Pro-carbon tax protesters can pay it for the rest of us

Thanks for agreeing to pay for me!

ABC TV was metaphorically wetting itself this evening, with a sycophantic, grovelling piece about the brave climate warriors at the pro-tax rallies today. Every single one of them was there on the basis of a lie, namely that a carbon tax in Australia will somehow make a difference to the climate. Sorry to disappoint you all guys, but IT WON’T. And it won’t make China and India abandon their plans for economic growth either. Nor will it make Japan, Russia, Canada or the US change their mind on abandoning Kyoto 2.

But that doesn’t stop them. They think they’re doing something for the climate, and the hackneyed “children and grandchildren”. They really think they’re “saving the planet”, the poor deluded souls! They can’t even be honest about the number who attended – hang on, I guess these are warmists we’re talking about, so whenever there’s a number involved, you can bet it has been inflated or fudged. Hide the Decline (of protesters).

They seem to want to throw their money away, so here’s a novel idea: the pro-tax protesters can pay the carbon tax for the rest of us. Despite the fact that it won’t make a skerrick of difference to the climate, thousands apparently showed their support for paying more tax for no reason, so I think we should let them. Here’s the deal, if you turn up for a pro-carbon tax rally (or are a member of the Labor party or GetUp!), you should automatically be forced to pay the burden of the tax for not only yourself, but also the hundreds or thousands of other people who don’t want it and stayed at home. Simple.

We should be thanking them in fact, for agreeing to pay a pointless tax for the rest of us who are intelligent enough to see that it will make no difference to the climate whatsoever. Now where’s Julia’s email address?


  1. Dallas Beaufort says:

    Public servants want a very large pay rise.

  2. This is scary. In the admitted face of the monolithic propaganda the weakest minds are succumbing without resistance. This must be how it was with the rise of the Nazis.

  3. The Loaded Dog says:

    To actually be protesting FOR taxes.

    Will we be seeing them protesting for death next; the one other surety of this life?

    The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me….

  4. rukidding says:

    Well then if there is so much support for the carbon tax I guess Juliar will be off to government house to get that beautiful mandate for her carbon tax.
    What you say her vote is in the toilet.Oh well maybe not then.:-)

  5. Baldrick says:

    The wombats from GetUp strike again … rent-a-crowd.
    If you’d have told me 5 years ago that people would be marching in the streets in favour of a new government tax, I’d have called you crazy.
    If you’d have told me 10 years ago the government would be taxing us for oxygen/carbon dioxide I’d have called you crazy.
    If you’d have told me 20 years ago the Earth was warming and not cooling I’d have called you crazy.
    So that’s it – the world’s gone crazy !!!!!

  6. I really hate this attack on carbon dioxide as pollution.
    I also hate this ‘say yes’ campaign.
    Say yes?
    Maybe if we were allowed a referendum on the issue we could have a choice.
    I cant believe the ACTU is actively campaining to replace union members jobs with unemployment.
    Im not too worried about todays support for the tax, the crowd would’ve been labor stooges & the classic inner city greens who think they are morally & ethically superior to the rest of us.
    The opinion polls are really reflecting the mood of the nation and the alarmists are worried.
    Gillard is so selfish that she is gambling the future of the labor party. I can see the next election banishing labour to the wilderness for a generation.
    Cant wait for the next election.

  7. US Weatherman Pat Sajak suggest a similar but more radical idea for the Greens – see

  8. John of Cloverdale WA (Aus) says:

    Think of the new bureaucracy this will create. More soft green jobs (paid by us that have real jobs).

  9. Are these people that gullible? Just wondering.

  10. NikFromNYC says:

    Children of One Earth, you MUST obey the most famous warmist of all, Mr. Manson!

  11. To be honest, I am one who has not made up my mind on this issue completely, however, I am leaning towards supporting a tax, why??? There seems to be many facts that support this issue and which seems to be physically evident. The debate against has provided no solid basis to discredit this theory but simply just to say “it is not true”!!! Need more from the sceptics other than general rhetoric to convince me. All ears!

    • Simon C says:

      Troy, you answered your own question when you said “the debate against has provided no solid basis to discredit this theory”. Anthropogenic global warming remains just that, a theory. It is a theory that has yet to be proved.

    • All I can say is, if that is your view of the counter argument, you cannot have read much of this site. There have been dozens of reasoned arguments for why a carbon dioxide tax is a bad idea. But here are the main ones, all of which assume, for the time being, that carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous warming of the planet:

      1. A carbon dioxide tax will do nothing for the climate whether locally or globally. Period.
      2. It will not shame the big emitters China and India from abandoning their plans for economic growth and swamping any reductions Australia makes many times over.
      3. It will not change the decision of the US, Japan, Canada and Russia to abandon a follow up to Kyoto.
      4. It will cripple Australia’s economy for no benefit to the climate as jobs and industries move offshore.
      5. The government has no mandate to introduce such a tax, as it was expressly ruled out on the eve of the election by Julia Gillard.

      And we haven’t even started discussing the science. Now let’s hear your arguments in favour.

      • When I had previously looked at this argument, I could only see a battle between humanity and long term sustainability VS short term gain at any cost and as long as I get my piece of the pie. I understood that the whole concept behind the carbon tax, was to create or promote a renewable energy industry, and not responding now could mean loss of opportunities financially for our nation in the long term, especially with the world looking at this issue seriously despite a non action by heavy emitters. China and India are catching up with the western world, which means we have to keep ahead of the game to ensure we remain internationally competitive. Just as Abu Dubai are planning for the next phase of life after oil, we need to plan our phase for life after our valuable fossil fuels. Let’s face it, it is what has kept our nations head above water financially and won’t last forever. I also understand It is a slooow phasing in of new technologies, which our nation will hopefully be a solid innovator in, of which the carbon tax was the proposed means to enable this. I see it as an opportunity to kill both birds with one stone – helping to keep our planet sustainable for our grandchildren and their children but ensuring a financially competitive stake in international circles in the long term.

        • We’re all in favour of renewables, but only when they are competitive. And when they are competitive, people will use them voluntarily. However, at the moment, fossil fuels are plentiful and cheap and taxing those fuels in order to funnel money into subsidies for inefficient alternatives is not the answer, and it will damage the economy. I notice also that your response makes no mention of the climate…

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          Hey Troy, I was just wondering…

          Do you get paid per hour or per word?

        • Troy – you let your bias slip when you went for the ‘grandchildren’ line. The carbon tax will not usher in new technologies any more than the GST does.

          50% of the money raised from the tax goes back to consumers to buy the same old products (including electricity) as before. Another big swathe (I forget the actual %) goes to export-facing companies. A tiny sliver (maybe 10%?) will go to ‘renewable technology’.

          However, you can R&D something to death, but if you cannot change the fundamental problems with it : ie the sun doesn’t shine all the time, nor does the wind blow all the time – then it’s pointless, like researching the best flyscreen for submarine windows.

          There is enough hydrocarbon based energy in Australia to easily last the next century or longer. That is known reserves currently available using existing technology. This figure will go up – not down. There is no evidence that using these reserves will modify the global climate in any way.

          Further to this – all the good innovations – and I mean all of them – do not come from government departments with buckets of money poured over them. The car, the plane, even electrical power itself – all from private inventors using private investment. These departments always come up with the right answers to the wrong questions. Sure, throw a couple of trillion at NASA and you’ll get velcro and cordless drills – but the people who invented these things could have, and would have done so by themselves, without the buckets of government cash.

          Cast your mind back a century. You’re in 1911. Roads and cars are rare. The plane is a dangerous contraption flown only by madmen. The rocket or satellite haven’t even been dreamed up. Computers don’t exist, and neither does radio or TV.

          WIth that in mind, are you seriously suggesting that policies of the 1911 Australian parliament with a view to outcomes obtained in 2011 would be anything but pure fantasy.

          Energy policy is simple : maximum energy for minimum investment. Fiddle around with this at your peril. The reason African tribes are so poor is they lack economic access to clean energy. Yes, I did say clean. Despite all the marketing thrown your way, modern coal-fired generation is infinitely cleaner than cooking on dung fires.

        • There are so many sides to this argument that maybe at the end of the day unless you can or have the opportune to analyse and decipher facts including scientific from a raw basis, it still becomes their word against theirs. I’m not bias by any means but would say I’m playing devils advocate to draw on some solid reasoning. Since the seventies we have seen a significant spike in climate temperatures(fact) and a slower rate since the industrial revolution up to the seventies but still an increase. If the rise is due to green house gases????, we realistically need to do something. If it is factually coincidental, then to hell with the tax. At the end of the day we all make our decisions based on heresay, unless of course we are at the coal face(no pun intended) of scientific discovery or analysis. We can however, make decisions as best we can with the information put before us, and importantly we should not be influenced by speculation, which is dangerous and risky in any instance. BRC you conclude with maximising energy for minimum cost(does not support an argument against but would strengthen the resolve of pro carbon supporters thoughts) and oversimplifying the African plight demonstrates a shallowness in itself. There is no doubt this argument has the potential to outlast the demise of our planet from whatever cause.

  12. The stated aims of the proposed tax itself will surely be unrealisable in practice.

    I’m against the “carbon tax” for most of the reasons you and others have stated, though I’m unconvinced that it will harm Australian companies classified as “polluters”. They’ll find a solution, as big businesses usually do, whereby the cost of the new tax won’t fall on their profits, their directors’ salaries or their shareholders’ dividends, but somewhere else… ultimately on the general public.

    This is the same general public that the government promises to compensate fully for price rises resulting from the tax, right? Another promise doomed from the start. Only in the simplest, most direct cases (domestic electricity bills, maybe) will it be feasible to identify which price changes or components of such changes are a consequence of the tax. So the burden will fall on the general public. We’ll be only partly compensated out of the carbon tax revenue, and the government will keep the rest. Sweet deal for them.

    I can’t see how a tax they’re free to pass on can compel or motivate “polluters” to invest in alternative energy sources. All it will achieve will be a) to add to the government’s revenue and b) to put up living costs. Just like the GST.

    Any government that seriously wants “polluters” to change over to cleaner energy sources will need to mandate that changeover and help fund it. But no… the main idea here is to collect an extra tax, isn’t it?

    While I distrust this government, I distrust the alternative at least as much. I doubt there’s much to choose between them in terms of game-playing and willingness to make promises they won’t keep.


  1. […] There is one thing the protesters seem to have no quarrels with, and that is paying more for everything. Bring on the pain, they say. It’s like exercise, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. Australian Climate Madness has suggested that they could pay for the rest of us. […]

%d bloggers like this: