Thursday, 19 December 2019

Fightback against Australian Morrison Government's attempt to scuttle effective global climate change action


The Morrison Coalition Government's use of 'carbon credits' as an accounting trick to cover failure to reduce Australian greenhouse gas emissions since 2014 will put the international goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C out of reach - thus plunging the world into catastrophic climate change - is being resisted by thirty-one other sovereign nations.


Logo

Media Release, 14 December 2019:
Leading countries set benchmark for carbon markets with San Jose Principles
MADRID – As UN climate talks in Madrid near its closing, a group of leading countries are working together to secure an ambitious outcome is delivered on the Article 6 negotiations. 
To make that happen, they have agreed on a set of principles, known as the San Jose Principles for High Ambition and Integrity in International Carbon Markets, that constitute the basis upon which a fair and robust carbon market should be built.
Known as the Unconventional Group, these countries (see the list below) have been working since the Pre-COP25 in San José, Costa Rica, to increase the level of ambition in talks dealing with carbon markets. 
The group presented the Chilean COP Presidency a set of principles (see attached) that outline what a successful outcome could look like in this Article, in the hope that this will support the Presidency’s efforts in creating an ambitious outcome.
Parties include (updated December 14, 11:45pm, CET)
  1. Costa Rica
  2. Switzerland
  3. Belize
  4. Colombia
  5. Paraguay
  6. Perú
  7. Marshall Islands
  8. Vanuatu
  9. Luxembourg
  10. Cook Islands
  11. Germany
  12. Sweden
  13. Denmark
  14. Austria
  15. Grenada
  16. Estonia
  17. New Zealand
  18. Spain
  19. Ireland
  20. Latvia
  21. The Netherlands
  22. Norway
  23. Slovenia
  24. Belgium
  25. Fiji
  26. Portugal
  27. France
  28. United Kingdom
  29. Italy
  30. Finland
  31. Trinidad and Tobago
Quotes from country representatives
Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, Minister of Environment and Energy of Costa Rica, said, “This is a definition of success on Article 6. Anything below these San Jose principles won’t create a fair and robust carbon market. The diverse group of countries supporting these principles know we need a just outcome to keep the 1.5C target within reach. The principles keep the door open for 1.5C, while ensuring the highest possible ambition in mitigation and adaptation. We encourage other parties to join our efforts in creating a basis upon which a fair and robust carbon market should be built”
Franz Perrez, Head of Delegation of Switzerland, said, “If markets are to increase ambition, the rules have to be as robust as the San Jose Principles”
Ambassador Janine Felson of Belize said, “An ambitious Article 6 outcome will create a new architecture for markets that moves beyond zero-sum offsetting approaches to accelerate the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is a key principle for members of my group and that is why these San Jose Principles are important”
Ricardo Lozano, Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia, said “Colombia, as a highly vulnerable country that has supported an effective implementation of the Paris Agreement will apply these environmental San Jose Principles to guide its participation in the carbon market and ensure our efforts will help to build the basis for a robust system that promotes the highest climate ambition”
Svenja Schulze, Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety of Germany, said, “Art. 6 can be a very important part of implementing the Paris Agreement but it must be designed to increase ambition. The San José Principles lay out the essence of a robust mechanism which ensures environmental integrity”
Isabella Lövin, Minister for Environment and Climate, and Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, said, “The San Jose Principles provide an important foundation for the architecture of Article 6. Robust accounting that ensures environmental integrity and avoids double counting is key for Article 6 to deliver on climate mitigation and raising ambition.”
Dan Jørgensen, Minister for Climate, Energy and Utilities, Denmark, said, “Denmark supports the San José principles. The world is counting on us to secure a robust system that fosters ambition”
Hon. James Shaw, Minister for Climate Change, New Zealand, said, “If we are to prevent the climate crisis, it is critically important for countries to work to the highest possible standards. This is why New Zealand supports the San Jose Principles on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement”
Eric Wiebes, Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy of the Netherlands said, “If we want real emission reductions, we should be absolutely firm on the environmental integrity of the multilateral system. Without proper accounting, our climate action will be meaningless. We can show flexibility on certain issues, but not on the San Jose Principles for international carbon markets.”
Minister Alain Maron, Minister of  the Government of the Brussels-Capital Region, responsible for Climate Change, Environment, Energy and Participatory Democracy of Belgium, said, “We need robust and comprehensive rules for Article 6 so that markets can help drive ambition towards the PA goals and so that its environmental integrity and the SDGs are protected. We also need such rules to facilitate a global level playing field and to provide a signal of trust to all market actors.”
Ola Elvestuen, Norwegian Minister of Climate and Environment, said, “We all need to increase ambition. Carbon markets can have an important role for us to do more together. If we follow the San Jose Principles we are promoting robust markets with environmental integrity.”
Mrs. Camille Robinson-Regis, Hon. Minister of Planning and Development of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, said,"The importance of environmental integrity and overall mitigation are essential and critical elements of the market rules under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The market must be governed by robust rules to inspire the confidence of the private sector  and state and non state entities to participate fully and so ensure that operational and effective market mechanism under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. To do otherwise would undermine the utility of the market mechanism to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Trinidad and Tobago supports such a robust system of rules.”

