ckk needs some sort of government grant..., page-21

Speaking of multinationals, I noticed that Rio Tinto have decided to sell off a lot of their aluminium smelters in Australia and elsewhere. These operations are some of the most exposed businesses to carbon pricing (current and future) around the world.

Rio are playing down the carbon angle, but I saw their female boss admit on Lateline Biz it was at least a small part of why they made the decision.

Also, the only smelters they are holding on to are hydro- electric powered, so I believe they are 'gammin' a bit because who'd want to sell a smelter with the line 'We believe under future carbon regulation these businesses will be unviable or at least not very profitable in their current state and would require significant investment to modernise/clean up. We can simply make much more money elsewhere'

The big multinationals like Rio will say and do whatever makes them the most money over the short or long term, depending on their priorities at that time. That's why you need a strong set of rules on pollution and really you need bi (or tri?) partisan support. If the dollars add up and it doesn't look like they can get out of it, the big corporations will change.

I will stick my neck up and say the minority government has been imperfect but generally sensible in their policy direction here. If this carbon package got up and running and stayed in place for 5 years looking stable, that would be enough to start the big shift away from coal to renewables and clean techs. It sounds to me like they aren't even planning on giving away much of the money in grants (though even say 20% would be a shedload of dough)but either lending the money, for a profit, to small cutting edge tech companies that tend to struggle to get finance elsewhere, or investing in them directly in an equity situation, also for a profit. Plus the cash is coming from the new tax anyway.

It really sounds like smart economic and environmental policy to create a new boom industry, satisfy international environmental obligations and insure against future natural and environmental disasters here and abroad. While it 'ties up' some dough, it doesn't actually 'spend' that much.

I agree with Tretch, shame on the Libs! I wonder if Matt Birney has challenged any of his old Lib mates on this (if he has any). Or better still have Birney bail up Abbott or Turnbull on Q and A and challenge them on this.