So here is a prime example of the effect the ETS will have on the Australian economy, which the government is working hard to keep under the radar so that the public won’t notice:

CALTEX chief executive Julian Segal has criticised the federal government’s proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme, warning that it could mean the end of petrol refining in Australia.

Mr Segal described the government’s proposed scheme as “flawed.”

He said that if it was introduced, Caltex would not invest more funds in its two Australian refineries, as it would be cheaper to operate refineries in Singapore, where there were no plans to introduce an emissions trading scheme.

Mr Segal also said the price of petrol would fall after the scheme came into operation, because the federal government would be reducing the fuel excise.

He said this would provide an incentive for people to use more petrol, rather than less.

“From Caltex’s point of view we do support an emission trading scheme of some kind as a tool to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases,” he told the forum. [Turkeys voting for Christmas again – Ed]

“However, the CRPS in the form it is in today is, I believe, flawed.”

Read it here.

… but will still vote it down anyway!

THE Nationals have given Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull the go-ahead to negotiate amendments to the federal government’s emissions trading scheme.

But they have vowed to vote against Labor legislation – amended or unamended – setting up the carbon pollution reduction scheme.

The Nationals and Liberals will thrash out amendments proposed by the shadow ministry during a special joint coalition parties meeting in Canberra on Sunday.

“Well, you support amendments to try to tone it down,” Nationals senate leader Barnaby Joyce told ABC Radio, adding it was “a safety provision“.

“You do everything in your power to turn the volume on this ridiculous tax down.”

Strange times indeed.

Read it here.

I don’t know which is funnier, hearing Ross Garnaut, the government’s own climate guru, slagging of the ETS he helped create, or listening to the government slagging off Ross Garnaut for daring to criticise it in the first place. It’s all too ridiculous for words:

The federal government has dismissed criticism of its planned emissions trading scheme by the man who helped develop Labor’s model.

Ross Garnaut has described the carbon pollution reduction scheme as “one of the worst examples of policy making we have seen on major issues in Australia“.

Professor Garnaut, the government’s former climate change adviser, said it was extraordinary how political debate about emissions trading had broken down.

Whose fault is that? Maybe Rudd & Wong should take some of the blame for trying to railroad the scheme through Parliament before Copenhagen when it makes absolutely no sense to do so.

Read it here.

The voters have had enough of the hysteria and alarmism peddled to them by the government and an obliging media. The greatest threat to humanity since the dawn of time (© Al Gore, James Hansen etc etc) is slipping steadily down the list as we collectively wake up to the dodgy science and the huge costs of an ETS:

AUSTRALIANS’ anxiety about climate change is falling substantially, even as the issue dominates political debate in Canberra.

The latest Lowy Institute poll shows that tackling climate change is viewed as only the seventh-most important of 10 foreign policy goals, and global warming the fourth of a dozen “threats to Australia’s vital interests”, just a point or two above other threats.

In 2007, tackling climate change was perceived as the joint top foreign policy goal, together with protecting the jobs of Australian workers.

In 2007, 75 per cent of those surveyed said climate change was a very important issue. Last year, this fell to 66 per cent, and this year to 56 per cent.

Global warming was viewed as “a critical threat” by 68 per cent in 2007, 66 per cent last year and 52 per cent this year.

So that’s a drop of 14% in one year, compared to just a 2% fall between 2007 and 2008.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Piers Ackerman dissects the whole thing here.

From The Australian Conservative:

The Greens would rather send Australia back to the Stone Age than use common sense in negotiating on an Emissions Trading Scheme, Family First’s Senator Steve Fielding said today.

“I don’t know what planet the Greens are on, but by the look of their ‘Safe Climate Bill’ they look like they’re lost in space,” Senator Fielding said.

“If Bob Brown and his hippy friends really believed in their cause they’d ride their bikes to Parliament House instead of using the Commonwealth’s petrol-guzzling V8s.

“If we did what the Greens propose Australia would no longer exist because there’d be no industries left to drive our economy.

“I still think the Rudd Government’s idea of moving on climate change before Copenhagen is economically reckless.

“But what the Greens have put forward is just plain ludicrous and I can’t see how anyone could see this as a realistic alternative.

“The Greens’ proposed 40 percent reduction in emissions would cripple our economy and boot thousands of jobs offshore.

“The hypocrisy of the Greens beggars belief with the way they carry on about the environment yet show no evidence of doing anything about it in their personal lives.”

From 1 July to 31 December 2008 Greens Senators spent $164,240 flying around the country, Senator Fielding said.

“The carbon footprint the Greens leave behind jet setting across the country is just another minor detail they forget to include when they campaign about lowering carbon dioxide emissions.

“The Greens should either practice what they preach or just shut up and go away.” (source)

More climate sense from Steve Fielding.

Trying to out-green Rudd & Co was always a huge mistake. And now the figures are starting to fall apart as well:

The Federal Government says it has found a $3 billion black hole in the Opposition’s economic modelling on emissions trading.

Treasury has analysed modelling from Frontier Economics which has formed the basis of the Coalition’s ETS figures.

Its conclusion will not help an Opposition Leader who is struggling to convince his backbench that he has a credible position on climate change.

Mr Turnbull unveiled the Frontier Economics modelling in August, saying it outlined a greener, cheaper and smarter emissions trading scheme.

The modelling was funded by the Coalition and independent Senator Nick Xenophon.

Read it here.

Wherever Malcolm Turnbull goes, he runs headlong into opposition to his views on negotiating with the government on the ETS:

Malcolm Turnbull has been delivered a slap in the face by the West Australian Liberal Party, with near unanimous hostility towards his plan to amend Labor’s emissions trading scheme before the Copenhagen summit. A fiery annual state conference of the West Australian state Liberals last night passed a motion that the federal Liberal Party should “not conclude” negotiations with the Federal Government until after the December summit and, even then, support for an agreement should not be considered a fait accompli. The motion represents yet another serious headache for the embattled Liberal leader, who has been struggling to gain broader support from an openly hostile backbench and is now facing speculation that he could be replaced as Opposition Leader before Christmas.

Only one delegate out of an estimated 400 in attendance backed the Turnbull position that it would be “most unwise” to do nothing to amend Labor’s scheme.

Speaker after speaker at the conference expressed scepticism about the science of climate change and warned that the Rudd Government’s scheme would be disastrous for the West Australian economy, which is heavily dependent on mining and agriculture.

And at least one speaker had the ETS summed up nicely:

Liberal senator Mathias Cormann also spoke strongly in favour of the motion, saying Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s claim that the scheme would help reduce emissions was a “fraud, a scam, a con on the Australian people … In the absence of a comprehensive global agreement, it will push up the price of energy, it will cost jobs, it will place pressure on our economy, it will put our energy security at risk … and it will do nothing to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.”

Read it here.

From Watts Up With That:

The UK Government has lost all sense of realism and decency. As a father of two young children myself, I’d like to smack the person(s) responsible for this upside the head and say “what were you thinking!”.

Even normally pro AGW Nature calls it the Worst. Climate. Campaign. Ever. Watch this.



With the consensus collapsing around their ears, alarmist governments are resorting to the lowest tactics.

Along with 99.999999% of the rest of the global population on hearing this news, I said to myself, “WTF? What on earth for?”. This is an embarrassment to the Nobel committee and to Obama himself who has done nothing to deserve such an award. It transpires that nominations closed just 11 days after Obama took office.

But the Nobel committee have shown that the award has become a joke, awarding it in previous years to an ever more ludicrous bunch of lefty moonbats, terrorist Yasser Arafat, comedy ex-president Jimmy Carter, and most hilarously of all to Al Gore and the IPCC.

The decent thing for Obama to do would be to decline it so that they can award it to someone who actually deserves it. But I would put big money on that not happening – not Obama’s style to do the decent thing.

Just like there won’t be an agreement at Copenhagen either. So why on earth are Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd insisting that Australia pass an ETS prior to then? Wait, I know the answer that is always parroted out: “business certainty” – heard that one before.

The United Nations climate talks in Bangkok have failed to deliver consensus between the world’s developing and developed nations.

The meeting finishes today after two weeks of intense negotiations.

The gathering of more than 190 nations was hoped to deliver the foundations for a new global climate agreement to be negotiated in Copenhagen in December.

Instead, the world’s two biggest polluters are deadlocked, with the United States calling for the existing Kyoto protocol to be abandoned, and a new treaty to be discussed. China disagrees.

Read it here.

UPDATE: And The Guardian  has even better news:

Bangkok climate talks end in recrimination

Global climate change talks came to an end in Bangkok today in an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination, with the rift between rich and poor countries seemingly wider than ever. After two weeks of negotiations there have been no breakthroughs on big issues such as money or emissions cuts.

With just five days of negotiating time now left before the concluding talks in Copenhagen in December, delegates said it appeared a weak deal was the most likely outcome, and no deal at all was a possibility.

We live in hope.

Read it here.