The Australian Coal Association’s campaign against the Government’s emission trading scheme has been undermined from the outset by the Association’s own website, which features material that directly contradicts the claims in its campaign, and by the CFMEU, which has attacked the campaign as “blatantly dishonest.”
The campaign was unveiled yesterday with considerable fanfare due to the involvement of Neil Lawrence, who was responsible for the successful “Kevin ‘07” Labor advertising campaign before the last election.
The ACA claims in its campaign that the CPRS will “cost the industry more than $14b over 10 years”, cause 16 coal mines to close prematurely and cost 9000 jobs. The figures are drawn from an Association-commissioned report by ACIL Tasman which compared a CPRS-based reference with “business as usual”, involving significant industry growth. The 16 mine closures forecast are all of mines that would have closed anyway within a few years under “business as usual”. The 9000 figure relied on an employment multiplier of 3 — i.e. only 3000 coal mining jobs were actually forecast to be lost.
But two links below the campaign video on the ACA website, the Association linked to an article “Boom forecast for coal output“. The article includes industry estimates that 13 new coalmines would be opened and $23 billion invested in the sector between now and 2015. ABARE figures that the industry saw $10.4b in new investment in the month of April 2009 alone were also quoted. Conversely, the article quoted the Minerals Council of Australia rejecting ABARE speculation that a Japanese carbon levy might reduce demand for Australian coal. Apparently moves to reduce greenhouse emissions in Japan won’t affect Australian coal but similar moves here will be a disaster.
The import of the article is clear: the effects of the CPRS even when modelled by industry-hired consultants will be swamped by industry growth fuelled by Asian demand.
Crikey emailed the ACA early this morning inviting comment on the disparity between the campaign and the material linked to by the Association. No response had been received by deadline, but the link to the “Boom forecast for coal output” article was moved off the front page during the morning. Google Cache shows the original page before the change.
It’s yet another example of the extraordinary disparity between the optimism and endless growth spruiked by industry leaders when talking to investors and the financial media, and the apocalyptic forecasts that accompany their demands for compensation under the CPRS.
The key mining union, the CFMEU, has also savaged the industry campaign.
“Industry research predicts mining jobs will increase by 120 per cent on 2006-07 levels in Queensland by 2030 under the Federal Government’s plan for tackling climate change,” CFMEU mining president Tony Maher said.
“Australian coal mining companies are extremely profitable and will continue to be well into the future under the Federal Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This scare mongering is purely a cynical bid by mining giants to squeeze more money in compensation out of Australian taxpayers.”
Dead right. And the Association’s own website shows why.
I wish this was true: ” the CPRS will “cost the industry more than $14b over 10 years”, cause 16 coal mines to close prematurely and cost 9000 jobs. ”
I’m sick to death of the rent seeking over this. Of course their business will be impacted; That’s the Bloody Point! Did James Hardie get compensated for bans on asbestos products? were international manufacturers compensated when CFCs were phased out? Not to my knowledge. Put up or shut up I say.
They’ve been making money hand over fist by digging up dirt and selling it overseas for bloody years. There’s is not an industry of innovation or reserarch, it’s bloody caveman stuff. The good times are over. Sod off.
What irritates me about the bleating of the coal industry is that they are only being asked to pay for the cost of the pollution produced by their product. Any industry can be hugely profitable if its main cost is removed to the public purse – factories would be far better off economically if they could also dump toxic waste rather than minimising, containing or disposing of it. But what is good for a firm is not necessarily good for the economy. Coal earns about $18 billion per year, which is nice if you own a coal mine or work in one. But it is not a huge employer compared to many other sectors of the economy threatened by global warming and it is simply not important enough to be a protected species.
Evan nicely said. Sod off times one thousand.
Altakoi skewers the principle of Capitalism, private profit, public cost. Find one, just ONE, big buck$ indu$try that does NOT rely upon this principle.
Oz, being vast with 70% of its tiny population within 50kms of the SE coast, is a textbook example of a 3rd World cash quarry – I won’t say ‘farm’ (>70% of our rural output is for export – Katter & Barnaby Rude are right for the, usual, wrong reasons) since our land use is little more than soil mining – viz Orange Sydney Morning . And who pays for the waste, destruction & pollution of public property? Not BigBiz that for $ure.
“…There’s is not an industry of innovation or reserarch, it’s bloody caveman stuff. The good times are over. Sod off…”
Yawn.
Once again Evan, you proffer no real alternative solutions to sourcing base load energy.
The masturbatory fantasies of the “Wind & Sun” cult have even been exposed for the steaming pantload they are.
And by one of your own no less.
I suggest you read Professor Barry Brook’s (yes, THAT one) latest treatise on the comedic gift that is the “renewable energy industry” ‘and his frank admission that the only way forward is nuclear.
I look forward to reading your thoughts.