San Jose Principles for High Ambition and Integrity in International Carbon Markets
At the Pre-COP, a large number of participants shared their expectations on what is needed to deliver a robust and ambitious outcome for Article 6. 

They were of the view that the implementation of the Paris Agreement must be firmly grounded in what the best available science tells us is necessary to deliver on the long-term temperature goal of the Agreement: the highest possible ambition in mitigation and adaptation.
As the end of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol approaches, there is an urgent need for clarity with regard to the future international framework for use of market-based approaches towards international climate goals.
They expressed support to the COP presidency, and to work together with others to secure an ambitious outcome in Madrid to deliver the following principles, through an Article 6 rule book that at minimum:
  • Ensures environmental integrity and enables the highest possible mitigation ambition
  • Delivers an overall mitigation in global emissions, moving beyond zero-sum offsetting approaches to help accelerate the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions
  • Prohibits the use of pre-2020 units, Kyoto units and allowances, and any underlying reductions toward Paris Agreement and other international goals
  • Ensures that double counting is avoided and that all use of markets toward international climate goals is subject to corresponding adjustments.
  • Avoids locking in levels of emissions, technologies or carbon-intensive practices incompatible with the achievement of the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal.
  • Applies allocation methodologies and baseline methodologies that support domestic NDC achievement and contribute to achievement of the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal
  • Uses CO2-equivalence in reporting and accounting for emissions and removals, fully applying the principles of transparency, accuracy, consistency, comparability and completeness
  • Uses centrally and publicly accessible infrastructure and systems to collect, track, and share the information necessary for robust and transparent accounting
  • Ensures incentives to progression and supports all Parties in moving toward economy-wide emission targets.
  • Contributes to quantifiable and predictable financial resources to be used by developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change to meet the costs of adaptation
  • Recognizes the importance of capacity building to enable the widest possible participation by Parties under Article 6
They further recognize the importance of Article 6.8 in supporting Parties in the implementation of their NDCs through non-market approaches.
They invited other countries, multi-national and sub-national entities and multinational institutions to join us in the full operationalization of all the above principles, to support the highest possible ambition and environmental integrity.
ENDS

Wednesday, 18 December 2019

State of the Australian economy as it enters 2020


On 16 December 2019 Australian Treasurer and Liberal MP for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg, put out a glowing media release concerning the health of the national economy which bears little resemblance to data his own department released on that same day.

Treasury on behalf of the Morrison Coalition Government informed Australia that it now has less income than was anticipated just prior to the 2019 federal election and, that economic growth is now slower.

Total receipts have been revised down by about $3.0 billion in 2019-20 and $32.6 billion over the four years to 2022-23.

These falls are due to less money coming into Treasury from individuals taxes, company tax and superannuation tax, as well as less dollars being collected through the tax on goods & services (GST) and lower non-tax income.

Federal government net debt is expected to be $392.3 billion in 2019-20 (19.5 per cent of GDP). Gross debt now stands at over $560.8 billion.

Slower economic growth is explained as due in part to decreased production and lower export levels in the farming sector, a decline in iron ore prices, softer wages growth, diminished business confidence & investment uncertainty.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) nominal growth is 3.25 per cent but is expected to fall to 2.25 per cent in the coming financial year.

Wages growth is still under performing at 2.5 per cent and, there is no guarantee that the revised projection of 3 per cent wage growth by 2022-23 is achievable.

Unemployment is beginning to rise.

The number of people who had jobs fell by 19,700 individuals between the May federal election and October 2019. Employment numbers are projected to fall over the next 5 years in Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing, Manufacturing and Information, Media & Technology.

Cost of living (CPI) is not coming down. CPI rose 1.7 per cent through the year to the September 2019 quarter. This followed a through the year rise of 1.6 per cent to the June 2019 quarter. Retail prices, particularly for clothing, footwear, meat, dairy, bread and cereal products, have risen.

As for the much lauded budget surplus for 2019-20, it has shrunk from $7.1 billion to $5 billion. While the rubbery figures in forward estimates see the expected surplus for 2020-2021 reduced from $11 billion to $6.1 billion, then from $17.8 billion down to $8.2 billion in 2021-22, with the fiscal year after that supposed to bring in a surplus of only $4 billion instead of the projected $9.2 billion.

One can almost hear Morrison ordering a funding red pen through even more health, disability and welfare services/programs in a vain attempt to avoid intensifying the economic squeeze his flawed political ideology is imposing on the nation.

Notes:

* Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg 16 December 2019 media release at 

* Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) December 2019 at https://budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/myefo/download/MYEFO_2019-20.pdf

* Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (PEFO) April 2019 at https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2019-pefo

* Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM) federal government debt updates at https://www.aofm.gov.au/


Labour Market Information Portal, “Industry Projections – 5 years to 2024” (Excel) at http://lmip.gov.au/PortalFile.axd?FieldID=2787734&.xlsx

Yet another indicator that tax minimisation is out of control in Australia


The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as part of its transparency commitments released the latest corporate tax transparency report on 12 December 2019 covering 2,214 of the highest income companies trading in Australia in 2017-18.

These 2,214 companies reported annual incomes ranging from $66.87 billion down to $100.01 million.

Contained in the total number of companies were,1,791 with annual incomes over $100 millionAmongst this group were 1,197 foreign-owned entities.

The 32 per cent companies with tax payable in 2017-18 had tax liabilities ranging from $4.3 billion on an income of $42.37 billion down to $1,600 on an income of $125.36 million.

Additionally, 710 companies on the ATO list did not pay any tax that financial year.

ABC News, 12 December 2019:

The reasons why 710 companies did not pay any tax in 2017-18 included:
  • 269 entities that reported a taxable income but prior-year losses were available to deduct against that profit, so no tax was payable
  • 242 entities reported an accounting loss
  • 146 entities reported an accounting profit but reconciliation items (such as tax deductions allowed at higher rates than accounting permits) resulted in a tax loss
  • 53 entities reported a taxable income but were also entitled to offsets (such as the research and development tax incentive) at least equal to the tax otherwise payable
THE TOP 20 NON-TAXPAYING COMPANIES IN 2017-18 (going from highest annual income of $10.51 billion to lowest annual income of $3.03 billion) are:

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AUSTRALIA LTD, EXXONMOBIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, FLORA GREEN PTY LTD, VIRGIN AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LIMITED, TOLL HOLDINGS LIMITED, AUSTRALIA PACIFIC LNG PTY LTD, CHEVRON AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD, AMCOR LIMITED, PEABODY AUSTRALIA HOLDCO PTY LTD, HOPE DOWNS MARKETING COMPANY PTY LTD, QGC UPSTREAM HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED, FERROVIAL SERVICES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, GRAINCORP LIMITED, SANTOS LIMITED, VODAFONE HUTCHISON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, BBP AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD, CBH GRAIN PTY LTD, ROY HILL HOLDINGS PTY LTD, PIONEER SAIL HOLDINGS PTY LTD, IBM A/NZ HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED.

* Image from.zippia.com 

Tuesday, 17 December 2019

In which certain Clarence Valley elected councillors and senior council management try to pretend that a resolution at a NSW LGA conference has the force of law......


Given that local government is potentially the most corruptible of all three tiers of government in Australia, it comes as no surprise that transparency is still resisted though it is very disappointing to see Clarence Valley Council searching about for an excuse not to do the right thing.

One of the risible objections to having Disclosures of Interest published online was that it would be difficult to redact staff signatures & residential addresses and, is "considered a waste of valuable staff resourcing" [Item 6c.19.090, CVC Ordinary Monthly Meeting, Minutes, 29 November 2019].

Another was a suggestion that councillors and staff may be at physical risk if declarations were published online, even though these declartions are already available for inspection at council offices and have been for some years.

Clarence Valley Independent, 11 December 2019:

Councillor Karen Toms has lodged a rescission motion to try and overturn a decision, made at the November Clarence Valley Council (CVC) meeting, which raised the ire of the NSW Information and Privacy Commission (IPC).

Councillors Lysaught, Ellem, Kingsley, Baker, Williamson and Simmons voted against uploading councillors’ and senior staff’s declarations of interest to the CVC website. 

Following the decision, which was contrary to a guideline developed under the Government Information (Public Access) Act issued in September, Information Commissioner Elizabeth Tydd released a statement. 

She said three local councils – Gosford City, Mid-North Coast and Clarence Valley – had “publicly stated their intention to adopt practices that appear to offend the requirements of the GIPA Act and Guideline 1”. 

“The resolutions by councils, as they seek to deviate from clear requirements under the GIPA Act, [to] justify non-compliance for privacy reasons will be something I consider carefully,” she said. 

“It is important to stress that the guideline was developed in consultation with the NSW Privacy Commissioner.” 

She said the interests required to be declared by councillors and senior decision makers include business and pecuniary interests. 

She said declaring these interests is “a demonstrably effective tool in preventing corruption and promoting integrity. “These are strong factors in favour of disclosure, particularly in the local government sector where decisions impact the everyday lives of people,” she said. 

“Those factors must be balanced against factors against disclosure, including privacy. “However, declarations of business interests will not necessarily disclose any information impacting personal privacy.” 

At the November CVC meeting, general manager Ashley Lindsay said: “…on behalf of staff and designated persons … I think it is unfair for them to have their information on the website.” 

Councillor Greg Clancy suggested that any “sensitive information could be redacted”. “What’s the problem with having [the disclosures] on the website?” he said. 

Mr Lindsay advised councillors that the recent Local Government NSW conference had resolved to support a motion by Mid-Coast Council, which “strongly objects to the [disclosures] … being published on any website”. “…We should support the Local Government NSW motion,” 

Mr Lindsay said when answering a question from Cr Toms. “If unsuccessful, we can come back and change [CVC’s decision] and comply,” he said. Referring to the IPC guideline during debate on the matter, mayor Jim Simmons said it “may not be legislation” and that he thinks “there is some doubt … so I intend to vote for” not uploading the disclosures. 

However, he said “if it becomes clear to me in the next day or two [that it is legislation] I’ll support a rescission motion”.

BACKGROUND

Information Access Guideline 1 - For Local Councils on the disclosure of information (returns disclosing the interest of councillors and designated persons) at https://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/information-access-guideline-1.



Just in time for Christmas the Morrison Government's risible greenhouse gas emission projections up to 2030 have been released


Well the federal parliament closed its doors for the year in early December so there is going to be no questioning of the Morrison Government on the floor of the House of Representatives until 4 February 2020.

It follows that it was time to release some of the government untruths packaged between paper covers or boxed in a PDF - just in time for Christmas.

On the first Tuesday of December the Morrison Government released
Australia’s emissions projections 2019, accompanied by a misleading fanfare from the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction & Liberal MP for Hume, Angus Taylor.

In part this emissions fairytale tells us that:

Australia’s 2030 target (26–28 per cent below 2005 levels) 

• Emissions in 2030 are projected to be 511 Mt CO2 -e, 52 Mt CO2 -e lower than the 2018 estimate for 2030 of 563 Mt CO2 -e. 

• To achieve Australia’s 2030 target of 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels, emissions reductions of 395 to 462 Mt CO2 -e between 2021 and 2030 are required. When overachievement of 411 Mt CO2 -e from previous targets is included, Australia will overachieve by 16 Mt CO2 -e (26 per cent reduction) and will require 51 Mt CO2 -e of cumulative emissions reduction between 2021 and 2030 to meet the 28 per cent reduction target. 

• Compared to the 2018 projections, the downward revision in the 2019 projections reflects: 

– the inclusion of the Climate Solutions Fund which will reduce emissions by 103 Mt CO2 -e, particularly in the Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector;

 – the inclusion of other measures in the Climate Solutions Package including energy efficiency measures in the electricity and direct combustion sectors; 

– stronger renewables deployment – due to increased uptake of small and mid-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) projected by the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) and Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), and the inclusion of 50 per cent renewable energy targets in Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory; and 

– updated forecasts of electricity demand.


Sounds good until you look at the numbers.

In the original Kyoto Agreement Australia's baseline for accounting greenhouse gas emissions was 1990 and total national greenhouse gas emissions for that year were recorded as 610MT CO2-e.

Australia came away unhappy with the conference outcome, so bitched and griped at every turn until the baseline was moved, eventually being extended out to 2005.

In 2005 Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions were 611MT CO2-e if land use is included. The total changes to 522MT CO2-e if land use is excluded. 

The predictions for 2030 in the recent emissions projections are 511MT CO2-e land use included and 521MT CO2-e land use excluded.

There is a 100 point drop in the 2030 projection including land use and a 1 point drop with land use excluded.

It's  still a reduction right? Even if the Morrison Government got there by using an accounting trick?

Well no. Because - even with the carryover 'carbon credits' accounting trick which allows the the Morrison Government to subtract a total of 411MT CO-e from greenhouse gas emissions across selected annual totals - Australia is not meeting the undertakings made to the international community at the U.N. 2015 Paris climate change conference (COP 21).

In fact we have spent the six years between 2013 (when emissions total was 530
MT CO2-e) and 2019 (when emissions total was 532MT CO2-e) just treading water, while the days and nights became hotter, our rivers ran dry and our forests burned. 

Next year emissions are expected to rise again to what they were in 2014, 534MT CO2-e.

In Paris Australia agreed to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030.

That would mean that Australia's emissions target in 2030 should be somewhere between 440MT CO2-e and 450MT CO2-e.

There is a shortfall in meeting those targets.

With land use included the target shortfall in projections is between est. 59MT CO2-e and 71MT CO2-e. With land use excluded the shortfall is between est. 69MT CO2-e and 81MT CO2-e.

That is a lot of mega tonnes. Especially if we were to correct the Morrison Govenment's creative accounting and remove this carryover credits from the equation.

Then the 2030 emissions reduction target shortfall would probably grow by arround est. 80-84 per cent.


Angus Taylor attended the 2-13 December 2019 UN Madrid Climate Change Conference (COP25) armed with his copy of that creative government accounting - probably believing that representatives of other nations would find his spiel believable. Though I rather suspect whenever he was at the other end of the room a number would have had their heads together quietly laughing at him. 

