The Great Pollution Rebrand

Well I am cynical of the objectives of politicians and their industrialist Illuminati masters at the best of times, but nothing is more reflective of their motives and standards than the carbon tax con. It has always been a con, from top to bottom, even though the buzz words keep changing. The world has seen this before in the scrap over EDIFACT internet standards, when EII (electronic information interchange) moved to EDI (electronic data interchange) to e-commerce. What sits better with you; cake, gateaux or pie? Last time, I checked Microsoft’s biztalk won the day. The nub of the debate over pollution is split between global warming and climate change. On numerous occasions I have caught the beginning or end of tedious and trite aimless television discussions never revealing the dreaded P word. As an ex electricity broker, pollution was never mentioned once in articles discussing the basis and virtues of the carbon tax. Alright, to be fair, there are numerous mainstream new bulletins mentioning pollution, but all are framed in carbon friendly rhetoric for a carbon tax slam dunk. Pollution is the afterthought to sell the merits of a carbon tax whether by environmentalist crusadors or “capitalists”.

Before I discuss the over complicated basis for global warming or climate change or whatever they call it these days, regardless of any merit to their obtuse reasoning, the carbon tax is a con. Living in Australia, it has been a bone of contention. Our current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who has a reputation for dishonour, claims the “on and off” carbon tax is certainly off now, after the previous government passed legislation. In the way the electricity market works, which is based on risk, carbon tax had been factored into pricing (whether “on” or “off”) since 2008. Just because one government repeals legislation does not mean another would not introduce it. Though, as would be expected, no government has given any indication of the “issues”, Tony Abbott needs to be commended, inexplicably, for being virtuous. No surprise that the Australian electricity generators are at the top of a very large pile of polluters. Australia is officially the world’s seventh major offender. Here is how the con works. People need electricity and the only way they can acquire it is via the various coal burning generators and their distribution infrastructure. There are no other options. These generators would pay large sums to the government for carbon exemption certificates while they continue to pollute, just as they had done before, but they would be financially exempt. They, in turn, would pass on that cost to their buyers (the ones who must buy their electricity as they are the only supply).

It gets better. As the carbon “tax” might not be a fixed price, they are welcome to overbill and as it is not a real tax. The electricity generator could pocket the difference between the cost of exemption certification and the sizeable remuneration via billing. In other words, not only are the largest polluters allowed to pollute, they can now subsidise their pollution. With its freshly filled coffers, governments could also reimburse their electorate with generous carbon tax rebates making the final mockery of anything sincere. It appears, initially at least, small to medium business users would foot the bill. Later a “stick” could be used against households refusing to go “green” with the removal of rebate privaliges. Ah, this con gets much more complicated because, just as with the free range eggs scam, consumers need “choice”. Does anyone wonder why the “nicabate” solution is more expensive than cigarettes? The governments raise cigarette prices to encourage abstinence (sic) and then alternatives “value add” on existing pricing. Oh woe, they certainly do not want to destroy the lucrative tobacco industry. Value added income is the second stream dedication to the carbon tax con. The whole point of propaganda has been spun around a cleaner world, using something called green power. Ignoring the fact that most green power buyers are supplied very black [coal generated] energy, electricity’s “nicabate” in Australia is solar. Lots of sun here! Sun, in capitalist style, comes at an enormous price.

We, as with many other parts of the world, have various levels of government, being federal, state and local. The carbon tax has been a federal initiative. State governments have targeted solar. The New South Wales government’s scheme was so lucrative that end users could turn a profit for merely implementing solar. This had the effect of jump starting the market; putting business in motion straight away. Solar pricing was partially based on the value added model of traditional black pricing. Without subsidy, solar will not beat black pricing and might be multiples of its delivered price. Even studies promoting the financial benefits of the alternatives are “loaded” (note: often the comments are far more revealing than their articles). The point remains the same. The carbon tax has reduced no pollution, allows industry subsidy for sins and promotes fraudulent entrepreneurial ventures elevating clean energies [which may be far from clean, subsidised or not].

To put things into perspective, and this is not giving a tick to the industrialists, the biggest polluters on the planet, by a green mile, are volcanos. How to tax them? Industry at full tilt would take a millennium to catch up with a major eruption (fortunately the last one preceded known historic records). The global warming scam is built on crimped modelling data (isn’t everything?). Ironically, and all too rarely, I have found a mainstream article which says it rather well. Bravo, the Guardian news service and credit where credit is due.

In conclusion and summary, given the choice between electricity supply and pollution, I would agree to pollution as electricity has achieved so much. Nevertheless if electricity could be delivered without the need for pollution, surely isn’t that the best of both worlds?