Comments on: Deconstructing the mining industry’s ETS data http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/22/crunching-the-numbers-on-the-minerals-councils-ets-job-loss-claims/ now with extra source Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:45:47 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Evan Beaver http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/22/crunching-the-numbers-on-the-minerals-councils-ets-job-loss-claims/#comment-27121 Evan Beaver Fri, 22 May 2009 05:38:24 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=60514#comment-27121 Terrific article. I read the Australian's report on the MCA report this morning, and have my own concerns. They're not quite as fancy as the ones above though. Namely, their modelling "unlike Treasury's model, takes into account the GFC." Wellll, that might sound useful, but that means that their analysis includes contraction in the mining industry due to the GFC; the study does not show how many jobs will be lost because of the CPRS, it shows the job losses due to the CPRS, plus job losses due to the GFC. Since there's already been a couple of thousand job losses, I think it pokes a pretty big hole in their case. Also, does the analysis assume that these mines will keep producing indefinitely? I think it's a bit rich for an industry that is every bit the model of an unsustainable business (they dig up something that does not replenish. At all), to assume Business As Usual. They are so much at the mercy of markets, deposits and technology that I would argue their report is flawed at best, or self serving nonsense at worst. For those with an interest in Boat Rocking, here's a link to the Aus article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25518783-7583,00.html I note that the comment I provided has not been published yet. I am not surprised, I bet the MCA are a big advertiser with the Aus. Terrific article. I read the Australian’s report on the MCA report this morning, and have my own concerns. They’re not quite as fancy as the ones above though.

Namely, their modelling “unlike Treasury’s model, takes into account the GFC.”

Wellll, that might sound useful, but that means that their analysis includes contraction in the mining industry due to the GFC; the study does not show how many jobs will be lost because of the CPRS, it shows the job losses due to the CPRS, plus job losses due to the GFC. Since there’s already been a couple of thousand job losses, I think it pokes a pretty big hole in their case.

Also, does the analysis assume that these mines will keep producing indefinitely? I think it’s a bit rich for an industry that is every bit the model of an unsustainable business (they dig up something that does not replenish. At all), to assume Business As Usual. They are so much at the mercy of markets, deposits and technology that I would argue their report is flawed at best, or self serving nonsense at worst.

For those with an interest in Boat Rocking, here’s a link to the Aus article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25518783-7583,00.html

I note that the comment I provided has not been published yet. I am not surprised, I bet the MCA are a big advertiser with the Aus.

]]> By: David Kindon http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/22/crunching-the-numbers-on-the-minerals-councils-ets-job-loss-claims/#comment-27114 David Kindon Fri, 22 May 2009 05:00:28 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=60514#comment-27114 Probably time the Minerals Council slung the Hooke. Probably time the Minerals Council slung the Hooke.

]]>