Author: Neville

  • The economy is everyone’s business

    The economy is everyone’s business

    Jessica Irvine
    News Limited Network
    February 20, 201312:00AM

    Increase Text Size
    Decrease Text Size
    Print
    Email
    Share

    0

    Labor has delivered an economic holy trinity. Wayne Swan must be wondering what more he can do. Source: Bloomberg

    IF the polls are to be believed, Australians are about to boot out a government that has delivered an economic holy trinity: Unemployment with a “5” in front, inflation with a “2” in front and low interest rates.

    Ungrateful bastards, Treasurer Wayne Swan no doubt thinks. What more do they want from me?

    Conventional political wisdom used to have it that governments change only after some dire economic failure or recession.

    But Australians have started kicking out governments with strong economic credentials.

    Just ask Peter Costello.

    Perhaps it’s because these days the Australian economy largely runs itself.

    The Treasurer still controls the purse strings, but the heavy lifting of day-to-day management of the economy resides with the independent Reserve Bank setting interest rates.

    The role of the treasurer today is more about difficult microeconomic reforms, such as making the tax system more efficient.

    Ever since it was revealed the mining tax had raised a paltry $126 million in its first six months, blame for the Government’s bad polling has turned on Swan and his skills in the Treasury portfolio.

    Let’s be honest, Swan is not a convincing public speaker.

    Rarely does he stray off a predetermined, carefully considered script. And rarely is that script particularly rousing.

    We say we want substance, not style, from our politicians. But it turns out we want both. We want to be convinced.

    The success of a modern treasurer lies not in their technical competence to design reforms – they have Treasury for that – but in their political skills to sell them.

    A successful treasurer understands that economic reform creates winners and losers and possesses the political nous to smooth the path for reform by selling the message that we’ll all be better off in the long run.

    It is here that the current Government has fallen down.

    Competent technocrats they may be – acting quickly and decisively during the GFC to kickstart economic activity – but they have since failed to construct a convincing narrative for voters.

    Confidence – that most ephemeral of economic indicators – has been damaged.

    And lately, Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Swan have created a holy trinity of policy bungles: The carbon tax that cost more in compensation than it raised while doing little to cut emissions; a mining tax that, again, cost more in associated spending than it raised; and a Budget surplus promise that was foolish from the outset, potentially counteractive while it lasted (by dampening economic activity) and humiliating in its abandonment.

    But policy on the run didn’t start with Gillard. So much of former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s policy agenda lacked rigorous analysis.

    Think FuelWatch, Grocery Watch, home insulation, set-top boxes for pensioners, the alcopops tax and the ambitious National Broadband Network – all conceived and implemented with no public cost/benefit analysis.

    It suddenly just feels like one bungle too many.

    Labor has let the losers of reform feel like losers and the winners feel like losers too.

    But it’s not all their fault.

    In key areas of economic reform, including taxation, the Government has had to contend with an increasingly rambunctious and self-interested business lobby.

    The Government may be lily-livered in not standing up to the interests of big companies, but big business has gone feral. Our business leaders have become bloated and fat off the good times.

    The bully boys of business have become a pack of whingers and rent seekers. Business groups, which once sensibly recognised the need to reduce carbon emissions to ensure continued economic growth, saw the chink in Labor’s political armour and turned, lobbying against any action.

    Mining companies, which make a crust exploiting minerals owned by the Australian people, deployed tens of millions of dollars campaigning against a tax that would have seen a fairer return to Australian taxpayers.

    Since when did the business community have a responsibility only to shareholders, not the communities in which they exist and society as a whole?

    Since when was it OK to make a buck by screwing customers, government and small business suppliers?

    There are lessons for Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey in all this.

    First, they must ditch the scaremongering about the economy. We are doing well. Government debt is low and manageable. Confidence, however, is a fragile thing.

    Second, they must stop pandering to big business. Perhaps they will be in a better position to do so as conservatives, who are not traditionally seen as anti-business.

    In the longer term, something must be done to put finances on to a more sustainable footing.

    Spending cuts will only go so far. A fair-minded Coalition government would reconsider its promise to axe the mining tax and instead redesign it to make it a more efficient and effective tax.

    Australia needs a strong government able to stand up to vested interests. On present form, it seems the current Government is no longer up to the task.

    But it remains to be seen if the Opposition is either.

    Jessica Irvine is News Ltd’s National Economics Editor

    jessica.irvine@news.com.au

    Print
    Email

  • A Fork in the Road

    A Fork in the Road
    We stand at a fork in the road. Conventional oil and gas supplies are limited. We can move down the path of dirtier more carbon-intensive unconventional fossil-fuels, digging up the dirtiest tar sands and tar shales, hydrofracking for gas, continued mountain-top removal and mechanized destructive long-wall coal mining. Or we can choose the alternative path of clean energies and energy efficiency.
    The climate science is crystal clear. We cannot go down the path of the dirty fuels without guaranteeing that the climate system passes tipping points, leaving our children and grandchildren a situation out of their control, a situation of our making. Unstable ice sheets will lead to continually rising seas and devastation of coastal cities worldwide. A large fraction of Earth’s species will be driven to extinction by the combination of shifting climate zones and other stresses. Summer heat waves, scorching droughts, and intense wildfires will become more frequent and extreme. At other times and places, the warmer water bodies and increased evaporation will power stronger storms, heavier rains, greater floods.
    The economics is crystal clear. We are all better off if fossil fuels are made to pay their honest costs to society. We must collect a gradually rising fee from fossil fuel companies at the source, the domestic mine or port of entry, distributing the funds to the public on a per capita basis. This approach will provide the business community and entrepreneurs the incentives to develop clean energy and energy-efficient products, and the public will have the resources to make changes.
    This approach is transparent, built on conservative principles. Not one dime to the government.
    The alternative is to slake fossil fuel addiction, forcing the public to continue to subsidize fossil fuels. And hammer the public with more pollution. The public must pay the medical costs for all pollution effects. The public will pay costs caused by climate change. Fossil fuel moguls get richer, we get poorer. Our children are screwed. Our well-oiled coal-fired government pretends to not understand.
    Joe Nocera was polite, but he does not understand basic economics. If a rising price is placed on carbon, the tar sands will be left in the ground where they belong. And the remarkable life and landscape of the original North American people will be preserved.
    Joe Nocera quoted a private comment from a note explaining that I could not promise I would be back in New York to meet him. But he did not mention the contents of the e-mail that I sent him with information about the subject we were to discuss. The entire e-mail is copied below.
    Jim Hansen
    Joe, Here

  • North West Rail Link costs go off the track

    North West Rail Link costs go off the track

    EXCLUSIVE by Andrew Clennell
    The Daily Telegraph
    February 20, 201312:00AM

    Increase Text Size
    Decrease Text Size
    Print
    Email
    Share

    0

    North West Rail Link … an artist’s impression of Kellyville Station. Source: The Daily Telegraph

    SOME costs for the North West Rail Link have more than doubled before a single piece of track has been laid.

    Supporting fears raised by Infrastructure NSW boss Nick Greiner and Finance Minister Greg Pearce that the $8 billion project could swallow the state government, tenders for legal, finance and geotechnic services have skyrocketed from the estimated $33 million to $68 million.

    Even the fee for defining the “business case” for the project blew out by $2.7 million, the government’s contracts register shows.

    A contract for engineering, rail systems and architecture with AECOM, originally estimated at $19.7 million, has increased to $31 million.

    A contract with lawyers Clayton Utz has blown out from $735,000 to $8.8 million.

    Coffey Geotechnics’ bill has risen from a projected $997,465 to $6.5 million and a land-surveying contractor, Whelans Insites and Subcontractors, has upped

    costs from $1.7 million to $3.7 million.

    Even Ernst and Young’s bill for a project definition and business case has risen from $1.4 million to $4.1 million.

    The government argued yesterday that most of the cost increases were because contracts had been extended but this is the case in only three of the 10 blowouts.

    “Before one metre of track had been laid, tenders for the North West Rail Link are already costing double their original budget,” opposition transport spokeswoman Penny Sharpe said.

    “The government has made 34 announcements about the North West Rail Link yet this project still has no start date and is not fully funded. The minister has been warned that this could be the project that eats up every other infrastructure project in NSW. Unless these blowouts are brought under control, these fears will become a reality. Imagine how much tunnelling will cost if this is how it’s going so far.”

    Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian said: “It is rubbish to claim contracts are over budget, as some have been extended, some for up to two years. Unlike Labor, who failed to deliver anything, we are getting on with the job and so far 22 contracts and 44 tenders have been awarded for this important project.

    “I’m pleased the North West Rail Link is on time and on budget – the government has always stated the project cost will be between $7.5 billion and $8.5 billion and that remains the case.”

    Tenders closed on Friday to build the 15km twin tunnels between Bella Vista and Epping, the longest rail tunnels to be built in Australia.

    Ms Berejiklian has promised tunnel boring machines will be in the ground next year, a year before the state election, but refused to say when it will be completed. Some have put the end date as far away as 2020.

  • Dear Julia, it’s time for a dignified exit speech

    Dear Julia, it’s time for a dignified exit speech

    Date February 20, 2013 Category Opinion 437 reading now

    Comments 61
    Read later

    Alan Stokes

    inShare.
    Pin It
    submit to reddit
    Email article
    Print
    Reprints & permissions

    .

    .

    What next? Advice to Gillard

    What can the PM do next given her poll numbers are in wipe-out territory? Cotterell and O’Rourke, Breaking Politics’ communications specialists, sharpen their advice.
    Autoplay OnOff
    Video feedback
    Video settings

    I love you Julia Gillard, in a platonic ”gee you’re brave, wish I were as smart as you, you’ve done some great things, had a red hot go, our daughters will thank you, we’ll miss you, no one blames you for not being perfect, we’re all flawed and those flaws can take us a long way,” sort of way.

    And what’s not to love about a politician such as you?

    Stay and it’s harder for those who love you to … protect your legacy.

    One who turns up in trackie dacks to a Chinese restaurant after a federal budget looking like your daggy sister who’s as shocked to be where she is as you are to see her there.

    Missing all the signals … Julia Gillard. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

    But Jesus wept, Julia Gillard, I hate you, in a fatherly ”why didn’t you just wait, the faceless men used you, your time would have come, why promise things then dump them, let the Greens and big business con you, put on a face, hide the warmth, lost your guiding light along the way,” sort of way.

    Advertisement

    And what’s not to hate about a politician such as you?

    One so focused on the job, but caught up in the grief of how it wasn’t meant to turn out this way and it’s just not fair, that you are missing all the signals.

    So with utmost respect, allow me to spell it out for you, as one pride-riven, deeply weakened individual to a far less flawed one.

    Julia Gillard, it is time for you to make your graceful, dignified, humble, selfless exit from the prime ministership.

    Stay and it’s harder for those who love you to save the furniture and protect your legacy.

    Stay and you will hurt more.

    Forget Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott. This is about you.

    Forget the loss of face. Life’s too short.

    Admitting the dream is over is painful. Maybe you have known all along. Maybe you did not want to let your supporters down. Maybe you owe it to your family. Maybe to your father.

    Now, you know about grieving.

    How at first you deny it’s happened and grasp every skerrick of how things were.

    Then you get angry because you did not get to do everything you wanted.

    Then you start bargaining for some sort of compromise – gimme just one last chance and I promise to deliver.

    Then you get depressed when reality sets in. The pain won’t go away. You make silly decisions, won’t take wise counsel, won’t listen.

    But, one day, you just have to realise that what will be, will be.

    Let today be that day.

    Take this chance to end the grieving over your dream of what Australia could have been had you managed just a few extra months.

    You are now the adult. You are the one who has to lead the way, be the example, carry the secrets, dispense the wisdom, keep it all together.

    Of course you cannot, not inside your head.

    On the outside, though, you can deliver the most dignified of resignation speeches, one that digs up fond memories and spreads them evenly among the needy.

    You are the only one who can, with a little help from Whitlam, Carr, Beazley, Keating, Hawke and, yes, even Rudd.

    And it starts like this: Men and women of Australia, I shall call my Labor colleagues to Canberra on Friday to elect a new executive.

    I myself will not be nominating for the position of leader.

    There is never a perfect time in these things. Sharing this past weekend with Tim, we were impressed by the notion that you could spend more of your time in a nice way. And we’ve decided that time has come.

    I thank you for your support but please don’t make this any harder than it is.

    I’ve got to say that not once did I tackle and take on a second-best option, I never threw a policy fight, I always went … I always went for the big ones. In the end, it’s the big picture that changes nations.

    Australia is now more outward-looking, more tolerant and competitive than it was when I came to office.

    I’m proud of all we’ve done. What I’m less proud of is the fact that I have now blubbered.

    I thank the Australian people for putting their trust in me.

    And having said all that, folks, I’ve got to zip.

    Such is life.

    astokes@fairfaxmedia.com.au

    Follow the National Times on Twitter

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/dear-julia-its-time-for-a-dignified-exit-speech-20130219-2epdo.html#ixzz2LOADNT1g

  • Divisions emerge over key changes

    Divisions emerge over key changes
    By FRANCES THOMPSON
    Feb. 19, 2013, 10:30 p.m.

    CONCERN: Coolmore Stud business manager Paddy Power in a paddock of mares and foals at Jerry’s Plains yesterday. Picture: Peter Stoop

    CONCERN: Coolmore Stud business manager Paddy Power in a paddock of mares and foals at Jerry’s Plains yesterday. Picture: Peter Stoop

    THE Hunter’s key wine and thoroughbred breeding industries mounted a strong, combined campaign against coalmining and coal seam gas but after the latest policy changes they disagree over the benefits.
    See your ad here

    Division is also evident within the winegrowing community.

    Hunter Wine Industry Association president Andrew Margan says the exclusion of ‘‘critical industry cluster’’ vineyards from coal seam gas activities is a win.

    ‘‘This government has restored our faith,’’ Mr Margan said.

    He said the lack of two-kilometre buffers around the vineyards, as had been established around residential areas, was ‘‘no big deal’’.

    He said the next priority was confirming with the government the boundaries of the Lower Hunter vineyards, so that the internationally recognised wine region would not be ‘‘Swiss cheesed’’ by resource developments.

    ‘‘I am confident we will prevail,’’ Mr Margan said.

    The lack of buffer zones has dismayed thoroughbred breeders and Broke Fordwich winegrowers.

    Coolmore Stud, near Denman, faces expanded mining from the north and the south.

    Business manager Paddy Power said it was ‘‘imperative’’ horse studs and the communities that supported them were protected from coalmining to the same degree the new policy managed coal seam gas.

    Mr Power said he had attended recent sales where doubts were raised about investment in Hunter studs and brood mares because of the problems caused by mining.

    Hunter Thoroughbred Breeders Association president Cameron Collins said the Upper Hunter critical equine industry cluster needed buffer zones.

    ‘‘Mining up to our boundary fences does not provide us with the protection we need,’’ Dr Collins said.

    Darley stud chief executive officer Henry Plumptre said excluding studs from coal seam gas activities did not protect them from the threat they faced from open-cut coal mines.

    ‘‘If we could get the Premier to give us a five-kilometre buffer from open-cut coalmines we would be heading in the right direction,’’ Mr Plumptre said.

    Broke Fordwich Wine Tourism Association president Eden Anthony disagrees with Mr Margan on the issue of buffer zones for vineyards.

    Mr Anthony said the region differed from Pokolbin.

    Its smaller, more isolated wine and tourism businesses were surrounded by paddocks and grazing land that were vulnerable without buffer zones.

    ‘‘Broke Fordwich is very exposed,’’ Mr Anthony said.

    ‘‘It is nowhere near what we need.’’

    Hunter Valley Protection Alliance spokesman Graeme Gibson said he wanted the changes backed by legislation before September 14 to ensure the moves were not linked to support for the Coalition at the upcoming federal election.

    NSW Farmers have criticised the changes, saying agricultural land has been left unprotected from coal seam gas.

    The organisation’s representative, Gloucester farmer Aled Hoggett, said the new policy was directed at urban residential areas and voters but created a valuable precedent.

    Cr Hoggett said the changes were an admission by the government some areas should be excluded from coal seam gas activities, which until now it had been ‘‘extremely reluctant’’ to do.

    Last week, the government began a verification process that will refine maps of the vineyard and equine critical industry clusters.

    In a letter to Mr Margan, the Department of Primary Industries said the mapping verification process would ‘‘establish a list of all enterprises’’ that matched the criteria for a critical industry cluster.

    Mr Margan told the Newcastle Herald before the release of the latest changes this meant the wine industry would have to ‘‘justify’’ itself block by block.

    ‘‘We should not have to justify everything within our internationally recognised [wine-growing] boundary,’’ he said.
    See your ad here

    ‘‘We refuse to be part of it.’’

    Mr Margan said the association wanted a ‘‘bill of protection’’ similar to those enacted in South Australia and Western Australia that safeguarded wine and tourism regions from all forms of inappropriate land use.

    ‘‘We don’t want to be the first winegrowing region in the world co-existing with coal seam gas,’’ he said.
    Print Story

  • To fear or not to fear…

    To fear or not to fear…

    Posted: 18 Feb 2013 08:16 PM PST
    .. as Australia’s contribution to climate change on track to double in next decade or so thanks to fossil fuel exports

    Note: As a followup to the post of my contribution to this year’s Melbourne Sustainability Festival Great Debate, here is the contribution by Guy Pearse. – David

