Like a niggly married couple, Australia’s increasingly divided populace is having a big, dirty spat this morning. And just like parents split on how best to discipline a naughty child, the warring parties are united on the goal but divided on the methods employed to achieve it.

Genius cartoon: Bill Leak

The goal we’re united on is the need to cut carbon emissions. Even the staunchest anthropogenic global warming denier would surely concede there are all sorts of benefits in cutting carbon emissions, not least cleaner air and the transition to smarter industries and renewable energy sources.

But thanks to the “Say Yes Australia” ad, made by a coalition of leftist groups and starring popular actors Michael Caton and Cate Blanchett, the carbon tax debate has been turned into the equivalent of a he says/she says marriage dispute. Or in this case, a we pay/they pay issue.

This, right here, is the clearest portrait yet of the tragedy of the unthinking, organised Left in Australia in 2011. The Left that doesn’t come close to representing vast swathes of people who still consider themselves lefties.

The Left likes to paint Tony Abbott as the ultimate robotic naysayer, and there’s no doubt the PM-in-waiting has been true to form on the carbon tax issue, as with countless other issues. Partly that’s just his style and partly it masks his own party’s policy vacuum.

But the loudmouth, organised Left has become just as just as predictably one-eyed as Abbott himself. There is no longer any nuance to their rants. It’s “do this” or accept that” because we know best. So there.

There’s a brilliant Twitterer out there called Fake GetUp!, which mocks the tone of the progressive activist group GetUp! This morning’s Tweet was brilliant.

“Very proud of our new ‘Just Say YES’ (no matter what) campaign…

That really does say it all. Because the Left was spawned, and often still dwells, on university campuses, it habitually laments the lack of proper dialogue in public debate, the fact that no one reads anymore. The masses are belittled as unthinking, and desperately in need of guidance beyond the daily sound bite.

So what does the Left give the unthinking masses? A sound bite! Just say yes, it screams. Because we know better than you.

Apart from its hypocrisy, this strategy is inherently unsuited to Australians. Remember the republic referendum in 1999? We were given a yes/no vote, and though a huge majority of us wanted to say yes, we overwhelmingly said no. Why? Because we don’t like being cornered, that’s why.

But that’s what the ACF and their friends have done today. They’ve turned this into a “you’re with us or against us” thing. With a subtext that if you’re against us, you’re a polluting, irresponsible, dumb bastard who is nowhere near as beautiful as Cate Blanchett or as congenial and blokey as Mick Caton.

The stars of the ad, and its makers, are today arguing that Rupert Murdoch’s evil foot soldiers are attacking the ad as a kind of gratuitous blood sport. No. The papers aren’t spinning bullshit. But they happen to be very, very good at detecting it.

As ad man Adam Ferrier writes in today’s Australian, the actors in the ad haven’t even told us WHY we should pay. They’ve told us why we should curb carbon emissions but as mentioned, we all know that. But why again should we pay?

This, of course, is still a question for Julia Gillard as much as anyone else. Just how this whole issue became a messy process of a tax on big polluters with a consumer rebate is a mystery. She should’ve just taxed them. People would have respected her unwavering leadership for one, if nothing else.

And to those who kicked up the same sort of stink that Big Mining kicked up when the Mining Tax was being kicked around, Gillard might have cited last week’s figures, showing Australia now has more billionaires than ever before, 35 to be precise, the bulk in the resources sector.

Anyway, that opportunity has passed, and we are all left bickering like husband and wife. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all patch up the dialogue. As any husband and wife knows, no one wins when they start shouting over the top of each other.

If I was making the Say Yes Australia ad, I’ll tell you what I would have done.

I would’ve ditched Blanchett, who plays a mean southern belle and Queen Elizabeth but a poor everywoman. But I would’ve retained the services of Caton and stuck him in front of a really loud, dirty, coal-fired power station. Then I would have stood him in front of a batch of gleaming solar panels.

And I would’ve scripted one line, a line that would have resonated to every Australian, Left or Right, wealthy or mortgaged-to-the-eyeballs.

How’s the serenity?

And whether you agree with the carbon tax or not, you might at least have thought about it with a serene mind, not one convoluted by the anger so many are rightfully feeling today.

324 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • The Badger says:

      12:44pm | 30/05/11

      Anthropomorphic?

    • Erick says:

      01:21pm | 30/05/11

      Anthropomorphic, anthropogenic, what’s the difference?

      These are our inneleckshual superiors talking - don’t question them!

    • James1 says:

      01:36pm | 30/05/11

      I love it.  Climate change which makes the global climate look and act more like people.

    • Bobster says:

      01:43pm | 30/05/11

      I think Erick is an example of Anthropomorphic Climate Change.

    • The Badger says:

      02:31pm | 30/05/11

      @bobster
      Nah,
      erick is an example of an anthropoid

    • Mark says:

      02:38pm | 30/05/11

      Any chance we could have the government explain why they are selling off massive chunks of our best farmland to foreign countries? Can we take this to the next election please?

    • mickijo says:

      02:53pm | 30/05/11

      Please can we stop all this bullsh*t and just have a “COAL WATCH”. Just like we had Whale watch, Grocery Watch,ect ect. Then everyone will settle down nicely and chug on their usual routine.Instead of this screamin’,meanin’ brouhaha about nothing in particular.Remember back to when we used to live in relative peace and quiet. Can we go back to those days please.

    • PhD bludging bastard on the public says:

      02:55pm | 30/05/11

      @ Erick, Perhaps Soames has been right all along! He’s nailed you!, as a result of your slack self discipline, which one would remind, is a vital component of any dissident’s satchel of party rules. It’s sad your sham is exposed, by your latest post. Time is running short for you my friend. An opinion based on political preference, is a flawed one. An opinion based on stupidity, is a common one. An opinion based on peer reviewed science, it seems, is less common. Which is your preference? Your call.

    • ZSRenn says:

      03:03pm | 30/05/11

      LOL After reading this the leftists in the pages come on and don’t give any argument but more insults.

      “We know better Erick is an idiot.”

      Well done guys you have made my day!

    • Bobster says:

      03:09pm | 30/05/11

      Or is he an example of misanthropic climate change?

      He certainly thinks there’s been a misanthropic climate change against him.

    • Barb says:

      03:36pm | 30/05/11

      ok, where is the ballot paper to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on? That is the only way to resolve this. Had we a PM that didn’t say there would be no carbon tax then fine, but the fact is she did say that so that will always be the issue here. People feel they have been deceived and no matter what else that is the problem here and always will be until we get to vote on it or toss her out for telling porkies.

    • St. Michael says:

      03:51pm | 30/05/11

      Does anthropomorphic have anything to do with Anthrax?

    • Anubis says:

      04:24pm | 30/05/11

      @St Michael - In Badgers case more than likely

    • No 1 Rosie says:

      04:26pm | 30/05/11

      Agree Erick!

      It is Gillard Labor saying this is the right thing to do for the nation so no questions asked, just say ‘Yes.’

      It has taken us this long to get to this point, imagine how much longer and debate it will take us to finally come to a conclusion once we get the details. Gosh I am not looking forward to it.

      The quickest way and the right way to fix this, is to put it to the people for a consensus. Gillard and Tony Abbott can hit the campaign trail selling the yes to the carbon tax or no to the carbon tax. We then respect the winner, that is how democracy works.

    • Dash says:

      05:16pm | 30/05/11

      @The Badger I see you’re still excelling at adding nothing intelligent or meaningful to the debate!

    • The Badger says:

      06:00pm | 30/05/11

      Oh
      dash
      What’s the matter?
      Forget to bring your lists with you?
      Do run off back home and get them.

    • Joan says:

      08:22pm | 30/05/11

      @ Rosie

      “We then respect the winner, that is how democracy works.”

      Just like you respect the winner of the last election?

    • John Thistlethwaite says:

      09:39pm | 30/05/11

      Look let’s all take a quick breath, Just put it to the vote.. Then no-one has any reason to complain..
      It’s that simple

    • Joan says:

      10:45pm | 30/05/11

      @JohnThistlethwaite

      “Just put it to the vote. Then no-one has any reason to complain.”

      We just voted at a federal election. Did that stop anyone complaining?

    • Dash says:

      09:03am | 31/05/11

      @Joan, yep we voted 6 days after Gillard and Swan told us they would not introduce a carbon tax. Not sure how they can sleep at night let alone claim a mandate for this policy!

      @Badger, nothing’s the matter mate, just pointing out what an intellectual void you are. If I wanted your shit, I’d squeeze your head! LOL.

    • Joan says:

      11:19am | 31/05/11

      @ Dash

      Thanks for proving my point.

    • Dash says:

      12:02pm | 31/05/11

      @Joan, sorry I didn’t realise you too were disgusted at the fact that the ALP deliberately lied to the Australian people before the last election. But yeah OK we agree.

    • Joan says:

      01:42pm | 31/05/11

      @JohnThistlethwaite

      See what I mean.

    • Robbie says:

      01:02pm | 30/05/11

      That’s right Trevor, you better not have a view thats different to NewsCorp and their new loony editor-in-chimp or else you will be attacked and attacked and slaughtered.

    • Neil Innes says:

      01:26pm | 30/05/11

      I cant see the ‘HATE’ you describe. Oh, sorry, obviously to disagree with your/her view is to hate - I get it! Blanchet is a mediocre actress at best, and lives in an artificial, dream world, where people tell her how wonderful she is all the time. Cate’s husband looks like an angry ant and has the most arrogant looking features. Thank God for Uncle Rupert and his faithful companion Andrew Bolt - AGW is a pseudo science myth!

    • Bobster says:

      01:44pm | 30/05/11

      If they’d started the “who is Twiggy Forrest to tell us about job losses” campaign they’d have some more credibility on the topic.

    • Robbie says:

      01:44pm | 30/05/11

      Thanks for simply proving my point Neil. Saying there is no ‘hate’, then preceding to call her a mediocre actress living in an artificial dream world etc etc… And by the way, you should actually check what Overlord Rupert thinks about climate change. I think you would be shocked.

    • Neil Innes says:

      02:12pm | 30/05/11

      Robbie - your a touch sensitive son, to have an ‘opinion’ that an actress is mediocre is hate speech - Oh, dear I fear for anyone who disagrees with you - all is hate to you! Again, if anyone disagrees or has an opinion that is different from yours or Cate Blanchet’s, then I suppose censorship is required? Cannot win the argument, so legislate against your opponents? Real hate speech is saying that a person is to be hated, abhorred and incite harm - have I done that with Blanchet? No, Robbie - you just don’t like what I say and your too quick to judge to defend an indefensible position. Rupert goes with the flow, if a $$$ is to be made from AGW he would go with it; Rupert knows that the tide of public opinion (or is that hatred?) has turned and he goes with public opinion all the time. The battle was won & lost as people have been empowered by Google & the Net and they can find real scientific evidence contrary to the UN & Western governments. Robbie the battle is over, the war is won and Tony Abbott will repeal the CT. Fantastic news ! - you have proved nothing, but to demonstrated how small minded and blind you are!

    • Daniel D says:

      03:08pm | 30/05/11

      Hey Trevor,
      notice the end of that “article” you promote.
      its done by the say yes group.
      And your throwing the word biased around.
      Next time just send us straight to an ad, its less offensive.

    • Robbie says:

      03:11pm | 30/05/11

      Neil, Neil, Neil. As Trevor said in the initial comment- News Corp has conjured a hate campaign against Blanchett out of nowhere simply because her opinion did not suit their conservative narrative. Its not ‘hate speech’, and you can see that I never said that. If you would like we can call it an ‘attack campaign’ if ‘hate campaign’ makes you uncomfortable. After that you simply went off on your own mindless tangent about censorship etc. etc. conjuring up ideas and words that I never said. You would fit right in at News Corp!
      In any case, Murdoch’s publications don’t always go with public opinion, (which is improper journalism in any case, as it is their job to search for all the facts), case in point: continued support for Australian military involvement in Afghanistan (the majority don’t want our troops there) and the latest case of Blanchett,  where they couldn’t find any great outrage against her beliefs, so they conjured the outrage and discussion themselves http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/30/carbon-cate-just-who-does-the-media-think-its-stumping-for/. Not once did I say i supported a carbon tax (which I don’t FYI), or said they should be censored (I am constantly angered that free speech is continually lost in Australia) or any of the other nonsense you carried on with.
      So, best not to try and belittle me or call me small minded smile

    • Jacko says:

      03:45pm | 30/05/11

      She is entitled to her opinion.  She is not entitled to be immune from criticism.

    • Tez says:

      05:17pm | 30/05/11

      News Limited and Tony Abbot remind me of the pigs in Animal Farm - you look from one to the other and soon you can’t tell the difference.

    • Neil Innes says:

      06:23pm | 30/05/11

      Robbie - the science is not settled or proven. I don’t have to do my best; you are small minded if you cannot see that the CT/ETS is a western government scam to get at taxpayer dollars, simply because they do not have enough petrol in the tank to pay for unfunded liabilities and current wasteful expenditures. You say most Australian’s believe in AGW; if that is true, they would want a CT to stop AGW - but Australian’s don’t really - in fact 70% are against the CT - so the whole argument is BS! Robbie, you have belittled yourself, I have not ! A leftist argument is always play the man & vitriol - ‘hate speech’! It just does not work anymore. Good luck with your Government job!

    • Robbie says:

      12:00am | 31/05/11

      Wow Neil, in your endless quest to smear me you have gone off on a random tangent. “You say most Australian’s believe in AGW;”... And where did I say that? “A leftist argument is always play the man & vitriol - ‘hate speech’! “. I find it bizarre that you have labelled me leftist when I’ve already indicated that I’m all for unconditional free speech, against censorship and against a carbon tax. In which case, it seems you are simply trolling. Good day sir smile

    • Joeyjoejoejnr says:

      12:46pm | 30/05/11

      Just say “yes” to what?... We still don’t even know the details (they haven’t even agreed the price per tonne) and they are already out there trying to convince us to say yes. The must think we are idiots!

    • jf says:

      01:10pm | 30/05/11

      They are your intellectual betters Joey. Just say “yes” dammit you horrible denier.

    • fairsfair says:

      01:13pm | 30/05/11

      It would be like asking the lovely Cate to commit to a role after only hearing the title of the film and prior to reading the script.

      Not. Going. To. Happen.

    • Joe Asakura says:

      01:30pm | 30/05/11

      Say yes to what? It’s not like Julia Gillard is going to call an election or a referendum on the matter.

      As far as this labor government is concerned, we don’t actually get a choice!

    • TimB says:

      01:39pm | 30/05/11

      I’m confused as to *when* we get to say yes.

      Did we get asked a question? Was there a vote? Will there *be* a vote?

      Very confused here.

    • Bobster says:

      01:51pm | 30/05/11

      Read “just say yes” as “just shut up.”

      That’s pretty much the thrust of it. Advertising ain’t what it used to be.

    • Against the Man says:

      02:14pm | 30/05/11

      Details? You mean like the details we got about health care reform, the Malaysian solution, the home insulation debacle, economic reform, the carbon tax…...........hehehe

      C’mon if we can’t trust an unmarried mother of zero, whose step-daughter posed in Zoo magazine, who back stabbed her boss, who showed no emotion during the QLD floods, lied about the carbon tax, had zero policy success, who can we trust?

      Miz Gilltard being stupid, cold, selfish and incompetent is no way to go through life…................

    • AAAdam says:

      02:44pm | 30/05/11

      Perhaps labor and greens would be better off spending the money in a way that allows them to listen to what voters want. It seems better than wasting our hard earned tax money on an ad campaign that is designed to tell us the merits of totally ignoring what the public wants.

    • Bobster says:

      02:50pm | 30/05/11

      John Howard’s daughter in law posed in one of those mags too. Point?

      You got an entire report on the insulation debacle - don’t blame others if you didn’t read it.

      There’s lots of information out there - you can’t have all of it rammed down your throat.

      Take some responsibility.

    • against the Man says:

      03:22pm | 30/05/11

      I’m talking about Gilltard not Howard and never said there was anything wrong with posing in those magazines (Zoo is a pretty cool mag anyway). In fact that was actually a plus point for Gilltard, only so much negative energy you can inflict on a useless fake PM with terrible poll results and stupid enough to give Australians what they don’t want smile

    • Bruce says:

      03:30pm | 30/05/11

      Joey: Just say YES to what ? It could be that Juliar is going to put the issue to a referendum !!! Considering Juliar said “There will be no carbon tax undera government I lead” Its the very least the PM could do, if she is so confident thats what the majority of Australians want.

    • Bobster says:

      04:19pm | 30/05/11

      Why bring up the lads mag issue at all then? If it wasn’t meant as an insult (which clearly it was based on that Gilltard comment) then why mention it?

      Just admit you’re throwing insults for insults sake and have no interest in the question at hand.

      You hate Labor, we get it. That was abundantly clear months ago. What more do you have to contribute?

    • Bobster says:

      04:21pm | 30/05/11

      And on another point (for Bruce this time), why would we put it to a referendum? No one is suggestion a change to the constitution.

      If you’re going to demand politicians play by the rules, you should at least learn them yourself.

      Why would anyone respect your opinion when you’re ignorant of even the most basic democratic processes?

    • Against the Man says:

      05:14pm | 30/05/11

      Bobster, I would love to love the ALP…....if you or others could give me a few reasons to. But if you can’t and Gilltard’s commie pals haven’t taken over, I’m free to comment on The Punch. As for insults, well I’m insulted having this useless Gilltard destroying our great country! And I think the majority share my view which is why this dumb human being is too scared to take the carbon tax to an election.

      Bobster, sad to see you have been elected into the team which features losers/cowards such as TChong, Seano and John A Neve!

      And as for playing by the rules, are you saying it is ok to lie to the people that voted for you? It is a yes or no answer not an excuse for an answer. Well, Bobby any comments? Is it ok to lie? Is it? Yes or No?

      ps: Welcome to the minority POV smile

    • TTFN says:

      05:40pm | 30/05/11

      @ Bobster - Howard’s daugther in law is pretty hot, Gillard’s step daughter aint.

      Pretty simple as to why its not appropriate.

      I suggest you tuck your skirt in and act like a man for a change.

    • Bobster says:

      05:49pm | 30/05/11

      I think the Labor party is populated by a mob of populist, lying opportunists. Same as the Liberal Party.

      Greens are different - they’re naive, populist, lying opportunists.

      Family First are fundamentalist, naive, populist lying opportunists.

      Andrew Wilkie is a prat.

      Bob Katter is a raving nutter, and an agrarian socialist.

      Nick Xenophon has not yet been caught in an outright lie, but is definitely a populist opportunist.

      I’ve missed some, I know, but I just wanted to illustrate that I remain disappointed and unalligned.

      If it helps, I believe in free-markets, prudentially regulated, with the socialisation of key services such as police, education and health care. I consider the socialisation of major infrastructure (roads, communications etc) a matter for debate on a case by case basis and I believe the invisible hand should not be allowed to do as it wishes all of the time.

      I consider market-based mechanisms to be superior to regulation in the majority of cases, but not all.

      I consider climate change to be a real risk and that a market based mechanism, tax or otherwise, is the most appropriate means of influencing behaviour, both corporate and private.

      I offer that in way of background but no, I am not surprised or appalled when politicians lie. They are what they are.

      To suggest lying is the exclusive domain of the ALP suggests you are either an idealogue or an idiot.

    • jf says:

      07:12pm | 30/05/11

      Bobster says:05:49pm | 30/05/11

      That’s all well and good Bobster, but who do we vote for?

    • Against the Man says:

      07:23pm | 30/05/11

      My focus is on Gilltard and her lies, it is simple - she hasn’t got much going for her and her clearcut lie on the carbon tax is an issue. Only an idiot would think any political party is honest, but an even bigger idiot would believe that the ALP is going to do a decent job with climate change.

      Vote out incompetence of ANY political party in the 1st term and you will see real results especially if you change the rules that they need to be in for 2 full terms to get a hefty pension.

      By the way, Gilltard being unmarried, childless, with a defecto daughter in a Men’s magazine and a being liar are facts, if you consider them insults than you need to deal with your own personal prejudices.

    • Seano says:

      07:28pm | 30/05/11

      AtM - I guess the hours you spend on empty right wing rants and name calling is keeping you off the streets.

      But if you think your trolling is helping the conservative cause then I suggest you need to seek help.

      The reason few bother with your “debates” is that you’re a complete loon…

    • Against the Man says:

      09:42pm | 30/05/11

      Sorry Seano but you just don’t have what it takes to debate with the big boys, please don’t make a fool of yourself Mr Teacher, go study and don’t let your students down. Stop being a failure and stop collecting a paycheck for a job not well done like your hero Gilltard! smile

      ps: Get yourself a gym membership for Christ’s sake!

    • Seano says:

      10:28pm | 30/05/11

      Seek help troll. With medication you might become relevant.

      Although I doubt it.

    • Bobster says:

      10:57pm | 30/05/11

      Yeah, yeah, whatever AtM. I second the loon motion

      No political party known to man would handle this as well as it could be handled by a benevolent overlord, and given there is no such thing as a competent political party or a benevolent overlord, I suggest you stop harping on about the predictable shortcomings of predictable people and start thinking about ways you might thoughtfully and meaningfully contribute to even the smallest discussion on the matter.

      @jf
      Have voted Labor, National, Green (Senate), and independent in various realms.

      I abstained in the 2006 NSW election and paid the fine though because I just saw no point in taking part in that inevitable train wreck. The Speedos vs Callous incompetence election was just the most pathetic thing I’d seen until the unthinkable Abbott vs Gillard.

      I tend to make the decision based on whoever seems the most benign at the time.

      Labor in the last federal election but would have gone Liberal (first time I’ve lived in a seat with a Liberal candidate) had Malcolm Turnbull been leader.

      The Mad Monk is an intolerable arsehole no matter who’s in charge.

      I like to think I would vote for a party offering visionary change in a way that seemed agreeable to me but that’s probably going to be a long wait.

    • Brian Taylor says:

      04:04am | 31/05/11

      @ jf   good post lol

    • Brian Taylor says:

      04:15am | 31/05/11

      @ bobster…Why would anyone respect your opinion when you’re ignorant of even the most basic democratic processes???
      you sir sound so far up yourself it’s a wonder you can breath at all
      not matter what sort of pressure Gillard brings or fools like you who defend her, it is our money shes trying to rip off us, not hers.
      sure the tax is aimed at the big boys, but do you really expect them to pay?
      No, they’ll pass the cost on to us as usual.
      The whole problem that you CAN’T defend is that she lied.
      over to you bobby boy lol

    • Brian Taylor says:

      04:26am | 31/05/11

      @Bobster, reading your comments makes me wonder if you even know what planet you’re living on.
      I think you need to go find an empty Island somewhere where you can be your own little overlord and can run it as you seem fit.
      that way, us little people won’t bother your smart thinking.

    • Flexo says:

      07:58am | 31/05/11

      Seano and Bobster are clearly nitwits with their own agenda, thank God they are now the minority in this country!

    • Bobster says:

      09:42am | 31/05/11

      I’m not the one calling for referenda on issues that do not require referenda. Don’t get angry just because I know what a referendum is - I didn’t bring it up.

      Why should I respect the uninformed opinions of loudmouthed idiots?

      And of course I’m in the minority - I’m one of about 15 people who doesn’t base my voting habits on 50 years of family tradition.

      Sorry if that upsets you but you lot are absolute idiots if you think the only options available to you are those presented by Mr Abbott or Ms Gillard.

      You could, and here’s a radical idea, think for yourselves rather than parroting what you hear on the news ad nauseum.

      This is politics, not football. It’s not just about barracking for a team.

      It’s complicated, I know, but if all you want to do is rant about left versus right then you can’t complain when people call you simplistic morons.

    • Seano says:

      10:24am | 31/05/11

      @Flexo - whichever troll you’re a sock puppet for it’s worth pointing out that posting insults in lieu of debate only makes you the “nitwit”.

      What are you so scared off that you offer only insults instead of logic?

      I’m surprised your trolling gets through.

    • john says:

      12:50pm | 30/05/11

      @ Genius cartoon: Bill Leak…made me smile smile

      Reminded me of the famous Australian movie with the famous quote:

      “Tell ‘im ‘e’s dreamin’”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dik_wnOE4dk

      Seems like all of Australia is thinking the same thing today in regards to the carbon tax!

    • Rick says:

      04:34pm | 30/05/11

      Not all Australia mate , just your little backwater corner swamp, padle faster I hear banjo’s

    • Pom says:

      12:51pm | 30/05/11

      Can’t we just get back to good, old fashioned “pollution” Everyone gets that, and no-one ‘s going to argue against it. The notion of “Climate Change” is simply too big and too complex, (and its proponents too dogmatic) to be embraced.

    • loulou says:

      01:37pm | 30/05/11

      It IS getting back to ‘pollution’ - Combet keeps repeating it.

    • Old Bloke says:

      02:20pm | 30/05/11

      Trouble is this “pollution” is a CLEAR gas!  That’s right, you can’t see it!

      All those images of dirty smoke stacks or steam towers are not emitting CO2.

    • persephone says:

      08:06pm | 30/05/11

      Old Bloke

      well, yes, they are (not the white ones, they’re steam).

      But the greyish to black ones are usually emitting some, mixed up with other stuff, which gives it the colour.

      If I pour pink dye in a bucket of water before I chuck it away, just because it’s pink doesn’t mean there isn’t water in there.

      (Um, doesn’t this sort of comment sort of suggest that the climate science has won? Because if this is the kind of killer argument the other side’s resorting to, there’s obviously not much in their armoury).

    • Sony B Goode says:

      12:52pm | 30/05/11

      Can the government engage in more dishonesty? It seems with every passing day it strikes a new low in propaganda that would not be out of place in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

      I hear Prince Charles is a closet hippy, maybe we can get him to spruik the goodness of more socialist policy too.

    • Sony B Dumbe says:

      02:15pm | 30/05/11

      godwins?

    • Bobster says:

      03:26pm | 30/05/11

      Damn socialist fascists.

    • Freeman says:

      12:53pm | 30/05/11

      “So what does the Left give the unthinking masses? A sound bite! Just say yes, it screams. Because we know better than you”

      Indeed, we just need to pay the Carbon tax and not worry our pretty little heads about all that nasty AGW.

    • L. says:

      12:56pm | 30/05/11

      I have no issue with either actor appearing the the ad. It’s their right, as it is the right of those organisations who organised it to spend their funds as they see fit.

      However…

      I do see the irony in 2 millionaires, one of whom is an international jetting setting, multi home owning, multi car own, tax mitigation vehicle employing, massive carbon foot print leaving hypocrite telling us they we should support it.

      It remands me of a fav saying which I have posted here a few times…

      “I’ll believe that AGW its a catastrophe, when the people telling me its a catastrophe, start behaving as though its a catastrophe.”

      I’m sorry, but someone who jets in from the other side of the globe, simply in order to attend an awards ceremony clearly doesn’t see “carbon pollution” as that much of a catastrophe.

      Serioulsy, get someone up there who is willing to “walk the walk”, then may have some credibility.

    • Joeyjoejoejnr says:

      01:05pm | 30/05/11

      Spot on!!!!

    • persephone says:

      01:33pm | 30/05/11

      Cate Blanchette lives in Sydney and manages the Sydney Theatre Company.

      She has modified her home (at great expense) to be eco friendly and has done the same to the Sydney Theatre company, with solar providing 70% of the building’s energy needs.

      So she doesn’t just jet set in, and she does walk the talk.

      Once again, L, check your sources. Don’t blindly parrot what you’ve been told.

    • fairsfair says:

      01:44pm | 30/05/11

      Like Ed Begley Jnr. Hasn’t he been riding a pushy since the 80s?

    • Pen Pundit says:

      01:48pm | 30/05/11

      Well put!

    • Joeyjoejoejnr says:

      01:55pm | 30/05/11

      I guess she just pulled the cord (as in the ad) and everything went green in her home and at the Theatre.

    • L. says:

      02:09pm | 30/05/11

      Yeah, right Pers..

      She jetted into LA to hand out Oscars… I bet that was really important.. I guess she flew there with zero carbon impact..?

      And her home.. when looking declared that 5 bedrooms was too small. You don’t get much greener than that!

    • David C says:

      02:27pm | 30/05/11

      pphone that was once known as indiulgences

    • RobJ says:

      02:33pm | 30/05/11

      “Yeah, right Pers.”

      Persephone is right, that that doesn’t fit with your Boltesque view of the world is your own tough luck!

      Tell us what you do L, to mitigate climate change? Do you even believe it, if not why are you ranting?

    • Anne_N says:

      02:36pm | 30/05/11

      Oh sure…Cate puts up some solar panels and she’s an environmental warrior.  The average NSW voter puts up a few panels and they’re evil selfish bastards who make pensioners sit in the dark wrapped in blankets.

      I’m really getting pissed off with the mixed messages.

    • Tracker says:

      02:38pm | 30/05/11

      It was our money that paid for the ads from what I am led to believe so I have an issue with that if it is true.

    • L. says:

      02:47pm | 30/05/11

      “It was our money that paid for the ads from what I am led to believe so I have an issue with that if it is true.”

      I don’t believe this was the case.

    • Ando says:

      03:17pm | 30/05/11

      Rob J,
      Is Cates Carbon footprint smaller or larger than average?

    • RobJ says:

      03:24pm | 30/05/11

      “It was our money that paid for the ads “

      I’m seeing this nonsense a lot today. WAKE UP TO YOURSELF!

    • Ted says:

      03:50pm | 30/05/11

      Don’t forget Persephone, she also supported a paedophile that passes himself off as an artist. She is not a leading light.

    • Twiggy Rinehart says:

      03:59pm | 30/05/11

      You keep money out of these debates.

    • L. says:

      05:02pm | 30/05/11

      “Tell us what you do L, to mitigate climate change? Do you even believe it, if not why are you ranting?”

      I do nothing…

      I do not believe in AGW.

      I am ranting because those that do are going to force me into changes that I don’t believe in, and even if I did we all know will achieve absolutely nothing.

      Is that ok with you..?

    • Charles says:

      06:53pm | 30/05/11

      Poor call Perse, Cate Blanchett used tax-payers dollars to equip the Sydney theatre with solar equipment, and now she is using the monery that the low paid and unemployed get screwed out of them, to pay for the electricity the theatre uses.

      Same for her own home, where is the pain in subsidised solar panels and feed in tariffs for the generated electricity paid by the low incomes population who don’t have/can’t afford solar panels.

      It is simply a well off, mediocre actor getting richer off the back of pensioners, while asking them to contribute more.  It stinks.

    • persephone says:

      08:14pm | 30/05/11

      Charles

      and only last week everyone here were telling me we should be sorry for our high income earners, struggling to get by.

      So a public theatre is maintained by public money, oh gosh. In fact, the public are paying less for its electricity costs - 70% less - so it’s saving the public money.

      Cate won’t get any compensation for the (minimal) rise in prices caused by the carbon price; the pensioners will get a couple of hundred dollars more than it costs them.

      Sorry, can’t see anything wrong with someone who can afford to do it offsetting their electricity costs.

      And it’s interesting how you guys change with the wind; if we were discussing private health, you would be saying that it was only responsible for those who could afford it to have it, and that they deserved a rebate for their troubles.

      But it’s different when we’re discussing an environmental initiative - oh, and the person involved is a woman and a leftie.

    • RyaN says:

      11:26pm | 30/05/11

      @persephone: “But it’s different when we’re discussing an environmental initiative” what environmental initiative, you yourself has plainly said that this carbon tax will not impact on global temperatures.

    • Tubesteak says:

      12:59pm | 30/05/11

      Everything is someone else’s problem to deal with and sort out until it really starts affecting you. By then it’s too late.

    • Matt says:

      02:01pm | 30/05/11

      And taxing life’s necessities is the answer? Clean coal, gas, hydro dams, safe nuclear (thorium) - these have all been offered as alternatives but rejected by the Greens and the Left.

      So the idea is to tax people to stop them using electricity to light their homes, cook etc? And instead do what, burn (carbon) wood and charcoal to warm their homes and cook their food? See the folly of the argument?

      If we want something done then it must be by consensus. 60% of Aussies don’t want this carbon tax and last I heard, 60% was a majority in a democracy. Or are we a democracy still?

      Surely there must be other options other than taxing people to change their habits because if this method worked, alcoholism, gambling and smoking would have long ago been eradicated. No, this is a money grab, nothing more.

    • Matt says:

      02:02pm | 30/05/11

      And taxing life’s necessities is the answer? Clean coal, gas, hydro dams, safe nuclear (thorium) - these have all been offered as alternatives but rejected by the Greens and the Left.

      So the idea is to tax people to stop them using electricity to light their homes, cook etc? And instead do what, burn (carbon) wood and charcoal to warm their homes and cook their food? See the folly of the argument?

      If we want something done then it must be by consensus. 60% of Aussies don’t want this carbon tax and last I heard, 60% was a majority in a democracy. Or are we a democracy still?

      Surely there must be other options other than taxing people to change their habits because if this method worked, alcoholism, gambling and smoking would have long ago been eradicated. No, this is a money grab, nothing more.

    • RobJ says:

      02:38pm | 30/05/11

      Matt, clean coal has been offered? Great, when did the coal burners crack the clean coal thing.. Oh that’s right, they didn’t!  So Clean Coal is a wish not a REALITY!

      Thorium,? That’ll be cheap!

      Hydro? Yeah Australia really has an abundance of spare water.

      Gas? The Greens haven’t rejected it it, or can you provide us some links? They may have issues with regard to the Gorgon project but why don’t you show us where the Greens have rejected gas?

    • Rick says:

      04:43pm | 30/05/11

      Its already too F@#King late. we have been talking about this shit since the 70’s and judging by most of the comments hear people dont really give a shit.So go one pumping shit into the air at an ever increasing rate mankind is doomed.

    • Tubesteak says:

      04:48pm | 30/05/11

      Matt
      Maybe they don’t need to be using 3 plasma TVs (like on news.com.au today) or running their reverse cycle airconditioning non-stop whilst playing their Wii and XBox.

      Reduce your consumption to the bare minimum.

    • L. says:

      05:05pm | 30/05/11

      “Its already too F@#King late. we have been talking about this shit since the 70’s”

      You mean the 70’s when we were told of another impending ice age…those 70’s..?

    • Sam says:

      06:23pm | 30/05/11

      Matt,

      Commercial scale Thorium doesn’t exist

    • persephone says:

      06:26pm | 30/05/11

      Yep, L, because according to the indicators of the ‘natural cycle’ we should be still in a cooling phase.

      The fact we’re not suggests that something else is happening.

    • Eva says:

      08:34pm | 30/05/11

      Matt,

      you remind me that my parents in the UK burn candles to light their home because the cost of power is so high. I really can’t believe it is safe and I certainly don’t believe it is any better for the environment.

    • Brian Taylor says:

      04:38am | 31/05/11

      @rick…mankind is doomed!!!
      you’d better go hide under your bed little ricky before the nasty monster gets you

    • Malleeringneck says:

      01:04pm | 30/05/11

      Who is Cate Blanchett?

    • mel says:

      09:14pm | 30/05/11

      She’s the Luminous One - with the smug, sanctimonious smile

    • MarK says:

      01:06pm | 30/05/11

      “Even the staunchest anthropomorphic global warming denier would surely concede there are all sorts of benefits in cutting carbon emissions, not least cleaner air and the transition to smarter industries and renewable energy sources.”

      No.

      That is your dream not ours. Keep your suppositions and false guesses to yourself or actually ask a “skeptic” to write a piece.

      What part of reduces CO2 emissions will make the air cleaner?

      “the carbon tax debate has been turned into the equivalent of a he says/she says marriage dispute.”

      Nope.

      It has been turned into an advertising campaign based on false and erroneous visual images. It is a sham.

      If the science is settled and the need so great to act give us a $100 per tonne tax with no compensation and start it now.

      “The Left likes to paint Tony Abbott as the ultimate robotic naysayer, and there’s no doubt the PM-in-waiting has been true to form on the carbon tax issue, as with countless other issues. Partly that’s just his style and partly it masks his own party’s policy vacuum.”

      ROFLMAO

      Yeh all he says is no. Name all the rest and count them up. Tell me theones he should not say no to.

      Read the policy’s on display at the libs website or in fact tell me all of the oppositions in history that have had detailed policies out 2 years prior to an election.

      “They’ve turned this into a “you’re with us or against us” thing. With a subtext that if you’re against us, you’re a polluting, irresponsible, dumb bastard who is nowhere near as beautiful as Cate Blanchett or as congenial and blokey as Mick Caton.”

      I agree.

      Dammit Ant give me something to disagree with

      “As ad man Adam Ferrier writes in today’s Australian, the actors in the ad haven’t even told us WHY we should pay. They’ve told us why we should curb carbon emissions but as mentioned, we all know that. But why again should we pay?”

      And why did they portray a sooty sky at the start with Battersea power station as the evil power station. It is closed and in the UK.

      I mean….really? How fricking stupid can you be. How disingenuous. How sneaky. How deceitful.

      And this is from the side with ALL the worlds scientists on its side. The reputable ones that is. Tory said so.

      WTF lefties?

      “She should’ve just taxed them. People would have respected her unwavering leadership for one, if nothing else.”

      I call oxymoron.

      You have used Gillard and respect in the same sentance.

      Shame on you.

      People have stopped listening.

      Totally.

      “Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all patch up the dialogue. As any husband and wife knows, no one wins when they start shouting over the top of each other.”

      Again no.

      Come to my place and I will show you how to solve marriage disputes.

      “But I would’ve retained the services of Caton and stuck him in front of a really loud, dirty, coal-fired power station. Then I would have stood him in front of a batch of gleaming solar panels.”

      WOW.

      It is all about the visual eh?

      But Tory said you had the science?

      Why not win the point with fact? ALL the worlds REPUTABLE scientists are on your side.

      Gosh…..and you need to go down the advertising path.

      Nice raspberry

    • Markus says:

      01:40pm | 30/05/11

      I take it you’re not thinking of the children anymore, MarK?

      We have to take action NOW! raspberry

    • Bobster says:

      01:40pm | 30/05/11

      You should be held up as a case study for whoever it is that actually scripts these ads.

      Look at you, wouldn’t matter what science was put in front of you, you’d still deny it outright.

      It doesn’t matter that there are actually real, tangible examples of the effects of climate change. You deny they exist, claim the photos are doctored/unrepresentative, that the science is flawed and biased and that those speaking about climate change are aparatchiks and/or on the take.

      You claim to be fiscally conservative, yet you ignore the problem of exponential growth and consumption by refusing to acknowledge the problem of finite resources.

      You demand market-based solutions to every problem - from education to health care - yet in this case you deny there’s a problem.

      So, in fact, there is a problem (let’s use the Left vs Right characterisation, flawed as it is, for the sake of argument, it will do here).

      There is a massive communications deficiency. We went from polution to global warming to climate change and we lost the lot in jargon.

      Let’s agree, shall we, that we are going to run out of petrol sooner or later.

      For the love of god, can’t we just agree that the oil/coal won’t last forever and we need to develop something else to power our lives?

      If we accept that, can’t we move on to discussing whether or not a tax is the best way of shunting the marketplace in the right direction? Won’t a tax encourage innovation? Won’t a tax give some impetus to those who might not otherwise have bothered inventing the post-internal-combustion/coal-fired energy creation technology?

      If a free-market economy is going to allow the invisible hand to rescue us all, can’t we focus try to guide it a little bit before it bitch-slaps us into the stone-age with $5/litre petrol prices and $5000/year electricity bills?

      Or do you truly believe there is absolutely nothing to worry about and the fossil fuels will last forever?

    • MarK says:

      02:07pm | 30/05/11

      “Look at you, wouldn’t matter what science was put in front of you, you’d still deny it outright. “

      Bullshit son. I believe the climate changes all the time and man does and will contribute to it.

      “You deny they exist, claim the photos are doctored/unrepresentative, that the science is flawed and biased and that those speaking about climate change are aparatchiks and/or on the take.”

      What photos…you project too much. But yes to the rest, not as a generalisation but in specific cases yes.

      “You claim to be fiscally conservative, yet you ignore the problem of exponential growth and consumption by refusing to acknowledge the problem of finite resources. “

      One is not necessarily linked to the other and even if it was who gives a crap?

      “You demand market-based solutions to every problem - from education to health care - yet in this case you deny there’s a problem.”

      Getting warmer. Still no cigar….oh hell hang on how un-PC of me cigars produce CO2 or some shot. No prize just yet.

      “So, in fact, there is a problem”

      Getting colder.

      “Let’s agree, shall we, that we are going to run out of petrol sooner or later. “

      Much much later. Yes. So what.

      “For the love of god, can’t we just agree that the oil/coal won’t last forever and we need to develop something else to power our lives?”

      I agree. And we will. Under market forces when it becomes economic to do so. Artificially putting a price hike into a market is not exactly free marketeering you know.

      “If we accept that, can’t we move on to discussing whether or not a tax is the best way of shunting the marketplace in the right direction? Won’t a tax encourage innovation? Won’t a tax give some impetus to those who might not otherwise have bothered inventing the post-internal-combustion/coal-fired energy creation technology?”

      Sure it will.

      If it starts like I advocate around the $75 per tonne MINIMUM level wqith no compensation.

      Until then where is the incentive?

      Look Bob do we have a problem or not. If we do fix it not fart around….your call. My price level is in.

      “Or do you truly believe there is absolutely nothing to worry about and the fossil fuels will last forever? “

      So sorry I was not aware that this was the purpose of the tax.

      Should we not call it the “Need to find a solution to the running out of fossil fuel power tax” then.

      The issue is climate change and how this tax will effect it.

      Change the rules by all means just send me a memo first.

    • Bobster says:

      02:39pm | 30/05/11

      It’s the same issue. That’s my problem with the communication of it by the Left (sorry, boss started floating about and I got sidetracked from that point).

      The Right has come out with a simple and easily digestable piece of bullshit for their part - it’s all crap and they’re trying to steal your money. On the looney right, it’s all a communist plot.

      It’s all bullshit but this is politics so that’s hardly a point of difference.

      The Left, however, is firing off in every direction and has over-complicated its point to an unworkable extent.

      You simply cannot put sophisticated scientific points to the plebbery without frightening and confusing it. When you do this, it screams conspiracy.

      And here you all are, from Erick down, screaming conspiracy.

      You lot are tying yourselves in knots while you try to disagree with everything the Left has said and that is the Left’s fault.

      It was dumb enough to try the “You’re all going to die” soundbyte over the “You’re all going to go broke” soundbyte.

      Some very, very fundamental errors in communication on this issue.

      But, whatever, I have no stake in this. I’m just here for the show. By all means, kill yourselves with semantics and hypocrisy and go broke in the process.

      Doesn’t bother me hugely; I’m cleverer than you. When things get tough, I’ll find a way to relieve you of your money - I just hope you can successfully beat my remaining altruism out of me by then so as I can avoid any annoying moral dilemmas.

    • Max Redlands says:

      04:06pm | 30/05/11

      @ Bobster “You simply cannot put sophisticated scientific points to the plebbery without frightening and confusing it.”

      What - “the plebbery”?? I believe “plebeians” is the word your looking for - sometimes shortened to “plebs”.

      Hell Bob - you’ve tried to make your self sound like one of the “sophisticated” elite (or do you count yourself as one of the so-called “plebbery”?) and all you’ve demonstrated is a poor knowledge of English.

    • Bobster says:

      04:25pm | 30/05/11

      Shakespeare invented words and so can I. Plebbery is my own invention because I found plebs to be too individualistic. Needed more of a mob mentality to it, hence, plebbery.

      And yes, you are correct. Its route is plebian.

      And yes, I consider the plebbery to be stupid on the whole.

      Now that you’ve finished proving my point about the difficulty in expressing basic ideas to this wonderfully eqalitarian mob of nuffies, feel free to get back on topic.

    • Bobster says:

      04:26pm | 30/05/11

      Shakespeare invented words and so can I. Plebbery is my own invention because I found plebs to be too individualistic. Needed more of a mob mentality to it, hence, plebbery.

      And yes, you are correct. Its route is plebian.

      And yes, I consider the plebbery to be stupid on the whole.

      Now that you’ve finished proving my point about the difficulty in expressing basic ideas to this wonderfully egalitarian mob of nuffies, feel free to get back on topic.

    • John says:

      04:41pm | 30/05/11

      Bobster… you won’t be beating anybody out of their money… you’re too keen on the sound of your own voice to have any time left to build a business.  The successful are far more often hard working than they are clever.  You’ll just keep spending your time posting rants on The Punch and quickly minimising when the boss walks past.

      Who are you kidding?  We all know you’re a bludger mate!

    • Bobster says:

      05:41pm | 30/05/11

      Work smarter, not harder, champ.

      And, no. You’re wrong. Hardwork comes third, behind brains and nepotism. The only people who think hardwork pays the bills are the ones who don’t want to admit it was actually brains and/or nepotism.

      Like Twiggy Forrest and Gina Reinhardt - capital examples of those who’ve made it to the top via the sweat off their brows.

      At least I admit it. I’d like to have the nepotism as well but unfortunately it’s just cleverness from my end.

      Sorry to disappoint. You’d love it if I received some sort of benefit, wouldn’t you?

      If it’s any help, I went to a public school and I don’t have private health cover. Perhaps you could use that to accuse me of being a parasite?

    • Max Redland says:

      06:20pm | 30/05/11

      @ Bobstar

      and now you put yourself on a level with Shakespeare. You really are up yourself.

      You should try some humility Not only will it make your points more palatable to you percieved inferiors but it appears to me you have plenty to be humble about.

      By the way, re your last commet, please don’t tell me what to do. It generally gets the opposite response.However, a please usually works.

      Good manners cost nothing you know.

    • MarK says:

      06:30pm | 30/05/11

      no problem in the timing Bobster I had issues as well as wanted to give you a proper reply because you deserve it.

      Of course this has all been simplified down but that is the fault of the politics and the fault of the message being sold.

      I have never denied AGW is taking place. I have use the word the words AGW denier to describe myself and differentiate myself from the mainstream because it is convenient.

      I will repeat again I believe that man affects the climate, I believe greenhouse gases affect the climate but I totally disagree witht he extent.

      the models that are used to extrapolate the temperature change in the future cannot replicate known weather/climate patterns from hindcast data.

      Couple this with the fact that even if the worst predictions of the scientists and alarmists like Flannery are true whatever Australia does will not make one iota of difference to anything anyway.

      Not one.

      We could shut the place and the world would heat just as much as it would or would not anyway.

      I am not into self flagellation. It is deceitful the whole thing.

      Look at th ead. Not one person ahs suggested that I can see that Cate is not permitted to have a view but when she fronts a simplistic and deceitful ad to champion a tax well she can cop it.

      Let us go through the the effect of the tax too. As Gillard has been hinting this is a tax that is supposed to confront and begin to solve the issue of climate change vis reducing CO2. But what will actually happen? A part of the tax will be tithed to the UN. That is lost money. Half will be given back to lower income brackets to compensate for increased price rises. So what happens?

      Prices rise.

      Business puts up prices and who pays, higher income earners.

      They even say people will be over compensated. Rich pays poor gets overcompensated. Wealth is transferred.

      Regardless if this was an aim or not that is the reality. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. What a stupid construct. How will this change behavour?

      Gillard was in the paper today saying the dangers of AGW will blow our mind or whatever.

      How can she then say the tax should start well south of $40 per tonne. It is ludicous.

      She has settled science in her hands that predicts catastrophe and she will not take action that will make a difference? What is she doing? Why is she not acting? How can she sleep at night?

      Is this for real. All they want is a tax that will do nothing but transfer wealth. What are people supposed to think?

      If she has conviction. If the science is settled. If the ad is true and we are being asked to say yes it should go to an election.

      There was one party at the last election that went to the elecyion wanting a carbon tax and that was the Greens.

      I do not understand the fear they have in taking it to the people.

      I am like you. Whatever the outcome I will be fine perhaps better off under the carbon tax - there are so many opportunities for a person with my skill sets if it comes in I will make a packet but I digress.

      Just be nice to have a Labor politician lie straight in bed and show some backbone on something for once in this administration form Rudd to Gillard.

      I continually struggle to see one positive thing they have done that is above reproach and will leave a lasting legacy.

      It is embarrassing watching them operate to be honest.

      Still I enjoy mucking around with the lefties. they are so easy to bait. Can’t help myself.

    • Bobster says:

      06:56pm | 30/05/11

      @ Max Redlands, Yes, I put myself in the same class as Shakespeare because he, like me, was smarter than you. So I reserve the right to cry moron and let slip the dogs.

      @ MarK, I think what you fail to appreciate is that political issue on a global scale. It is also a trade issue.

      The fact is that the ship has sailed. Climate change policies are being adopted around the world and even more are on the way.

      No amount of carry on about Tim Flannery is going to change anything just as no amount of carry on from Tim Flannery is going to change anything.

      He’s the media’s man of the moment. Good on him. But that’s all he is. He is inconsequential in the overall scheme of things.

      And so is the Australian Government, you are right to a point with that, but you’re drawing the wrong conclusion from it.

      There is a new global market emerging and Australia is well placed to profit hugely from it so long as we stop dragging out feet.

      We’ve got the brains, we’ve got the infrastructure, we’ve got the money. We can make squillions from this while at the same time hedging our bets.

      Personally, I don’t talk about the science of it all because I’m not qualified to have any real insight. Most of the people on here would do well to recognise the same in themselves.

      What I do know though is a large and respected field (science - it’s reliable as hell when you’re talking medicine or technology) says there’s a damn good chance we could be upsetting the balance.

      In the face of that it is outright idiocy to discount it because you can poke the odd hole in it. No, no, much better to go with the flow and work out how to make it work for you.

      And with what we’ve got at our disposal, we can turn ourselves into the world’s greatest green power plant/carbon sync without harming so much as a bilby.

      Why not just hedge? Why the animosity?

      Get beyond the “I don’t think it’s real because I think Tim Flannery is a tosspot” rubbish and start working on the nuts and bolts.

      Let’s all get rich.

      You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

    • Bobster says:

      07:04pm | 30/05/11

      And yeah, prices will go up. It will hit households. It will hurt.

      It has to.

      Do you want a market based mechanism or not? That’s our old friend the invisible hand at work.

      That’s how it works.

      So we can go with that or we can have a government decree saying thou shalt cap emissions at X and anyone who goes over gets a ticket to the work camp.

      I’ve not once said this tax won’t hurt. It shits me that Gillard can be so dumb as to think she can pretend it won’t too.

      It amazed me when Rudd was going to compensate everyone to the point of nullifying the entire exercise too.

      It boggles my mind that so many of the knuckle-dragging numbskulls on here shout communism at Labor while tacitly advocating a communistic approach to the whole issue.

      I’m sorry, but if we’re going to be a free market, capitalist society then we’ve got to take the good with the bad.

      Bit of pain now, with some gain or major pain later on?

      If not a market mechanism like a tax, then what stick do you suppose we use?

      At least if we give the market a shove we might get a carrot or two as well.

    • MarK says:

      08:48pm | 30/05/11

      “The fact is that the ship has sailed. Climate change policies are being adopted around the world and even more are on the way. “

      Disagree entirely. The US are actually dropping it. India has no interest. China has no interest. Brazil has no interest. look at today where they walked away from the pathetic promise fest that is Kyoto.

      The world does not even do tokenism well anymore.

      Britain s 50% target is a promise with so many get put clauses that it is meaningless. I could give the same promise here. It means nothing.

      “He’s the media’s man of the moment. Good on him. But that’s all he is. He is inconsequential in the overall scheme of things.”

      Well “yes”. But he is advising the government on policy and bad policy of that. He is inconsequential to real debate sure but Gillard is relying on his advice.

      that makes him very dangerous.

      “We’ve got the brains, we’ve got the infrastructure, we’ve got the money. We can make squillions from this while at the same time hedging our bets. “

      The only problem is is it is ethereal.

      Spain and Germany and Scotland know this. Wjile government subsidies flow all is good. When the truth settles in and money gets tight (look at NSW) and the true cost is known then people run screaming. Whne adults get control, hell even idiots like Kennealy realised it, they back away.

      It means nothing in the long term. And if we take our energy inputs and make them more expensive any competitive manufacturing advantage disappears anyway so I am not sure how we will compete anyway.

      We would be the first nation in the world to “prosper” fprm Green jobs. I can’t see that happening.

      “Personally, I don’t talk about the science of it all because I’m not qualified to have any real insight. Most of the people on here would do well to recognise the same in themselves. “

      Rubbish. If you read and comprehend English you are qualified.

      “there’s a damn good chance we could be upsetting the balance. “

      Yeh ...AND?

      There is a good chance a bit of warming will provide more benefit than harm too. We can all play the perhaps game. You just want ot do it on a global scale with us leading the way. Sounds crazy brave to me. And unnecessary.

      “In the face of that it is outright idiocy to discount it because you can poke the odd hole in it. No, no, much better to go with the flow and work out how to make it work for you.”

      Again crazy brave bullshit. If it is a clear and present danger do something. Stop fucking around with a tax of less than $40. That is just insulting to our intelligence. It is why the thing will fail and gillard can’t sell it.

      “And with what we’ve got at our disposal, we can turn ourselves into the world’s greatest green power plant/carbon sync without harming so much as a bilby. “

      No.

      It would have been done already if possible. See above.

      Bobster I get where you are coming from but what you are proposing is a global scam where we sell ice to eskimo’s.

      It will not last and will not work for long.

      It will fail huge. And the mess that we create in our economy will be hard to fix.

      All we will have is a policy that used a fear campaign to bring in a wealth redistribution scheme that does not a ficken thing.

      GG…talk about conviction politics

    • Max Redlands says:

      11:20pm | 30/05/11

      @ Boobster (sic) Yes, I put myself in the same class as Shakespeare because he, like me, was smarter than you.

      Nonsense.

      If you were as half as smart as you think you are you would have recognized that.

      You’ve got a bigger mouth than me.

      I’ll give you that.

    • Brian Taylor says:

      04:55am | 31/05/11

      @bobby boy, if you’re so much more cleverer than us, how come you’re not the boss?

    • Bobster says:

      09:52am | 31/05/11

      Realised what, Max? Now you’re not even forming complete sentences. Back under your rock and let the grown ups talk.

      @MarK, we shall have to continue this another time. Busy day ahead of me - can’t hide in meetings like yesterday so I’m going to have to stick with shooting one liners at the geniuses today.

      Sorry about that but I’m sure the Punch will provide us with several hundred more threads on this topic.

    • Freeman says:

      01:08pm | 30/05/11

      “the actors in the ad haven’t even told us WHY we should pay. They’ve told us why we should curb carbon emissions but as mentioned, we all know that. But why again should we pay?”

      actually, the actors make out that “big polluters” will pay. as if they will not simply pass on the costs.

    • Tim says:

      01:56pm | 30/05/11

      didnt you watch the ad? if we pay the tax, then a giant lever appears and once pulled, the world will change from dirty black and white into vibrant happy colours!!

      ps: think of the children

    • Freeman says:

      02:51pm | 30/05/11

      “the world will change from dirty black and white into vibrant happy colours!!”

      Insulting, isn’t it? I mean this is the reply from the lefties after their whole AGW movement has lost momentum. people are asking legitimate questions of AGW science and in return we get this simplistic, patronizing ad blitz that looks like it’s made by the Wiggles.

    • nihonin says:

      01:08pm | 30/05/11

      Taking a look at the advertisement on TV last night, I noticed a glaring mistake where Michael Caton is standing in front the power station, our power stations don’t emit smoke, just steam vapour.  Nasty black horrible carbon laden steam vapour, vacuous idiots, can’t even get the message right lol.

    • remlap says:

      02:00pm | 30/05/11

      Our coal burning power stations only emit steam vapour? Wow. We’ve come a long way with our coal burning technology.

      Perhaps they suck up all the emissions with a vacuum. Maybe they just plug the vacuous idiots in. I wonder where they’d start.

      Oh wait, I just figured out how you know they only emit steam…

    • hoe in in says:

      02:24pm | 30/05/11

      You are right of course
      The most important part of this debate is whether coal fired power stations output steam vapour.
      It’s not about what they burn, It’s not about the carbon dioxide they belch out, it’s about whether you can actually see it.
      If you can’t see it, it can’t be hurting you.
      Vacuous idiot indeed
      lol

    • nihonin says:

      03:21pm | 30/05/11

      Did you pair read what I posted, I’m thinking you didn’t, if you read
      it slowly you will see I am referring to the image of the chimney stacks
      whereas we usually see images of the cooling towers, which
      unfortunately for the Alarmist don’t emit anything other than steam.

    • remlap says:

      04:08pm | 30/05/11

      I read it slowly. And then again. Then once more, to be sure. I then repeated the same procedure with your follow up comment.

      You are definitely vacuous. Thanks for clearing that up.

    • nihonin says:

      04:30pm | 30/05/11

      lol @remlap, thanks mate.  At least I know you can spell vacuous and not offering anything other than personal insults (play the man not the ball stuff) to any debate.  Then again maybe you’re just a troll.  Shoo fly shoo

    • hoe in in says:

      05:23pm | 30/05/11

      Hey nihonin
      You don’t want the negative feedback, don’t write shit comments to begin with

    • remlap says:

      10:39am | 31/05/11

      If your ball is flat don’t bring it to the game. Likewise, if your message appears empty at the outset, don’t expect everyone to understand what you are talking about. Nor should you get all didactic when you can’t deliver on that message a second time round.

    • luke says:

      01:10pm | 30/05/11

      Send the messengers back a million years in time and have them introduce a carbon tax amongst the population.

      If only we had introduced a carbon tax a million years ago, climate change would have suddenly stopped due to man’s intervention via a carbon tax.

      The more tax we pay the sooner the earth’s natural cycle of climate change will stop, it makes so much sense to empty our wallets for the bankrupt Gillard government in the name of climate change.

    • TimB says:

      01:27pm | 30/05/11

      We need to invent time travel.

      Then we can send a Terminator back in time to eliminate the caveman who invented fire. That bastard, it’s all his fault.

      The resulting paradox may wipe the universe from existence, but at least our kids won’t have to suffer.

    • persephone says:

      01:41pm | 30/05/11

      Except this isn’t a part of the natural cycle.

      Firstly, all ‘cycles’ have triggers; they happen in response to changes in the environment. There is nothing inevitable about them. It’s just that when you push a certain button, certain things happen. Something has to push the button to make them, though.

      Secondly, when the ‘natural cycle’ changes as rapidly as this one has been ,  the cause (the finger pushing the button) is usually something big and obvious - solar flares, a meteorite hitting the earth, massive volcanic activity. The only ‘big and obvious’ trigger which is observable at present is a massive increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, coinciding with a massive increase in the output of greenhouse gases by man.

      Spooky coincidence, that.

      And we’re not being asked to empty our wallets. In fact, most of us will get to put more into them.

      The pathetically weak and repeated arguments put up by those opposed to climate change - asking questions which have already been answered, jumping to extreme conclusions without justification, and now shooting the messengers - simply shows how desperate they’re becoming.

