GetUp! thugs threaten carbon tax "blackmail"

8 July, 2011 by

GetHisFaceOffMyMonitor!

Doing Labor’s dirty work for them yet again, GetUp! has threatened to boycott grocery companies if they oppose the carbon tax:

A POWERFUL consumer lobby group [leftwing political activist group – Ed] has threatened a mass boycott of major grocery companies if they oppose the carbon tax.

Activist group Get Up has been accused of blackmail after sending a warning letter to 150 companies including Coca-Cola, Heinz, Kraft, McDonald’s, Schweppes and Nestle.

Get Up says it will urge its 570,000 members to “boycott goods and services that are linked to the scare campaign”.

Get Up confirmed it was prepared to mount a national boycott of the products of any company that was “holding our climate to ransom” by supporting a multi-million-dollar anti-tax advertising campaign by business.

Australian Food and Grocery Council chief executive Kate Carnell described the letter as blackmail and bullying.

“There is no doubt this is blackmail,” she told the Herald Sun.

“I’m horrified that an entity like Get Up who supposedly encourage free speech, seems only to believe that’s OK when people agree with Get Up.

“Threatening a boycott is really bullying.”

Ms Carnell said some of her smaller members who received the letter were worried the boycott could cost jobs.

“They are saying to our members if you support the Australian Food and Grocery Council taking a position against the carbon tax then we will encourage our members to boycott your goods and services,” she said.

Other companies who received the letter include Arnott’s, Colgate-Palmolive, Foster’s, Johnson & Johnson, Mars, Sanitarium, Unilever, Patties Foods, Jalna and Eagle Boys Pizza.

Ms Carnell said her members were not climate change deniers but they did have concern about the carbon tax harming competitiveness and the 300,000 jobs in the food and grocery sector. (source)

You can read the letter here (PDF).

Under the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900, “blackmail” is defined as follows in section 249K:

(1) A person who makes any unwarranted demand with menaces:

(a) with the intention of obtaining a gain or of causing a loss, or

(b) with the intention of influencing the exercise of a public duty,

is guilty of an offence.

Section 249M what constitutes a “menace”, in particular towards a corporation:

(1) For the purposes of this Part, “menaces” includes:

(a) an express or implied threat of any action detrimental or unpleasant to another person, and

(b) a general threat of detrimental or unpleasant action that is implied because the person making the unwarranted demand holds a public office.

…

(3) A threat against a Government or body corporate does not constitute a menace unless:

(a) the threat would ordinarily cause an unwilling response, or

(b) the threat would cause an unwilling response because of a particular vulnerability of which the person making the threat is aware.

In this case there is a clear intent to cause a loss arising from the boycott, and there appears also to be an “unwarranted demand with menaces”, or threats that these actions will take place if the grocery companies oppose the carbon tax. Also, there is an awareness of the vulnerability of small grocers to such threats, and the possibility of them being put out of business. I’m not a criminal lawyer, but it’s arguable at least…

We can only hope that ordinary Australians see through these desperate, cheap scare tactics for what they are. GetUp! does not represent the majority of Australians, just a vocal and dangerous minority of extremists.

One word for Sheikh and his bullies: GetLost.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Bad science makes for bad policy

5 July, 2011 by

Price on carbon dioxide

The details of Labor’s carbon [dioxide] tax will be revealed on Sunday. I don’t intend to write in any detail on the matter, since, and forgive the scatological reference, it would be like examining the detail of a pile of horseshit – no matter how closely you examine and analyse it, it’s still horseshit. So don’t wait up for a post on how billions of dollars will be redistributed via some hideously complex bureaucracy – it won’t be there.

Just yesterday, Julia Gillard quoted wildly inaccurate and exaggerated climate predictions in a desperate attempt to scare the public into supporting her carbon dioxide tax. Nonsensical claims of temperatures rising by up to 5 degrees by 2070, 1 metre sea level rises, climatic shifts of 2000km, giving Sydney the climate of Cairns. And then she has the gall to accuse the Opposition of running a scare campaign! If the Australian people don’t see through such shallow tactics, they deserve the fate that will befall them.

All of this stems from the conclusions of the IPCC’s climate reports, the key one being:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. (source)

The IPCC was established for the sole purpose of building a body of evidence to support a conclusion that had already been reached, namely that man-made emissions were causing dangerous global warming. And guess what? They found it. They found it by excluding papers that contradicted that conclusion, playing down natural influences on the climate, exaggerating the effect of CO2, drawing from a huge range of grey literature from environmental advocacy groups and then claiming a consensus of 2500 scientists which is actually nearer to 50.

Based on those biased and skewed reports, successive governments in Australia (both Coalition and Labor) were determined to “tackle climate change”. It was the politically astute thing to do.

However late in 2009, that bipartisan approach broke apart, when Tony Abbott was elected leader of the Opposition, and Kevin Rudd’s ETS was voted down. Rudd was subsequently dumped by Labor, and Julia Gillard was installed, promising:

“There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.” (video)

We can play semantic games concerning whether she or Bob Brown leads the government, but the Australian people went to the polls in August 2010 on that basis, and Labor won a very narrow victory. In February 2011, however, in a brazen about-turn, forced up on her by her tawdry power-sharing deal with the Greens, she announced that a carbon [dioxide] tax would commence in mid-2012.

There then followed the establishment of the Climate Commission and the Climate Committee, neither of which included any members who weren’t 100% behind the IPCC line (indeed you weren’t even allowed to participate if you were at all sceptical), to make the case for “pricing carbon”. There was also going to be a “people’s assembly” which was killed off quickly and painlessly when Labor saw the reaction to it.

Unsurprisingly, those bodies have concluded that we need to price carbon and we will see the results of this sham on Sunday. Knock me down with a feather.

Call me old fashioned, but scientific enquiry is about challenging the consensus to see if it stands up. But where is the challenge? There was barely any in the IPCC – a coterie of warmists all cosily peer-reviewing each other’s papers, making sure that anything remotely critical was never published (and conspiring against journals that did dare publish such papers – Climategate), and there was none in the Climate Commission and the Climate Committee.

It’s a simple point. If the science is so strong and overwhelming, why this cowardly fear of exposing it to scrutiny? Surely the sceptics would be put in their place once and for all, and the public would see, transparently and obviously, that their arguments carried little weight.

But they are afraid. Afraid of hearing anything that might raise doubts in their own blinkered view that man is dangerously changing the climate. Afraid of even engaging with those who challenge the consensus, going to great lengths to shut down debate, smear sceptics and abandon rights of free speech (Brisbane Broncos club, are you listening?).

And what will a price on carbon dioxide do to the climate? Nothing. I’ll just write that again (slightly larger so nobody misses it):

NOTHING.

 

In fact it will do:

  • nothing whatsoever for climate
  • nothing whatsoever for global temperatures
  • nothing whatsoever for local temperatures
  • nothing whatsoever for the Arctic
  • nothing whatsoever for polar bears (which are doing fine, thanks)
  • nothing whatsoever for the drought or floods or cyclones
  • nothing whatsoever for the Great Barrier Reef (which is also doing fine, thanks)
  • nothing whatsoever for Kakadu
  • nothing whatsoever for Tuvalu and all the other sinking islands
  • nothing whatsoever for the ringtail possum and other cuddly creatures
  • nothing whatsoever for bushfires and heatwaves
  • in fact, nothing whatsoever for anything even remotely related to the climate

The measly 5% reduction of our already tiny 1.5% contribution to global emissions planned for 2020 will be swallowed up in a matter of weeks or months by China’s ever increasing number of coal-fired power stations. Yes, I know they are making the right noises about renewables, but coal is the cheapest form of energy, and unlike us, they aren’t dumb enough to force expensive, inefficient and unreliable renewables on their long-suffering population.

China’s emissions will continue to rise in real terms, even though they may decrease as a percentage of GDP. But as their GDP is rising so fast, the point is irrelevant. And if our politicians seriously think that our action will shame China and India into torpedoing their plans for economic growth, then our leaders are even more deluded than we thought.

On the other hand, a unilateral price on carbon dioxide in Australia will do the following:

  • everything to damage Australia’s economy
  • everything to damage Australia’s competitiveness
  • everything to increase the cost of living for ordinary Australians
  • everything to make the poorest in society worse off
  • everything to damage emissions intensive industries
  • everything to ensure that our industries move offshore
  • everything to create more unemployment
  • everything to raise electricity, gas and food prices

Pointless political gestures are rarely as empty and damaging as this one. We can only hope that the Australian public have long enough memories to remember the deceit of this government, and vote them out in 2013.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Petrol exemption in doubt – already

4 July, 2011 by

Sorry, don't believe you

No-one listens to Julia Gillard anymore. Whatever she says, her words are meaningless.

