Power surge due: 6.30pm Sunday

Power surge

Hey kids, I hope Charlie the Coal-Fired Power Station is ready for this. Of course he is, he’s always ready for anything, thankfully (unlike his pitiful playmates, Wussy Wind and Sissy Solar).

Just as well, because on Sunday evening, at about 6.30pm, there will be a massive spike of electricity demand as everyone abandons their TV sets, goes into their kitchens and switches on their 2.4kW electric kettles to make a cup of tea and while away the next five minutes.

Why? Because Julia will be spruiking her pointless carbon tax to the nation. Here’s a checklist of the lies and spin we can expect to hear:

  • how “climate change is real” and we must take action
  • how Australia is “lagging behind the rest of the world”
  • repeated references to “carbon pollution”
  • repeated references to “big polluters”
  • how climate change is damaging Australia (but omitting to mention the tax will do nothing to change that…)
  • lots and lots of compensation for everyone (which kinda cancels out the intended effect of the tax, but still…)
  • how a carbon price is in the national interest
  • how a carbon tax will do nothing for the climate, oops sorry, that one slipped out.
  • how I was forced into this at gunpoint by the Greens, oops, sorry, that too.
Make sure you have those kettles at the ready folks.

Comments

  1. Pity there’s no Q&A.

    I’m wondering if anyone has seriously asked, and received a serious answer, about how much difference to the climate this tax is supposed to make. By that, I don’t mean vague answers like “this ensures Australia is doing its part… blah blah etc”, or statements about investments in renewables; I mean specifically, how much.

    The public (and ultimately, it is all Australians who will pay) deserve to know exactly what they’re paying for.

  2. Laurie Williams says:

    Sewage treatment plants be warned of overloading due to mass dunny breaks.

    Those few who watch the Lies Special may cause even more spectacular overloading.

  3. Jack Savage says:

    Yes. I think you have completely summed up the dreary predictability of it all.

    It is useful and therapeutic to bellow negatives at the TV set at the appropiate moments.

    A foam rubber brick should also be kept within reach for a finale.

  4. Yes Simon,
    But will the pseudo PM tell us about the UN Green Climate Fund, that will clip ~10% off this carbon tax as Australia’s contribution into this fund on a regular commitment? The UN wants a floating fund to the value of $100billion dollars by 2020.
    At $13billion dollars carbon tax revenue per annum, this contribution equates to $1.3billion dollars per annum being removed from Australia’s coffers and sent overseas.

    Or about the UN Fast Start Financing that is costing Australia $599million dollars to mitigate climate change projects in Asia and SE Asia ?

    Will the pseudo PM tell us that the ETS which has been in their agenda since at least 2009, and this ETS will lock us into a non reversible situation due to legal, contractual and financial commitment ? (what happens when you break a contract ?)

    The answer to all three will most probably be nothing, zilch, nada. Just more sales pitch.

  5. Baldrick says:

    Well may we say God Save the Queen, because nothing will save Julia Gillard after this debacle!

  6. Will the greens and independents be standing behind her like when she announced the thing in the first place? It will only confirm who is running the show.

  7. Carbon Tax announcement drinking game:
    ‘right thing to do’ : 1 drink
    ‘big polluters’ : 1 drink
    ‘carbon pollution’ : one out load profanity
    ‘clean energy’ : 1 drink
    ‘there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’ : down entire bottle of whisky

  8. fred nerk says:

    OH MY GOD I JUST REMEMBERED (shock and horror) I DON”T OWN AN IDIOT BOX WHAT SHALL I DO?,and don’t forget a roll of dunny wrap to clean the BS off your screen.After your cuppa of course.(i wonder how much co2 she will exhale during her tirade and is it taxable) CO2 is life

  9. Did anyone else notice a few days ago, when another Australian soldier was tragically lost while serving in Afghanistan, the public outcry against us having soldiers overseas?

    I find the hypocrisy staggering, that apparently it is our moral responsibility to save the world when there’s money to be made, and a little bit of socialist redistribution of wealth, however, when there’s people in imminent danger of zealots and despots such as the Taliban, it’s “not our war”…

    It also strikes me about the misguided delusion that by introducing a carbon tax we’ll be some kind of role-model for the rest of the world. Exactly how many Chinese soldiers are serving on the ground in Afghanistan again? Or Indian soldiers? Seems that they couldn’t really care less what the hell we’re doing. Why would anyone think that they’ll follow our lead with carbon taxation, and massive self-imposed economic shackles?

    • fred nerk says:

      I f somebody invaded my country for any reason let alone to secure an OIL and GAS supply I would be a little violent with my resistance. Afghanistan is no threat to Australia.Its all about Oil and I object to Australian troops dying for Amerika and a pack of lies about fake terrorism.Read the link . cheers .CO2 is life. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oil.html

  10. Luke Warm says:

    Well summed up. True and funny. I had a laugh – distracted me from the reality of what’s going on. The drinking game comment above is also very funny. I’ll be playing that. Expect to be very, very drunk. Can’t wait for the election – it’s too far away unless something gives. I am also looking for the Liberals to reassess their position and completely refute catastrophic global warming alleviation. That is, there isn’t a problem. No government money should be wasted on CO2 reduction. This doesn’t mean you are against environmentalism. It in fact frees up space for real environmental issues to be tackled. E.g., arable land issues, 3rd world poverty and over population, fusion generated electricity.

  11. froggy uk says:

    Sod the carbon credit business, im going to invest my entire savings in LCD & Plasma T,V`s, as i predict rather alot of them will have various heavy projectiles firmly embedded in the screen on sunday around 6-35pm therefore sales will skyrocket!.

  12. Alcheson says:

    If you intend to partake in the “drinking game”, best dilute the whiskey or drink a low alcohol content beverage, otherwise you’ll be dead on the floor before the speech is half over from an overdose. Cheers.

  13. John Dickson says:

    One: Julia Gillard did not invisage leading a government that required the support of the Greens, thereby requiring the “early’ introduction of the ETS, via a carbon price(tax). An ETS has ALWAYS been on the agenda of the Labor party mandate, AND was the mainstay of Kevin Rudds election campaign in 07, please note that that election was the third biggest landslide in the two party history, thus the electorate VOTED for the ETS to be brought in.
    Two: If you can’t see that something HAS to be done to curb the rate of destruction of the Earth, you’re all blind and deserve the wrath of mother nature that will surely worsen.
    Three: Those of us that DO decide to change our ways, save energy, be concious of what we use, and waste, will actually benefit financially from this tax.
    Four: Those that are whinging obviously earn too much money and are guided by pure greed, being more concerned with how many pennies are in their pockets, versus the degradation of our planet.
    And Five:, If you don’t care what happens to the Earth, aren’t bothered by the fact that peak oil is on our doorstep, aren’t concerned by the bleaching of the oceans corals, the ever depleting fish stocks, the loss of farmland to coal mines, the quality of the very air we breathe and water we drink, all because it won’t bother us in our lifetime, what about your children, and their children???????

    • One: Julia Gillard ruled out a carbon tax expressly, and opposed the ETS when Rudd was PM
      Two: Destruction of the earth? It’s been here 4.5 billion years and 100ppm of CO2 will destroy it? Please.
      Three: benefitting financially from a tax – now that’s a first.
      Four: Horseshit. You think that wasting trillions of dollars on a non-problem rather than spending it on clean drinking water, alleviating poverty and disease is GREED? Bizarre and offensive
      Five: I think you’ve had enough Kool Aid already

    • Fantastic! A true believer arrives!
      One : ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead’. Lie, broken promise or dropped commitment, this was a clear statement. There were no other comments on an ETS during the campaign except to say that it was pointless without a ‘deep and lasting community consensus’.

      Two : Please highlight the ‘rate of destruction of the Earth’. Seriously. Three examples of current destruction of the Earth will do. No, make that one. And please note this tax is about restriction activities which produce a clear, odorless, colorless gas essential for life on Earth, so after you’ve pointed out ‘destruction of the earth’ tell us how a carbon tax in Australia will fix it.

      Three : Incorrect. How are you going to use less steel, aluminium, concrete, glass, food and electricity? Sure, you might switch your TV off at the wall, but unplug your fridge and hot water system? I think not. Never buy or use anything made out of steel? Laughable. Unless you subsistance farm in a house made of local materials, you’re cannot avoid this tax.

      Four : I think you’ll find the ones whinging the most are the ones about to lose their jobs because of forced closure or restrictions on their particular line of work. If you worked in a coal mine marked for closure under fugitive emissions, don’t you think you’d be whinging just a little?

      Five : Peak Oil – a self-solving problem and irrelevant for another century with large scale shale-gas extraction which is already underway. Still plenty of hydrocarbons to recover. Coral bleaching : well, reefs have been around a long time through a range of climates so I figure they know what they’re doing. Ever depleting fish stocks : strict fisheries management is in place, and again a self-solving problem as cost of catching fish exceeds price people willing to pay. Not sure what fisheries has to do with the carbon tax, mind you. Loss of farmland to coal mines – well, you should be more concerned about 25% of the US Corn Crop being used to power vehicles instead of feeding people. But the reality is farmland converted to coal mining is a very, very minor issue because very few farms sit on top of good quality economic coal reserves. And besides, coal is just as important to our daily lives as grains or livestock, so it’s like arguing whether you should eat or drink – both are necessary. Turning farmland over to some hippie utopia covered in feral animals – now that would be a waste. Quality of the air we breathe : in Australia this is very good. Again carbon tax won’t change this because carbon dioxide is a non-toxic natural substance that you breathe int and out every minute of every day. Water we drink : well, I agree, we need more dams to ensure a reliable supply of good quality water.

      My kids will be fine. Because they will take the technology available to them, and build on it to come up with fantastic solutions that we can’t even imagine at this point. Why do you assume they will be helpless, useless humans unless a government makes all the decisions for them? My parents bequeathed to me a world with nuclear weapons but I don’t hold it against them.

      John – I admire your emotion and conviction. It’s a problem that you haven’t yet developed clear and rational thinking, but don’t despair, this will come with time. A hatful of emotional statements with no factual basis makes you feel passionate but unfortunately makes for poor arguments.

    • John,
      ONE: The argument you use about the Greens is irrelevant because they would never have supported the Coalition so why would Gillard bother about a signed agreement it was just spin! The Greens were the ones who killed off the ETS in 2008/9 because of their arrogance. After that Rudd was simply too weak or dumb to take it to a Double Dissolution Election in 2009 he still had a lot of support for an ETS just before Copenhagen. The reason Rudd stated to act quickly before Copenhagen in the implementation of an ETS was specifically dependant on the fact he was sure a global agreement would be reached and Economists had all said the market based system and the global agreement were like hand in glove. This is where it false to say the Coalition supported one then but have no reason not to support it now. The failure of Copenhagen is the reason the World doesn’t support it!
      Consequently, your reference to the 2007 election is a little far-fetched, just as you are using changed circumstances you need to realise that there were already changes a foot within the Labor Party. Gillard and Swan persuaded Rudd to abandon the ETS altogether, so how can you continue to say they had a mandate? If you still though it was alive within Labor it was obvious when Gillard ruled it in her infamous “Election Eve Declaration” Swan also knew it was a real issue when he abused Abbott of running the mother of all scare campaigns that Labor would bring in a Carbon Tax. There is about 95% chance that had she not done this she would have lost government.
      The 2007 margin was a win but Labor failed dismally to capitalise on it and consequently Rudd was a failure!
      TWO: This Tax has absolutely nothing (for or against) to do with the destruction of the Earth and for what I can only assume your connection with “wrath of Mother Nature” makes me think you are referring to weather. There is no such scientific connection that CO2 has any effect on weather and many scientists who believe in AGW WILL NOT connect the two. I think Mother Nature maybe a little more disturbed that we are blaming her CO2 an essential part of the Carbon Cycle for causing everything. I am also sure it is why CARBON is the upfront word for alarmists because of the implications of using carbon dioxide an essential gas in our lives.
      THREE: Another myth that I can dispel is that you alarmists think you are the only people on Earth doing anything environmental responsible. It may surprise you that I and many of my colleagues are streets ahead of you in all of things that matter. ACM people are not irresponsible in everyday actions and we don’t need monetary incentives to carry them out.
      FOUR: It is obvious from your lack of science and economics you have listened too much to the political alarmists. Whilst it is not worthy of much comment, I add only that we are more concerned that a Tax that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the planet I am not prepared to people lose their jobs, families lose their homes and the Australian way of life be denigrated by political activists!
      FIVE: I have already explained that caring for this Earth has many more aspects that a Carbon Dioxide Tax that does nothing anyway! The bleaching of the coral is scientifically in doubt! Ethanol would alleviate part of the oil, petrol and cattle feed problems. Controlled deep sea fishing has been proposed for many years but it is not Australians or us that are objecting to that. The same as coal seam gas and farms co-exist we need to address the coalmine scenario, but that bemuses me because you have just spent points one, two and three following the Greens political line and you need to read their policy on Coal in Australia! We have a very good EPA monitoring system with some of cleanest air in the world. Our water is likewise and the best in the world.
      The children bit Professor Flannery stated that if we implemented the measures proposed by the Climate Change Commission it would take 1000 years to have any affect. So maybe if he is right that would read our great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren.

  14. Bill Robbins says:

    There is no community consensus on a Carbon Dioxide (CO2) tax or an E.T.S.
    I demand a referendum or an election.
    Tony A. please start a process leading to this before the minority Labor Govt.(socialists) & Greens (Nuts and Raisins socialists) puts us back to the stone age.
    Bill

  15. Seeing drinking water is given as a priority–would any science buff care to explain how hexafluorosilic acid helps the often forgotten environment of our insides??

    The ‘my kids will be fine’–because of ‘undreamed of technology’ might care to explain why the canadians wont even come at chloroform as a safe reaction..

    Incitec supplies fertiliser scrubber waste as ‘pure fluoride’ in. Victoria–and other states.

    Only the ratbag Monckton would suggest that we only test the effects of sodium and calcium fluoride–to satisfy the approval process.

    Healthvine–[ see below] themselves are nutters–so perhaps the work of 14 Nobel prize winners might set the context more coherently:

    http://www.nofluoride.com/presentations/Nobel%20Prize%20Winners.pdf

    This article [the original which appeared in Earth Island] rather than the promotional material of healthvine explains why our experts and authorities prefer that we believe that ‘water science’ can–among other things– make sewerage ‘clean’.

    Despite even the single component of chloroform being a known carcinogen in 1930..

    http://www.thehealthvine.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=59

    Now we might have something to complain about–if in our hysterics to shout down the insistence of research –and therefore fully understand un-tested substances.

    At the moment–‘equivalence’ means we add more excito toxic waste–and claim the science is settled.

    ‘…the greatest fraud ever perpetuated…’–Albert Schatz [co-discoverer and Nobel Prize winner for streptomycin].

    • fred nerk says:

      A Nobel prize has no credibility since Al gore got one for Fraud and Obamabanana got a peace prize for invading foreign countries for their oil and gas.

    • The main reason I got a reverse osmosis water filter is to remove fluoride – I’m not a big fan of forced medication by govt decree.
      I also ban my kids from using fluoridated toothpaste – so far no rotted teeth, no issues whatsover.

      The greatest irony is marketing a known poison and industrial waste as “good for you” and people believe it – thats what amazes me.

      • DDT received the same miracle endorsements initially; so i wonder when we discover that fluoride also has the notoriety of the original 15 year planned trials being discontinued , and ‘declared successful’ after 5 years–i simply wonder whats new

        I spent a year and a half researching the Danish contribution to the EU quality standards for food in 2002.

        For your information–all the following contain ‘compromised’ fluorides

        http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/fluoride.tols.july.2005.html.

        I’ve only included this material for one reason–how do we
        filter radionuclides??

        ‘Drinking water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid contains radon at every sequence of its decay to polonium.’

        The fresher the pollution concentrate, the more polonium it will contain.’

        The danish use biodynamic theory to neutralise some of these byproducts.

        hope well

  16. Along with the other pensioners, it seems that I will receive a munificient $210 per year extra, because of the effects of the carbon-dioxide tax. This works out to a marvellous $8.06 per fortnight, which how the pension is paid. (0.57 cents per day !!)
    And this is not only going to cover me for the cost increases in electricity, food, clothes and everything else we have to live on, but, according to PM Julia Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan, I will actually end up with more money than the cost increases of everything take from me !!.
    Now I am left wondering what world the PM and her supporters are living on – it certainly is NOT the same world that I and my fellow pensioners inhabit !!

  17. Hi geoff–we have one million square kilometres that nobody utilises.

    Do we senilely reject that world?

    Do we sell the farm?

    Or– do we–as you appear to subscribe-offer the complaint that when we are industry-programmed to only receive 8% of their actual entitlement

    [the easy to establish figure for the last two decades]–we then should put up our hands for ‘our share’ too.

    No wonder nursing homes and hospices wont relinquish tax exemption status.

    They’d die without the brilliant company.

    cheers

%d bloggers like this: