Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Say 'yes' to clean coal, but say 'no' to General Electric

By Jonathan J. Ariel - posted Tuesday, 12 August 2008


What do Australian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common with a proposed $3 billion "clean coal" power plant in New South Wales or Queensland?

A whole lot more than you think.

US multinational, General Electric proposes to build a “clean” 700-800MW power plant, which will turn coal into gas and then remove the CO2 before storing it underground. And they want you to foot the tab. At least in part.

Advertisement

So said GE’s Global Clean Coal Power chief, Mr Keith White in Melbourne on July 29.

Mr White claimed that carbon prices of $40-$50 a tonne would make the GE plants viable. While this price was likely in the future, indications that initial carbon prices of $20 a tonne would imply that GE would need “assistance” at the start. This is corporate code for taxpayer subsidies.

The Australian noted that the “company was in talks with state governments”.

GE’s conversations revolve around its Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle designed for black coal, found in Queensland and NSW. This explains why no talks are underway with the Victorian government. IGCC involves pulverising coal, extracting gas, feeding the gas into a power plant and jettisoning the carbon.

Sounds great. But two questions arise.

First, is GE the right partner for state governments? Second, just how much money does GE expect the taxpayer to fork over? We’ll leave the second question to another column.

Advertisement

On Friday, January 11, 2008, Fox News Channel aired the reactions to its investigation into General Electric’s dealings with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Most of GE’s dealings, interestingly, have focused on power generation.

Interviewed on the O’Reilly Factor were the vice president of the Center for Security Policy, Mr Christopher Holton and the co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, Ms Debra Burlingame. Muslim terrorists killed Ms Burlingame’s brother on 9-11.

Ms Burlingame mentioned that GE’s stance is that “they're only fulfilling old contracts”. As opposed to drumming up new business. GE through its subsidiaries, she claimed, was also doing business with another terror state, Syria.

Conservative host, Bill O’Reilly correctly noted that the United States Department of State has not condemned GE and neither had the Bush administration. Other companies, he volunteered also had business dealings with Iran. Burlingame mentioned that the US Securities and Exchange Commission inquired into GE in 2006, asking “what are you doing, what's your involvement, what's the extent of your contracts”? GE responded: “basically, it’s none of your business; we're complying with law; and our focus is ensuring shareholder value.”

At that juncture, Mr Holton chimed in stating that GE (and others) are providing “corporate life support for our enemies in the war on terrorism when they do business with Iran. It would not have been acceptable in the 1940s to build a hydroelectric plant in Nazi Germany. And it's not acceptable today to be building a hydroelectric plant in Iran. Iran is killing Coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

This last sentence should be disturbing reading to every Australian.

Syria, too, is a lucrative market for GE. And Syria, listed as a “terror state” by the US State Department, is up to its armpits in butchering Coalition troops in Iraq. After all, 90 per cent of the foreign fighters in Iraq pass through Syria.

The main occupation of such terrorists is to detonate suicide bombs and lay improvised explosive devices (IEDs), resulting in the killing and maiming of Coalition forces. These criminals fly into Damascus from all over the Islamic world and enter Iraq through its western border. The Americans call this the “ratline”. And GE is bankrolling the ratline, as Mr Holton said, by giving life support to these terror states.

When asked by Mr O’Reilly if GE is really “helping Syria” or is just “doing business”, Mr Holton replied “they (GE) disclosed this themselves. They're doing business with the Syrian government and the Iranian government. GE says that they're doing business with those governments.”

Ms Burlingame put it best: “I'd like the American people to understand that what GE is doing is within the letter of the law, but is most definitely violating the spirit of the law. We are trying desperately to avoid another war. These sanctions (against Syria and Iran) are to help give our diplomats and our country something to bargain with in diplomatic talks”. She continued “We're trying to turn these countries into international pariahs. And when you give them goods and services, you're working against us.”

It’s hoped that when our state politicians discuss clean coal and deliberate handing over millions of our tax dollars to prop up those who prop up our enemies, that they reflect on the deaths in mid July 2007 of two Australians, both Queenslanders killed by a roadside IED.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

7 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jonathan J. Ariel is an economist and financial analyst. He holds a MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management. He can be contacted at jonathan@chinamail.com.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jonathan J. Ariel

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Jonathan J. Ariel
Article Tools
Comment 7 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy