News Home Just In Australia World Business Sport Entertainment Weather | Opinion Blogs

Opinion Home Essays Emails Speeches Documents Contact

Emission cuts: showing the world it can be done

By Greig Gailey

Posted August 27, 2008 14:58:00
Updated August 27, 2008 15:10:00

Emissions-intensive, trade-exposed businesses produce important economic inputs like steel, aluminium and petrol. (Getty: David McNew, File photo)

Last week the Business Council of Australia (BCA) released a report titled Modelling Success. Although this report was generally well received, and well received by the Government, it was regrettably seen in some quarters as big business yet again being negative and failing to assist Australia to address the challenge of climate change.

We don't see ourselves as qualified to have an independent view of the science of climate change one way or another. It is rightly the prerogative of government to determine this based on the weight of scientific evidence. It is their view that the weight of scientific evidence says that global warming is a problem, a global problem which Australia must take its part in addressing.

What are we trying to do?

It is accepted that Australia alone cannot solve the problem of global climate change. We account for just 1.6 per cent of global carbon emissions. What we can do, however, is take a position which will influence the global debate. We can show the world that it can be done without unduly harming our economy. This, to my mind, is the real prize, for Australia to be a role model for others to follow.

In July the Government released its Green Paper which provided the first real detail of how Australia would do this. The Government intends to introduce an emissions trading scheme which it has called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). The CPRS is designed to incorporate the negative societal costs of pollution into the price of the energy which we generate and use. Hitherto this pollution has not been costed or priced into the energy we use. By factoring the cost of this pollution into the energy we use, we will be motivated to both constrain our use of energy and produce that energy from less polluting sources. This pollution will be priced by way of charging for every tonne of CO2 that is emitted to the environment. Every tonne of CO2 emitted to the environment will require the purchase of a permit from the Government.

In doing this - at least for the next decade until technology advances beyond where it is today - we will be making the energy we use more expensive. The greater the price we charge for permits, the more expensive that energy will be.

These costs will by definition be passed through to consumers. Business has no capacity to magically absorb unlimited cost increases due to emissions trading, any more than it does to absorb any other substantial cost increase. A high enough cost increase will wipe out profits, leaving a board with no alternative but to close the business. A smaller cost increase may still lower profits so far that the business activity has to shrink dramatically.

In a perfect world, if Australia were a closed economy and had no interaction with the rest of the world, emissions trading could theoretically, in the very short term at least, be a zero-sum game - provided that the Government were committed to returning to the community all of the revenue it generated from selling permits. The Government is indeed committed to returning all of the revenue it raises from selling permits; however, we do not live in a perfect world.

Emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) businesses

EITEs represent an important part of the Australian economy. Many of the goods we make and sell to the world "to earn our keep" are energy intensive, that is, they use a lot of energy. They are also globally traded goods whose price is set by the lowest-cost producers - wherever they may be.

This is true of both companies who export the goods they make in Australia and for companies who manufacture and sell locally but sell in competition with imported goods where the price is set by the cost of the import.

Broadly speaking, EITE industries account for 51 per cent of Australia's export earnings and employ up to 1 in 10 or around 924,000 Australians. They are a very important part of our economy. Generally speaking they are in sectors where Australia has a competitive advantage.

Most of these companies are price takers and do not have the ability to pass a carbon cost onto their customers. This means that they will directly bear the increased costs arising from the CPRS.

Our research shows that at carbon price of $20 per tonne without any compensation, these companies will be severely impacted with a median 27 per cent reduction in EBIT. Additionally, the cash flow impact on almost a quarter of the 14 would be so severe that they would have no choice but to close.

The Government recognises that some compensation must be given. However, even with the compensation proposed in the Green Paper, where around 20 per cent of permits are provided free to this sector, the impact is still so severe that:

Three of the companies would have to shut.
Four will fundamentally review their operations to remain viable after losing between 32 per cent and 63 per cent of their pre-tax earnings.
The rest will take immediate action to reduce their costs.
Many potential investments will not take place.

This impact is exacerbated by some aspects of the design of the Government's proposed compensation mechanism which is based on tonnes of CO2 per million dollars of revenue. This mechanism exposes companies to the full price risk and greatly increases the impact on their profitability as the carbon price rises. For example if a company is required to buy 50,000 permits, the cost of those permits doubles if the price of carbon is set at $40 rather than $20 per tonne with no change in its revenue.

However, even if these distortions are removed and assistance were to be provided on the basis of some measure linked to profitability, such as value add as the BCA has suggested, as research still shows that at carbon prices above $20 per tonne, the level of assistance required to assist EITEs becomes sufficiently large so as to leave the balance available to compensate consumers outside of the Government's comfort level.

So why not just constrain the assistance offered to them? Why should we care if EITEs fail? As some have pointed out, they are after all heavy polluters and would the world not be better off without them? We should care for a number of reasons.

Australia would lose valuable export earners. EITEs account for 51 per cent of Australia's exports. Jobs and investment will be lost. I might also add that a number of these industries are located in regional centres where the opportunities for alternative employment will be limited and the effect on working families could be devastating.

We would also be destroying many industries which we have a natural competitive advantage. Any expert in international trade will tell you that it isn't easy creating export industries in which you enjoy a natural advantage. With a common price for carbon and level global playing field these industries Australia would continue to have a competitive advantage in many of these businesses. Their competitive disadvantage is therefore most likely to be only temporary.

These industries produce important economic inputs like steel, aluminium and petrol. Our economy is unlikely to prosper without these goods. Without local production we will be forced to import unless the Government moves to restrict imports which I believe would be highly unlikely. Increased import demand will likely lead to increased production offshore. Given the region of the world in which we live, imports are likely to come from less developed countries with considerably less rigorous environmental standards that do not yet price carbon. Similarly the good Australian EITEs export are likely to be replaced by expanded production in these same countries.

Since the goods concerned will still be manufactured, this will not reduce global emissions. On the contrary there is a reasonable argument that it will increase them. Under these circumstances, Australia would achieve its emissions reductions by simply exporting them offshore.

Bipartisanship

The introduction of the CPRS was the single most important decision that the Rudd government would make in its first term. It is probably the most significant economic decision any government will have made since the introduction of the GST.

As such the BCA believes that it must be a bipartisan decision. Uncertainty is the great enemy of investment. Business needs certainty, particularly with regard to such major issues as the CPRS. If investors judge that the CPRS is going to be materially altered if and when government changes hands, they will likely defer or abandon their investment plans.

The BCA implores the Government and the Opposition to work together constructively on the design and implementation of the CPRS. The impact of the CPRS is just too great for us to be at the mercy of party politics. We ask both parties to forswear opposition for opposition's sake.

This may seem a big ask. But it is precisely what has happened for a number of years in Australia with respect to monetary policy. Both major parties have effectively agreed to create a climate of predictability with respect to prices and interest rates. The pay-off from monetary bipartisanship has been lower inflation for all Australians over the past 15 years. The pay-off from emissions policy bipartisanship will be a stronger Australian economy.

Greig Gailey is the president of the Business Council of Australia. This is an edited extract of a speech he will make to the Sydney Institute tonight.

Tags: business-economics-and-finance, industry, environment, climate-change, australia

Search for news

Comments (101)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

Wake up Australia:

27 Aug 2008 3:45:58pm

We need to get over our collective inferiority complex and simply accept that we are a piddling midget country with a population of only 21m people - a totally insignificant 0.3% of the worlds population.

Anyone who thinks that we can influence the likes of China, India, America, Indonesia etc to join us in an Emission Trading Scam suicide pact is an idiot.....or Kevin Rudd (same thing).

Oh and of course the AGW/CC theory is a total fraud.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Joe:

27 Aug 2008 3:50:00pm

Apart from the fact that the BCA report has been harshly and widely critised by anyone who has actually subjected it to analysis - i.e. not the mainstream media who have lapped it up - this is a can't do piece.

We need a can do attitude from industry. Yes, it will be more expensive to produce vast amounts of innefficient pollution in Australia. That is the whole point. The auctioning of permits ensures that the most efficient industries - the ones that can afford them because their profit per tonnes of CO2 is higher - prosper and the most polluting have to find new ways or scale back. That is the whole point of the ETS - to reduce Australias emissions.

On the first point, to quote Crickey.com's Canberra Correspondant Bernard Keane "I called the Port Jackson Partners report on which the BCAs submissions is based "junk economics". A closer look suggests this understates things. The report is bullshi-t of the highest order, a composite of worst-case scenarios carefully presented to create the impression of corporate slaughter if the model outlined in the Governments Green Paper -- a model which is already absurdly pro-industry proceeds."

Not a great report to base our response to climate change on! I'd go back to the independent model presented by Garnaut.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
James Mason:

27 Aug 2008 3:50:02pm

Well-argued case for moving forward in a smart way, rather than going off, half-cocked. Well done, Mr. Gailey and the BCA! Now, how clever is our Federal government?

Agree (0) Alert moderator
anthony:

27 Aug 2008 3:52:34pm

perhaps if the report financed by the BCA didn't contain loaded assumptions designed to cook the results, people would have reacted more positively - just a guess

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Brad Arnold:

27 Aug 2008 4:00:49pm

I know this will be a lot to swallow, but there is a cheap and simple way to immediately lower the Earth's surface temperature: just add a little sun dimming aerosol to the upper atmosphere. That will buy us time to make the transition to a much lower carbon footprint. By the way, CO2 can be turned into fuel biologically. This is called "4th generation fuel production," and could make compressed CO2 an asset, rather than the liability now.

"I know of no realistic person who thinks carbon dioxide emissions are going to do anything but grow. Most European countries are not meeting their emissions goals, and of the ones that have, it's because their economies are collapsing. In the United States, this notion that we're going to reduce our emissions by 80 percent is pure fantasy." --Pete Geddes, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, 2 April 2008

Agree (0) Alert moderator
ravensclaw:

27 Aug 2008 4:01:58pm

I am of the view that a carbon taxation scheme will be harmful to the economy by the way of lost investment and jobs.

A better way is an incentive scheme i.e. financially encourage business to improve their carbon track record. This can occur with grants to research and development or refits to more carbon neutral technology.

We did something similar to this in the 80's with microeconomic reforms. Why can't we do the same again but for the benefit to the environment.

This way we can protect jobs and investment and improve the environment (not just from CO2 emmissions).

It truly is a shame the direction Rudd is taking us, catastrophic climate change or not. There are simply better ways to improve our environment. Ideology and reactionary decision making seems to be the bottleneck and problem.

Cheers

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Homer:

27 Aug 2008 4:09:56pm

This is all very well if it were a perfect world. Unfortunately it is not.
CPRS is a rediculous scheme that can never work to reduce carbon. It will only reduce our economy. Full stop end of story.

For example:
My business takes products, recycles them and produces marginally lower emmission products than are currently being imported in our particular line. We have approached the govt for carbon credit offsets because we provide both recycling, negative import and efficiency gaining products. The reply from one state govt:
Quote:
While the savings and reductions in greenhouse gases produced compared to new**** are appreciated, this would not directly lead to the creation of carbon credits...The scheme will apply to make energy more expensive to reflect the greenhouse gas emissions in production however it will not be possible to create carbon credits through the use of less energy intensive production processes.

In other words tax everyone until they are no longer around.

The problem is, all of my (and most of Australias) competitors are from overseas imports.
So they are not taxing the big bad poluter. Just the local business using power for lighting and tooling to make products for Australians.

Get real!!!!

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Brad:

27 Aug 2008 4:32:23pm

The BCA's claim is a complete furphy. It is just scare tactics to try to get out of taking its share of the responsibility for tackling climate change. If any Australian company has to shut rather than reduce emissions, it's the company's own fault for doing nothing since the need to reduce emissions was first identified in the 1980s. International

France contributes only 1.7% of the world's emissions, but has a policy of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2050. France already produces 77% of its power from nuclear so the cuts have to come from other sectors.

The UK contributes only 2% of the world's emissions. By 2006 the UK had reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to 16% below 1990 levels (the Kyoto target was 12.5% by 2012) without hurting its economy. The UK has now legislated to reduce emissions by a further 26-32% by 2020 and 60% by 2050. The Climate Change Bill makes these targets legally binding.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Lindsay Cooper:

27 Aug 2008 4:40:27pm

This discussion is going to go on for a long time and be used as an excuse to ignore the more pressing problems of society such as education failures, gambling and alcohol related problems together with water supply etc. etc. etc.
One of the easiest ways to reduces emissions would be to do away with engines over two litres capacity in normal every day motor vehicles and maybe at the same time reducing the weight of these vehicles to somewhere near to one ton instead of closer to two ton as they are now. Just imagine the saving in fuel and emissions this would cause.
Of cause this is too simple and logical for our current politicians to even think about without having the standard system of ongoing committees to look into the possibilities over the life of our present parliment and then decide that findings don't fit into the new crop of politians agenda so will neeed some more committees etc. etc.
[I am sure you get the gist of what I am trying say.]

Agree (0) Alert moderator
James:

27 Aug 2008 4:42:37pm

What are we trying to do?

Protect our massive profits, our inefficient businesses and our a****s while the public picks up the tab for our pollution.

These people put shareholders and executive bonuses before the planet and the people, every time.

They have known for decades that emissions trading was on its way and should have planned accordingly. This is blatant fear-mongering by industries that aren't going anywhere because their raw product is right here.

Business will always - always - bleat about the costs it will incur because of regulation. So much for innovation.

If the BCA is allowed to influence our ETS and demand special protections and free permits, then as Garnaut has pointed out, we might as well not do it and have a tax instead. It has to be done well and along the lines set out in the Garnaut review to avoid the well-known pitfalls of caving into business lobby groups which was amply demonstrated when Europe introduced it's scheme.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
twobob:

27 Aug 2008 4:48:18pm

Simple solution here, dont implement carbon trading.
Instead implement a carbon tax as fossil fuels are extracted from the earth. And tax all goods entering our country so as to impose a cost equivalent to the cost imposed by Australian companies. Use this to offset the price that we sell our export goods for so that there is no net increase or decrease caused by the price of fossil fuel.
Something must be done.
On one hand we may have economic hardship, a few lost jobs, but on the other hand we may have a few new type jobs, maybe we loose some industries to developing countries.
Conversely we risk sentencing our childrens future to a life with catastrophic and runaway climate change.
So when I balance this in my mind the risk of sentencing my children, at the chance of losing a few jobs does not seem like to big a price to pay. I have been unemployed before and its not the end of the world. Climate change however well might be the end of humanity.
Given the differing consequences and the weight of what climate change could do, a truly balanced approach (where the severity of the consequences are weighted according to there seriousness) would be do everything possible, immediately to address the climate change threat and worry about economic effects later.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Patrick Darley-Jones:

27 Aug 2008 4:49:59pm

Some of what Greg Gailey says is very true and some bits are sheer bull.
I run a small manufacturing business and am also a member of the Climate Change Coalition as I am a very concerned about the future of our planet. I'm between the proverbial rock and the hard place in more than one way - we as a company are conscious of minimising our carbon footprint and we are the mercy of cheap imports from China. We struggle daily.
I cannot in conscience ignore the issue of climate change and if I have to make changes, and struggle more, then I'm prepared to do this for the future of my grandchildren and their children. We cannot leave a legacy of disaster by filling our pockets today. Better one million jobs gone today than ten million gone tomorrow, the BCA has a wider responsibiliy than just it's membership. We must reduce our Carbon footprint AND we must take all possible action to get other countries to do the same.
Yes indeed Australia only contributes a small amount of greenhouse gases to the world volume being produced - be aware every one of you who import from China that that country is now the world's largest producer of greenhouse gasses, even to the severe detriment of it's own population . The problem for Australia is fundamental, we're not playing on a level playing field, the other major players look after themselves - America is protectionist, the EC is protectionist and China is one of the most protectionist there is - but we have naive grasping politicians who seem to live in their dream world of having everything politically correct (PC). To have a fair and equitable system then the only way to tax Carbon at source - simple you pay a tax as soon as you mine it, as soon as you pump it, as soon as you ship it, and most importantly, as soon as it lands on our shores. (As with Europe we should also be considering a transport tax to account for the pollution created in bringing imported goods to our shores. Then we have an equitable system.
But, we don't have politicians here who have either the guts of the foresight. In the mean time the world will be passing us by.

Patrick Darley-Jones

Agree (0) Alert moderator
whitelephant:

27 Aug 2008 4:52:31pm

Many positives in this piece. But. .....Business has no capacity to magically absorb any other substantial cost increase....
B...shite and misleading! Business always, always, always wants to pass cost increases on to the public whilst at the same time maintaining the exorbitant salaries of CEO's and the returns to investors unless enormous public pressure is exerted to stop them. The recent interest rate issue with the banks is a case in point. Let these people realise that they too have to take significant cuts to help solve the climate change problem.
The is nothing written in stone to say that a business has to survive if it can't cut it in this new world -so if it can't-bad luck!-let the community support the workers displaced until they can be re-absorbed into new alternative energy industries and let the CEO's jump out of the windows of their office blocks. And what is to be lost if a business does shrink dramatically? Part of the problem is the constant growth at all costs philosophy. The world can no longer support the philosophy of greed!-get used to it.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
David:

27 Aug 2008 4:53:07pm

Mr Gailey has missed the point completely, or is deliberately making the same kind of plea for a special deal as the car manufacturers who want to stick their hands in my pocket.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Cynet:

27 Aug 2008 5:03:29pm

BCA is correct about being unqualified about the science of carbon pollution but subjectively pursues influence over government who are advised by carbon pollution scientists.

