http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-23/aluminium-company-blames-carbon-tax-for-closure/4028916

UNIONS will tomorrow demand a five-year federal government support package for the aluminium smelting industry to protect 15,000 jobs, in the face of the likely closure of the Kurri Kurri smelter near Newcastle.

The decision, which is expected to cost 344 jobs directly and many more indirectly, ignited a bitter debate over the carbon tax during question time in parliament and sparked calls from John Hannagan - the Australian chairman of Rusal, a major rival aluminium producer - for the carbon tax to be deferred.

Apart from the devastating impact the likely demise of the Kurri Kurri plant will have on NSW's Hunter region, power industry sources predicted potential ramifications for the NSW government and the electricity sector.

Given that the carbon tax is already a wrecking ball swinging through the aluminium industry, the coal industry, the steel industry and the aviation industry, will the Prime Minister apologise for the 344 workers and others whose livelihoods are now imperilled by her broken promise never to have a carbon tax?

SM, from your linked ABC News article:

Opposition's environment spokesman, Greg Hunt said:

<< the carbon tax is the straw that broke the camel's back >>

So he is really saying that the carbon tax was a very small factor, on top of much bigger factors.

Liberal Bob Baldwin, Federal Member for Patterson, said:

<< previous job losses there have been due to the high dollar and low aluminium price, …. today is the first time Norsk Hydro has blamed the carbon tax. >>

So let’s not just blindly blame the carbon tax, or Gillard for introducing it, despite it being a backflip.

One thing this country desperately needs is incentives to get off of our addiction to fossil fuels, especially oil.

many local councils are now going to have to pay millions more to run their tips due to the carbon tax. Again the average Joe Blo will pay despite the lies of the Government. Election please!

You know, it's almost as if our government has decided that given we are in better shape than the rest of the civilized world, it would be best that we introduce a ,self imposed, handicap, by way of the worlds largest tax on carbon.

If only it were a horse race.

I second the motion election please!

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/abbotts-carbon-tax-deception-point?utm_source=Climate%20Spectator&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2478c413a7-CSPEC_DAILY

It's a bit more complicated then that, SM, but of course we don't
want the facts to interfere with good old politics! Abbott is
shin kicker, not the sort of leader that Australia needs.

Yabby,

Trade in commodities is all about the margins. The rise in the dollar lowered the sale price, but also the cost of the raw materials (bauxite) but not the Australian based costs. A plant making a small loss can try and ride it out, but large losses close the plant.

The carbon tax is not going to affect the manufacturers that are very profitable, but the ones already doing it tough will go to the wall. People that would have invested now won't.

For ever plant that closes because of the carbon tax there is at least another that just won't be built.

While my choice in music is 60,70 80s rock, country and some jazz I found myself humming a different tune on seeing the headline.
Yes quite right, Shadow minister! still humming my song, * it had to be you*.
One ear on the question time in the back ground, I find it difficult to separate the negativity/fear mongering/junk, here in written form and there polluting the air ways, get fair dinkum mate.

The ageing Kurri Kurri smelter in the Hunter owned by
Norsk Hydro has been losing money for quite some time,
years in fact, and they've been letting people
go - little by little - for quite some time. Their
problems have been many. Just to name a few:

Part of their problem has been the NSW government's
refusal to give the company a long-term electricity
supply contract, and negotiations for a new contract
have been in limbo since 2010.

Also the weak aluminium prices - which have fallen 40%
from their peak of $3,300 per tonne to approx. $2,000
a tonne - don't help.

In other words what drives the current closures of these
antiquated smelters (this is not the only one) are the
current pressures leading to the current financial losses
that the companies have been incurring for some time.
Blaming the carbon tax is merely - politics,
and short-sightedness and of course
a continued weapon that the Opposition chooses to use on
the government (they have nothing else).

You can't keep doing things the same old-fashioned way -
and expect different results - when things have not been
working for quite some time. In order to be competitive-
you have to look towards innovation - and find what will
work. Blaming the carbon tax - won't solve anything to
an already crumbling industry.

SM, I actually happen to agree with you that the carbon tax will
be a nail in the coffin of many businesses. But its a number of
nails which eventually sink businesses. You won't get me arguing
for the carbon tax. Its going to cost the average dairy farmer
around 5 Grand, let alone what it will cost meat producers. That
does not help their industries stay competitive.

The point I was making, if you read the article, was that this
particular plant was knackered without the carbon tax anyhow and
was old technology. It was losing money hand over fist anyhow,
so would have closed one way or another. Tony claiming that these
are the first victims of the carbon tax is pure politics and not
based on fact.

The thing is, these aluminium smelters originally set up, because
they could buy cheap electricity in Australia, based on our coal
reserves. Those days are over.

Yabby said;
Abbott is
shin kicker, not the sort of leader that Australia needs.

You are usually better than that.
The oppositions job is to kick shins.
That has nothing to do whether he will be a good PM or not.
I suspect that he will be quite a reasonable PM, perhaps not better
than the best we have ever had but I don't go along with the
disconnected blah blah that we have been subject to over the last
couple of years. many on here make statements that he is this that
and the other without more than being opposed to back it up.

You kidding me? There's THOUSANDS of jobs going every day in every job type. People aren't spending money.

*The oppositions job is to kick shins.
That has nothing to do whether he will be a good PM or not*.

Not so, Bazz. The job of the opposition is to show wisdom
and good judgement. We can evaluate their potential, by
their statements. I am on the record on OLO, for being about
policies, not people and I have listed some of those policies.

Just yesterday, Tony was on tv telling school kids that he had
learnt latin at school. So did I and it was the biggest waste
of time that I can imagine. Yet Tony is out there promoting
more languages to be taught at schools, wasting more time and
putting many kids off school completely. So it is judgement
that I question. It needs more to be a great PM, then kicking shins.

Lexi,

Any plant that closes never has only one reason. Having invested capital in building a plant owners are reluctant to walk away and pay huge closing and retrenchment costs. While the smelter might still have had a dismal future, the carbon tax sealed its fate.

Without the carbon tax the plant probably would still have closed, but it may not have. The carbon tax will be for many plants the straw that breaks the camel's back. For investors, it is yet another reason not to invest in Australia.

The production in Australia will be replaced no doubt by more carbon pollution intensive plants in China where there is no carbon tax.

et off of our addiction to fossil fuels, especially oil.
Ludwig,
Agee, what alternative do you have in Mind ? Ah, I see, something ! Yes that'll work.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The CEO of Norsk Hydro - has stated quite
clearly - their predominant reason for closure is that
no-one is buying their product. It has nothing to do with
the carbon tax. The problem of the
carbon tax was created by Mr Tony Abbott. One goes, so will
the other.

Staff entitlements are a major issue with closing a business and, some businesses continue to trade, at a loss, simply because they can't afford to close.

Like all staff entitlements, they should be paid weekly and lelf to the staff to manage.

Or perhaps paid into a government run trust fund, where they can be drawn upon if one looses their jobs.

A for te carbon tax, if anyone thinks any business can incurr an additional cost, without pain, you must be on a different planet.

Wake up to your selves, cause it's gunnar hurt!

One goes, so will
the other.
Lexi,
You wish. The one thing that Labor didn't count on was that because of their dismal managing the average voter started to think a bit more & they woke up. So, come the next federal election I wouldn't be at all surprised if many Labor supporters put loyalty aside in favour of sense. Well, at least common sense should dictate that.

Indi, you agree with me, but then you have this weird dig:

<< Ah, I see, something ! Yes that'll work. >>

Hmmm, you are one who likes talking in riddles aren’t you!

Noiw, moiybe moi broin ith roily thmoil, but Oi duzth not undathtayand yoo!

Pleathe could you rephrathe thith. Thayankth.

Lexi,

The carbon tax was cited directly by the company as one of the factors, if not the primary factor. It will push the company from making a loss to making a bigger loss. The ability to wait out the present situation is gone.

The great thing about tax that governments enjoy is the power to impose,enforce and collect and this applies to carbon tax. Bully for the government. I fail to see how Australia's position on this tax on carbon release will make one iota of difference on a global scale, perhaps someone could enlighten me? It also smacks of hypocrisy considering the vast tonnages of coal we allow private enterprise to export and profit from annually. Quite apart from the loss of a value adding enterprise such as the alumina processing facility the inflationary effect will flow-on to every citizen of this country negatively in spite of the compensatory package. What a pathetically sick joke has been sold to an ignorant and apathetic public. There are ways to deal with planetary pollution, carbon tax monetarism is not one of them.
Den71

Pleathe could you rephrathe thith. Thayankth.
Luddy,
ol' boy. We all agree we need to get off this oil bizo but no-one knows what to replace it with. That's what I meant. Everyone wants everyone else to do "something".
What is that elusive something we all should be doing but never get it done ?
Why not even the Greens have the faintest idea how to live "green".
Maybe silly Gilly's Carbon tax will do "something". Now that would really be "something" wouldn't it ?

SM asks in the first post "will the PM apologise?" Ha ha ha ha, poor old SM has been watching too many Question Times on the TV, where the Liberal drama queens constantly ask "will the PM apologize?". Come on SM, show you can actually think for yourself, try to be at least a little bit original please. I'm just trying to help you, so you can have a bit more intellectual credibility here; your welfare is my primary concern. God bless.

Carbon pricing had ZERO impact on the company's current decision to downsize. They did it because they have been losing money "up till now", and carbon pricing is NON EXISTENT "up till 1st July". A company executive has personally informed the Labor government that carbon pricing had no impact whatsoever on their earnings. Why? Because carbon pricing at this stage DOES NOT EXIST.

The company has said that carbon pricing is one "minor" element of increased "future" costs.

Nice try SM: FAIL.

FP72E and Lexi,

It's started, "The carbon tax made me do it!" will be the cry ahead of and after its introduction for a quarter or two until things settle down and the sky is seen to be staying up OK.

Expect SM and his masters to have a ball during this process, as they have over the NBN, the mining tax, disability insurance, border control etc. etc. etc. Come the election, Australians will soberly determine the flavour of the next government on the basis of what has been achieved, not who has sewn the greatest doubt about their future.

LF FP and Lexi,

The single biggest cost item in producing aluminium is the cost of electricity. For large consumers that bulk buy electricity, the cost is going to nearly double. This was specifically stated by the company as one of the reasons, and all I see is a few Labor die hards with no industrial experience whatsoever making things up.

Even if Aluminium smelting was profitable before, it cannot be now. It will now move to countries with no carbon tax, such as South Africa that also burns huge quantities of coal.

Wounder if the truth will help?
I took over and ran on behalf of my union a 12 months construction project on this site about the time it started.
Another official flicked it to me,he was a failure.
I went to national conference three times with two different site delegates,and a past one who was by then an official.
JOHN appeared on TV news the other day, he was once my official,then my workmate.
My union, by far has the most members.
I know the people and the factory, we intervened many times to keep them going.
Power prices as far back as 2003 have been the problem.
This Norway based form is pro union,very much so,it has union members on its board at home.
It is known to fly delegates from both country's to the other to consolidate friendship.
As Lexi said aged and not cost effective it is to be moth balled.
Probably never to re open.
In time , trust me,as Australia leads not follows in alternative energy we may see a return,but not there,not in the growing Hunter valley.
Shadow Minister,have you and Tony considered how the closure of BHP? a thing that crippled Newcastle in the 90,s can be blamed on the Carbon tax?

can be blamed on the Carbon tax?
Belly,
Right or wrong they'll blame the mining tax. They'll keep blaming to the end of days just as Governments will tax us to the end of days. What the real issue here is that we're all paying a handful of useless bureaucrats very good money but for WHAT ?
No tax will have a positive impact on our environment because the more tax people have to pay the more they need to impose upon the environment to make that tax money. Will environmental taxes stop the morons from destroying everything in wars ? No.
All this tax will achieve is misery & more misery, discontent for many & fat bank accounts for a few. The environment is not going to do what these morons expect it to do. Unlike these morons the environment is following a certain program that none of us understand & therefore none of us can do zilch about it. We don't need to manage the environment. What we should manage is morons, but we don't do we ? On the contrary ! We're so stupid ourselves that we afford these morons the privilege to get into Government instead of preventing them.

<< We all agree we need to get off this oil bizo but no-one knows what to replace it with >>

Indi, I think that is a tad overstated. We have very good ideas of what to replace it with – gas, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and possibly nuclear, along with improved efficiencies, more frugal usage, and an end to the constantly increasing demand for energy.

Yes, it is all a bit difficult at the moment because it is all more expensive than that wondrous energy source; oil. But it won’t be for much longer. So it is essential that we start planning for the time that oil becomes twice or three times as expensive as it now is, let alone when we start having shortages of supply.

A carbon tax is a good thing. But it is totally hypocritical or just plain stupid for our government to be trying to implement incentives to move to renewable energy sources while at the same time imposing record-high immigration – ie: a rapidly increasing demand for energy – upon us.

SM has just falsely claimed that the company has stated that the cost of electricity will "nearly double" for them, as a result of carbon pricing, and they said "that" is the reason for the layoffs. Nice try SM, make up your own little false story, full of lies, and try to present it as fact. Ha ha ha ha, SM is very funny indeed.

For those who want the "facts", excluding SM of course, regarding electricity costs to business after 1st July ... http://www.energyaction.com.au/australian-energy-market/carbon-price/69.html

If only you lot had experience creating an income, rather than being provided with one, you may understand just how this tax will effect profits and tighten cash flows.

You see, for every million dollars in additional costs, those funds have to be borrowed.

So, you then have funding costs, as well as lost opportunity costs that have to be taken into account.

Many businesses are under extreme pressure at the moment as their debtors are out of control, and this effects cash floe, which also effects borrowing capacity.

This tax will hurt.

FP,

I was waiting for some idiot to try and challenge me on large scale electricity costs. Well done FP, you won the prize.

The aluminium industry consumes such a huge amount of power, that they buy it at distribution cost levels. These average about $40-%50 per MWhr, but then they go further and purchase the bulk of their power at off peak which is heavily discounted (to enable the big generators to keep spinning) and for which they can pay as little as $20 / MWhr.

If the carbon tax adds $21 /MWhr to the cost, this nearly doubles their energy bill.

With the carbon tax, Aluminium smelting cannot survive and will move off shore. Net carbon savings = zero.

Talk about a knife edge, If one of your customers goes on holiday, your business will collapse.
We are talking of 1.5 c /kwh average for power.
So where are all these costs going to come from.
So the bloke cutting your hair is going to have to put an extra, quarter of one cent on.
A tomato canning closer @ 175 cans / minute is ?
Tony has done a good job of scare mongering, until the 1.7.2012.

Oh my god, is SM on crack cocaine this afternoon? He says if the electricity cost cost is $21, and *IF* carbon pricing adds $21 to this cost, then the cost doubles. Well duh! Of course it doubles *IF* $21 is added to the cost. But, SM forgot an annoying little fact ... the additional costs are 15% for commercial businesses and 19% for industrial businesses, *NOT* 100% as falsely claimed by poor old SM. That 15% -19% can be easily reduced, and totally eliminated, with the mechanisms available and by changing to new technologies (which is the entire purpose of carbon pricing). Domestic electricity cost increases will be very small indeed and totally, 100%, covered by compensation.

Fact = the company's current layoffs were NOT caused by the doubling of their electricity costs, as falsely claimed within the lies of SM.

Poor old SM couldn't even bring himself to click on the educational link I posted on the previous page, in order to educate himself. Ha ha ha, he's a very funny guy.

Net carbon savings = zero.
Shady Pollie,
Yes, and it'll do absolutely resoundingly nothing for the environment.
So, what are they going to do then for the environment. Do more for themselves as per usual is my guess.

I've had a complaint about FP72E's last post and while I don't agree that it is abuse, it is getting close. I hope this conversation veers back closer to politeness or I will make some deletions.

Graham Young(Moderator)

Geez Graham, are we reading the same post by FP72E?
SM's last post refers to FP72E as "some idiot", so why shouldn't he have the right of reply both in the substance of what he has to say (on which he is correct) as well as a little reciprocal derision?

Graham, I don't think F2 understands what SM was saying.
In any case there is no point in trying to stop using coal fired
generation. Wind and solar simple cannot do the job.
It is not just the intermittancy that is the problem.

There are only a very few possibilities;
Hot Rocks from Sth Australia and the Hunter Valley.
Nuclear, Thorium and Uranium.
Tidal.

There is nothing else on the horizon, but we can keep hoping.
Forget natural gas, it is proving to be short term if it started to
be used to replace coal.

FP,

While your little propaganda sheet from the government has a column for "industrial" it is far from representative of all industries. The industrial site I work at buys power at $60/MWhr not the $120 cited giving a 40% increase due to the carbon tax. We are a relatively large consumer, but still consume power at only a tiny fraction of the smelter. Your sheet is for small industries, and that you would proffer it for the aluminium smelter shows how little you know.

I am a power systems engineer, what are you? a book keeper, graphics artist? Certainly nothing that needs much any information in this field.

leave GY do the moderating.
I saw as he did no problem other than two combatants being a bit rude to each other.
the tax progressing to a trading scheme has just one target.
To push the implementation of better fuels.
The attempt to link this closure to it is fraud, known to be too,SM is aware it is not the truth.

[Deleted for abuse. You were warned.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

Dear Shadow Minister,

[Deleted for provocation and contributing to the likelihood that the brawl I've just moderated would continue and intensify.]

Your quote of a "swinging ball" is taken directly
from Mr Abbott - dear oh dear.

Neither of you seem capable of understanding that
it is the continued weak macro economic conditions,
with a plunge in global aluminium prices, an
uncertain market outlook as well as the strong
Australian dollar plus the NSW government's refusal
to reach an agreement on a long term electricity
supply contract that has forced Norsk Hydro to make
the decision that it has.

If Mr Abbott is really
that concerned about the workers of Norsk Hydro
as he claims to be then -
why doesn't he get on the phone to Premier (Barry)
O'Farrell about the matter of the long term
electricity supply contract. Now that would be
doing something positive - but there's more to gain
politically by consistently casting blame on the government.

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

I am sorry, but open two way conversation becomes an impossibility with SM.
At some time, in almost every such thread, it becomes pure Abbott style propaganda.
Not related to real events,or wanted out comes.
With no carbon tax, power costs will continue to rise.
As they have for sometime.
As governments privatized power we knew the writing was on the wall.
NSW ALP, how I despise haveing to use that proud name ALP, to describe those inhabitants of a rubbish bin, even put power prices up, to help sell/increase profits for new owners.
And we could have kept public ownership, built new better power stations,Socialized the costs [ made us pay]or face the fact we do not mater.
But SM and his like will stand firmly selling less than honest tales aimed at leaving this country behind in the race for sustainable new energy.
I will feed him no more in this thread.

Sitting outside this scrap, I can only say that FP really is out of
touch. There was someone on OLO that described what had to be done to
satisy the bureaucrats that a paint factory knew what its emissions
would be.
That was real world stuff and no amount of political bluster will cancel it out that expense even before the tax starts.

Please point out where SM has lied.

, it becomes pure Abbott style propaganda.
Belly,
and yours is always anti Abbott pro Labor propaganda. It really is the pot calling the kettle black.
Everyone's on about sustainable & alternative energy. Stevolmeyer tells us the alternatives are available. ok. are the alternatives for everyone making a living also available ?
Are there alternatives so that politicians have to pay for their own superannuation if we go to alternative energy ?
Are there alternatives to our hangers-on judiciary ? Are there alternatives to the present level of stupidity in the electorate ? Are there alternatives to change education to education rather than a dumbing down procedure ?
It will not work with just an alternative energy, it requires all the aforementioned plus a lot more to make positive improvements. One will not work without the other. Carbon tax will prove a gross waste of funding which is sorely needed in many essential services.

The big problem is that the politicians of all parties, and I include
the greens, do not understand that "Business as Usual" is not an option.
I notice that the IMF may have woken up, as it has commented that the
European countries are having growth problems because of their energy costs.
Their balance of payments and GDP have been reduced because of the cost
of oil, ie the Brent price.

Until our politicians wake up that governments will have a shortage
of money in all areas and their revenues will decrease, then if they
do wake up they can start planning for the localisation of industry.
Even our marvelous mining incomes will deplete as manufacturing world
wide reduces due to a lack of money in the system.

The increasing energy costs will reduce international trade as the
number of ships at anchor in Singapore Roads will indicate.

So, it is not the fault of a particular party, so you can stop blaming
them. What is needed is a campaign to educate politicians.

Bazz wrote, "please point out where SM has lied".

That's easy, SM has posted that the reason for the Norsk Hydro redundancies is because their electricity bill has "doubled" due to carbon pricing. At no stage whatsoever has Norsk hydro made that claim. In fact, carbon pricing hasn't even begun yet. At no stage has Norsk Hydro claimed that their electricity costs have "doubled" for any reason whatsoever. Why? Because their electricity costs have NOT doubled.

A Norsk Hydro executive has informed the Labor party (as revealed in parliament), that their current and past electricity costs had "no" bearing on their decision. They also said that "future" electricity costs are a mere "part" of the many reasons for the redundancies .... in fact a minor part. If you read the company's statement you will see the "real" reasons for the redundancies. SM just made up his story out of thin air in a failed attempt to use carbon pricing to bash the government ... he failed dismally.

Until our politicians wake up that governments will have a shortage
of money in all areas and their revenues will decrease,
Bazz,
As one Labor cronie who went for as much as she could possibly get out of being a Q-Health bureaucrat once told me. There's plenty money out there, it just doesn't get distributed fairly.
She was right. It's up to the bent bureaucrats to straighten out a bit to save us from utter mayhem. I won't hold my breath just yet though.
Why should a high Court Judge be on a million a year for doing what ?, when a worker who keeps everything going by being a low paid cog in the wheel. Way, way too many on the public purse do not even remotely deserve the benefits they receive. Whatever happened to value for money ? How can we justify council CEO's & bureaucrats costing us close to a million Dollars a year for no apparent benefit to us. Health bureaucrats the same, in fact just about all Government agencies have hundreds if not thousands of people costing us half a million per year, yet we still have gross inefficiency & neglected services.

No FP you lied to me when you said;
That's easy, SM has posted that the reason for the Norsk Hydro redundancies is because their electricity bill has "doubled" due to carbon pricing.

On 24th @ 4:35 he Rusal had asked for the tax to be deferred.
On 24th @ 3:56 That Kurri would probably close anyway.
On 24th 9:19 the cost had doubled and plant would probably close anyway if CT not the primary reason.
25th @ 3:44 SM said referring to total electricity costs:
For large consumers that bulk buy electricity, the cost is going to nearly double.

The 25th @ 3:44 is the contradiction of where you lied to me.
SM did NOT say that the doubling was because of carbon pricing.

The only value I find in this exercise is that I will not waste time
reading anything from you in the future.

The claim that the CT is a big factor behind a decision to close down a business is factually dealt with here http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/abbotts-carbon-tax-deception-point and here http://www.climatespectator.com.au/news/carbon-tax-not-linked-smelter-closure-howes. and http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/kurri-kurri-smelter-hydro-s-polluting-problem-child

In the spirit of the new politeness GY is insisting upon (the deleted posts were tame IMO), I respectfully ask SM to explain why the public should continue to subsidize Hydro-N's loss making Kurri-Kurri smelter with power prices below production cost while it operates as one of the most inefficient smelters in the world, pumping out CO2 at a huge rate compared to modern coal-fired smelters? There was no prospect of Hydro modernizing this smelter as the third world offers it far better options for capital expenditure as well as where hydro-electric capacity in western countries exists.

Aluminium smelting is in trouble world-over with prices falling through the floor. The Kurri-Kurri smelter had the problem of a high dollar over the last year or two, adding to extant problems, and was on its way to oblivion by any business measure, including losing half its book value per annum. It's only reason to exist was jobs, which can be covered with other initiatives to which the same public resources can be directed, without the carbon footprint.

I concur with SM's $21/MWhr figure, but keeping turbines running is no reason to burn coal at a loss to provide the low cost power base against which to compare this figure and come up with the "doubling" he calculates. Furthermore, power is 30% of the business cost,and if this doubling were true then this is raised to 46% (CP's 15%-19% rise?). Federal financial support for any export component mitigates the CT cost to the business.

1mwh = 1000 kwh = $0.21 c / kwh + 10% CP = 0.23 c/ kwh.

*Their balance of payments and GDP have been reduced because of the cost
of oil, ie the Brent price.*

Ah Bazz, but its not the end of the story. For everyone paying more,
others are earning more. The Arabs, Russia, and every other oil
producer, have far more money to spend. So don't ever only look
at one side of that coin.

explain why the public should continue to subsidize Hydro-N's loss making Kurri-Kurri smelter with power prices below
Luciferase,
probably a very similar reason every other highly inefficient outfit such as Government services are being subsidised. Look at your own personal situation & see if you could live the way you do without subsidisation.
We would not have a society without subsidisation. I do agree however that subsidisation should not be a valid excuse to pump up inefficiency but in the case of industry there's presently no other way. Bureaucracy however needs urgent reduction of subsidising.
I see subsidies being horrendously wasted on a daily basis & it has led to form an utterly dysfunctional society, a society with was functional before the subsidies were introduced.

