Don’t Panic, Don’t Panic!!

They’re panicking.

The greentard bloggers are in a solid state of denial at the minute. One of them – The Climate Speculator is exhorting its stricken band of followers: “don’t panic, don’t panic”.

jones and walker

Don’t panic! Don’t panic!

When Jonesy used the same line – it almost always meant there was every reason to panic.

The Climate Speculator is arguing that there is nothing to worry about – clinging to the fading belief that there is bi-partisan support for the current RET of 41,000 GW. WRONG – as anyone inside the Coalition party room will happily tell you in private.

The other line is that the Coalition can’t scrap the RET because they won’t have a mandate to do so. At the last election we were told – apparently by the “Real” Julia – that: “there will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead” – and we got one anyway. Mandate – who needs a mandate?

Keep clinging to hope boys – sometimes it’s all you’ve got.

There hasn’t been a power purchase agreement signed by a developer with a retailer since November last year – which means that wind weasels will never get finance to build their proposals. That’s why there are fewer than 90 fans going up in Australia at the minute – with no immediate plans for construction on the horizon.

The ecofascists are in such a state of panic, they are urging fellow travellers to purchase RECs. Now what would a mung-bean-muncher do with a REC? It’s just like a $35 note – at the current price. STT says the “logic” behind it is that the ecofascists promoting this little ploy want to increase demand for RECs – therefore increasing the REC price. Wind weasels need the REC price to increase to keep their clapped-out Suzlons running and to have any hope of putting up any more.

STT hears that the money men have all closed ranks and are refusing to lend wind developers so much as coins for the parking meter. Bankers know RISK when they smell it.

As noted a few posts back – the BIG retailers are lining up to undo the RET and have signalled that they would rather pay the shortfall charge (fine) – and pass that on to power punters – than muck around with power that wind weasels can only ever deliver 25% of the time – and even then – can’t tell their customers which 25% of the time.

Adding to the ecofascists’ woes is the fact that the Business Council of Australia is making it plain that the RET simply has to go – stating last night that the RET is:

“a high cost way of reducing emissions, it distorts the energy market and inflates the cost of electricity for households and business”.

What STT has been saying all along, funny about that?

While the greentard bloggers are trying to keep up appearances and – like Jonesy – telling their camp not to panic – in reality their situation is best summed up by that dour, trouble-stirring, exaggerating, wild-eyed Scottish undertaker – Frazer:


Here’s The Australian’s take on the portents of doom today.

Carbon price RET ‘support act’
The Australian
Annabel Hepworth
7 August 2013

LABOR’S carbon price will make only a “minor” contribution towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector, with most abatement driven by the enforceable renewable energy target that is crowding out cheaper investments, a new paper says.

Modelling by Frontier Economics, obtained by The Australian, puts pressure on both parties as the large-scale renewable energy target (LRET) has bipartisan support, and comes after Tony Abbott had declared that scrapping carbon pricing would be his first target should he win the election.

The carbon price scheme is “clearly just the support act” to the LRET — which compels electricity retailers to secure renewable certificates — and is “likely to make only a minor contribution towards meeting its primary aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” the Frontier client note says. “This means that renewable investments (which yield generous returns to investors) are likely to crowd out almost all other (non-renewable) options, irrespective of whether they are cheaper,” Frontier finds.

“This is unlikely to result in the most economic use of society’s resources.”

Last night, the Business Council of Australia renewed its call for the RET to be wound up as it was “a high cost way of reducing emissions, it distorts the energy market and inflates the cost of electricity for households and business”.

“In the interim, the BCA calls for the target to be adjusted to reduce the cost to consumers so that future investment decisions are made according to a true 20 per cent by 2020 target that reflects changes in demand for electricity, rather than the 26 per cent or more that it is forecast,” spokesman Scott Thompson said.

The Coalition also seized on the report, environment spokesman Greg Hunt saying it showed that “not only does the carbon tax cost billions, it doesn’t even do the job of reducing emissions.”

But Climate Change Minister Mark Butler said the carbon price had made a “material contribution” to emissions reductions in the national electricity market and would continue to do so, and emissions trading was designed to work in concert with the RET.

“The Coalition refuse to acknowledge that the emissions trading scheme reduces the costs of meeting the renewable energy target and underpins long-term investments in clean energy, preferring to hit Australian households with a $1200 direct action penalty,” Mr Butler said.

Labor has promised to axe the carbon tax in July and move a year earlier to an emissions trading scheme. The Coalition has promised to repeal the carbon price and roll out a “direct action” plan

Mr Hunt said he had spoken with the competition watchdog “and raised the issue of the importance of ensuring that the carbon tax cut is passed through” if the Coalition were to win office.

He insisted that energy markets firm Exigency “have confirmed to us that there is no actual cost to business in simply stopping the tax” and if companies had purchased international permits they would still be able to sell them again on the international market.
The Australian

Poor Greg just can’t put RET or REC into a sentence. He hides behind the carbon tax line as if it’s the only game in town.


Don’t mind me – I’m just here to collect $52 billion in REC TAX
from power consumers over the next 18 years.

The elephants in the room – and which Hunt refuses to mention by name – are the RET and the REC. The REC is a Federal TAX on all Australian electricity consumers.

Under the current RET – the REC MUST increase to around $90 to warrant any further investment in giant fans. The carbon tax was a tiddler by comparison to the $52 billion in REC TAX that will be collected via power bills over the life of the RET (2031).

But – as noted above – the retailers will just as soon pay the shortfall charge and pass that onto consumers. Either way – it’s the power consumer that will bear the full and exorbitant costs of a policy that will never reduce CO2 emissions and is doomed to fail in any event because it is economically unsustainable. Don’t take our word for it – the Business Council of Australia just said so.

And why not drop Greg a line and ask him to explain the impact of the RET – and the REC TAX – on power prices as we head towards 2020? Let him know that the REC TAX has already added roughly $8billion to power costs so far – then ask him what the REC TAX will cost power consumers over the life of the RET.

Here’s his email:

STT will be very happy to publish Greg’s responses.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. Jackie Rovensky says:

    Would you believe it? Yesterday, the South Australian Premier, a well known supporter of Wind Energy, announced a $2 million gift to a company at Whyalla SA to build Siemens turbines for the Snowtown Extension. Not only that, but Mr Weatherill, the Premier, is doing what he does best, pre-empting the Development Assessment Commission decision on the YP Ceres project by saying that the company may also provide turbines for it. As he has the power to over-ride a DAC decision, it seems he’s made his mind up already.
    Mr Weatherill has no qualms about ignoring advice of his departments, or ignoring recommendations from government committees.

    In 2003 he declared a proposal for the Myponga Sellicks region in SA a Major Status Development, against advice of his own Planning Department. This was eventually revoked in 2011 and never built.

    More recently, after the then Premier, Mike Rann and his Attorney General, John Rau, declared that interim changes to Development Plans was a ‘Consultation’ process and a committee was established by the Government, Mr Weatherill (who replaced Rann) then chose to ignore recommendations from the Committee and announced the approval of the changes!

    Its interesting to note that Whyalla is approximately 77km by road from Port Augusta, where they have been campaigning for Government assistance and help to establish a Solar Thermal Plant with no joy. No pun intended – the long term Mayor of Port Augusta was called Joy Beluch, and she recently died without seeing her efforts on behalf of her city and the state rewarded.

    After coming to power Weatherill had stated he was going to govern differently, he was going to consult and decide rather than the other way round – no evidence of it yet – and he still believes Wind Energy is the answer.

    The following story on the evening news was one about SA power costs with a call for a Royal Commission and Weatherill dismissed it out of hand saying there is no need for one.

  2. Shelley McDonald says:

    Whoever you are (stopthesethings) you are just so clever and your posts are always so spot on and amusing. Well done to you and thank you for your diligence in keeping us all informed about the scam that is happening around the country. I just find it so hard to believe anyone can really justify the waste of money spent on wind factories. So many city people are being conned and they just don’t know it. Keep up the good work. I think you are brilliant.


  1. […] The Business Council of Australia gets it: the RET is an insanely expensive way of not reducing CO2 emissions and simply has to go.  The BCA have been on the trail to kill the RET for some time now (see our post here). […]

  2. […] last time STT heard of a retailer entering a PPA was in November 2012 (see our post here) – but that was back when the Green-Labor Alliance was at the peak of its powers – and wind […]

  3. […] readers know that big players like Origin would rather pay the shortfall charge and simply pass it on to power punters.  That way they don’t have to muck around with wind power […]

  4. […] RET review team includes STT Champion, Angus “the Enforcer” Taylor – and that Origin, the Business Council of Australia and Maurice Newman will all be throwing their considerable weight behind the Coalition’s (as yet, […]

  5. […] very fact of the review will be enough to spook already flighty investors and retailers.  The Business Council of Australia and Origin Energy are lining up to make sure the RET goes the way of […]

  6. […] has commissioned a report from Frontier Economics which looks at the ridiculous costs of wind power – its failure to reduce Co2 emissions (as […]

  7. […] have nowhere to send their sparks – unless an additional transmission line is built.  In a depressed energy market environment – and with SA’s economy going backwards – that’s not about to happen any time […]

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: