Sure itrack, see your point, but thats where everyone is a winner, where the publics interest and the companies interest converge.
Absolutely nothing wrong with them promoting this. In fact I appluade them for doing so.
Who leads and who follows? If the company identify a need based on the publics perception and then work to have our politicians create a policy to support that perceived need, then everyone is a winner. What happens when the politicians go out and make a policy without industry support?
Take two contemporary examples of policy leading with and without industry support.
QLD GAS POLICY: The Queensland Government recognised they needed to support the gas industry, there is a clear benefit to the environment, they consulted industry and implemented a progressive mandatory gas target that was increased as the industry matured. Everyone is a winner through smart policy.
INSULATION SCHEME: Government getting ahead of itself and implementing a disastrous policy that was defrauded in so many ways it wasnt funny because there were completly inadequate controls and supports on implementing the program.
So there is a need to lower emissions and create a more efficient trucking system in Australia.
The public would support this plan.
Blue Energy (and QGC) are looking at how they would provide for such an industry.
An ETS would impact the transport sector.
Good on Blue for placing themselves to profit from it.
Cheers,
SF
BUL Price at posting:
20.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
