Labor's carbon tax lie

[sails]

...And despite (Rudd) being the only cabinet minister to drive a fuel-efficient Toyoto Prius, his global carbon footprint amounts to 58 tonnes - equivalent to driving 13 Holden Commodores for a year.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...on/story-e6frfq80-1226062310363#ixzz0ovSyV2yU

One thing it clearly shows is that Rudd (like most policitians and those most likely to benefit from a carbon tax):

.....doesn't believe man made carbon emissions are a problem...lol

They are clearly showing by example that it is utter rubbish.

 

[Wysiwyg]

The first stage is to apply a carbon tax. If the carbon tax is shifted forward to
consumers, it increases the price of goods in proportion to their carbon content.

Two beer waffle.

If people want to use energy and products, which is most stuff created from fossil fuel, then they have to pay more for it. The government isn't imposing a tax on carbon they are placing a tax on the consumer via the companies (us indirectly) that create the emissions. As posted on another thread, China and America are the major contributors by a long shot but they are not going to stop and any slowdown will be very very slow. Australia's emissions are comparatively micro. Industry is jobs. More people more jobs. Pollies say more people, more people. Pollies give the go-ahead for more polluters. Gimme, gimme, gimme. More, more, more.

Fact is .... they don't know what to do. So it's do something for the time being.

Oh ... and it would be beneficial if we all consumed less stuff.

But wait a minute ... that means less jobs.

Thank you,
Master Jack.

 

[sails]

It has been discussed on the other carbon tax thread that the UN would be getting 10% of any carbon tax collected.

Below is a YouTube of parliament where Julie Bishop asked the PM to explain the 10% of carbon tax supposedly to be given to the UN. Ms Gillard evaded the question and waffled on about giving 100% back to the people in compensation. Ms Bishop asked again, and, once again the PM waffled on and avoided answering the specific question.

Does Ms Gillard's refusal to deny this 10% to the UN actually mean that this is what will happen? Gillard does everything BUT answer the question which puts a question in my mind that she doesn't want to admit it.

At the end of the video, it also shows both Gillard and Swan during pre-election promising no carbon tax. Both gillard and Swan were very clear about their "no carbon tax" message:



And if Abbott had done this and not answered such a simple question, he would have been hung and quartered by now by the lefties...

 

[noco]

It has been discussed on the other carbon tax thread that the UN would be getting 10% of any carbon tax collected.

Below is a YouTube of parliament where Julie Bishop asked the PM to explain the 10% of carbon tax supposedly to be given to the UN. Ms Gillard evaded the question and waffled on about giving 100% back to the people in compensation. Ms Bishop asked again, and, once again the PM waffled on and avoided answering the specific question.

Does Ms Gillard's refusal to deny this 10% to the UN actually mean that this is what will happen? Gillard does everything BUT answer the question which puts a question in my mind that she doesn't want to admit it.

At the end of the video, it also shows both Gillard and Swan during pre-election promising no carbon tax. Both gillard and Swan were very clear about their "no carbon tax" message:



And if Abbott had done this and not answered such a simple question, he would have been hung and quartered by now by the lefties...

Why is JU-LIAR trying to cover it up. It is obvious, she hopes the voters won't notice the taxpayers 10% contrbution to the UN Climate Change committee of which Rudd is a member.

 

[sails]

Here we go again - more taxpayers money down the drain to support Gillard's and Swan's carbon tax lie? Now we are to be hit with TV ads from actors who earn many more times than a pensioner shivering in the cold and too scared to put a heater on:

CATE Blanchett ... has teamed with Packed to the Rafters actor Michael Caton to be the faces of a series of TV ads branded “Say Yes”...

These actors who earn millions won't even notice the difference in their electricity bills. Seems hypocritical to use them and would be costing the government money that could be used for projects of higher need.

Above quote from the HeraldSun



and this from AdelaideNow: Cate Blanchett under fire for new carbon tax commercial

Anti-carbon tax campaigner and Federal MP Barnaby Joyce said the ad made Blanchett look "self indulgent". "Fifty-three million dollars gives you a whole heap of latitude to care about a lot of things," Mr Joyce said.

 

[Logique]

Cate Blanchett is a terrific actress. But it's always best to fully research the part. I hope she doesn't come to regret being in that govt carbon ad (paid for by taxpayers). The participants will end up looking very silly indeed. Are any of them climate scientists.

Cate can probably afford the electricity bill, small price to pay for the cachet with the inner city left wing cognoscenti.

Edit: have just seen this, and some withering blog comments included: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...om_the_woman_in_the_luxury_audi/#commentsmore

"...In 2009, BRW estimated the Oscar winner’s wealth at $53 million, putting creature comforts like a $10 million mansion in Hunters Hill on Sydney’s North Shore well within the budget…

'It’s nice to have a multi-millionaire who won’t be impacted by it telling you how great it is,' Terri Kelleher, from The Australian Families Association, said..."

I think I'll follow the bloggers suggestions, and boycott her work, and Michael Caton's.

 

[drsmith]

These actors who earn millions won't even notice the difference in their electricity bills. Seems hypocritical to use them and would be costing the government money that could be used for projects of higher need.

This rubbish is backed by something that calls itself the "The Climate Institute", although it's not clear from the article below exactly where the $1m so far to fund this campaign comes from or whether or not these actors are being paid for these performances.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-starting-price/story-fn59niix-1226064883425

According to their website, they research, educate and communicate.

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/about-us

Their idea of education is images of power stations belching out visible fumes turning the sky grey while renewable energy restores the sky to blue, complete with gooey images of Cate (below). Have they forgotten that carbon dioxide is not a visible gas ?

Westpac leads its group of leading climate partners.

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/climate-partners

 

[trainspotter]

Their idea of education is images of power stations belching out visible fumes turning the sky grey while renewable energy restores the sky to blue, complete with gooey images of Cate (below). Have they forgotten that carbon dioxide is not a visible gas ?

Must have forgotten that it is actually steam that you can see coming from the stacks.

No more Cate Blanchett on the menu for me. I remember in 2004 she was upset that John Howard was re-elected so no guessing where her alliegance lies. She should stick to acting IMO. Michael Caton on the bandwagon as well ??? Look what happened to Bill Hunter when he got $250,000 to front the advertising campaign for the 1996 election.

The worst part about this is that the proletariat will swallow this hook line and sinker. The advert itself is so simple that it is an affront to the intellegence of the people. Brainwashing a future generation with "Sesame Street" style of adverts. BAH HUMBUG !

 

[Logique]

Yes Dr that's an important correction, the funding is, shall we say, co-ordinated by the Climate Institute (not the Ponds Institute) which in turn is primarily funded from a green philanthropy fund called the Poola Foundation and its offshoot, The Tom Kantor Fund, which has previously partnered the Australian Conservation Foundation in other projects.

A quasi Govt looking ad, but it's seems more Green movement, in the abscence of info on the contributions of the 'Climate Partners.'

https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa..._p2aBw&usg=AFQjCNEzhixDlXwMI5BF7HGHfycecPLnOA
"...Mark Wootton and Eve Kantor, through their Poola Foundation and its offshoot, The Tom Kantor Fund, have given $42 million over the past 12 years to a range of social and environmental issues, including efforts to raise awareness of climate change and tackle the causes..."

 

[drsmith]

The advert itself is so simple that it is an affront to the intellegence of the people. Brainwashing a future generation with "Sesame Street" style of adverts. BAH HUMBUG !

Not only do we have the sky turning from grey to blue, energy from wind and solar never runs out. I suppose on still nights, we can look at the stars or have an early night.

Help for people struggling with bills is a reference Labor's socialist wealth redistribution via its compensation package.

Established in late 2005, The Climate Institute is a non-partisan, independent research organisation that works with community, business and government to drive innovative and effective climate change solutions. We research. We educate. We communicate.

Non-partisan my foot.

 

[trainspotter]

Doesn't Michael Caton also do the voiceover for McDonalds? He claims he is doing this advert for the Government becasue he wants his grand children to have a future. HYPOCRITE

After a year-long investigation, the environmental group Greenpeace has accused McDonald's and other western firms of contributing to deforestation in the Amazon.

Greenpeace's report, published today, alleges that much of the soy-based animal feed used by fast-food chains to fatten chickens is derived from soybeans grown in the Amazon Basin of Brazil.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=48949723468&topic=6392

The advert in all its redonkulous splendour. Remove brain before watching please.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I believe the majority of Australia's population are aware of increasing CO2 emissions but are also aware their occupations are directly linked to these emissions. This deal suggests employment won't be impacted but hard to believe if profit margins are cut that this won't happen. Wiki says ...

