral.

The coal-fired power industry will also do very well. Despite taking
investment decisions for a decade or more knowing that action needed to be
taken on climate change, they will still receive nearly $4b in assistance,
described as "once and for all" in nature. Believe that when you see it.

With such massive handouts and generous compensation arrangements, the ETS
will be a half-baked, ineffective joke amounting to little more than a
paper-shuffling exercise for our most polluting industries. The latter have
worked hard and successfully to convince the Government to further weaken
what was already an inefficient and anaemic scheme in its Green Paper form.

The political consequence of that, however, is that the Coalition will be
struggling to find grounds on which to block the ETS when it comes before
the Senate next winter, and might lack an industry support base for its
efforts, even in Western Australia. Today the Coalition was still saying a
2010 start date was too soon. That plays into the Government's hands
perfectly, reinforcing Kevin Rudd's message that he occupies the moderate
middle ground on climate change.

It's politically astute, but a craven surrender to polluters and
rentseekers. In the middle of the year, Kevin Rudd was talking up his
capacity to take tough decisions. On climate change, we've yet to see any
evidence of it. Worse, we've announced to the world that we're not prepared
to play our part in reducing our emissions.

*Join a Crikey liveblog to discuss the Government's ETS White Paper
here<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=5996d611-587c-4905-87da-715fd6d99afd&rid=56aacd75-139e-4169-8912-7a7da4498ba8>
.*

Comment on this
article<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=83bfba15-4df5-47e4-8475-cdc78e5ccd1b&rid=56aacd75-139e-4169-8912-7a7da4498ba8>

Send this article to a
friend<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=c15a17b9-fa8c-4350-901f-d5f59a483c4a&rid=56aacd75-139e-4169-8912-7a7da4498ba8>

Back to
Index<?ui=2&ik=692ba0f0a1&view=lg&msg=11e389653419941a#11e389653419941a_top>
------------------------------
* 3 . Hamilton: White paper runs up white flag*

*Clive Hamilton writes:*

In normal circumstances the Government's announcement to cut Australia's
greenhouse gas emissions by 5-15 per cent over a decade would be a
significant policy move. But circumstances are not normal.

The climate emergency demands a political response that transcends the usual
approach of balancing competing interests to minimise political pain. Yet
the White Paper reflects the Prime Minister's repeated claim that his task
is to weigh the demands of industry against those of environmentalists.

When Kevin Rudd told Kerry O'Brien last week that he would not be caving in
the "extreme environmentalists", he was not just defining a "moderate" space
to occupy, but casting doubt on the climate science. He was saying that we
should take the conclusions of the scientists -- that the industrialised
world must cut its emissions by 25-40 per cent by 2020, with the developing
world following soon after -- with a grain of salt.

The scientists are not extremists and nor are the environmentalists. In
fact, they are both restrained. Publicly, the scientists display the usual
professional caution, although privately they are panicking. The mainstream
environmental organizations, concerned to protect their access and maintain
"relevance", are pushing a "moderate" position. A policy that reflected the
science would be one that swept aside the pleading and bullying of the
fossil-based industries and pursued nationally the emission cuts that will
best advance the global response that is needed to protect us all from
climate catastrophe.

Yet it is precisely the pragmatism of political trade-offs that the White
Paper pursues. It mirrors the fundamentally conservative "realism" of Ross
Garnaut that plays into the hands of industry obstructionists.
Rather than moulding the science to conform to the politics, the politics
must conform to the science. And the science calls for emergency measures.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, released in early 2007, is now widely
recognised as being worryingly out of date. The scientific work on which it
is based is now five years old and in that time there has been a rush of
studies indicating that the situation is much more dire than the IPCC
concluded.

It is now expected that Arctic sea-ice in the summer will disappear entirely
before 2015. The weakening of the albedo effect and warming of the Arctic
Ocean will have a heating effect up to 1500 kilometres away thereby
increasing the rate of melting of the permafrost with its vast stores of
frozen carbon. That's a tipping point we really don't want to get to.

The only bright spot in the politics is the continued commitment by the
Government to begin the emissions trading system in 2010. Delay makes no
sense for anyone. The economy will be coming out of recession at the
beginning of 2010 and business will be looking for good investment
opportunities, so why not direct it into clean energy?

The certainty provided by the ETS will stimulate investment and economic
growth. The Opposition's proposal to delay the scheme's start-up to 2012
makes no sense economically or environmentally. It would only create
uncertainty, undermine confidence and delay the recovery.

*Join a Crikey liveblog to discuss the Government's ETS White Paper
here<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=dc07f89b-496d-45ab-97f9-c0a8b1a4bc08&rid=56aacd75-139e-4169-8912-7a7da4498ba8>
.*


--
Nicholas Roberts
[im] skype:niccolor




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page