“There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.”

And soon we will have a carbon [dioxide] tax. Just a few days ago she announced that petrol would be permanently exempted from the tax. Did we believe her? No, because we cannot trust a word she says. And as expected, doubts are being raised about that claim:

Greens Deputy Christine Milne and independent MP Tony Windsor say it is impossible for the Government to promise a carbon price will never be imposed on fuel.

The two MPs, both members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee which agreed to exclude fuel for motorists from the tax, both say governments and circumstances change in politics.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard said yesterday that fuel for private motorists, tradespeople and small business would not attract the tax and the exclusion would be permanent.

Senator Milne said the 17 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse emissions that come from transport must be “dealt with”.

“In politics you never say never, ever, ever – look what happened to John Howard with never a GST,” Senator Milne told reporters at Parliament House. [When will they stop digging a hole with the GST analogy? Howard took that decision to an election – Ed]

“We are going to have to get people to move off oil, electrify the transport fleet, invest in public transport – all of those things are not going to happen without policy frameworks and price drivers.”

The exemption is seen as a win for independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who argued country people do not have alternative transport available so would be stuck paying the tax – estimated to be six cents a litre on a $25 a tonne carbon price.

But Mr Windsor told AM nothing is certain in politics and that includes the future of the tax.

“A future government might want nuclear energy as well so you can’t rule out anything. Anything can happen in politics,” he said.

But Climate Change Minister Greg Combet insisted the exclusion is permanent.

“We’ve excluded petrol from the carbon price arrangements and the Prime Minister has made it clear that it’s excluded for the future as well,” Mr Combet told AM. (source)

Sorry, Greg, Julia and the rest of you. WE DON’T BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU SAY ANYMORE.

Trust lost is not easily regained. And the Greens will make sure motorists suffer. They are just one of a long list of groups of ordinary Australians that the Greens hate. Actually, let’s not beat around the bush, they hate all of humanity.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Abbott to push for plebiscite on carbon tax

20 June, 2011 by

Interesting times

It could be an interesting day in Parliament today:

AUSTRALIANS would be asked to vote on whether they want a carbon tax under a radical plan by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to be put before parliament today.

Mr Abbott will lodge a bill to force the government to a plebiscite on the carbon tax in a move which, if successful, could force Julia Gillard to junk the tax or go to the polls to seek a mandate.

In what would be the first full national plebiscite since the conscription votes of World War I, the question to be put to the Australian people would ask: “Are you in favour of a law to impose a carbon tax?”

Motions for a bill to enable the vote, drafted by the parliamentary clerk, will be introduced simultaneously in both the senate and the house of representatives at 10am today. The bill has been deemed constitutional by the clerk, preventing the government from rejecting it for a vote in the senate.

If passed by both houses, the government would have 90 days to call the plebiscite, requiring all registered voters to cast their verdict on the tax.

While not binding on the government as are referenda, Mr Abbott said a “no” vote would have such moral authority that Ms Gillard would be forced to either dump the tax or go to an early election to seek a mandate. Mr Abbott, who has effectively pitched his leadership against the PM’s on the result, told The Daily Telegraph he believed the independents would support the bills in the interests of democracy.

“I think if the PM had any integrity she would seek a mandate at an election for her tax. Clearly she is not going to do that,” he said.

“The independents don’t want an election … this gives them a chance to have a vote without having an election. It gives them a chance to respect democratic principles.”

We’ll see. The independents haven’t shown themselves to be particularly principled in the past, but we can only hope. An opinion poll on the plebiscite proposal is currently running at 90% in favour.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Labor wastes $12 million advertising a tax that doesn't exist

16 June, 2011 by

Carbon tax advertising

The Climate Madness escalates to new heights, as Greg Combet announces a propaganda campaign, to be funded by 12 million of your taxpayer dollars, for a policy that doesn’t yet exist.

Hang on a minute, surely we should be waiting until the Climate Committee makes its recommendation, shouldn’t we? Nope, because the Climate Committee is a TOTAL SHAM. Like the one-eyed Climate Commission and all the other pointless talk-fests. This government doesn’t give a sh*t about what any of them says – it’s already made up its mind that there will be a carbon tax, and it’s already budgeted for the advertising. Un-freaking-believable.

Finally, FINALLY, the independents are slowly beginning to stand up to the utter nonsense and dishonesty being perpetrated by this embarrassment of a government:

TAXPAYERS are set to foot the bill for a $12 million carbon tax advertising campaign in an announcement that has angered independent MPs, who will have the deciding votes on the controversial reform.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet today revealed initial plans for the campaign, which must still be signed off by the multi-party climate change committee and meet government advertising guidelines.

He said the “modest” campaign was appropriate to inform [brainwash – Ed] the public on a matter of government policy.

“The government considers that it is extremely important that the government [public? – Ed] has access to appropriate information [biased propaganda – Ed] about the policies and plans for carbon pricing,” Mr Combet said.

He refused to rule out an expansion of the advertising budget in the future.

Multi-party climate committee members Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor condemned the announcement as “incredibly unhelpful”.

“I totally disagree with the decision and totally disassociate myself from the decision,” Mr Oakeshott said.

Mr Windsor said the announcement was “dumb” given the lack of a concrete policy.

“It’s the presumption that money will be spent on something that doesn’t exist,” he said. (source)

On ABC news this evening, Windsor said it was “money for propaganda.” Bravo. Keep it up. Maybe the independents have finally each grown a set.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Australia isn't "catching up", it's going it alone

8 June, 2011 by

More spin

This is one of the biggest lies told by the government about a price on carbon, and there are plenty to choose from. We’re being “left behind”, the world is “rushing towards a low carbon economy” and if we don’t price carbon tomorrow, we’ll never catch up… blah blah. It’s nonsense, naturally.

US states are bailing out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative as fast as they can, the federal US, Japan, Canada and Russia have announced they have no intention of forming part of a new Kyoto deal, China and India are full steam ahead for economic growth (with a few token gestures towards greening up thrown in, but their emissions will keep on rising), and the only countries to have an ETS are part of the EU scheme, mired in fraud and corruption, or tiny states like New Zealand, neither of which will make any significant difference to emissions.

So it should come as no surprise that Australian coal mines will be virtually the only ones in the world hit with the carbon tax on “fugitive emissions”, which includes gases emitted “from the production, processing, transport, storage and distribution of raw fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) (source)”, as The Australian reports:

NO major coal-producing country currently imposes a direct charge on greenhouse gas emissions from coalmines, according to research released last night as industry prepared to intensify its opposition to Julia Gillard’s carbon tax scheme.

After Wayne Swan yesterday announced that a much-anticipated Productivity Commission report into international climate regimes would show that seven of Australia’s top-10 trading partners had adopted major policies to reduce pollution [I’ll believe that when I see it – Ed] the Australian Coal Association launched a pre-emptive strike against the report’s findings.

The association released research by the Centre for International Economics that showed none of the major coal-exporting countries “either currently, or has concrete plans to impose, a direct or indirect constraint on fugitive emissions from coalmining”.

Major coal producers such as Anglo American Australia, Xstrata Holdings , Peabody Energy Australia, Centenary Coal Company and BM Alliance Coal Operations all appear among the 1000 companies that will be subject to the Gillard government’s carbon tax.

The Australian Coal Association research was backed by Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitch Hooke, who said the same could be said for the nation’s major competitors in 13 key commodities such as iron ore, gold, nickel and aluminium.

“Not one of Australia’s top four competitors in the 13 key commodities has a functioning carbon pricing scheme except Poland, which exempts emissions from the coalmining process,” Mr Hooke said. Australian Coal Association executive director Ralph Hillman said the CIE report showed that the government’s proposed carbon tax would add to the costs of Australian coalminers, “while our competitors will bear no such burden”. (source)

Once again, the reality is vastly different from the government spin. Australia is going out on a limb, and will suffer as a result.

And on another subject, read how the Australian public won’t even pay $2 to offset their air travel. I wonder how they’ll cope with a carbon tax.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Carbon Cate buys beachfront property… in Vanuatu

7 June, 2011 by

Buying beachfront property?

Now if you were really concerned about climate change, as she clearly is, having badgered us all to pay more tax for no reason, why would you buy a beachfront property on an island that all the alarmists agree is one of the first in line to be swamped by the alleged sea level rises resulting from, er, climate change? And why stop at Vanuatu, go the whole hog and buy something on Tuvalu?

The movie star-turned-ecowarrior is believed to have recently bought a plot of land in Vanuatu, one of the countries hardest hit by global warming.