BCA says Australia must take part in addressing carbon pollution, not carbon polluting Australians.

The management of carbon pollution on the Australian continent whilst exploiting the resources is perhaps the easiest challenge of any country in the world, given our population density and technological capacity to balance emissions with sequestration. Does BCA really think that this will impress the rest of the world?

We account for just 1.6% of emissions. Well, the population that represents the pollution is minute at approximately 0.3% making carbon polluting Australians the worst on the planet.

we will be making the energy we use more expensive in context to having to wait for technology to be developed. I think the message is clear that polluting should occur even if the cash value is high. So therefore, the pollution is not really being considered by the BCA. Consumers will be able to cope with the costs as long as they are as rich as business, or do they expect government to hand them the revenue from selling pollution permits. Either way, the sincerity of not polluting is still missing. The government will likely spend that money on growing trees and in the context of funding science and technological advances presumably award sound-minded projects with public money and development for society.

EITE businesses are important to Australia because they are very profitable and they exploit, transform and sell natural resources to us. They are also some of the most aware businesses, knowing they would have pollution to answer for then and now.

These businesses will have to absorb the cost and if they cant sell they will have to contract in size, find other pollution ethical markets or hope the lack of supply will drive up costs.

The government proposed compensation mechanism to EITE provides a stimulus to prevent pollution based on revenue which is nothing for the BCA to complain about when the pollution is required to be limited as advised by the science. In fact, the BCA can feel fortunate that under the proposal, pollution has been linked to a dollar value! Business simply has to not only start listening but act quick smart about climate changing carbon pollution.

Its a big ask to government to give any credit to the apathetic opposition on carbon management.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Polony:

27 Aug 2008 5:23:35pm

"Our research shows that ... almost a quarter of the 14 would ... have ... to close.

Three of the companies would have to shut."

25% of 14 is 3.5. Are you extrapolating a proportion from a sample size of only 14 entities?

Although qualitative research is valid when treated as qualitative research, it would be rediculous extrapolating this proportion to the population.

If the sample of 14 is from a simple random sample, at a 95% level, a result of 3 out of 14 in the sample, indicates the true proportion in the population is anywhere between 8.4% and 50.8%.

If you have stratified the population of businesses before getting your sample of 14, you provide no indication that the proportions of the sample from each strata match the proportions of these strata in the population. Your lack of rigour in not detailing how the sample was arrived at indicates that your statistical analysis is possibly also too lazy to ensure that any strata proportions used match the population proportions.

Please either use statistics correctly or not at all. Otherwise, generalisations about your lack of intellectual rigour become reasonable.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
pete:

27 Aug 2008 5:27:54pm

what a load of rubbish. so those emission intensive industries that account for 51% of our export earnings, namely mining and gas companies will go broke. are these the sames ones that are currently benefiting from a massive rise in oil and gas prices, but not in their production costs and what about those poor iron ore mining companies, the ones that just benefited from a 60% rise in iron ore prices. come on mate they will not go broke, their profit margins may just decrease a little (a tiny little).
metals, oil and gas are finite resources and as such their price will always go up and companies that have made good exploration and business decisions will continue to profit. an ETS will just hold them a little more accountable and just maybe encourage them to diversify their powerbase to include more renewables. while Australia continues to provide a very stable environment for investment the companies will continue to come. they know an ETS is coming and it will be apart of Australia's economic future, this still makes for a stable environment to invest., they know the conditions

Coal companies (and oil companies), sorry guys, bad luck you will be obsolete very soon!

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Foster:

27 Aug 2008 5:41:53pm

Greig Gailey seems to be in the business of fear. Fear of business closures, fear of job losses, fear of businesses going of-shore, not investing...The list is without end.

I have been in business for nearly 30 years and like many others we survived downturns and recessions, competition and the GST.

Every business worth it's existence will learn to adapt to the new rules. I would suggest that just about every business has opportunities to reduce energy consumption without negatively affecting the bottom line. Indeed I expect that many businesse will increase investment, rid themselves of out of date technology ( read polluters) and in the end will be better of and more profitable. Australia will be a better place.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
PB:

27 Aug 2008 5:53:00pm

These industries have had their heads buried in the sand for years and have been making huge profits for their own benefit with little or no investment in sustainable renewable energy sources and to compensate them at the cost of the rest of consumers and industries with more vision and greater responsibilty is grossly inequitable.

It is also totally false to claim that "Most of these companies are price takers and do not have the ability to pass a carbon cost onto their customers." The recent uplift in steel costs to the Chinese is ample proof of that.

Most of the figures claimed in the report are unsubstantiated by independent evidence and are based on the scenario that these industries do nothing to cut their emissions in which case they deserve to go out of business.

The fundamental premise of the BCA report is to gain greater financial compensation for these industries by promoting the worst case scenario and it should therefore be treated with extreme caution.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
concerned:

27 Aug 2008 5:55:23pm

I think the Government has got it right with their planned emissions trading scheme (ETS). We should reduce our carbon footprint and an ETS provides the fairest way of spreading the cost amongst the Australian population. An ETS also provides the fairest way of making carbon-free energy sources (geothermal, solar, wind, wave, nuclear) economically viable. Coal provides the cheapest source of energy - that's why we have been using it to supply all our energy to date, and why the use of other forms of energy implies an additional cost. The Business Council of Australia needs to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem - they need to share the cost, just as we all need to share the cost.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Bullfrog:

27 Aug 2008 6:00:17pm

Maybe we should go for a carbon (CO2) consumption tax, versus an emission tax.

Thus the ultimate end benefactor of the CO2 being emitted (be it Joe Bloggs citizen, or a company) pays for the CO2 signature of the product. And that won't matter where the product is being made either.

So if a company in China uses very dirty power / poor process / etc, its CO2 signature will be higher, and will cost more.

The driver to lower CO2 emissions will be to achieve a spot in the market.

And when we sell into other countries, our companies don't pay the carbon tax here (our companies aren't the consumer). Similar to GST (which stops at our border).

Where a country has a carbon trading / taxation system that is trying to import into Australia, an equivalency test could be made, which would be offset against the carbon consumption penalty (be it a tax, or a tradeable entity).

Agree (0) Alert moderator
GC:

27 Aug 2008 6:03:35pm

There are no jobs on a dead planet

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Mick G:

27 Aug 2008 6:07:39pm

Mark Twain said "A lie can run around the world six times while the truth is still trying to put on its pants" Anthropogenic climate change proves that! There is no scientific basis for it,only flawed computer modelling.The same modelling that has problems predicting weather more than a couple of days ahead.Now the politicians have joined in the media hysteria and we are all going to pay for it, especially the billions of people in the world who neither have electricity or drive a car. Please don't reply about there being scientific consensus about man made climate change. Consensus is a political term, it has no place in science.

Agree (2) Alert moderator

Opinion

Emission cuts: showing the world it can be done

What are we trying to do?

Emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) businesses

Bipartisanship

Search for news

Comments (101)

Wake up Australia:

John Michaels:

BJ:

Sam Guest:

chalkie:

Damir Ibrisimovic:

Jim:

Damir Ibrisimovic:

John O:

Joe:

Trust_me_Im_a_rat:

TRADING TAX FOR JOBS:

Fratelli:

Barry:

Joe:

BJ:

James Mason:

John Michaels:

Billy Bob Hall:

Anton:

Jim:

anthony:

Brad Arnold:

Big Bad Bob:

BJ:

Michael:

ravensclaw:

Joe:

Billy Bob Hall:

ravensclaw:

Homer:

Brad:

BJ:

Lindsay Cooper:

James:

Homer:

twobob:

Patrick Darley-Jones:

whitelephant:

ravensclaw:

David:

Billy Bob Hall:

Cynet:

Anton:

BJ:

Cynet:

John Michaels:

Polony:

pete:

pete:

Gerald:

Norm McMullen:

James Mason:

R G Hay:

Foster:

PB:

concerned:

Doh:

bullfrog:

Doh:

Bullfrog:

Michael:

GC:

Mick G:

Big Bad Bob: