CARBON TAX CATCHES BUSINESSES UNAWARE

ALAN KOHLER, PRESENTER: Prime Minister Julia Gillard's announcement this week that her Government would be imposing a tax on carbon from July 1 next year caught business unawares and led to complaints it had been left on the sidelines as the politicians thrashed out a political deal. The scheme is intended to start with a tax before converting to an emissions trading system over the next five years. Among the most unimpressed are the steel makers who are already doing it tough at the moment.

Here is Bluescope Steel CEO Paul O'Malley.

ALAN KOHLER: Paul O'Malley when you announced a $46 million first-half loss this week, you said to the analysts that being a steel maker in Australia at the moment is a tough gig. Does a carbon tax make it an impossible gig?

PAUL O'MALLEY, CEO, BLUESCOPE STEEL: It makes it an even tougher gig. I think in manufacturing in Australia with a high Aussie dollar, parts of the economy in recession so low demand, and steel making being difficult, more costs being thrown at us by the Government just really do put a bit more pressure on the business than we'd like to have.

ALAN KOHLER: But they say they will compensate you. All the money will go back into trade-exposed industries like yours to compensate. Don't you trust that compensation process?

PAUL O'MALLEY: Fundamentally, imports will get a free ride, and Australian manufacturing will be taxed, and there will absolutely be leakage because I don't think we have a commitment to carbon neutrality.

ALAN KOHLER: When you say we don't have a commitment to carbon neutrality, do you mean in Australia or the world?

PAUL O'MALLEY: Oh in Australia. I think to really reduce greenhouse emissions we have to reduce global emissions. I think if you look at the experience in Europe, production emissions are flat since 1990, so Europeans are claiming victory, but carbon consumption has increased 47 per cent.

So there has been a hollowing out of manufacturing in Europe and a moving or a hiding of that carbon overseas. I think if the same program is put in place in Australia, effectively you're assuming that policy is that they don't want manufacturing in Australia.

ALAN KOHLER: But your problems are all about, at the moment, high iron ore prices and coal prices making your margin disappear, isn't that right? I mean you've had basically a $250 million disappearance of spread in the latest year because of iron ore and coal. In that context, isn't the carbon tax relatively marginal?

PAUL O'MALLEY: I think from a macro perspective, we've been very clear to say the high Australian dollar - if we were at 80 cents rather than parity, our annual profit would be up $200 million. So there's no doubt that the high Australian dollar is difficult. We have to deal with that.

Raw material costs cost us $2.5 billion today: eight years ago, $400 million, so there is no doubt that we are supporting a significant value transfer to the raw material supplies.

From a macro policy perspective in Australia, we are all riding on the back of resources at the moment, but if you're in education, tourism, manufacturing, the high Aussie dollar and high interest rates are making it tough. Those parts of the economy are in recession.

In that framework, you would expect policy to say we need to ensure that we have more than a resources economy when the boom breaks. Throwing a carbon tax on top of that basically says 'No we don't want to be anything but a resources economy'.

ALAN KOHLER: But I suppose the question is, even if whether there's a carbon tax or not, if the Australian dollar stays at parity and the iron ore and coal prices stay where they are, are you going to be able to survive as a steelmaker?

PAUL O'MALLEY: I think through the cycle we've got a great business and a very good business model. But if you've got policy settings and macro factors that make it harder for manufacturing in Australia, there is no doubt that things are going to be tough anyway.

ALAN KOHLER: Do you actually make money on a tonne of steel you produce at Port Kembla?

PAUL O'MALLEY: So in the last half our industrial business at Port Kembla lost $100 million. In the last quarter of fiscal year 10, we made a couple of 100 million dollars. So as steel prices go up, which they are at the moment - steel prices have increased $250 to $300 dollars in the last four months - we can start to make money again.

But an incremental cost, which could be material. If you take one part of the policy, which is that there's no assistance for industry, we'd be paying an extra $300 million a year. That is clearly economic vandalism. It clearly says we don't want manufacturing in Australia.

Under the CPRS regime, what the policy said was 'We would prefer steel to be imported with the carbon produced overseas than produced domestically'. And that's the issue. It is unfair, and it basically says 'We don't want manufacturing in Australia'.

ALAN KOHLER: So under the CPRS, would it have resulted in the closure of Australian steel making?

PAUL O'MALLEY: I think under the current environment with the CPRS, you have to look at the long-term and see, to your question, is steel making viable in Australia?

You also have to look at the intent of the policymakers to determine whether they want to support manufacturing in Australia. There is a huge question mark on that at the moment.

I've just spent the week talking to investors. They are aghast at the policy settings that we are being faced with and the additional costs, including the fact that we have to deal with a high Aussie dollar.

So the policy framework at the moment is wrong. It seems to be captured by people who don't care whether there are manufacturing jobs in Australia, and you just wonder whether there is an anti-manufacturing focus in Australia and that people want jobs to go offshore.

ALAN KOHLER: Do you think there is?

PAUL O'MALLEY: I think there is at the moment, absolutely. I think that there's a lack of trust between government and business. I think there's poor communication between government and business, and I think things that appear simple to investors and to ourselves are completely discounted from a government perspective. So you do question the sustainability of manufacturing in Australia.

ALAN KOHLER: But does business have to take some responsibility for that? I mean, is it all about the politicians not trusting business, or have business done something to contribute to that?

PAUL O'MALLEY: Well, I think from a manufacturing perspective we've got the support of a great community in the Illawarra and at Western Port in Victoria. We participate very well within the community. We keep our markets, investors, communities informed.

I've spent an inordinate amount of time going backwards and forwards between Canberra and Melbourne and Sydney over the last few years, articulating the detail that Bluescope faces under a CPRS. I don't think we could have been any more transparent. We've offered to have our information audited, but there's complete ignorance, or they don't want to listen to what we're saying.

And I don't know why, but I think it's politics. I think it's economic vandalism, and I think the issue is that the aspiration of reducing carbon is very important, but the detail of the legislation doesn't actually achieve that as it pertains to steel manufacturing in Australia.

ALAN KOHLER: Well, I was going to ask you - do you actually think something needs to be done about greenhouse gas?

PAUL O'MALLEY: Oh absolutely. I've got four young kids. My wife and kids want me as a CEO of a manufacturing company to reduce our carbon emissions. As a company we are doing that.

But to make steel - you cannot make steel through the blast furnace technology without emitting carbon, whether it's made in Australia, whether it's made in Korea, Taiwan, China or Japan. Those producers send steel to Australia and compete with us. They are emitting carbon, and on average we're more efficient in producing steel with less carbon than those companies that import into Australia. So if you shut us down, you don't actually reduce the amount of carbon because steel will still come into Australia. That's the bit that doesn't make sense.

ALAN KOHLER: But are you saying that Australia can't actually have a price on carbon before those other countries?

PAUL O'MALLEY: I think there's fundamentally an issue for manufacturing that says that if you're an exporter and compete with imports, you must tax imports if you're going to tax the local manufacturing business. Not to tax imports says that you would prefer the steel to be produced overseas. That does not make sense.

In relation to energy, there is absolutely an argument that says there needs to be a carbon price so we can have natural gas base load generation in Australia, because no-one's going to build new coal fired generation because it's not going to make sense and it's too carbon intensive, but you need a price signal for natural gas.

So I think a carbon tax around energy is a really good thing to do at the moment and will have a big effect in reducing carbon. Taxing steel simply to move it offshore will actually increase global carbon emissions. That doesn't make sense.

ALAN KOHLER: Yeah, but the problem is that the growth in carbon emissions is now transferring to resource industries, resource extraction industries - coal and natural gas, LNG. They're the ones that are responsible for the projected growth in carbon emissions.

PAUL O'MALLEY: It's really interesting. We're a country at the moment that is absolutely jumping up and down with glee because we're exporting carbon overseas. The carbon is being turned into steel and other products overseas, but we don't account for that carbon, and then we're importing the products back.

You know, there's a race to hide the carbon here, which I think is absolutely horrid. I think we need good policy around energy and carbon intensity in energy. I think we need practical policy that says that we have to have the lowest CO2 emissions in producing steel, but we shouldn't be hiding the carbon overseas.

ALAN KOHLER: Thanks for joining us, Paul O'Malley.

PAUL O'MALLEY: Thanks very much, Alan.

http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2011/s3150004.htm

If Bluescope AND Alcoa go offshore -  Australia will be stuffed,  pollution will NOT be reduced, merely moved,  and steel etc will be produced in countries that have no interest in reducing carbon.

I posted the following  elsewhere slightly earlier .  


Reply #377 - Today at 10:16am      I have just heard that Alcoa will move offshore if the carbon tax impacts heavily on them.    That would absolutely decimate towns like Portland where the smelter is the main provider of jobs.

And it  won't lessen world wide carbon pollution,  it will just move it to another location.

Labor is being blackmailed by the Greens .

Quote:

............If you take one part of the policy, which is that there's no assistance for industry, we'd be paying an extra $300 million a year. That is clearly economic vandalism. It clearly says we don't want manufacturing in Australia. Under the CPRS regime, what the policy said was 'We would prefer steel to be imported with the carbon produced overseas than produced domestically'. And that's the issue. It is unfair, and it basically says 'We don't want manufacturing in Australia'............. ............But to make steel - you cannot make steel through the blast furnace technology without emitting carbon, whether it's made in Australia, whether it's made in Korea, Taiwan, China or Japan. Those producers send steel to Australia and compete with us. They are emitting carbon, and on average we're more efficient in producing steel with less carbon than those companies that import into Australia. So if you shut us down, you don't actually reduce the amount of carbon because steel will still come into Australia. That's the bit that doesn't make sense. ..............

THE world's biggest mining company, BHP Billiton, is urging the Gillard government to impose a tax on carbon before any international agreement.

This is in order to protect Australia's long-term economic interests.

Mr Kloppers's call for a carbon tax undermines the passionate objections of Tony Abbott to setting a price on carbon before there is a global consensus.

"We do believe that such a global initiative will eventually come and, when it does, Australia will need to have acted ahead of it to maintain its competitiveness," Mr Kloppers told a packed Australian British Chamber of Commerce lunch in Sydney.

"Carbon emissions need to have a cost impact in order to cause the consumer and companies to change behaviour and favour low-carbon alternatives.

"We all recognise this is a politically charged subject. No government relishes telling people that things need to cost more

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/bhp-boss-marius-kloppers-its-time-for-carbon-tax/story-e6frg12c-1225924660567

But to make steel - you cannot make steel through the blast furnace technology without emitting carbon, whether it's made in Australia, whether it's made in Korea, Taiwan, China or Japan. Those producers send steel to Australia and compete with us. They are emitting carbon, and on average we're more efficient in producing steel with less carbon than those companies that import into Australia. So if you shut us down, you don't actually reduce the amount of carbon because steel will still come into Australia. That's the bit that doesn't make sense


++++++++++++++++++


I think THIS more than anything underlines the nonsensical folly of it all.

It remind me of what we do in accounting to report a profit. We move items to other areas.
I know it made a loss, the CFO knows it made a loss, deep down the analysts know it made a loss but we all talk about a profit.

It's the same here, we'd allow carbon emitters to import into Australia and yet curtail Australian businesses from doing the same process?

What do we achieve?

Well we push it offshore. How is that affecting world emissions??

It's not.

Madness and it reeks of well, any dealing I have ever had with a Government or public sector.

Smoke and mirrors.

And they call us Accountants bad?

In fairness and interests of related party views and all that I will declare I am a shareholder in both BHP Billiton and Bluescope Steel.

(Yep as well as Monstanto too Buzz  :) )

"It remind me of what we do in accounting to report a profit. We move items to other areas.
I know it made a loss, the CFO knows it made a loss, deep down the analysts know it made a loss but we all talk about a profit."

What an interesting comment. Reminds me of another argument I read, about government debt.

You argue about carbon emmisions as if you believe that they are a problem hicks, isn't that sort of contradictory?

Please delete wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 11:39am:

"It remind me of what we do in accounting to report a profit. We move items to other areas. I know it made a loss, the CFO knows it made a loss, deep down the analysts know it made a loss but we all talk about a profit." What an interesting comment. Reminds me of another argument I read, about government debt. You argue about carbon emmisions as if you believe that they are a problem hicks, isn't that sort of contradictory?

I've always said, in every argument on the subject, that carbon emissions are a problem and affecting climate change.

I am not a climate change denier and never have been.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 11:40am:

Please delete wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:39am: "It remind me of what we do in accounting to report a profit. We move items to other areas. I know it made a loss, the CFO knows it made a loss, deep down the analysts know it made a loss but we all talk about a profit." What an interesting comment. Reminds me of another argument I read, about government debt. You argue about carbon emmisions as if you believe that they are a problem hicks, isn't that sort of contradictory? I've always said, in every argument on the subject, that carbon emissions are a problem and affecting climate change. I am not a climate change denier and never have been.

Yes, I recall that you consistently argue that we may as well do nothing, since (in your opinion) China & India will not be stopping their march to full industrialization.

You can't see the advantage? If western nations reduce emmisions overall by 20 units, and China & India increase theirs by ONLY 20 units, we slow the effects. Is that so wrong to you?

Please delete wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 11:44am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:40am: Please delete wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:39am: "It remind me of what we do in accounting to report a profit. We move items to other areas. I know it made a loss, the CFO knows it made a loss, deep down the analysts know it made a loss but we all talk about a profit." What an interesting comment. Reminds me of another argument I read, about government debt. You argue about carbon emmisions as if you believe that they are a problem hicks, isn't that sort of contradictory? I've always said, in every argument on the subject, that carbon emissions are a problem and affecting climate change. I am not a climate change denier and never have been. Yes, I recall that you consistently argue that we may as well do nothing, since (in your opinion) China & India will not be stopping their march to full industrialization. You can't see the advantage? If western nations reduce emmisions overall by 20 units, and China & India increase theirs by ONLY 20 units, we slow the effects. Is that so wrong to you?

In 2007, China's emissions increases alone were FIVE TIMES the amount of all the emissions reductions of the Kyoto Protocol countries added together.

Do you see the folly of us shooting ourselves in the foot whilst allowing those two international environmental terrorists to pollute wantonly.

India grew their emissions by over 58% in the last decade alone.

They have said they regard reducing poverty as a higher goal than addressing their growing emissions.

So can I ask you - why do you think we should reduce ours but yet not cap them to the same levels?
Why should they get away with it? I am not in the business of feeling sorry for countries.

You address the problem or you don't.
There is no room for compassion for others.

Please delete wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 11:44am:

If western nations reduce emmisions overall by 20 units, and China & India increase theirs by ONLY 20 units, we slow the effects. Is that so wrong to you?

Do you really not see the problem in that statement??

Why are we handing out Get out of Jail Free cards to two of three worst polluters on the planet?

Because we need them, and becasue the genie is out of the bottle.

Who made China so powerful? We did.

You try and stop them industrializing. Since they will, we have only one choice - work with them.

You seem to take the attitude that if they don't, we shouldn't either, which is a recipe for disaster.

Who is the third big emitter?

"but yet not cap them to the same levels?"

How do you do that? I've asked you this several times, and never got an answer.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 11:50am:

Please delete wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:44am: If western nations reduce emmisions overall by 20 units, and China & India increase theirs by ONLY 20 units, we slow the effects. Is that so wrong to you? Do you really not see the problem in that statement?? Why are we handing out Get out of Jail Free cards to two of three worst polluters on the planet?

Only an accountant could skew figures in that manner
China has over SIXTY THREE TIMES the population of Australia
India, almost, FIFTY SEVEN TIMES

To suggest that Australia's emissions should be compared to EITHER is  LAUGHABLE


Of COURSE they are larger, as a combined total
Proportionally, they are MUCH lower

Please delete wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 11:55am:

"but yet not cap them to the same levels?" How do you do that? I've asked you this several times, and never got an answer.

Waiting, waiting, waiting.

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 12:22pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:50am: Please delete wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:44am: If western nations reduce emmisions overall by 20 units, and China & India increase theirs by ONLY 20 units, we slow the effects. Is that so wrong to you? Do you really not see the problem in that statement?? Why are we handing out Get out of Jail Free cards to two of three worst polluters on the planet? Only an accountant could skew figures in that manner China has over SIXTY THREE TIMES the population of Australia India, almost, FIFTY SEVEN TIMES To suggest that Australia's emissions should be compared to EITHER is  LAUGHABLE Of COURSE they are larger, as a combined total Proportionally, they are MUCH lower

The world doesn't work in proportional terms.
It works in total terms.

We need them to remain third world for our sake.

I shall ask again -

How is it good policy to restrict Australian manufacturers and employers like Bluescope, whilst allowing imports from their foreign owned competitors who are not subject to carbon emission control?

Can you please tell me how that benefits Australia and its economy?

Why won't you answer my question?

Indian steel-makers chasing coal assets

STUNG by a near trebling of the price of coking coal in a year, Indian steel-makers are seeking relief by buying mines in Australia.

Steel groups across the subcontinent are eyeing Australian coalmining operations, and the head of India's biggest steel firm has warned they will be ''very aggressive'' in buying overseas assets.

The Indian government, which sees steel as critical for economic growth, is leading the charge, and is urging private companies to follow.

The state-owned Steel Authority of India is negotiating for mines in Australia and South Africa. It is thought it is looking to spend up to $1.5 billion to acquire stakes in three mines to give it greater control of the price it pays for coking coal.

The Steel Authority's chief executive, C. S. Verma, confirmed that negotiations were occurring.

The talks are believed to be well advanced, and Mr Verma said more Indian companies would become serious bidders for Australian mines.

With domestic demand for steel growing rapidly but with prices for raw materials rising sharply - coking coal has jumped from $US125 a tonne a year ago to nearly $US300 -India's steel-makers are scrambling for reliable and affordable supplies.

''The time has come for a larger interest as we are expanding capacity,'' Mr Verma told Indian media.

''We don't have the luxury any more to choose mines … so opportunities will have to be taken up.''

He told the Herald: ''We are going to be very aggressive in securing assets outside India.''

With Queensland's mining operations still affected by natural disasters, now was a good time to be looking to invest, Mr Verma said.

''We are at the verge of another coking coal crisis because of heavy flooding in Australia. I think it is a good time [to buy].''

Queensland is the world's biggest exporter of coking coal, but in January up to 85 per cent of its mines were inundated and 29 of 57 across the state were forced to declare force majeure, abandoning supply contracts because of the disasters.

India is one of Queensland's largest coal customers, importing more than 20 million tonnes a year.

Indian firms are reportedly also bidding for Hancock Coal's flagship mines, Alpha Coal Project and Kevin's Corner in the Galilee Basin in Queensland. Essar and GVK Power are reported to have submitted bids of nearly $2 billion, but neither has confirmed its interest.

The Indian company Lanco Infratech bought the West Australian operation Griffin Coal Mining for a rumoured $850 million last year, while Adani Enterprises bought a mine from Linc Energy.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/indian-steelmakers-chasing-coal-assets-20110228-1bbpm.html

Is such artificial price setting in Australias interests?

PAUL O'MALLEY: I think there is at the moment, absolutely. I think that there's a lack of trust between government and business. I think there's poor communication between government and business, and I think things that appear simple to investors and to ourselves are completely discounted from a government perspective. So you do question the sustainability of manufacturing in Australia.


I've spent an inordinate amount of time going backwards and forwards between Canberra and Melbourne and Sydney over the last few years, articulating the detail that Bluescope faces under a CPRS. I don't think we could have been any more transparent. We've offered to have our information audited, but there's complete ignorance, or they don't want to listen to what we're saying.

And I don't know why, but I think it's politics. I think it's economic vandalism, and I think the issue is that the aspiration of reducing carbon is very important, but the detail of the legislation doesn't actually achieve that as it pertains to steel manufacturing in Australia.


+++++++++++++

That's pretty damning view from the CEO of one of Australia's most significant multi-nationals is it not?

Still won't answer my long standing question - how do you propose to force China and/or India to reduce emmisions?

double post

Through any number of means.
Tariffs on all their imports, WTO setting of limits, sanctions.

The end-game here is that we are being held to ransom by the type of country that should not be able.

Do you not agree with the views and concerns of a senior Australian CEO who has no political axe to grind here?

Shouting down Abbott as partisan is one thing - and to some extent understandable.

Dismissing the views of a guy like Paul O'Malley is quite another.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:03pm:

Through any number of means. Tariffs on all their imports, WTO setting of limits, sanctions. The end-game here is that we are being held to ransom by the type of country that should not be able.

Is any of that realistic? Of course not - what rules have they broken that would warrant sanctions by the WTO?

You are proposing sanctions against carbon emitters - so you would support those same sanctions against western nations?

I gather the "other" in the three largest emitters is the USA - good luck applying sanctions.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 12:40pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:22pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:50am: Please delete wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:44am: If western nations reduce emmisions overall by 20 units, and China & India increase theirs by ONLY 20 units, we slow the effects. Is that so wrong to you? Do you really not see the problem in that statement?? Why are we handing out Get out of Jail Free cards to two of three worst polluters on the planet? Only an accountant could skew figures in that manner China has over SIXTY THREE TIMES the population of Australia India, almost, FIFTY SEVEN TIMES To suggest that Australia's emissions should be compared to EITHER is  LAUGHABLE Of COURSE they are larger, as a combined total Proportionally, they are MUCH lower The world doesn't work in proportional terms. It works in total terms. We need them to remain third world for our sake.

Andrei,
You do realise just how laughable that is, don't you?

The United States should also be kept to a % level of their 2000 levels.

Even George W Bush admitted the USA were prepared to accept that if a level playing field of China and India were capped to their 2000 levels as well.

Fair is fair.

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:15pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:40pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:22pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:50am: Please delete wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:44am: If western nations reduce emmisions overall by 20 units, and China & India increase theirs by ONLY 20 units, we slow the effects. Is that so wrong to you? Do you really not see the problem in that statement?? Why are we handing out Get out of Jail Free cards to two of three worst polluters on the planet? Only an accountant could skew figures in that manner China has over SIXTY THREE TIMES the population of Australia India, almost, FIFTY SEVEN TIMES To suggest that Australia's emissions should be compared to EITHER is  LAUGHABLE Of COURSE they are larger, as a combined total Proportionally, they are MUCH lower The world doesn't work in proportional terms. It works in total terms. We need them to remain third world for our sake. Andrei, You do realise just how laughable that is, don't you?

I don't find trying to keep emissions down laughable PN.

In business plain english he's saying :

1/ The govt and business are opposing each other on every front.

2/ The govt don't give a hoot about any business surviving.

3/ It doesn't matter what we do, they want to ruin us.

4/ I've had the jack of them.



Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 12:57pm:

PAUL O'MALLEY: I think there is at the moment, absolutely. I think that there's a lack of trust between government and business. I think there's poor communication between government and business, and I think things that appear simple to investors and to ourselves are completely discounted from a government perspective. So you do question the sustainability of manufacturing in Australia. I've spent an inordinate amount of time going backwards and forwards between Canberra and Melbourne and Sydney over the last few years, articulating the detail that Bluescope faces under a CPRS. I don't think we could have been any more transparent. We've offered to have our information audited, but there's complete ignorance, or they don't want to listen to what we're saying. And I don't know why, but I think it's politics. I think it's economic vandalism, and I think the issue is that the aspiration of reducing carbon is very important, but the detail of the legislation doesn't actually achieve that as it pertains to steel manufacturing in Australia. +++++++++++++ That's pretty damning view from the CEO of one of Australia's most significant multi-nationals is it not?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:16pm:

The United States should also be kept to a % level of their 2000 levels. Even George W Bush admitted the USA were prepared to accept that if a level playing field of China and India were capped to their 2000 levels as well. Fair is fair.

So Bush was willing to limit the USA's emissions to an incredibly high number, provided China and India remained peasant societies.

How generous of him.

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:15pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:40pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:22pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:50am: Please delete wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:44am: If western nations reduce emmisions overall by 20 units, and China & India increase theirs by ONLY 20 units, we slow the effects. Is that so wrong to you? Do you really not see the problem in that statement?? Why are we handing out Get out of Jail Free cards to two of three worst polluters on the planet? Only an accountant could skew figures in that manner China has over SIXTY THREE TIMES the population of Australia India, almost, FIFTY SEVEN TIMES To suggest that Australia's emissions should be compared to EITHER is  LAUGHABLE Of COURSE they are larger, as a combined total Proportionally, they are MUCH lower The world doesn't work in proportional terms. It works in total terms. We need them to remain third world for our sake. Andrei, You do realise just how laughable that is, don't you?

Perhaps we, in "the west", should cut our carbon footprints down to meet those of the average Chinese or Indian ?

Impossible ?
PROBABLY

Maybe we should meet them half-way - in a manner of COMPROMISE ?

Let's not divert away from the issue here.

A SIGNIFICANT CEO of an AUSTRALIAN company which employs thousands of workers has criticised the way in which this has been handled and HIGHLIGHTED in numerous ways how this is bad for Australia and does NOTHING about emissions in his field.

How is that not concerning to you?

Hicks is just putting up something impossible (like Bush did) as a way of doing nothing.

How that helps the world is beyond me.

Do you believe in the rapture hicks?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:16pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 1:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:40pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:22pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:50am: Please delete wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:44am: If western nations reduce emmisions overall by 20 units, and China & India increase theirs by ONLY 20 units, we slow the effects. Is that so wrong to you? Do you really not see the problem in that statement?? Why are we handing out Get out of Jail Free cards to two of three worst polluters on the planet? Only an accountant could skew figures in that manner China has over SIXTY THREE TIMES the population of Australia India, almost, FIFTY SEVEN TIMES To suggest that Australia's emissions should be compared to EITHER is  LAUGHABLE Of COURSE they are larger, as a combined total Proportionally, they are MUCH lower The world doesn't work in proportional terms. It works in total terms. We need them to remain third world for our sake. Andrei, You do realise just how laughable that is, don't you? I don't find trying to keep emissions down laughable PN.

No, I had a Suspicion that it may not have ocurred to you, but don't you think the Chinese, Indians and a few others, may think what you said, was laughable!

In essence, what you said is, it's ok for somebody else to pay the price, "so long as we are ok, Jack"!

You said earlier somewhere, "the world just doesn't work that way"!

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 11:06am:

THE world's biggest mining company, BHP Billiton, is urging the Gillard government to impose a tax on carbon before any international agreement. This is in order to protect Australia's long-term economic interests. Mr Kloppers's call for a carbon tax undermines the passionate objections of Tony Abbott to setting a price on carbon before there is a global consensus. "We do believe that such a global initiative will eventually come and, when it does, Australia will need to have acted ahead of it to maintain its competitiveness," Mr Kloppers told a packed Australian British Chamber of Commerce lunch in Sydney. "Carbon emissions need to have a cost impact in order to cause the consumer and companies to change behaviour and favour low-carbon alternatives. "We all recognise this is a politically charged subject. No government relishes telling people that things need to cost more http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/bhp-boss-marius-kloppers-its-time-for-carbon-tax/story-e6frg12c-1225924660567

wouldnt this make our prices higher than anyone elses????

being first seems to me to send a lot of our customers elsewhere..

have you noticed its now" consumers "that are getting the blame for all this smog/carbon/emmissions/dirt...lol.. why not..

stop the consumer consuming and it will make the world go round...yeah right..

we get blamed for the plastic bags

no one says we had the foisted on us.. suddenly there wasnt anything else to use.. its the consumers fault.

then there the govt subs for the car industry get out and buy a brand new car and we will pay you $2000 for you clunker..but then   wait for it... its your fault you are a consumer..

so we will put petrol out of your reach unless you are a rich consumer who can afford 8 cars and is therefore keeping the car industry going....????????????????????????

its a crazy mixed up world..

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:47pm:

Let's not divert away from the issue here. A SIGNIFICANT CEO of an AUSTRALIAN company which employs thousands of workers has criticised the way in which this has been handled and HIGHLIGHTED in numerous ways how this is bad for Australia and does NOTHING about emissions in his field. How is that not concerning to you?

I'm afraid my opinion of most CEO's, in the current circumstances, is that they are of no more use -
than the "proverbial drovers dog"!
OR "tits on a bull"!
OR 99% of Politicians?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:47pm:

Let's not divert away from the issue here. A SIGNIFICANT CEO of an AUSTRALIAN company which employs thousands of workers has criticised the way in which this has been handled and HIGHLIGHTED in numerous ways how this is bad for Australia and does NOTHING about emissions in his field. How is that not concerning to you?

And another "SIGNIFICANT CEO of an AUSTRALIAN company which employs thousands of workers" has said a carbon tax is pressing and vital

BlueScope Steel do not care about Australia or Australians......They buy companies......force them to buy there product.....then drive them into the ground......BlueScope Steel do not care about jobs they only care about profits.....Paul O'Malley can get stuffed!!!

>:(

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 11:30am:

But to make steel - you cannot make steel through the blast furnace technology without emitting carbon, whether it's made in Australia, whether it's made in Korea, Taiwan, China or Japan. Those producers send steel to Australia and compete with us. They are emitting carbon, and on average we're more efficient in producing steel with less carbon than those companies that import into Australia. So if you shut us down, you don't actually reduce the amount of carbon because steel will still come into Australia. That's the bit that doesn't make sense ++++++++++++++++++ I think THIS more than anything underlines the nonsensical folly of it all. It remind me of what we do in accounting to report a profit. We move items to other areas. I know it made a loss, the CFO knows it made a loss, deep down the analysts know it made a loss but we all talk about a profit. It's the same here, we'd allow carbon emitters to import into Australia and yet curtail Australian businesses from doing the same process? What do we achieve? Well we push it offshore. How is that affecting world emissions?? It's not. Madness and it reeks of well, any dealing I have ever had with a Government or public sector. Smoke and mirrors. And they call us Accountants bad?

Geez you are one dodgy little loser!  ;)

cods wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:51pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:06am: THE world's biggest mining company, BHP Billiton, is urging the Gillard government to impose a tax on carbon before any international agreement. This is in order to protect Australia's long-term economic interests. Mr Kloppers's call for a carbon tax undermines the passionate objections of Tony Abbott to setting a price on carbon before there is a global consensus. "We do believe that such a global initiative will eventually come and, when it does, Australia will need to have acted ahead of it to maintain its competitiveness," Mr Kloppers told a packed Australian British Chamber of Commerce lunch in Sydney. "Carbon emissions need to have a cost impact in order to cause the consumer and companies to change behaviour and favour low-carbon alternatives. "We all recognise this is a politically charged subject. No government relishes telling people that things need to cost more http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/bhp-boss-marius-kloppers-its-time-for-carbon-tax/story-e6frg12c-1225924660567 wouldnt this make our prices higher than anyone elses???? being first seems to me to send a lot of our customers elsewhere.. have you noticed its now" consumers "that are getting the blame for all this smog/carbon/emmissions/dirt...lol.. why not.. stop the consumer consuming and it will make the world go round...yeah right.. we get blamed for the plastic bags no one says we had the foisted on us.. suddenly there wasnt anything else to use.. its the consumers fault. then there the govt subs for the car industry get out and buy a brand new car and we will pay you $2000 for you clunker..but then   wait for it... its your fault you are a consumer.. so we will put petrol out of your reach unless you are a rich consumer who can afford 8 cars and is therefore keeping the car industry going....???????????????????????? its a crazy mixed up world..

We should call you Mr Bamboozler.... or was that Mrs Bamboozler ?!?

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:50pm:

No, I had a Suspicion that it may not have ocurred to you, but don't you think the Chinese, Indians and a few others, may think what you said, was laughable! In essence, what you said is, it's ok for somebody else to pay the price, "so long as we are ok, Jack"! You said earlier somewhere, "the world just doesn't work that way"!

Andrei is the Mr Bamboozler to the Mrs identified above!   :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

YUCK!  :D :D ;D :-?  8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) :-[

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:56pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 1:47pm: Let's not divert away from the issue here. A SIGNIFICANT CEO of an AUSTRALIAN company which employs thousands of workers has criticised the way in which this has been handled and HIGHLIGHTED in numerous ways how this is bad for Australia and does NOTHING about emissions in his field. How is that not concerning to you? I'm afraid my opinion of most CEO's, in the current circumstances, is that they are of no more use - than the "proverbial drovers dog"! OR "tits on a bull"! OR 99% of Politicians?

Agreed!!!

:)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 11:33am:

In fairness and interests of related party views and all that I will declare I am a shareholder in both BHP Billiton and Bluescope Steel. (Yep as well as Monstanto too Buzz  :) )

NO ONE CARES: A TOSSER IS A TOSSER!

NO ONE CARES: A TOSSER IS A TOSSER!

NO ONE CARES: A TOSSER IS A TOSSER!

NO ONE CARES: A TOSSER IS A TOSSER!  8-) 8-) :-[

Please delete wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 11:39am:

"It remind me of what we do in accounting to report a profit. We move items to other areas. I know it made a loss, the CFO knows it made a loss, deep down the analysts know it made a loss but we all talk about a profit." What an interesting comment. Reminds me of another argument I read, about government debt. You argue about carbon emmisions as if you believe that they are a problem hicks, isn't that sort of contradictory?

THEY ARE SO SPLIT: TONY HAS TO GO AS HE CANNOT MAINTAIN A CLEAR ARGUMENT, THAT IS WHY TURNBULL IS ALWAYS SEEN OF LATE TRYING TO SPELL THINGS OUT!

THIS SITUATION IS UNSUSTAINABLE, HENCE TONY IS GONE.

I CAN'T SEE JULIE BISHOP MAINTAINING HER POST AS SHE IS OBVIOUSLY OF VERY LITTLE SUPPORT!  ;)

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:42pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 1:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:40pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:22pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:50am: Please delete wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:44am: If western nations reduce emmisions overall by 20 units, and China & India increase theirs by ONLY 20 units, we slow the effects. Is that so wrong to you? Do you really not see the problem in that statement?? Why are we handing out Get out of Jail Free cards to two of three worst polluters on the planet? Only an accountant could skew figures in that manner China has over SIXTY THREE TIMES the population of Australia India, almost, FIFTY SEVEN TIMES To suggest that Australia's emissions should be compared to EITHER is  LAUGHABLE Of COURSE they are larger, as a combined total Proportionally, they are MUCH lower The world doesn't work in proportional terms. It works in total terms. We need them to remain third world for our sake. Andrei, You do realise just how laughable that is, don't you? Perhaps we, in "the west", should cut our carbon footprints down to meet those of the average Chinese or Indian ? Impossible ? PROBABLY Maybe we should meet them half-way - in a manner of COMPROMISE ?

Maybe we just have to grow some balls and become responsible for our own actions!??!  :-?

Maybe we just have to grow some balls and become responsible for our own actions!??!  :-?

Maybe we just have to grow some balls and become responsible for our own actions!??!  :-?

Maybe we just have to grow some balls and become responsible for our own actions!??!  :-?

Maybe we just have to grow some balls and become responsible for our own actions!??!  :-?

Maybe we just have to grow some balls and become responsible for our own actions!??!  :-?

Maybe we just have to grow some balls and become responsible for our own actions!??!  :-?

Maybe we just have to grow some balls and become responsible for our own actions!??!  :-?

:D ;D 8-)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 12:40pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:22pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:50am: Please delete wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 11:44am: If western nations reduce emmisions overall by 20 units, and China & India increase theirs by ONLY 20 units, we slow the effects. Is that so wrong to you? Do you really not see the problem in that statement?? Why are we handing out Get out of Jail Free cards to two of three worst polluters on the planet? Only an accountant could skew figures in that manner China has over SIXTY THREE TIMES the population of Australia India, almost, FIFTY SEVEN TIMES To suggest that Australia's emissions should be compared to EITHER is  LAUGHABLE Of COURSE they are larger, as a combined total Proportionally, they are MUCH lower The world doesn't work in proportional terms. It works in total terms. We need them to remain third world for our sake.

Like slavery really! (...sort of!  8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) :-? )

The world turns dickhead!  ;D ;D ;D :D :o :-[

The world turns dickhead!  ;D ;D ;D :D :o :-[

THIS DOOD IS SUPER-HARDCORE! MAYBE HE SMOKES CRACK?

Please delete wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:26pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 1:16pm: The United States should also be kept to a % level of their 2000 levels. Even George W Bush admitted the USA were prepared to accept that if a level playing field of China and India were capped to their 2000 levels as well. Fair is fair. So Bush was willing to limit the USA's emissions to an incredibly high number, provided China and India remained peasant societies. How generous of him.

THAT IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO A TOSSER!  ;D ;D ;D ;D :D

THAT IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO A TOSSER!  ;D ;D ;D ;D :D

THAT IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO A TOSSER!  ;D ;D ;D ;D :D

THAT IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO A TOSSER!  ;D ;D ;D ;D :D

THAT IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO A TOSSER!  ;D ;D ;D ;D :D

THAT IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO A TOSSER!  ;D ;D ;D ;D :D

THAT IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO A TOSSER!  ;D ;D ;D ;D :D

THAT IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD TO A TOSSER!  ;D ;D ;D ;D :D

HICKSEY IS A TOSSER!  ;) ;) ;) ;) :-[