Rising sea levels caused the evacuation of a village in the Pacific island nation in 2005, the first time climate change was known to have displaced an entire community. [Just for the record, climate change had nothing to do with it – sea levels have been rising at the same rate for centuries – Ed]

Blanchett is thought to have bought a waterfront property near the luxury area of Havannah Harbour during a visit last year.

…

However, it may not be paradise for long. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says sea levels could rise by as much as 59cm by 2100 in Vanuatu, which would obliterate much of beachfront property. (source)

But Carbon Cate isn’t bovvered, clearly. She can just go to one of her numerous other properties around the world when that one falls into the sea.

Unfortunately, Cate is just the latest in a long line of eco-celebrities who lecture the little people on how they should behave, and then go and do precisely the opposite. Like Al Gore. Yawn. Next.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Majority oppose carbon [dioxide] tax

6 June, 2011 by

Resounding "no"

Despite all the hype and media spin of yesterday’s “rent-a-bunch-of-Lefty-lemmings” demonstrations in favour of a carbon dioxide tax, the majority of Australians are firmly against it. Furthermore, they believe that Julia Gillard has no mandate for such a tax and should call an election. And they believe it will do nothing for the environment. Funny that, it’s what we’ve been saying on this site since it was announced in February:

AUSTRALIANS are demanding Julia Gillard call a fresh election, saying she has no mandate for a carbon tax.

With less than a third of all voters now claiming to support the tax, the federal government is facing a nationwide backlash if it proceeds.

An exclusive Galaxy poll commissioned by The Daily Telegraph has revealed 73 per cent of people claim they will end up worse off under the tax. Just 7 per cent believe they could end up better off in some way.

More fatal for the Prime Minister, however, was the overwhelming support for an election to be called on the issue – confirming widespread anger over her broken election promise not to introduce a carbon tax.

A total of 64 per cent said they wanted a fresh election. Only 24 per cent believed the PM had a mandate.

And in a growing sentiment that the tax would not help solve the climate change problem, 75 per cent believed it would have only a minor impact on the environment – or no impact at all.

The devastating poll results, showing total opposition now at 58 per cent, confirm the government has so far failed to make an effective case for its tax.

They also reflect Liberal Party internal polling showing support for Tony Abbott’s campaign to force the government to an early election, despite analysis showing the Coalition’s alternative direct action plan would be even more costly. (source)

When the crunch comes, Australians are thankfully far too sensible to have the wool pulled over their eyes. Those at the pro-tax rallies yesterday are the deluded ones, out of touch with reality and the wishes of the vast majority of the population.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

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

5 June, 2011 by

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?

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

$20 a tonne: the price of economic suicide

2 June, 2011 by

Economy, you're next

Any price on carbon [dioxide] in Australia is a pointless gesture that will do nothing for the climate. Nothing. At all. And that’s if you assume that CO2 is causing dangerous warming. So our government, without a democratic mandate, intends to tax a harmless trace gas and wreck our economy for no purpose whatsoever. And yet many people, including Julia Gillard and her government, think that’s a good idea? O.M.G. as the saying goes.

At least by trying to stick to the middle ground, $20 a tonne will annoy everyone: business and consumers because it’s too high, eco-nazis, sorry, Greens, because it’s too low. So there is a glimmer of hope that sanity might prevail at the 11th hour, but it’s looking less and less likely.

JULIA Gillard’s key climate change committee is working on a carbon price of between $18 and $23 a tonne – a level that will deepen rifts with business groups demanding a starting price of no more than $10.

As Tony Abbott issued a call to arms yesterday to angry miners to reprise their successful campaign against the resource super-profits tax and fight the carbon tax, senior government sources confirmed that the price of the European Union’s emissions trading scheme would heavily influence the Australian starting price.

A carbon price set between $18 and $23 a tonne would collect between $8 billion and $10bn a year from big polluters [or big employers, exporters, contributors to the economy – Ed], of which more than half is expected to be distributed to households to compensate against higher prices.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has indicated that the carbon price would be “well south” of $40 a tonne – a level initially endorsed by the Greens – when it is introduced on July 1 next year.

The Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia have recommended the carbon tax start at $10 a tonne, while the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is flatly opposed to the carbon pricing regime.

The Greens have indicated they could accept a lower price than $40 if it were buttressed by the prospect of deeper emissions cuts, accommodated by a rising carbon price. (source)

I think we all know where the tax will go (up) and where the compensation will go (down).

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:
«Previous Page
Next Page»