The first domino falls: Cement Australia

It's a sign of the times: the first factory to close as a result of the Rudd Government's insane Cap-and-Tax policy. And this before the legislation is even enacted.

In today's Brisbane Times we read that Cement Australia is to close its Rockhampton plant next month and displace 31 workers.

In what is bound to become a fairly regular occurence over the coming months and years, the Times reports that:

Cement Australia, a private company that produces half Australia's cement, will mothball its Rockhampton plant next month due to the projected cost impact of the CPRS.

The CPRS is the straw that broke the camel's back, as the plant's viability had already been hit by the global financial crisis and big Queensland Government royalty and tax rises.

It also notes that:

All 31 employees will be offered alternative jobs in the company.

The reality of the situation is that these 31 jobs will cease to exist. And what is the response of our Dear Leader of the Carbon Revolution to this 'inconvenient truth'? Why, to deny all responsibility, of course. In the Senate today, she asserted:

"a 25 per cent drop in demand for cement and the global recession contributed to the company's decision to close the plant."

Apparently the Government is only responsible when jobs are created - never when jobs are trashed.

And what do the owners of the plant have to say on this matter?

"The pity is the CPRS has the unfortunate effect of stopping us putting in new technology. Our plan always was to put a new kiln into the Gladstone plant, but the trouble is all of our numbers for the CPRS say that the carbon impost will stop it going ahead.

"Cash is hard to come by. We're all worried about the rollover of our loans. To suddenly suggest you can rush out to the bank and borrow as much money as you need for carbon abatement, even if all the numbers stacked up, that's questionable."

And it is precisely for this reason that more and more industries are going to be heading towards the exits when this insane policy is landed on an unsuspecting public.

One new job up for grabs in N.S.W.

It looks like there will soon be one new job opportunity opening up in the Labor Party's Kool-Aid Collective. NSW Premier and one-time garbage collector Nathan Rees let the wind get in his ears and blow his tongue out at the Eureka Awards the other evening. Presumably he had a sudden rush of blood to the head, what with being in a room where most of the attendees would have a higher individual I.Q. than the entire N.S.W. Labor government.

Premier Rees' contribution to informed debate was along the lines of:

''The threat of climate change is catastrophic. In fact, the current wave of climate change scepticism smacks of 1930s-style appeasement: 'Hide under the blankets and it will go away'. But it won't go away."

Oh dear. I do wish he could keep 'on message'. If he is going to chant the alarmist mantra, what he should have said is that "climate change scepticism smacks of late-20th-century-style Holocaust denial". Where on earth did he dig this latest analogy up from.

The problem with Rees, and the rest of his ilk in Canberra, is that they just don't get it when it comes to historical references. If he had been able to tear himself away from the colouring books while at school and spent any time reading actual books with print in them, he would have picked up on one very significant reality.

And that is simply this: it is factually incorrect to compare 'climate sceptics' to 'Holocaust deniers' or even 'Nazi appeasers'. Rather, it is more correct to compare our current crop of Labor Alarmists to the National Socialists who blamed the Jews for all the economic and social problems that interferred with the implemenation of their radical policies, and subsequently locked them up and exterminated them as a convenient scapegoat.

The really dangerous people in this whole Greek tragedy are people like Nathan Rees, Penny Wong, and Greg Combet. Lazy people who very easily drop down into the gutter and want to pillory people for having the temerity to disagree with what they perceive to be "settled science". Always easier to shout someone down and denigrate them than take the time to inform yourself and ascertain the facts. It boggles the mind to think that they are where they are today because people actually voted for them!

Many years ago, a friend of mine used to wear an old T-shirt which sported the legend "Support mental health or I'll kill you". I must give him a call and see if he remembers where he bought it from. If they are still around, I'll buy one each for Nathan, Penny and Greg.

Can we afford "Green Jobs"? - Germany can't.

As the Liberals prepare to join hands with the Labor party as they jump off the cliff in passing the RET legislation, it's worth looking at the results which are beginning to emerge from Germany's brave and foolhardy experiment with solar energy.

In short, renewable solar energy threatens to bankrupt Germany's electricity sector.

The following stories appeared in the media in the last couple of days.

German Solar Industry Faces Collapse

The young German solar industry faces an unprecedented wave of bankruptcies. After many cell manufacturers suffered losses in the first half of the year, industry experts fear the collapse of many solar ventures. "A large part of the German solar cell and solar module manufacturers will not survive," says UBS analyst Patrick Hummel. [translation by Benny Peiser]

Billions For Nothing: The Crisis of Germany's Green Energy Policy

Foreigners like to make fun about Germans: Little good weather - but lots of solar panels. Although Germany is not situated in the sunny part of the world, no country has more solar panels. The boom, however, is artificial. And it costs consumers an absolute fortune.

The sum can be spelled out quite precisely: the expected installation of new solar panels in 2009 alone will cost German consumers ten billion euros in the next 20 years. This will produce about 1.8 billion kilowatt hours of solar electricity each year, which corresponds to about 0.3 percent of Germany's current electricity consumption. That's near to nothing.

But the ten billion euros are just the cost for the new systems. The panels built up to 2008 will burden consumers with an additional cost of 30 billion euros, according to calculations by the Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI).

And the cost avalanche is growing. If the forecast of the European Photovoltaic Industry Association were to materialize, there will be so many solar panels installed in Germany by 2013 that the cost will grow to more than 77 billion euros - adjusted for inflation. [translation by Benny Peiser]

Germany Solar Cell Producer Q-Cells To Slash 500 Jobs

Germany’s Q-Cells, the world’s second-largest producer of solar cells, will cut 500 jobs after reporting a loss of EUR 696.9 million ($994 million) in H1 2009.

Say what? A loss of primary jobs in the green energy sector? That can't be right. After all, no less an authority than Sharan Burrow has assured us that “Australia can create up to a million clean energy jobs" - if only we pass the legislation and follow Germany over the cliff.

H/t to Tom Nelson's Blogspot and Benny Peiser/CCNet.

Can we afford "Green Jobs"? - The U.S. can't.

The following article was published in the Investor's Business Daily yesterday under the heading:

Capping Jobs

The [Obama] administration likes to defend bad policies with analogies to the post office. New studies from a business group and the administration itself confirm that cap-and-trade belongs in the dead-letter bin.

Along with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Rep. Ed Markey likens the cost of the Waxman-Markey cap-and trade bill to "about a postage stamp a day," based on estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office and the EPA.

But as we and others have shown, they arrive at this magical number in part by ignoring the hit on gross domestic product and employment that will occur.

As Garret Vaughan, economist with the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, has written on these pages: "More expensive energy would inevitably slow growth in production and income, as measured by the gross domestic product," and the CBO study "looks past the proverbial elephant in the room with a discrete footnote stating that its cost estimate does not indicate the potential decrease in GDP that could result."

Grasping the real costs of Waxman-Markey is a study released Wednesday by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation. From 2012 to 2030, it says, Waxman-Markey could cost GDP $3.1 trillion. By 2030, it says, job losses could total 2.4 million jobs, residential electricity prices could jump 50% and the price of gasoline could escalate 26%.

Read the rest of this depressing story here.

What is really depressing, though is that Australia's own Trade Union leadership is completely oblivious to this economic reality and is actively selling its members out, as evidenced by the following:

“Australia can create up to a million clean energy jobs in at least six industries, but there’s no time to waste, we must get started now. We need strong policies implemented as quickly as possible to drive investment so we can begin the economic and environmental transformation. Our international competitors are already down the track. Australia cannot finish first by starting last.” - Sharan Burrow, President, ACTU

Does Ms Burrow really think that this "pie-in-the-sky" nonsense is in the long-term interests of her members? Or is she simply jockeying for a position in Federal parliament when Kevin Rudd pushes the eject button for his new job as UN Secretary General?.

"Green Jobs" mushrooming over at DCC

Taxpayer-funded "Green Jobs" continue to spread like fleas over at the Ministry of Truth.

Here's the latest sample - again, good work if you can get it.

• Position number: VRN 60/09 - Web Content Manager - $83,600 to $106,506
• Position number: VRN 61/09 - Communication Assistant - Public Affairs Officer Level 1 - $56,430 to $65,835
• Position number: VRN 62/09 - Communication Account Assistant Public Affairs Officer Level 2 - $71,060 to $83,600
• Position number: VRN 63/09 - Communications Account Manager Public Affairs Officer Level 3 - $87,431 to $111,639
• Position number: VRN 64/09 - Director, Senior Public Affairs Officer Level 1 - $114,988
• Position number: VRN 65/09 - Director, Senior Public Affairs Officer Level 2 - $121,991

A couple of interesting issues are raised here. Firstly, since the enabling legislation hasn't been passed yet, why does the Climate Gestapo need to grow its empire so fast? Or is Due Process something that can be dispensed with when you are doing God's work in Saving the Planet?

Secondly, apart from the Web Content Manager, all of these positions are for "Public Relations" people. This surely begs the question: Why does the Ministry of Truth need so many spin doctors? Surely the Prime Minister could lend our Dear Leader some from his Department - it's not as if there is any shortage there.

At any rate, 6 more "green jobs" to be added to the count.

Can we afford "Green Jobs"? - The U.K. can't.

The following article was published in the U.K. Telegraph yesterday by Edmund Conway under the heading:

Government's green energy plan may cost 17 times more than its benefits

The Government's plans to increase the proportion of Britain's energy generated by "green" sources is set to cost between 11 and 17 times what the change brings in economic benefits.

The figures are buried deep in the Government's Renewable Energy Strategy paper produced last month.

According to the document, while the expected cost will total around £4bn a year over the next 20 years, amounting to £57bn to £70bn, the eventual benefit in terms of the reduced carbon dioxide emissions will be only £4bn to £5bn over that entire period.

The figures make up part of the Government's impact assessment of the policies, which include plans to raise the proportion of British electricity produced by renewable sources from 5.5% today to 30%.

It is the Government's assessment that the non-monetary benefits of the policies will compensate for the possible £65bn shortfall, but economists are sceptical as to how much of this sum such factors can make up.

The White Paper has also calculated that household gas and electricity bills will have to rise by up to £249 a year, although Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband has insisted that new measures to improve consumers' energy efficiency would reduce the extra cost to an average of £92 a year per home.

Like Kevin Rudd and Our Dear Leader of the Carbon Revolution, Penny Wong, it would appear that Ed Miliband is also in a state of denial.

ABC Rural: Regional Australia to Suffer

Yesterday, ABC Rural reported on their website the findings of a Frontier Economics report which found that Regional Australia would bear the brunt of the CPRS that 45,000 jobs would be at risk as a consequence. The article notes that:

A report into the impact of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme shows that regional Australia will bear the brunt of massive job losses and social dislocation. Frontier Economics says 45,000 jobs will be lost in high energy intensive industries. Most of those will go in the Hunter region of New South Wales and coal mining and mineral processing regions in Queensland.

Report author Danny Price says the job losses are unavoidable as Australia has an energy intensive economy. However he says urban Australians should be asked to shoulder some of the negative impacts.

"If the small number of communities are asked to bear the brunt of this, then the rest of the Australian community ought to help them manage the transition" he says. "It's an important part of any government policy and yet you don't see that in anything associated with the CPRS. They [Federal Government] in fact haven't even reported regional effects because they're very concerned about the regional backlash."

Mr Price says it's possible 20,000 jobs will be created through a renewable energy industry, but they could be more than a decade away. He also says it's unrealistic to expect workers to just relocate to another another industry."

For example an underground coal miner won't easily retrain to build components for things like wind turbines."

This last point is very important, and gives the lie to the 'emerging green jobs' strategy being touted by Senator Wong and others.

For example - what do we hear from the Lunatic Greens?

"To deliver a clean energy jobs boom, we need jobs and training packages for workers most at risk in the old economy."

What does the ACF say?

It’s a myth that action on climate change will destroy Australian jobs. Creating green jobs is not about shutting down ‘dirty’ industries, but re-skilling (and ‘re-tooling’) them for cleaner production.

I think what they are trying to say here is that 'dirty' industries will be shut down (which the Frontier Economics study agrees with), and their workers will be redeployed into 'clean' industries (which the Frontier Economics study describes as 'unrealistic').

And this wishful thinking is pretty much the mantra being chanted by all the self-appointed Planet-Savers.

But who are we to believe on this issue: an economist, who has studied the fundamentals of the issue in detail and comes to the conclusion that existing "dirty" jobs and their incumbents are doomed, or a bunch of wishful thinkers who believe that it is simply a matter of shuffling the deck chairs. A 'build it and they will come' mentality.

And here's the real confusing part of the debate: Why is it that the Planet-Savers are more than happy to turn to economists who are not qualified climate scientists (Stern, Garnaut) to help define the "problem", but ignore the ones that actually do the solid work of examining the detailed fundamentals of the proposed "solutions".