Another "climate change" disgrace....Corus closure Teesside

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Odo_de_StAmand, Dec 28, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Not the latest news, sorry, but still makes me angry:

    namely -

    The real gain to Corus from stopping production at Redcar, however, is the saving it will make on its carbon allowances, allocated by the EU under its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). By ceasing to emit a potential six million tonnes of CO2 a year, Corus will benefit from carbon allowances which could soon, according to European Commission projections, be worth up to £600 million over the three years before current allocations expire,


    In India, Corus's owner, Tata, plans to increase steel production from 53 million tonnes to 124 million over the same period. By replacing inefficient old plants with new ones which emit only "European levels" of CO2, Tata could claim a further £600 million under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism

    In other words Tata can close one steel works in England and open an-equally efficient one in India and pocket £1.2bn in climate change incentives.

    ....and so even if you are not a denier how does the planet get any benefit from this???

  2. Congratulations, you have just discovered the subtleties of the whole 'climate change' activism.
  3. However, Christopher Booker isn't remowned for writing fair and balamced articles.
  4. So it's not true then??
  5. Never really understood the point in making steel in an area with no economic Coal, Limestone or Iron ore reserves myself. Even the labours too expensive.
  6. Apart from 1700 directly employed staff and god knows how many indirect, all connected with the steel plant that's been there for 150 years.

    Never mind, at least Gordons saving the world, quite what re-training will do is anyones guess, re-training as dole scum will give him 1700+ labour votes.
  7. Just more evidence that the world has gone totally mad.
  8. What a strange statement. Was it made because Booker writes the truth, which contradicts the facile Labour stance on this fatuous subject?

    Booker is one of the increasingly rare journalists who tell their readers ('readers' - a decreasing commodity in this damaged nation) facts truthfully as far as they are known.

    For those who had some doubts about this whole 'con trick', the actions of Corus will give them some food for thought.
  9. Quite right, we should all carry on living in the 19th century, I'll go down the pit like my grandad and the wife can drag out the spinning Jenny from under the stairs.
  10. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    This seems to be a clear case of follow-the-cash-and-see-who-benefits. There is absolutely no global warming/AGW benefit here - it is clever businessmen using the new trading system to make money (our money in part, paid to the UN) while we lose it in the UK as well (paying benefits/re-training for steelworkers made redundant, among other outgoings). This 'Carbon Trading Market' is a great wheeze, to be sure. Peasents like me and you pay in extra taxes, and rich buggers make millions. Raw Capitalism at its best?

    Talking of which, where is Whet/Ashie/Parapuke to denounce this counter-revoutionary propaganda story? After all, something merely being factually correct has never stopped them denying it in the past. Or is this too far even for them?

  11. Far more important with Booker and his ilk is what they don't say. Steel workers are far cheaper in India, so cheap in fact that they can afford the capital cost of a new plant and EU import duties and still make a profit. I'd also be interested to hear if the type of steel being made in the UK is the same as that planned to be made in the Indian plant. Sheffield today makes more money from steel then ever, it just makes its cash on the high-quality stuff where labour cost are less of an issue. Lastly, keep in mind India has major import duties and is likely the be the world's number one steel market in a few years. He also uses the wonderful phrases 'up to' and 'could'. In a Booker article, those worlds should be read as 'not even close too' and 'won't'.

    Also sadly evident is the pain he goes to to infer that Dr Pachauri is taking a bung without opening himself to be sued for libel. By doing so Booker highlights the weakness of his overall thesis. If he were so confident, he would either (a) Present proof that Dr Pachauri was on the take, (b) be a 'fearless journalist' and accuse him on a hunch, or (c) come up with a better example.

    Lastly, he may be right in terms of the overall carbon output figures not falling (though he doesn't provide the figures), but the output per ton of steel made certainly will.

    Overall, an article that spends most of its time covering its own arrse rather than telling a story.
  12. But in that case then parapauk if the story is not true or embellished, perhaps you could explain to the unwashed masses exactly how Carbon Credits actually reduce world pollution ?

    Wouldn't the "Carbon Credit" money be better spent on supplying air cleaners/filters, and cleaner pollution control methods at factories within the country rather than shipping jobs offshore ?
  13. msr

    msr LE


    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    Booker's prejudices, or lack of them, be blowed. However, Parapauk cares to spin this, it's 1,700+ UK jobs lost and several hundred millions in incentives, provided by the UK taxpayer, for their bosses to make the redundancies. All happily agreed to by a Labour Government in thrall to the MMGW myth.
  15. I find the idea that anything written by Booker can be taken without a pinch of salt to be frankly ludicrous, although in this case he does appear to have point. The Government should have acted to defend the Teeside plant. I think it reasonable to assume that a plant in the UK will be subject to more stringent environmental regulations than in many parts of the world, and this includes reducing CO2 emissions.

    Some of my thoughts on manufacturing, and the lack of Government help, can be found here

    I was deterred from commenting on this thread for a numbers of reasons, chiefly that people fall into entrenched points of views before thinking. This views tend to include the following...

    a)The Tories messed it up (the Government since 1997 has clearly not been involved then?)
    b)It's all down to New Labour
    c)It's inevitable and there's nothing we can do except embrace it
    d)It's a good thing and we should have a service based economy
    e)Because manufcturing isn't what it used to be, we should give up

    I disagree with all these views. Before giving you some comments, I'll declare my interested. My background is in Electronics/Communications, which is part of the reason I feel able to make sensible comments. I also live in a rural area, which has a share of industry, some of which has struggled due to lack of Government help. My comments are in no real order.

    1. The nature of manufacturing has changed. I would suggest that it would be difficult to find everything (other than food or clothing) that has been 100% produced in any one country. Things made in the UK will often contain imported components or parts. Likewise, producing and selling high value components, and sub systems, is important for the UK, and a major part of our industrial future.

    2. As I've said, I live in a rural area. Yet within twenty miles of where I am sitting, I can think of several companies involved in the high technology component/subassembly manufacture I speak of. A few examples would include:

    - a multidisciplinary engineering company involved in the defence, oil/gas, and renewable energy fields
    - a manufactuer of electromagnetic and electrommechanical aerospace components, and they also do contract electronics manufacture, much of it for the industrial big boys like BAE System, Agusta Westland, or Rolls Royce. Some of their output goes into space. I spent some time there and was pleased to see how much was exported.
    - a company produces valves and actuators for the defence and aerospace markets
    - a producer (and exporter) of printed circuit boards
    - a firm producing industrial valves
    - various food, clothing and pharmacetical producers

    They would have benefited from a more helpful Government.

    3. The distinction between products and services is not all all black and white. A factory selling engine parts sells products, and insurance broker sells services. But wht about things like software, sold via the internet? They certainly make something, but is it a product or a service? What about things like CAD services? Or how about (say) ship repair and conversion - what A&P do?

    4. On the maritime theme, should we just tut and curse that the UK no longers build the world's ships, or should be concentrate on helping the marine activities of Rolls Royce and many others - producing engines, gearboxes, propellers and other propulsion equipment, electrical plant, radar and communications gear - in other words the high value, hi tech parts? Only recently Rolls Royce achieved an export sucess in this area.

    5. I would say the same about the aerospace sector, if not engineering as a whole. You might be suprised at the high technology things made in the UK. Don't dismiss them because they are parts.

    6. Less positive stuff now. With the banking crisis, it has been hard for companies to obtain credit - meaning that some have been unable to meet orders, or that they couldn't invest in new plant. After the Government bailout, this has continued. There was no part of the contracts to tell the banks to start lending (instead they awarded themselves greater bonuses than ever - running into thousands of millions). Of course, the crisis was largely due to lust for short term profits (with the risks involved), instead of long term growth.

    7. The Government has totally failed to take advantage of the low pound. Where was the export drive? There's no Minister for Overseas Trade (or whatever?), nobody coordinates the work of various groups that represent different parts of the economy or different regions of the UK, or export related work by other Government departments.

    8. Off the Cornish coast a wave hub (sic) is being built, allowing various wave related renewable energy resources to be both tested and connected to the national grid. I see an opportunity here. Old and closed shipyards may not be able to build ships, but I imagine many could do fabrication type work. Sections of steel (or anything else) joined by hinges will move due to wave action. This can generate electricity. If done on an industrial scale it could produce a significant percentage of the UK's electricity and reduce CO2 emissions, create thousands of jobs, and possibly produce an export....

    Sadly this would need Government involvement and political leadership. We've got the natural resource (thousands of miles of coast and powerful waves), we've got the industrial resources (just about) and the technologies (some of them borrowed from the oil/gas sector or defence). We just need political leadership and investment. A better investment, I would suggest, than bonuses for incompetent banking executives.

    9. There should be a bank purely for business, owned initially by the Government, to provide the funding businesses need. The goal shouldn't be high profits, merely low term growth and keeping companies afloat. Think of poor LDV.

    10. On a similar note, exporters should get tax breaks.