    by Guy Pearse

    OK, some personal questions to start… Who’s got a BMI of over 30? What about a
    tattoo completely covering just one arm – come on I know you’re out there… People
    are a bit shy… Let’s try an easier one… Who’s got a Facebook account, or has
    tweeted or felt the need to follow someone who does. Congratulations – you’re part
    of rapid social change. Not so long ago, very few of us would have answered ‘yes’ to
    any of those questions. Now, maybe you signed up to Facebook hoping to stalk your
    high school sweetheart; or got that tattoo fearing you might not fit in without it at
    the nursing home later in life. But, I’m guessing fear and optimism played little role.
    Yet, here we are debating which is the stronger driver of rapid social change.
    So what’s meant by rapid social change this evening? Getting large numbers of
    people to quit smoking, or recycle? Or big steps forward that social movements help
    society take – like new laws banning everything from slavery to child labour to the
    trade in endangered species. Either way, it’s about replacing practices long
    considered perfectly reasonable, with something previously unthinkable. But what
    qualifies as ‘rapid’? As a slice of human history, the Industrial Revolution rearranged
    society in next to no time—but still took hundreds of years. The American Civil War
    result helped to free slaves, but was part of a movement spanning many centuries.
    Indeed for almost every great societal shift, there might be a moment to we see as
    emblematic of rapid change – when the Berlin Wall fell, for example — but society
    didn’t change overnight – change was a long time coming.
    Yet as social media, obesity and one-arm body art examples reinforce, lots of very
    rapid social change goes on without any grand struggle – no marching in the streets,
    imprisoned dissidents, civil disobedience, landmark legal victory, or referendum —
    none of what we might consider the usual precursors. Sure, there’s relentless
    marketing by corporations hooking us up to mobile phones, social media, fast food
    and sugary drinks. But, the public generally embraces lots of social changes with
    heady enthusiasm. Maybe we’re optimistic that these things will make life a little
    better—even if it’s a fleeting glucose boost—maybe we fear not keeping up with the
    Joneses if we miss out. But, it’s hard to argue that they’re driving the rapid change.
    So what of the role of optimism and fear in the big environmental shifts. Well, fear
    certainly helped to mobilise public support against the nuclear industry, and
    asbestos, and lead in petrol. But was it optimism or fear that drove efforts to save
    the ozone layer? An argument can me made both ways. Are people installing solar
    panels and recycling more out of hope for a better world or because they fear rising
    electricity prices, shrinking bin space and rising tip fees? We can argue until the cows
    come home – but we might as well debate whether optimism or fear makes cows
    come home faster. Meanwhile, the hope vs fear contest glosses over so many other
    factors—population, economics, new technology, religion, government policy,
    political leadership.
    It’s the same with climate change, on which I’ve spent the past fifteen years. The
    argument over whether messages need to be more positive or negative is perennial.
    Some favour more fire-and-brimstone rhetoric—as if hearing that the world is
    beyond saving will motivate people to spend the little time they have left building a
    mass movement. Then there are the green ‘happy-clappers’ – smugly deluded that
    clean energy revolution is here and can’t be stopped, convinced that carbon prices
    and free markets will fix climate change. When they’re not telling people they can
    save the world by greening their lifestyles, this group is busy uncritically amplifying
    green good news stories, no matter how deviously plucked from the context. The
    hope and fear camps both mean well. It’s important to build public confidence in an
    alternative future and people should take the dire consequences of climate change
    seriously. But there’s a deeper problem than messages not being rosy or scary
    enough: most people can’t view rapid change as an easy decision because they’re
    not being told what path we’re really on, nor what the fast disappearing alternative
    paths involve. Instead, this is hidden from them by politicians, big business, the
    media, and even well-known environmental groups.
    So, few realise Australia’s contribution to climate change is on track to double in the
    next decade or so thanks to fossil fuel exports, as we bank largely on imported
    carbon credits to meet emission targets while local emissions don’t fall below current
    levels until about 2040 (1). Few appreciate that the biggest polluting industries
    effectively get most of their carbon tax refunded (2), or that by the end of this year, the
    emissions the carbon price is meant to save by 2020 will be negated by additional
    coal export (3). The emissions these exports create are disowned, so government
    won’t calculate the consequences of phasing them out. And with no plan to make
    deep emission cuts within Australia before 2050, they don’t cost that either. So, the
    public has no idea of what dramatically reducing Australia’s contribution to climate
    change involves. In fact, our economy would still double by the mid 2030s even if we
    phased out coal exports and replace coal fired power with renewable energy (4). But
    rather than useful information like that, the public gets hope and fear-laden
    campaigns from both sides of politics—misrepresenting incrementalism as
    something spectacularly worse or better. No wonder the public is sick of the issue.
    The great worry is that while people switch off en masse, we’re on track to
    experience rather than avoid the most dangerous climate scenarios, and to spend
    more money adapting to climate change. What might be clean energy investment is
    increasingly going towards bolstering defences against the consequences of climate
    change like flood, fire, and cyclones, and to make agriculture more resilient.
    Arguably, we’re well down that path—it’s just not spelt out. The 2010-11
    Queensland cyclones and floods, for example, triggered a national flood levy – part
    of a federally funded reconstruction package worth $5.6b – around 5 ½ times the
    annual budget of the federal Department of Climate Change (5). In the US, ten times
    that amount is being spent on the Hurricane Sandy relief package – quietly wiping
    out all the savings Barack Obama negotiated to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff (6). Then
    there’s the $30 billion worth of new dams that Tony Abbott apparently has in mind.
    So, climate change spending is spiralling, but it’s increasingly about clean-up, not
    prevention. Catastrophic weather events aren’t causing politicians to redouble their
    efforts to cut emissions – as some assume must happen — they’re helping politicians
    do what they love doing – dishing out big checks and big hugs.
    So how to drive rapid change more sustainably? Well let’s be clear about one thing – changing lightbulbs, installing solar panels, and generally greening our lifestyles
    won’t do the trick. It’s worthwhile but doesn’t add up to emission reductions
    required – partly because relatively few people are making these changes – you need
    only look at SUV and hybrid car sales to see that. But mainly because billions of
    people in developing countries are buying cars, TVs, computers, fast food, soft-drink,
    designer clothes and so much more for the first time – erasing many times over the
    emissions we might save by doing our bit. Ultimately the deep cuts required can only
    be achieved by governments insisting on a rapid shift from fossil fuels to renewables.
    So, by all means, do the green thing, but go beyond that into meaningful advocacy
    because we can’t shop the planet green—and the most important difference we can
    make as individuals is not with our wallets but with our votes and our voices. What’s
    needed is a mass movement that demands change from both government and big
    business. For that to happen the public first needs to grasp the path we’re on, and
    understand the viable alternatives. And that can’t occur unless politicians, the media,
    and many green groups address issues they’ve carefully ignored for years.
    My view is that the shift required is unlikely, given where we’re at, the power of
    vested interests, and the degree to which the public remains in the dark. But even if
    it’s a long shot, surely we should prevent as much damage as we still can. And if we
    want to engage the community in rapid large scale change, not just in relation to
    climate change, but the many other aspects of sustainability, let’s not sweat the
    relative merits of optimism and fear as PR tools, and focus on whether we’re
    enabling public to see previously unthinkable steps to a sustainable society as an
    easy decision.

    Guy Pearse is an author and Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, University of Queensland

    Notes

    (1) See: Figure 3.1: Gross National Income with and without the carbon price, Securing a clean energy future – The Australian Government’s Climate Change Plan, 2011 p.24
    (2) Under the so-called Clean Energy Future plan, ‘The most emissions-intensive and trade-exposed activities will initially be eligible for 94.5 per cent shielding from the carbon price. A second category of assistance will provide an initial shielding level of 66 per cent of the carbon price.’ Dozens of emissions intensive industries are eligible: See:, Securing a clean energy future – The Australian Government’s Climate Change Plan, 2011 p.55
    See also: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/jobs-competitiveness-program.aspx and http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/initiatives/jobs-competitiveness-program/program-indetail.aspx and http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/jobs-competitiveness-program/activitydefinitions.aspx
    (3) Australian coal exports are growing and projected to grow further at a rate that adds approximately l 7 million tonnes of CO2 per month – which is equivalent to adding more than 1 large new coal fired power station every month. The carbon tax and all other domestic emissions reduction programs were projected by the Gillard government to save the equivalent of 159 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2020. The legislation introducing the carbon price passed in November 2011. Given the rate at which coal exports are growing, the benefit projected for 2020 will be negated by around October 2013. See also: See: Figure 3.1: Gross National Income with and without the carbon price, Securing a clean energy future – The Australian Government’s Climate Change Plan, 2011 p.14, 24; http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/senate-passes-carbon-tax-
    20111108-1n4p1.html
    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/media/whats-new/clean-energy-future.aspx See also
    http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.html http://www.bree.gov.au/publications/req.html
    http://www.bree.gov.au/documents/publications/req/BREE_REQ_Sept2012.pdf
    (4) See: ‘Australia’s precious place in the coal industry’s world’ — Speech by Guy Pearse Research Fellow, Global Change Institute — University of Queensland, Climate Camp 2010, Lake Liddell Recreation Area, NSW 3 December 2010 http://www.guypearse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Pearse-Climate-Camp-Speech-Final.pdf
    For additional sources on the estimate see footnote xxxvii to the speech. See also: See: Pearse, GD
    ‘On Borrowed Carbon” chapter in Mannne/McKnight’s “Goodbye to All That”, Black Inc 2010 p.253 Sources available from Black Inc in Extended Footnotes to the chapter.
    (5) http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/rebuilding-after-floods
    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/about/accountability/budget/~/media/publications/budget/1213/2012-13-pbspdf.pdf
    (6) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/nyregion/congress-gives-final-approval-to-hurricane-sandyaid.
    html?_r=0
    http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10331.22001.0.0/economy/hurricane-sandy-swampspresident-
    obamas-budget
    http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/012913-642296-50-billionhurricane-
    sandy-relief-bill-eats-up-the-years-new-taxes.htm

    You are subscribed to email updates from Climate Code Red
    To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google
    Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610