October 03, 2007 | Graham

Steeling some Greenhouse cred

How do you get away with this? If ADMA isn’t interested, surely the ACCC should be. I’ve just seen a BlueScope steel ad on TV trumpeting their greenhouse credentials because steel can replace trees in building, so you’re saving the planet by using steel. No mention of the huge amounts of fossil fuel that are consumed in making steel. Cut down a tree and another one grows, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Dig some coal out, and well, it just stays dug out.
This is the sort of lunatic pitch that the current greenhouse hysteria encourages. If the Greens and the Labor Party don’t jump on BlueScope they have no credibillty, and if the Liberals don’t direct the ACCC to investigate the ad, they have no brains. Most of us can understand corporate dishonesty, and this is a particularly egregious example. Exposing this dishonesty is one way of bringing some sense to the AGW contagion.

Posted by Graham at 10:59 pm | Comments (3) |
Filed under: Media


  1. Speaking of advertorial dishonesty, how dodgy is the BCAs figure that 300,000 business have started up since workchoices. No mention of how many small businesses folded since work choices, given that the majority go belly-up after only a few years.
    Like the bluescope ad, it is easy for educated people to pick out, but not the bogans who are suckered by interest rate silliness.

    Comment by Benno — October 5, 2007 @ 3:10 pm

  2. Trouble is there is no watertitght definition of a valid carbon credit, though contributors (Romm, Lipow) to the Gristmill website are working on it, as are the carbon trade watch people. The World Bank’s $US550m to the Chinese CFC manufacturers (when $5m could have done it) remains the standout example but remember that Downer thinks yellowcake should get a carbon credit.
    Surely the answer must be a no b.s. cap and trade scheme that only trades in permits, not offsets. Vested interests clearly don’t want this to happen.

    Comment by Taswegian — October 6, 2007 @ 5:21 pm

  3. Taswegian, not sure what you are saying – a trade system includes offsets. I think I’ve become convinced that a carbon tax is the only rational way to tackle it. A uniforum international tax on carbon would allow industry to shift to the lowest carbon emitting area, and at the same time allow countries to change their tax mix so that there was very little real cost to individuals.

    Comment by Graham Young — October 7, 2007 @ 9:38 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.