Rich, privileged actress wants ordinary people to pay more tax

Carbon Cate

Cate Blanchett, who travels everywhere by first class air travel or private jet, and is worth millions of dollars, lectures ordinary Australians struggling to pay their energy bills on saying “Yes” to a tax that will make their lives even more difficult and achieve precisely nothing for the climate, whether in Australia or globally. Hmm, that will go down well!

The Australian Conservation Foundation, an extreme environmental pressure group (which still organises lectures in Australia to spread Al Gore’s climate falsehoods – see here), is launching an ad campaign to say Yes to a carbon tax. Here it is:


And as expected, there are all the usual misrepresentations. Let’s go through them shall we?

  • “Yes to less carbon pollution”: False. We would be saying yes to less harmless trace gas carbon dioxide.
  • “Yes to new money for clean energy that never runs out”: “New money” here means government subsidies for inefficient and expensive renewable energy sources. When they are competitive in the market, then people will use them. And as for never running out, wind and solar only work when the wind blows or the sun shines, so solar “runs out” every night, and wind “runs out” when it’s not windy enough.
  • “Yes to help for people struggling with bills”: which are only going to get much, much higher under a pointless carbon tax. And anyway, if we compensate people, they won’t change their behaviour – duh.
  • “Yes to jobs”: omitting to mention that every fake “green” job on average sacrifices between 2 and 4 “proper” jobs
  • “Yes to better health for our kids”: reducing harmless CO2 will make no difference to the health of our “kids” [by which I think she means “children”, or are we talking about goats here? – Ed]
  • And Cate’s starring role: “Finally doing something about climate change”: False. A carbon tax in Australia will do NOTHING for climate change, whether you believe CO2 is to blame or not.

The ad is very good at confusing harmless carbon dioxide with “carbon pollution”, smoke, soot and dirt – as demonstrated by the usual belching smoke stack photo. Because the more confusion that can be sown in the minds of the public, the more chance of pulling the wool over their eyes, and getting all these misrepresentations and falsehoods past them without being noticed.

I am all for reducing proper pollution such as particulates and toxins, but reducing carbon dioxide has nothing to do with this. If the campaign was about reducing “real” pollution by taxing people more, and had nothing to do with “saving the planet”, it wouldn’t get off the ground.

But who cares about the facts? As this blog has said countless times, nothing Australia does on its own will make any difference to the climate, and that’s even if you believe that CO2 will cause dangerous global warming.

Cate can afford to pay a carbon tax and not even notice (and can always go and live elsewhere if things get too rough here in Australia), and will continue to travel all over the world by fossil-fuel powered means of transport. When she turns up at a film premier on a bike, then we may take some notice. But until then, forget it.

The Herald Sun editorial sums it up well:

FEW Australians would dispute Cate Blanchett’s acting prowess.

She is a genuine international movie star who won an Oscar for her role in The Aviator and has banked an estimated $50 million fortune off the back of her success.

Good on her.

But that doesn’t qualify her to lecture Australian families — she is the star of a pro-carbon tax TV advertising campaign starting tonight — on why such an impost is good for them. Particularly when Prime Minister Julia Gillard has failed to tell the nation exactly how big this new tax will be.

It’s reasonable to assume that cost-of-living pressures are not something that trouble Blanchett, but they are certainly keeping Aussie mums and dads awake at night.

Electricity prices will soar higher once the tax is imposed. And it is likely that many families deemed “wealthy” by Ms Gillard will miss out on compensation. Cate Blanchett should stick to what she does best — acting. (source)

%d bloggers like this: