An interesting comparison and case study is the Kinleith pulp and paper mill. That plant has a plethora of environmental and real pollution issues to deal with and problems have occurred in both water and air emissions prompting a a review. See “Review of science relating to discharges from the Kinleith pulp and paper mill”

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/publications/Technical-Reports/Review-of-science-relating-to-discharges-from-the-Kinleith-pulp-and-paper-mill/

But nowhere in the review is “carbon dioxide” or “CO2″ categorized as a pollutant at issue.

There are now far more stringent requirements for discharge consents than in the early days of the plant as the review indicates and although I’m not setting it up as a role model, I do think real polluters would benefit from study of the case. In the early days, water discharges turned the Waikato River brown but the river is clear enough to see the bottom from bridges now. Particulate emissions have been reduced and toxic flue discharges are scrubbed, much of this was voluntarily undertaken as i understand.

If these operators have a commendable record of real pollution mitigation effort and the public know about it then they will have respect and they can take exception to the “carbon polluter” tag without image damage. Their culture would ensure that no stone is left unturned in the investigation of the CO2 issue. I suspect that companies that resort to the carbon leakage route would be looking to circumvent environmental regulations and consents anyway so leaving those constraints would not just be because of carbon taxes.

I notice that Gillard is now under pressure from the labour unions to fully compensate a number of sectors (steel, aluminium, cement etc) so the whole rationale is becoming a political farce.- which does seem to be point of the exercise, Green tails wagging larger party dogs.at the expense of the base constituents and a charge to the economy with no gain to the environment. Can it get any dumber?

That means all 50 businesses “bearing the brunt” will be non-trade-exposed – which means they are cost-plus businesses that simply pass on any cost increases. But they add a margin before passing it on, so they (the big polluters) have a nice upside but no downside.

However, the whole cost structure of Australia will have moved up a notch on a permanent basis. The country will be that much less competitive. There will be first and second rounds of induced inflation, which must lead to interest rate rises – which raise the exchange rate.

So, the much-maligned coal-burning generators will be better off than before. The householder will pay more for electricity, and would have an incentive to reduce usage if electricity was price-elastic (which it clearly isn’t). But the householder won’t pay any more for coal power than wind power, so there will be no mode-switching.

What’s the point of it all – apart from politics?

It amazes me that major NZ and more especially Australian carbon dioxide emitters don’t take a class action to force proof that the IPCC assumptions and RF methodology are valid. Now those emitters have morphed into carbon “polluters” and still there’s no exception taken. If it wasn’t for the economic benefits of these companies I would say that they all deserve to be taxed into oblivion for their whimpish and incredibly ill informed stance,

See:- About 50 high polluters to bear carbon tax brunt, Greg Combet tells Press Club

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/about-50-high-polluters-to-bear-carbon-tax-brunt-greg-combet-tells-press-club/story-fn59niix-1226038504193

Also:- Australia’s top 50 carbon emitters.

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/04/13/1226038/651649-aus-news-file-top-carbon-emitters.gif

It seems that as far as they are concerned, a carbon tax is just another cost to be passed on and no research is necessary to investigate the validity of the basis for it even though they have enormous resources at their disposal to do so.

But the paper complains that knowledge of “trends over the oceans is hampered by the uneven and changing distribution of commercial shipping routes”. Then they complain about disagreements between the datasets offered by Hadley, NOAA, etc.

If they want accurate models, why don’t they use satellite records? They now have access to two 30-year-long records which cover the lower troposphere of the whole globe.

Also enlightening is the admission that the best available models project little change in the sea surface temperatures of the Pacific. The scare stories about warming oceans come from models that “have the least realistic simulations of ENSO variability.”

UPDATE:

Found it. On 1 Dec, 2009, Jo posted We paid to find a “crisis”, part of which says:

Since 1989 the US government has given nearly $80 billion dollars to the climate change industry.

Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon dioxide emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw billions of dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.

The BBC says “there is a consensus and thus no need to give equal time to other theories”. Which means they are not weighing up the arguments, they’re just counting papers. This is not journalism. It’s PR. If the IPCC is wrong, if there is a bias, you’re guaranteed not to hear about it from any organisation that thinks a consensus is scientific.

When ExxonMobil pays just $23 million to skeptics the headlines run wild. But when $79 billion is poured into one theory, it doesn’t rate a mention.