Notes:

Emissions are recorded as totalling 532MT CO2-e In 2018 and 2019. However using Morrison & Co's accounting trick it is reduced to a total of 328MT CO2-e in 2018 and -6MT CO2-e in 2019. See http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4aa038fc-b9ee-4694-99d0-c5346afb5bfb/files/aust-emissions-projects-chart-data-2019.xlsx.

All data the Australia's emissions projections 2019 relies on can be found at -
http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/emissions-projections-2019.

If readers want emissions totals & projections per year from 1990 to 2030 in a more digestible form, there is currently an interactive graph at -
https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2019/dec/10/the-coalition-isnt-being-honest-about-the-climate-crisis-but-neither-is-labor.

Monday, 16 December 2019

There is no stepping back from the fact that Australia is a significant factor in spreading the cancer of greenhouse gas pollution across the Earth's atmosphere


Australia's annual greenhouse gas emissions for the year to December 2015 were est. 529.2 Mt CO-e and annual greenhouse gas emissions for the year to December 2017 were estimated to be 533.7 Mt CO2-e.

By the year to June 2019 (and with 6 months of the year yet to go) greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be 532.0 Mt CO2-e.

Now the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government has always been fond of implying that figures such as these do not matter - saying that Australia is only a minor contributor to global emissions at est. 1.3% of the combined world total.

However, there is no stepping back from the fact that Australia is a significant factor in spreading the cancer of greenhouse gas pollution across the Earth's atmosphere.

In part because successive Australian federal and state government have encouraged investment in the mining of our natural resources.

Just 100 of all the hundreds of thousands of companies in the world have been responsible for 70.6% of all global greenhouse gas emissions that caused global warming in the 27 year period between 1988 and 2015, according to The Carbon Majors Database, a report published by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) in 2017.

These 100 fossil fuel industry companies can be broken down into the following categories:
41 publicly listed investor-owned;
16 privately held investor-owned;
36 state-owned; and
7 state producers.

The top 50 of these companies are:

China Coal Group
Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco)
National Iranian Oil Co
ExxonMobil Corp operating in Australia since 1895
Coal India Limited planning to acquire assets in Australia
Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex)
Russia Coal Co
Royal Dutch Shell PLC operating in Australia
China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) operating in Australia
BP PLC operating in Australia
Chevron Corp operating in Australia
Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA)
Abu Dhabi National Oil Co
Poland Coal
Peabody Energy Corp operating in Australia
Sonatrach SPA
Kuwait Petroleum Corp
Total SA operating in Australia
BHP Billiton Ltd operating in Australia
ConocoPhillips operating in Australia
Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras)
Lukoil OAO operating in Australia
Rio Tinto operating in Australia
Nigerian National Petroleum Corp
Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas)
Rosneft OAO
Arch Coal Inc operating in Australia
Iraq National Oil Co
Eni SPA operating in Australia
Anglo American operating in Australia
Surgutneftegas
Alpha Natural Resources Inc operated in Australia
Qatar Petroleum Corp
Pertamina
Kazakhstan Coal
Statoil ASA operating in Australia
National Oil Corporation of Libya
Consol Energy Inc operating in Australia
Ukraine Coal
Oil & Natural Gas Corp Ltd operating in Australia
Glencore PLC operating in Australia
TurkmenGaz
Sasol Ltd operating in Australia
Repsol SA operating in Australia
Anadarko Petroleum Corp
Egyptian General Petroleum Corp
Petroleum Development Oman
Czech Republic Coa.

Between them these 50 companies were responsible for est. 63.2% of the cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions between1988 and 2015 according to the CDP report.

The report also recorded global emissions for the year 2015 in which the following companies were listed as contributing significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions:

Shenhua Group Corp Ltd (2% global CO2-e) operating in Australia
Shandong Energy Group Co Ltd (0.7% global CO2-e) operating in Australia. 

In the face of the increasing negative impacts from climate change, Australia allows 22 of the world's top polluters to conduct business in Australia without even a pretence of limiting their greenhouse gas emissions.