Rio Tinto stands to reap an astonishing $460m worth of free permits from the Government’s emissions trading scheme in 2010 alone, according to a new analysis of Monday’s White paper.
The handouts will increase each year to over $600m by 2015, making Rio Tinto by far the biggest beneficiary of the Government ETS compensation.
The study by Innovest, released by the Australian Conservation Foundation, updates an earlier analysis of the arrangements proposed in the Government’s Green Paper. Following intensive lobbying from heavy polluters, compensation arrangements were significantly strengthened in favour of industry in the White Paper.
The aluminium smelting industry will receive the largest component of the Government’s handouts to trade-exposed industries, collecting nearly a billion dollars in handouts in the first year of the scheme, and more than $1.2b by 2015. But the LNG industry is the biggest winner of the White Paper. Having been excluded from compensation under the earlier proposal, it will now collect $182m in the first year of the scheme, rising to nearly $700m in 2015 as new projects come on line. This represents a major victory for Woodside (over $100m by 2015) and the petroleum industry peak body, APPEA, a prominent donor at the ALP’s recent Anniversary Dinner.
Initially 43% of assistance will go to non-Australian companies, rising to 47% by 2015.
According to the ACF, the figures show that each household will be paying an average of $389 a year in 2010 and $558 by 2015 to our biggest polluters.
Under the White Paper, coal-fired power generators will also reap significant benefits from the scheme, with Victoria’s brown coal generators scoring over $2.5b over five years in free permits. The benefits of the assistance to coal-fired power generators flows primarily to UK, Hong Kong and Japanese companies and the NSW, Queensland and WA Governments, which will together receive over $600m in free permits via their power companies.
There is no better symbol of the absurdity of the Government’s ETS model than Australian households in effect paying the NSW, Queensland and Western Australian Governments to continue polluting. Sending about $1.2b in the first year of the scheme to foreign shareholders isn’t that flash a look either.
Bernard, you have mixed two messages. 1. The ETS will be costly and will send money to some strange and often foreign business owners; and 2. Some of this money will find its way into the hands of state=owned power generators. Why the concern about the states? The half of Australia who live in these states collectively own the generators in question, just as surely as do the private shareholders in the foreign companies which will benefit.
I see nothing nice about carping on about state governments and their assets. NSW’s enerators have for many years been leading examples of well managed corporations, they are accountable through audit and annual report, as well as through both Board and Ministerial oversight. They return large dividends to the public purse and are responsible and caring employers.
Perhaps it has escaped your attention that not all members of your preferred corporate ownership system have behaved as well in this big, bad world. As far as I know, no state-owned generator has ever failed to provide an honest return on investment. The top brass are paid about one tenth of the salary ripped off by their counterparts in the “real” or capitalist world.
I suggest that you take a good hard look at the state owned generators some time, investigate the privatised equivalents and report the true picture here. We can be proud of our publicly owned generators. As an employee engineer in a NSW power station, perhaps I am biased, but I am surely knowledgeable on this subject.
Back to the story… yes, there is a lot worthy of consideration and of criticism in the Commonwealth’s current ETS proposals. I look forward to further discussion, even argument, from all sides.
But lay off the name-calling. Let’s keep this debate rational.