Few success stories in “green” companies – despite the help they all get from Govt subsidies

Scanning through the ASX – as I do – I have noticed several companies trying to exploit “green opportunities” usually with the help of massive Govt subsidies – which means their hands are in OUR pockets.

Nice to see many failing – sooner they quietly go bust – the better for our hip pockets.

I say – let investors who have some great idea to make money, use their own funds to build a company to make their fortune.

Governments should have no place subsidising dubious green ideas. If green ideas are commercially sound – investors will beat a path to their door.

Feel free to contribute any other candidates. Note – after posting again on this subject on 7 Feb 2012 and in July 2013 – I have changed these linked Yahoo charts to be 5 yr charts.

GEODYNAMICS LIMITED GDY
GREEN INVEST LIMITED GNV
GREEN ROCK ENERGY LIMITED GRK
GREENCAP LIMITED GCG
GREENEARTH ENERGY LIMITED GER
GREENPOWER ENERGY LIMITED GPP
CARBON CONSCIOUS LIMITED CCF

10 thoughts on “Few success stories in “green” companies – despite the help they all get from Govt subsidies”

  1. Hi Warwick,

    It does not trouble me to name and shame the carpetbaggers that seem to spring from nowhere whenever there’s a chance of a quick Government buck.

    The cure is for Governments to stop schemes that allow exploitation. Indeed, one of our main present problems as that Governments are doing far, far more than was ever intended and so are taxing too, too much.

    The monies are best left in the hands of those who generate them, not taken as taxes. It is a mistake (as you know) to assume that a Government knows how to spend money more efffectively than you do.

  2. here’s a timely article
    www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/01/who-are-the-climate-denialists-now
    (a couple of paras)
    Although the climate change bandwagon may appear to roll on unstoppably regardless of all doubts or discredit, it has in fact suffered a serious loss of momentum in public acceptance. It has lost power and is now only coasting while trying to maintain a face saving facade for those so deeply committed that any graceful retreat is unthinkable.

    Worse still from the alarmist perspective, has been the painfully obvious failure of climate itself to cooperate. For the past three years all over the world savagely cold winter weather has repeatedly set new records for snow and low temperatures. Time after time global warming conferences have been greeted by record and near record cold weather. Trying to dismiss this as merely coincidence or just weather, not climate, has lost all credibility; especially after it has happened repeatedly amidst a background of extreme winter conditions over large areas. Continuing to offer this increasingly lame excuse has only made it look more like a lie or delusion than an explanation.

    Regardless of the ongoing hype and spin of the diehard proponents of AGW, the attitude of a large majority of the electorate has turned decisively against the idea of any imminent threat. This shift in sentiment is unlikely to reverse anytime soon. It developed over time and involves not just the Climategate emails but a much wider shift in the balance of public awareness as well as a sense of betrayal and dishonesty by researchers claiming certainty and righteousness. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Once a belief is abandoned, few people readily return to something they have decided was false. All the spin and hype is now achieving is to exacerbate the discredit. For supposedly intelligent people, this kind of behaviour does not indicate it.

    Meanwhile, as the warmists continue their doomscrying and seeking further hundreds of billions of dollars to carry on their vast charade, the whole economic structure upon which everything depends is teetering on the brink of disaster with little effort to address or to even recognise the very real and present dangers which confront us.

  3. It’s such a cold December: 2010 ends on a chilly note where people live
    Dr. Ryan N. Maue

    wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/its-such-a-cold-december-2010-ends-on-a-chilly-note-where-people-live/#more-30811
    conclusion
    We are talking hundredths here? Really?
    It’s a foregone conclusion that the official government data from whatever nation or agency will show that 2010 was the hottest year ever. It just has to be that way — please don’t look at that snow burying NYC or the bone-chilling historical cold throughout the UK and Europe, that’s just the weather. Instead, look at the articulate press releases with the bubble-plots from NOAA/NASA to see the real story of 2010, the hottest year ever by a few hundredths of a degree C. Yes, we are talking about hundredths and tenths of a degree during the past 10 to 30 years– that’s all. The Earth’s temperature varies a lot, from hour to hour, day to day, season to season, year to year for a bunch of reasons of which the sun is order 1, but even through all of that, you must know that the global temperature has changed only on the order of a 1-3 percent during the past 30-years. And, it isn’t a spatially homogeneous change, either. Not even close. AGW is built upon the premise of a slow, very slow upward trend that will eventually accelerate. But, that’s a long ways off — today, we are talking about hundredths of a degree C. How many trillions of dollars is that worth to you?

  4. The imposition of a carbon tax is designed to subsidise the unreliable and inefficient generators of wind and solar power at the expense of efficient coal-fired power generators and, of course, electricity consumers. The subsidised listed companies would include very large companies such as Origin Energy and AGL.

  5. Origin Energy has a large investment in Geodynamics and is looking at investing in wind farms. AGL has significant investment in wind farms. Both companies promote green energy but I think almost no customers are willing to pay extra for the supposed green energy. That is why the politicians have mandated (and planned for increased mandated off take) green energy production/sales for energy retailers.

  6. This result is not just a matter of chance.

    As you say, “green opportunity” companies are very often just chasing subsidies. Subsidies distort markets and divert resources from their most profitable uses. Subsidies also follow fashions, and are apt to be switched off when the fashions change or the distortions they create become flagrant.

    The general trend towards lousy returns in these companies is reflected in the superannuation funds that target “green” or “socially responsible” investments. The Unisuper fund that operates in Australian tertiary institutions provides a prime example. A few years ago they added a “socially responsible high growth” (SRI high growth) option. The ordinary “high growth” option has outperformed it ever since. In the last five financial years, the SRI high growth option had an average return of 1.75% a year, compared to a return of 4.44% in the ordinary “high growth” fund. In fact, every other Unisuper investment option (Cash, Balanced, Growth etc.) returned between 3.97% and 4.80% p.a. over this period. So if you have stuck with the SRI high growth option, you have lost a minimum of 11% over the last 5 years compared with any other alternative in the Unisuper range.

    See here

  7. A report from America
    www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/obamas_solar_nightmare.html
    Who have been the losers, and who have been the winners? And have the winners just been taking the taxpayers for a ride while their guy has been driving the bus — with taxpayers sitting in the back?

    the upshot if you’re a private investor don’t invest in solar; you’re likely to lose your money; I suspect this applies to wind as well as other ‘green’ technologies;

  8. renewable technology Gillard style

    www.afr.com/p/national/solar_deals_face_crunch_jgaTtvTi7k5GlaJsZn3YSK
    The future of two of the Gillard ­government’s big-ticket renewable energy projects is under a cloud after they missed their December deadline for finding a financial backer and may now lose more than $750 million in federal funding.

    Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson will make a decision within weeks on whether to extend the deadline to obtain finance for the Moree Solar Farm in NSW and Solar Dawn project in Queensland, or ­reopen the tender process under the $1.5 billion Solar Flagships ­program.

    The troubled projects are another blow for the federal government’s green credentials. Amid rising leadership tension in the Labor caucus, they are also a reminder of the failed green grant schemes such as home insulation, green loans and household solar programs championed by former prime minister Kevin Rudd.

    An oversupply of renewable energy certificates created by the household solar scheme has been a main factor contributing to the ­difficulties facing the Solar Flagships projects, with energy retailers already easily able to meet their ­obligations under the Renewable Energy Target.

    read more at the link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.