From an economic perspective, carbon taxes are a type of Pigovian tax. They help to address the problem of emitters of greenhouse gases not facing the full (social) costs of their actions. Carbon taxes are a regressive tax, in that they disproportionately affect low-income groups. The regressive nature of carbon taxes can be addressed by using tax revenues to favour low-income groups.

Really though, the goal of reducing emissions should be maintained through a weaning off process. That may be the plan.

 

[Macquack]

Doesn't Michael Caton also do the voiceover for McDonalds?

The carbon tax is "not schmancy, just a little bit fancy."

Wait for Caton to be poached by the Liberals for their anti-ads.

" A carbon tax, tell them their dreamin'."

 

[noco]

What is of most concern is this Gillard Labor government will place a tax on the invisable carbon dioxide without a cap. It will allow them to increase it year after year, but you can bet your boots the compensation to house holders will remain the same from day one and will not be indexed to keep up with the tax increases. It is likened to the old sales tax where governments could raise it without informing house holders. Keating increased the s/t on motor vehicles from 20-25% and no one at the time was any the wiser.

If the independants have any spine, they should insist on a cap.

Unlike the GST which was fixed and cannot be increased without approval from all the states and territories.

This government are a sneaky lot and cannot and must not be trusted for if you do, you will be poorer by far.

 

[drsmith]

Interesting commentary (~35 second point in the video) about Tony Windsor's position on the carbon tax.

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3229878.htm

For a July 1 2012 introduction, Malcolm Turnbull might be a better prospect for Labor.

 

[Julia]

Must have forgotten that it is actually steam that you can see coming from the stacks.

This is one of the greatest cons of all.
I reckon if you asked the average Australian what all that stuff was that was billowing out, they'd say it was nasty pollution, certainly including the evil carbon.

 

[noco]

This is one of the greatest cons of all.
I reckon if you asked the average Australian what all that stuff was that was billowing out, they'd say it was nasty pollution, certainly including the evil carbon.

Yes Julia, A CON JOB IT IS by this Gillard Labor Government.

It has nothing to do with reducing carbon dioxide but plenty to do with raising taxes to prop up their incompetent management of the tax payers money and Gillard/Rudd/Swan and the rest of their cohorts know it.

LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES.

 

[noco]

I have just read this Courier Mail article on Labor's carbon dioxide tax and out of 208 comments by readers, one could count on two hands those who favour this add and the carbon dioxide tax.

Blanchett the multi millionaire, living in a $10 million mansion, could not care less about how struggling working families and pensioners will cope with the extra cost of living. How much is the Labor Party paying her and why is this add being paid for by tax payers?

This will back fire on the Labor Party and hopefully will wipe out the distraction created by Turnbull.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/enter...ts-carbon-tax/comments-e6freq7o-1226064724034

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Doesn't Michael Caton also do the voiceover for McDonalds? He claims he is doing this advert for the Government becasue he wants his grand children to have a future. HYPOCRITE



http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=48949723468&topic=6392

The advert in all its redonkulous splendour. Remove brain before watching please.

Hired goons that simply have no idea what they are selling - All hypocrites. The blow back from this "Say Yes" campaign should be interesting

Hopefully the coverage of this advertising will have more people waking up to the con.

 

[Smurf1976]

This is one of the greatest cons of all.
I reckon if you asked the average Australian what all that stuff was that was billowing out, they'd say it was nasty pollution, certainly including the evil carbon.

It's very predictable unfortunately. Show anything on TV about climate change and someone will put some pictures of cooling towers, which emit zero CO2, in it. Sad but such is the lack of decent education on technical matters that the average person probably does think a cooling tower is a chimney.

Anyway, back to that ad and I have a question. Why, if they are advocating a switch away from coal, did they add two modern units to a 50+ year old power station during the course of the ad? What was the point of that? Watch and look closely at the power station - first it's an old plant circa 1950's, then two modern looking boilers appear. Why?

And then there's the question of why put an antique plant in there in the first place? Someone's been looking through the archives that's for sure. Unless of course it's for tourists, most of whom generally seem to love seeing old machinery (especially if it's still working).