NIMBY watch

As noted below, I am going to keep track of climate change NIMBYism – the people who don’t question the science, but claim that reducing emissions is too costly or unfair.

The list:

13 November:

1. Emissions trading scheme bad for zinc industry in Tasmania.

2. Confusion over agriculture and ETS delaying investment.

14 November:

3. Emissions trading scheme bad for recycling.

4. ETS to cause LNG plant to go offshore.

5. ETS threatens pulp mill.

6. Update on earlier stories, but more premiers joining the revolt against the ETS due to effects on trade-exposed industries.

7. General paper industry worries about their ETS-free competitors.

17 November

8. The aluminium industry is worried: “You don’t try and force a level of emission in Australia that is in advance of where the globe is proposing to go, otherwise we will be closing industries down and seeing investments move to other countries,” [Australian Aluminium Council executive director] Mr Knapp said.

19 November

9. Polluting industries trade blows with Climate Institute, the former claiming that making ‘deep, early cuts in greenhouse emissions would be far more expensive to the nation than a gentle approach.’

10. Gas-generated electricity could be disadvantaged if our ETS not coordinated with others.

11. Regional councils think they should get special treatment too: “This skewed effect should be considered when the Governments are talking about making some adjustments to how there will be some offsets to a carbon trading scheme’ said Cr Bell.

12. ETS will be bad for the cement industry.

13. The aviation industry joins the long list of loser industries.

20 November

14. Agriculture to be hit hard by ETS: ‘some agricultural sectors could see profits drop by at least 100 per cent.’

21 November

15. We should not act unless others do too: ‘Australia cannot go it alone in tackling global warming. The consequences are huge and the rising Third World countries, such as India and Indonesia, which have lower environmental standards than Australia, will gladly accept our so-called “dirty” industries to create jobs for their people.’

25 November

16. Geelong most at risk of all regions from ETS.

1 December

17. ETS threatens 36,000 jobs in Hunter Valley.

2 December

18. Alan Moran provides comfort to the NIMBYists.

19. Labor backbenchers have been lobbied by the steel industry.

3 December

20. Government introducing an emissions trading scheme that will ‘shovel manufacturing jobs overseas to countries that don’t have an ETS’.

4 December

21. Government lacks ‘world view’ in planning to put a carbon tax on LNG.

6 December

22. ETS to destroy rural communities by turning land into carbon sink forests.

7 December

23. Impact of carbon trading on farmers the biggest issue in the history of Australian agriculture.

8 December

24. ETS bad news for La Trobe valley.

10 December

25. ETS bad for abbatoir (but perhaps good for cattle).

26. Barnaby is the NIMBYists’ friend.

11 December

27. Australian minerals industry faces the highest carbon costs in the world.

28. Put a price on carbon, just not yet.

29. Unionist stands up for workers to be thrown out of work by ETS, slams banks for supporting ETS because they want to make profits trading carbon credits.

12 December

30. Industry agrees to 2010 start, provided the ‘reduction targets and the carbon price [are] so low that they have no impact on business.’

31. Andrew Robb also friend of NIMBYists: ‘2010 start date was “ridiculous in the current circumstances” — and the Government should listen to concerns from the business community about job losses.’

10 thoughts on “NIMBY watch

  1. The one group that should be in the NIMBY list that isn’t is the Unions.

    It is quite an achievement that the Union leadership has given up representing the concerns of their members and is now devoted to providing the ALP with aparatchiks.

    But surely someone must break ranks and point out that an ETS will result in some job losses, particularly for heavily unionised sectors.

    Like

  2. I object to your use of the term NIMBY to describe those who disagree with proposals allegedly designed to stop climate change.

    Surely, as a classical liberal yourself, you can see that many might (and do) object to some of the proposed government action on the grounds that they will involve massive intrusion into the lives of individuals and encroachment on individual liberty? (Particularly when no one is able to say how much the government actions will change the climate for the better, if at all).

    It is not NIMBYism when you object to these policies based on a fundamental philosophical value.

    Like

  3. Why is one a NIMBY if one is willing to accept the scientific consensus on global warming but nevertheless thinks policy action is not likely to be net beneficial for any number of reasons?

    Like

  4. Brilliant collection. Thanks.

    BTW: “seeing investments move to other countries” (17-November-2008) might in a globalized economic system be good – according to CSIRO’s 2007 Australia’s emissions in a global context says “Australia’s carbon intensity of GDP (amount of carbon burned as fossil fuel per dollar of wealth created) is 25 per cent higher than the world average. It is a little higher than the USA and nearly double that of Europe and Japan.”

    Like

Leave a Reply to Sally Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s