Anyone forgotten about the big players in the front row who ruck their stooges if any hint of a veiled threat to their vested interests arises? Only when the very last litre of fossil fuel is auctioned off on EBay will we see a shift to serious investment and dollars towards renewable technologies. The ideas are there, the trick is in the affordability of per unit cost. For the meanwhile a renewed investment in LNG reserves & infrastructure will see us through, hence an announcement of a new US base (to rival the old Subic Bay in PI)to be built opposite Darwin - near Mandorah, to protect the front rowers share prices. Forget about Australian manufacturing, my old lecturer @ UTS Bill Cheshire would would have told us 20 yrs ago, that manufacturing in Oz has been cactus since the Silver Budgie stepped in it during the early '80s.

Quite true, Yabby.
It does go round and around.
The oil producing states are spending more in their own countries
to placate the masses stirred up by the Arab spring and are using more
of their own oil, and so reducing the export availability.
I suspect on a fraction is spent in their customers countries.
Perhaps 20%, or 40% and of course they have production costs which
have been rising dramatically because of falling well pressures and
increasing water mix.

I have never seen any figures that show how much comes back.

Albie Manton in Darwin

“… serious investment and dollars towards renewable technologies.”

You are right.

This should have been done years ago. The writing was well and truly on the wall - and without the issues and debate surrounding carbon emissions.

Our carbon tax ... $3.5 billion … used to purchase foreign carbon credits would be better kept here and invested in research and development of renewable technologies.

When it comes to aluminium, Danielle, huge base-load power is needed. Electrolysis and melting cryolite at 1000 degrees requires huge energy input, so you can forget alternatives to coal other than burning gas, nuclear, or hydro-electricity. Coal-burning for aluminium smelting was on its last legs years ago and only gov't energy subsidy kept the Hydro-Norsk show on the road.

It concerns me that Greens have little idea of industrial energy requirements when they espouse alternatives to coal, gas, nuclear. Perhaps they would be more pragmatic if they understood more deeply what underpins their world, rather than luxuriating in child-like idealism.

Luciferase,

Point taken. Our so-called leaders must inform themselves better ... and it would be an advantage if we, the general public, were also better informed.

The following from the Harvard Business School is quite sobering.

Business Summit: The Coming World Oil Crisis
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6218.html

“While the world's demand for oil continues its unabated growth, driven by growing Asian demand, supplies of oil have likely peaked. The coming imbalance of supply and demand is so huge that the world needs to add six Saudi Arabias by 2030 to meet demand. Without enormous changes, the world faces an imminent oil crisis.
There are no silver bullets that can solve this problem—not more drilling, greater vehicle fuel efficiency, electric cars, or renewable energy. Political and business leaders must support these measures and more; whatever can help avert a major crisis. This includes actions to dramatically decrease demand, increase supply, and develop alternatives to oil. Doing so will require policy, innovation, and leadership.

But first it requires that people wake up to the sobering ramifications of peak oil, which may be the defining issue of this century.

Key concepts include:

The supply/demand imbalance makes the world's energy future uncertain.

"Peak oil" may be the 21st century's defining issue.

In addition to the economic arguments for renewable energy, there is also a strong sustainability story.

The severity of the situation requires leadership, innovative thinking, and immediate action. “

*Coal-burning for aluminium smelting was on its last legs years ago*

Well that's it. Rio realised this some years ago, when they bought
their Canadian assets, which rely on hydro power for aluminium smelting. That or nuclear makes far more sense.

LF,

I see lots of comments making false claims about what I did or didn't say, To clarify,

I never claimed that the carbon tax was the only or even the main reason why Hydro was closing, only (As hydro management said) that it was a contributing factor, but that without the carbon tax, the closure might have been deferred. I did not call for further or continued subsidization.

I did say that electricity was a significant portion of their expenditure, and that the carbon tax would nearly double their electricity, and I didn't do this on a whim, rather on experience with power costs and distribution, and personal experience with aluminium smelters in this regard.

Taking a figure from a previous post:

http://www.energyaction.com.au/images/Delivered-Electricity-Costs-in-$MWh.gif

I agree that the Carbon tax will add about $21/MWHr to generation costs, pretty much across the board, the assumption in the figure gives an "average" commercial and industrial concerns with existing power costs of $120 and $150 per MWhr giving the increases of 19% and 15% respectively. Neither of these existing power costs reflect anything resembling what Hydro pays.

Big power generators (>100MW) have a problem with meeting peak demands that are 4-5 x the off peak loads, with equipment that is slow to ramp up and down. As a result the bidding price for power (every 10 mins) varies wildly from up to $1500/MWhr at peak to $0 off peak, and large consumers that have the ability to shift the majority of their consumption to off peak periods can usually negotiate a sweetheart deal that benefits both parties.

The same goes for the distribution costs. The capital and maintenance costs are same irrespective of the load, and off peak user can usually carries a very low distribution component. Also considering that very Large consumers usually have dedicated equipment which reduces the distribution costs considerably.

I know of companies consuming 25MW and paying $50/MWHr, the assumption that Hydro pays $25/MWhr or lower (which would give a near doubling of costs due to the carbon tax) is more than likely.

SM writes "I never claimed that the carbon tax was the only or even the main reason why Hydro was closing...."

So why did his opening post to this thread say:

"Given that the carbon tax is already a wrecking ball swinging through the aluminium industry, the coal industry, the steel industry and the aviation industry, will the Prime Minister apologise for the 344 workers and others whose livelihoods are now imperilled by her broken promise never to have a carbon tax?"

Why the need to apologize or even share blame for nature taking its course?

LF,

Short of reprinting all my previous posts on the subject (impossible with 350 word limit) please refer to my second post on the subject.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5157#139088

The carbon tax is not the the only reason or even prime reason, but it is a substantial and long term reason, and was specifically cited by Hydro's management. Hence the last straw analogy.

The question of whether without the carbon tax the plant would have shut at the same time, in a few months, or tried to weather the storm until conditions improved, will never be known, but the decision to close just before the carbon tax comes in, is hardly likely to be a coincidence.

ALERT-rotten-PORK: Manufacturing plants start to close ahead of Carbon tax.

Those who believe this also believe those proclaiming ability force the sun to rise in the west then set in the east..

"..the last straw analogy"! That camel was a back-broken and dead before any threat of a carbon tax. We are re-enacting Monty Python's dead parrot skit, with SM playing the pet-shop owner.

LF.

Some facts rather than flatulence please. All you have offered is your opinion.

You must have missed the following in one of my earlier posts,SM.

The claim that the CT is a big factor behind a decision to close down a business is factually dealt with here http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/abbotts-carbon-tax-deception-point and here http://www.climatespectator.com.au/news/carbon-tax-not-linked-smelter-closure-howes. and http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/kurri-kurri-smelter-hydro-s-polluting-problem-child

LF,

The climate spectator is hardly known as being unbiased to the carbon tax, in the article it quotes the power usage of the plant as:

"the smelter consumes 16.2MWh of electricity per tonne of aluminium. This is 22 per cent more than Hydro’s newest smelter Qatalum, which consumes 13.3MWh"

The increase per MWhr is $21 giving an increase in costs of $340/t and $280/t for the state of the art plant. Or an increase of $41m p.a. Even if the plant was state of the art, it would kill it. An increase of $280/t when prices are $2100 is a game changer.

The carbon tax will effectively kill every aluminium smelter in the country irrespective of how efficient it is. The others are probably only hanging in for Abbott to repeal the tax.

From http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/abbotts-carbon-tax-deception-point "The fixed $23 carbon price due to come in on July 1 might see the costs of production rise by $4 million each year for Kurri Kurri (based on current production of 120,000 metric tonnes), once free permits are taken into account. However, it’s also possible that Kurri Kurri’s electricity contract may prevent Delta Electricity from passing through any increase in costs associated with the carbon price, similar to what appears to have been in place with the other NSW aluminium smelter, Tomago."

4 million, mitigated by a clause in the coal contract? ? Hardly game-changing for an operation of Hydro's scale. Now Abbott's bleating over a couple of flight schedule cancellations when the airline/s is/are releasing planes for charter to miners, flying with the same fuel, emitting the same CO2.

Expect plenty more of "the carbon tax made me do it!"

LF,

Aluminium produces a small amount of CO2 while smelting, which is probably where you get the $4m carbon tax it pays, however, it indirectly pays 10x that due to increased electricity prices.

Worked @ Gove (Rio Tinto - ALCAN) for 3 months last year. The G3 expansion project completed a few years back with a huge gadget to reclaim fumes etc cost $500,000,0000 never used & still sitting idle because:
"... the airborne effluents would precipitate and kill off Yolgnu 'Dreaming' sites in vicinity .... "

Astronomical amounts of royalties paid in pandering to Run & Ping You mob & hangers off. All of it nothing but a huge tax write off. 'Red' side & 'White' side of the show are accidents waiting to happen. Old corroded out structures, busted flanges leaking high temperature caustic soda solution over all & sundry. Oil fired generator went offline so old operators flown in from interstate & overseas paid upwards of $300/hour as consultants because the skills base has left years ago. Lip service paid to safety and a pervading rip, defecate or bust to keep it all going. Pilot plant commenced for water re-treatment of some process water in progress as another token towards their Green credentials.
Small wonder that alumina is in trouble?

The Mad Monk blames the CT for the Hastie group going down, further insulting the intelligence of all Australians (oh...except SM). Yet a further case of opposition by mantra, something MM learned in the seminary that he applies to politics.

Now, everybody, with a punctuating beats to the chest, chant with me:

"The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" "The carbon tax did it!" ..........

Haaahaha

The carbon tax did it, the carbon tax did it, the carbon tax did it, oh yeah.

The carbon tax did it, the carbon tax did it, THE CARBON TAX DID IT OH YEAAH!

Doof doof doof doof doof doof doof!

Hey this would go really well set to the music of Led Zepp’s Black Dog, I reckon!

“Hey hey Carby, said the way you bruise

Gonna make us sweat gonna make us lose

Ah ah Carby the way you shake that thing

Gonna make us burn gonna make us sting”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEK-4ZkEPQY&feature=related

I'm seeing it Ludwig, MM in hooded cassock left open to reveal the six-pack and woven hair budgie-smugglers, hands stressing the oh oh oh oh oh oh's and "The carbon tax did it, the carbon tax did it, the carbon tax did it.

Seriously though, don't you worry that maybe MM isn't the man for the job?

Ludwig and LF,

I assume your retreat to childish rendition is because you can't argue against simple maths. (or can't understand it.)

[Deleted for abuse.]

But SM, being childish just comes so naturally to me!!

Besides, dull boring threads like this one need a bit of a boost along with an injection of (attempted?) humour or puerility now and then!!

Hey, my main point remains:

We need our government to implement incentives to wean us off of our addiction to oil. The carbon tax is the right thing to do in this direction. It is so damn small and such a piffling first little step. And yet there is enormous resistance to it!

Yes the carbon tax will change the economics of some businesses and make the critical difference for a few. But so will all sorts of other factors that have always been there.

You say:

<< I assume your retreat to childish rendition is because you can't argue against simple maths. >>

What ‘simple’ maths are you talking about?

What about the simple philosophy and logic?

You didn’t respond to my first post on this thread. Too hard to answer?

.

The Mad Monk in woven-hair budgy-smugglers. Whoow,… now there’s an interesting mental image! { ;~/

Dear Ludwig,

It's time we all realised that having any sort
of a debate with Shadow Minister is simply a
total waste of time. All he's interested in
is repeating the scare tactics of the Opposition
and their political mantra. By responding to him -
we give him a platform to continue doing the same
thing over and over again. He should change his
moniker to "Minister of Propaganda." He may even
get paid to do what he's doing - despite his denials -
who knows?

Lexi, well, it seems as though you might be right.

I mean, I put up fair and reasonable points of debate, but SM just ignores them. He’s not interested in calm logical discussion so it seems. I don’t know. I’ve considered him to be a pretty good OLO contributor for a long time. Don’t want to get offside with him, or anyone. But this thread has been a bit disappointing in terms of my attempts to debate with him. And it’s not the first time.

.

<< Seriously though, don't you worry that maybe MM isn't the man for the job? >>

Luci, Babbling Abbott is definitely not the man for the job!. Neither is anyone else in his party.

The man for the job is… Bob Carr…. or Kelvin Thomson.

If either of these two were to become Labor leader, I’d be voting for Labor, for the first time in many elections (never have voted Lib)!

Ludwig,

"The carbon tax did it, the carbon tax did it, THE CARBON TAX DID IT OH YEAAH!"

Comes under your definition of serious debate? Puleez! I did the maths, and the numbers came to 10 x what LF was trying to sell.

Sorry, but the carbon tax is a huge impost on the Aluminium industry, and irrespective of what future Hydro had before the carbon tax, its goose was cooked completely with it.

I've been following this thread, and I'm a bit puzzled. If the carbon tax doesn't close down the aluminium industry, what use is it? Aluminium is sometimes said to be almost pure electricity. All of our reliable electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, and there is no prospect of that changing within the next 20 years, or more.

So if the carbon tax is to be of any use in decreasing the burning of CO2 it must have an impact on this industry more than any other. If you say it has no effect, then why would you support the tax because in that case it would obviously be an administrative "reform" without purpose.

In which case it should be reasonably uncontroversial that it would close aluminium smelters on both sides of the argument.

I return from 24 hours in the sin-bin.

SM writes, "I did the maths, and the numbers came to 10 x what LF was trying to sell."

Why won't he acknowledge Hydro will not have to pay the carbon price on 94.5 percent of their emissions for the first three years, due to free carbon credits. Also there is review of free permits beyond this that still will probably not pull the rug from under Hydro or any other energy intensive industry player on one fell swoop.

I don't disagree with his arithmetic, only with his consistently ignorance of carbon credits in his figuring so he can continue chanting his master's "big new tax" mantra.

His $41 million per annum figure reduces to 2.25 million, then add in the costs passed on by the electricity supplier raising this to 4 million, which may not have had to be paid under the contract had Hydro contested it before deciding to go belly up. Compare this to the 6 to 7 million PER MONTH being lost already by Kurri-Kurri to decide whether or not it is an industry "game-changer" as SM claims.

cont'd

It's hard to be civil with SM at times, who is either unknowingly ignorant or just mischievous. Either way folks need to know he's wrong. I guess I finally saw red when his musical taste and imagery clashed with mine and Ludwig's and I used a bad word that must have upset him, for which I apologize to him anyone else confronted by it.

Industry and the opposition fought tooth and nail to water down the carbon tax to the point where Graham questions whether it will be effectual in its aim. Now the toe is in the door, and it is just a toe, the tax will gradually bite as it widens and the effect of permits dissipates to constrict carbon output, but not in a time frame that will see us meet targets we have set ourselves, IMO.

For this we can thank Abbott, who claims to accept AGW and could have taken a bipartisan approach over emissions a la Turnbull, together with industry which we naturally expect to put profit first.
That both then criticize the tax with claims it will cost more to gather than it collects, well that's to have cake and eat it too, but only for awhile.

I beseech SM to desist from half-truth in all he writes if he wants to respect from many posters here. Lexi's last post pretty much says it all.

LF,

I will try and use small words.

Hydro's carbon emissions from the process are small in the order of $4m for which they get free permits. What is killing the plant is the $40m increase in the price of electricity for which there is no rebate.

This is based on 16MWhr/ton at $21/MWhr increase for an annual production of 120 000 tons. Emission permits can be given for emissions not electricity consumption.

The cost of electricity is a tax write-off for all businesses.
The demand for aluminium has diminished globally that is the
reason why the company is closing. Production of aluminium
is irrelevant if there is no demand for the product as the
Directors of the Company have repeatedly stated.

The Opposition pushes its agenda and ignores the information
that the government and the media present. They are out of touch
with reality and no amount of persuasion is going to change
this because they are determined to disrupt the governing of
this country. One wonders if they have any interest in this
nation's future.

Lexi,

Electricity is an expense as in Income - expenses = profit, and tax = 30% x profit. Thus electricity is not a tax write off in the normal meaning of the term.

Demand for aluminium has dropped world wide. The question is whether is whether it is made in Aus or elsewhere. The change in emissions is zero.

The remaining smelter in NSW, Tomago, will pay no more for electricity than it does now after July 1 for several years and nor would have Kurri-Kurri with its electricity contract in place until 2017 (a problem being it couldn't get assurances beyond that). In any case, were contracts not in place, on form NSW would likely have subsidized any CT impact: http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/nsws-great-big-coal-subsidy-scandal

This thread is about whether the CT is closing manufacturing. So far only coal-smelted aluminium looks threatened over the medium term as as electricity contracts mature, as is the case in other countries except for India and China. Even in China the the real (unsubsidized) production cost is well above current low aluminium prices due to glut, so it is likely they will recover to the point coal smelting is viable by the time electricity contracts need renegotiation.

The scare-mongering over aluminium and even far less energy intensive manufacturing is purely political and unless Abbott, Pyne et al have a surprise up their sleeves we seem destined for the public to see that well before the next election. In the meantime, the dollar is going the right way, as are interest rates, both being the real issues affecting manufacturing.

LF,

No aluminium is smelted using coal, all aluminium smelting uses electricity.

As for the power contract with NSW owned Macquarie generator, I can only find some indication that the price it buys power for is in the region of $27/MWhr presently. The carbon tax will nearly double this, but whether the contract with the generator allows them to pass this on is unclear. If the generator cannot pass this on, the costs will be paid by the NSW tax payer. What is clear is that when it does, things will look bleak for Tomago and its 1200 employees.

As for the quick cash grab by NSW labor, I agree that it was terrible policy.

*One wonders if they have any interest in this
nation's future.*

Lexi, the real question is, how much have people like yourself
simply been hoodwinked by Govt spin.

Forget aluminium for once. If you were a milk producer or a meat
producer, the carbon tax will cost you thousands. Most of your
income will come from overseas in the form of milk powder or meat,
which is exported. All that the nation is doing, is ripping off
some very efficient small time operators, already battling the high
Dollar and ever increasing Australian costs. Its going to make
things even tougher, it what are already extremely tough industries,
which people like yourself, simply do not understand.

It is hardly in the nation's interest, if these small time
operators throw in the towel and you land up even more dependant on
Australian digging holes, in order to pay architects and libararians.

I fully accept that SM is all about spin, but I also see the reality
of what the carbon tax will do to tens of thousands of small time
operators, who will vote with their feet and give up on what they
are doing, because of the ignorance of people like yourself.

If the carbon tax was costing librarians a hundred bucks a week off
their salaries, you would be outrgaged. If it costs dairy farmers
the same, well it must be for the good of the country! You are
a sucker of Govt spin, you really are.

"No aluminium is smelted using coal, all aluminium smelting uses electricity." Correct, I was not referring to carbon reduction.

The NSW taxpayer wont feel the opportunity cost of coal for export vs the price it conjures for electricity generators. Tomago is secure for a few years before the CT bites, and even then it depends on what the state gov't decides.

It's a pity that all you got out of the article I cited was that it was a LABOR policy. I don't expect the Libs to turn that around or to back alternatives with anything remotely approaching the subsidy on coal, given its mixed position on AGW.

Whatever, your argument (and subject of this thread) that the CT has already begun to be a major cause of a decline in manufacturing, even of energy intensive industries like coal-based aluminium smelting, awaits supporting evidence other than the utterance of a CEO deflecting blame from the market, inefficiency and his performance as he turns out the lights.(Kurri-Kurri).

LF,

What evidence are you waiting for? The carbon tax will add about $280 per ton to manufacture aluminium in the most efficient smelters in the world, which is 10% of the sales price of the product at its peak. This is not just an inconvenience.

For the rest of industry the rise will be much smaller, depending on the size and consumption of the industry, but it is never negligible. Some companies will bear it, others will fold.

Dear Yabby,

Just to jog your memory.

There was a major out cry in recent history regarding
something called the GST. And prices went up, and
travel went up, and it cost more for food supplies,
and small businesses were panicking - and spending
long hours trying to manage it and guess what?
Today we look at our invoices and see that little
extra amount at the bottom - and we silently accept it
and pay it.

I believe the GST was introduced by a fellow called John
Howard who didn't keep his promise made prior to the
election. And now the farmer has to pay, the family has to
pay, even architects and librarians have to pay.

After July 1st, maybe you could well be right. The sun will
never set - it will be too traumatised - having believed
the scare tactics of the Opposition and people like yourself.

We'll have to wait and see whether scare tactics and your spin
has a greater effect than the government's facts on this issue.

Ah Lexi, clearly accounting is not your strength. I remind you
that the GST is refundable and not paid by manufacturers and does
not add to the cost of producing exports, unlike the carbon tax.

Dear Yabby,

It appears your accounting does not apply to the
masses of people who every time they buy something,
pay for a service, eat out, et cetera - pay GST -
which is non-refundable unless they are self employed.

The point that was being made was - that the GST which initially
appeared to be a major disaster to the economy - turned
out to be a normal part of the economy. And the same will
probably result with the carbon tax.

Only some 500 big polluting industries will be paying it - and everbody else will get
compensation for the flow-down effect. So you don't have
to worry about your cows polluting the air. Whereas we
still have to pay the GST on your cow's products. And that
means from the youngest school child to the oldest pensioners -
they all pay GST - and nobody compensates these people. And
nobody's complaining - because people have become immune
to it - and simply accept it as the norm. The same will
undoubtedly happen to the carbon tax (polluter's tax),
and you can argue all you want. With time nobody will
listen to you. But keep on posting - I always yawn when
I'm interested.

*Only some 500 big polluting industries will be paying it*

Not so Lexi, they pass it on. Only it cannot be passed on to
overseas consumers, so farmers pay. Creating milk powder, cutting
up meat, refridgeration, all use lots of power. You won't pay,
farmer will. So will other manufacturers in Australia who are
trying to compete globally.

The GST is a completely differnt ballgame as its a tax on consumption,
not on production. It does not disadvantage exporters.
The GST also replaces a whole lot of other taxes, like the wholesale
Sales Tax, various taxes on bank accounts etc.

So my point again. The carbon tax discrimates against exporters and
those trying compete in the global economy. That includes farmers.
If they are going to tax farmers, then let them tax librarians too.

If you want to discourage Australian exporters simply keep knocking
more nails into their coffins. They will keep shutting down. Next
you will be complaining about jobs.

On 1st July ALL will be revealed. Industry will NOT collapse, our economy will NOT fold, mass unemployment will NOT be upon us, electricity prices will NOT rise by 30%, whole towns will NOT shut down and the sun WILL rise.

And ......

The coalition will then quickly be looking for a new leader.

Labor has gained yet again in the latest new poll, and on the vote that actually counts, the two party preferred vote, they are getting to the stage where they only need to gain 5 more points and they're in front of the Coalition. They have already easily gained 7 points in the last 2 polls: And Gillard is the preferred Prime Minister

Toxic Tony only has a limited time left as leader.

Dear Yabby,

I'm not the one complaining about anything -
except of course for the scare tactics of
the Opposition. I've always voted according to
policies that make sense to me not on party
lines and I think that we're very lucky with
our economy in this country and the way
that the current government is getting things
done despite being a minority government and
having to deal with the toxic environment
provided by the Opposition.

I do not see the bleak picture that you're
painting regarding the carbon tax. And I am entitled
to my point of view, the same as you are to yours.
BTW - I admire
people who can insult and sound smart at the same time.

*I do not see the bleak picture that you're
painting regarding the carbon tax.*

Well of course you don't, Lexi. You are the wife of a rich
city architect, not the wife of a dairy farmer in NSW or Vic,
who is told by her husband that their income will drop 10%
as they have to pay and not rich architects wives.

Nhoj,

"Labor has gained yet again" - Really!

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/labor-polling-drops-mps-stick-by-gillard-20120604-1zqon.html

Lexi,

Those not compensated, are manufacturers, small businesses, and those losing their jobs, let alone the 40% of voters that are only partially compensated or not at all. There are no winners.

What makes it worse is that the current price will do nothing for global emissions.

Dear Yabby,

I am the wife of a rich architect?
News to me. You obviously don't know
much about self-employed architects.
Their wives work for a reason.

Still, your thinking is understandable.
And I guess - coffee, chocolate, and men -
some things are better rich!

One can dream!

Sheesh Lexi, its time for me to get the violins out here :)

Poor self employed architect on the breadline and all that.
The wife has to work, so that we can afford that overseas trip
and all the rest.

My point remains. No Govt legislation is ripping ten percent off
the incomes of architects, because somebody thinks that its a good
idea. The same cannot be said for dairy farmers, who have no
choice but to cough up. Hardly fair, but I understand your
position. Ignorance is bliss.