      You don’t have decent arguments. That’s why no one that matters is taking you seriously.

    • Bobster says:

      01:55pm | 30/05/11

      You’re looking at it the wrong way (as usual :p).

      We need to send someone forward to 2015 so they can bring back a Mr Fusion for every car on the road.

      This, however, will cause somewhat of a recession with all that cash disappearing for four years, but with thanks to the stockmarkets, we can all make a small fortune punting on Mr Fusion sales down the track.

      Pick me up a copy of Grey’s Sports Almanac while you’re there.

      Problem solved.

      Carbon tax profits must be sent directly to flux capacitor research.

    • David C says:

      02:09pm | 30/05/11

      and pphone you prove the authors point, If I am not on your side its because I just dont get it
      It is a bit like the millons of people who died in Russia and China last century because they just didnt get how communism would save them.

    • gytr says:

      02:21pm | 30/05/11

      @Persephone - Do you know of the CERN CLOUD experiment and the implications that has for the models used by ALL client scientists?

      This is one experiment that is once again overlooked by all pro-carbon climate change people. They ignore it. Are you going to do the same?

      Why is there a rush to put in a tax, when is 2-3 years, the CO2 models can take into account aerosole creation and low layer cloud formation and produce a more accurate picture of AGW, or maybe even discredit the models completely?

      Oh wait, I think I answered my own question (the third one), I guess that makes it rhetorical.

    • MarK says:

      02:24pm | 30/05/11

      Pers lectured at Uni, wrote policy and rooted the ground…err did ground root stuff in this area. You can believe her. When she lectured at the uni there were scientists there. Probably. We can assume it though.

      Anyway she is tryimg to lie again and suggest that there will be compensation where no agreement exisst yet anyway and also conveniently ignores the point of the tax which is to change habits so over time even if compensation is provided at the start it will have to be phased out and the tax will rise progressively.

      That is unless Gillard is really committed to AGW and the worst fears and starts the tax well north of $40 with no compensation.

      If she cares about kids she will. They are ones that will suffer. Who could respect a PM that does not think of the children and act decisively?

      Isn’t that right pers. AGW = big danger = must act now = must have high carbon tax now = agrees with settled science.

      How can it be anything else?

      To delay is to deny. To deny is to have a tax well south of $40.

      We need courage form the government and its boosters.

    • luke says:

      02:26pm | 30/05/11

      persephone, yes I admit man has played a part in the evolution of earth’s being what it is today, it has naturally occurred since mankind was born. Without mankind use of fire we would have naturally not evolved.

      Doing the maths, Australia emits 1% of the world’s carbon emissions, how is a tax on Australians going to have any useful effect to altering climate change?

    • TimB says:

      02:41pm | 30/05/11

      Bobster that would be the smart/commonsense thing to do.

      But with the Greens in charge of the climate change agenda, they’re more likely to pursue my option. It’s environmentaly friendly and whatnot.

    • Bobster says:

      03:13pm | 30/05/11

      Oh get off the Greens barrow - the Greens aren’t even in charge of the Greens anymore.


      All joking aside, the Greens are given far too much credit.

      Bob Brown is trying desperately to keep the show respectable before Lee Rhiannon et al turn it into the Democrats mark two.

      Chill out, dude. They’re nothing to worry about.

    • Dash says:

      05:45pm | 30/05/11

      @Persephone, Two families polluting exactly the same, yet one will be compensated and the other expected to pay on the basis of income! How the hell is that to do with “Making the Big Polluters Pay”????

      Isn’t it true that this is nothing more than a socialist exercise in wealth redistribution. The ALP are using tax payers money to fund a propaganda campaign on the biggest fraud ever inflicted on the people of Australia.

      They lied to people on the eve of last election and now they are trying to pretend we have a choice between yes and no. What a load of crap.

      If they want a mandate and to give people the chance to say Yes, hold a referendum!

      But of course they wont because they are a gutless, spineless, deceitful pack of socialist morons!

    • TimB says:

      06:22pm | 30/05/11

      Nothing to worry about Bobster?

      If you believe Perse, the Greens are the reason we’re having this Carbon Tax debate now.

      Of course if the Greens aren’t to blame then that means Gillard deliberately lied, but Perse claims that isnt true…

      *shrug*

    • persephone says:

      06:45pm | 30/05/11

      Dash

      because the family on the higher income is (very likely) to be a bigger polluter.

      There is a direct correlation between income and carbon emissions.

      Furthermore, the family on the bigger income has more disposable income (I know you’re the exception, struggling along on $350k a year without a zac to rub together, but most are better money managers than you are) to spend on measures which will reduce their emissions.

    • Richard says:

      07:47pm | 30/05/11

      There you go again with this “Big Polluter” bullshit pers.

      The fact is: there is no other option. The only way for our modern lifestyle to remain feasible is with access to electricity. Simple as that.

      Solar and Wind are not feasible alternatives, they just aren’t. They can’t produce baseload, and what’s more they will actually make environmental problems worse. Solar panels are dark and they absorb heat, so if we cover vast spaces with them, and if we put them on every roof in cities, we are going to make them hotter. That’s right, solar panels will make the global warming problem worse!

      And wind turbines are even worse. The energy inherent in currents of wind are necessary for the continuance of the biosphere in ways that we are not aware of fully. If we extract all that energy out of the wind and turn it into electricity, we will fundamentally damage the vital circulation of wind around our planet.

      Think people! Think deeper! Don’t accept persephone’s superficial lies and obfuscations. Investigate issues for your self, examine the facts for yourself, use your brain. The socialist left loves young, dumb and naive people because they are just willing to take other people’s word for it (if the other person is famous or glamourous or big-noted enough). But we all have a brain. We can all be independent thinkers, and in fact that is the only way to be: groupthink is for losers and sheeple.

    • persephone says:

      08:22pm | 30/05/11

      Richard

      where, anywhere in my various ramblings, have I said we shouldn’t be using electricity?

      In fact, the other day I argued that we’ll be depending on coal fired electricity for the foreseeable future and that that - though not ideal - would not stop us meeting our emission reduction targets.

      The increasing use of extreme scenarios - we’ll all be living in caves! they’re going to make us live without electricity!! - simply demonstrates that the denial brigade are beginning to realise how flimsy their case is.

      Absolutely think for yourself. Absolutely question everything you’re told.
      But don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out.

    • gytr says:

      08:44pm | 30/05/11

      Oh look, persephone chose to ignore my questions. It’s funny that. It seems most supporters of the tax do that. Ignore something that may enhance the CO2 warming models, or destroy them.

      And you accuse the “alarmists” of burying their heads in the sand.

      Let’s not forget that on the weekend, it was announced that Japan, Canada and Russia pulled out of the Kyoto protocol, and the US reaffirmed its stance of not agreeing or ratifying it.

      So persephone, will you answer at least one of the questions?

      Perhaps I could get an answer from you regarding this one:

      Now that 4 of the “big polluting” countries refuse to take part in the Kyoto Protocol, what will taxing us do to CO2 driven warming?

    • MarK says:

      09:05pm | 30/05/11

      “where, anywhere in my various ramblings, have I said we shouldn’t be using electricity?”

      I CALL DENIER

      A problem has been identified and you are Gillard are too gutless to do anything worthwhile about it.

      Pair of deniers.

    • persephone says:

      10:38pm | 30/05/11

      gytr

      no, I haven’t. Because it’s something I don’t know about.

      I do know that, if it was worthwhile, some scientist somewhere would be sure to have noticed and would have taken it into account.

      As for your comment about India, Russia, etc, you have done the common thing here, and regurgitated something you read somewhere without checking the original information.

      What they have said is that they won’t commit if other countries don’t take action too.

      Funnily enough, that’s what every other country - including ones committed to quite serious action - is also saying - that it must be a collective effort, with everyone doing their bit.

      And that’s why the present government scheme has a review process built into it - so that if other countries aren’t doing their bit, we can pull back. (The obverse of that is, of course, is that if other countries are doing their bit, we can up the targets).

      Everyone has to have skin in the game.

    • gytr says:

      06:22am | 31/05/11

      Thank you Persephone for answering.

      Can I ask you to also go and research the CLOUD and SKY experiments, and also a documentary called “The Cloud Mystery” and see how hard the collective group of scientists had to fight to get their research papers published, let alone peer reviewed because it opens a lot of questions that climat scientists don’t want to answer.

      As to the 4 countries pulling out, no I didn’t just “regurgitated something you read somewhere without checking the original information”. Perhaps you should re-read the releases? Here’s the reason as quoted in the releases:

      “They argued the Kyoto format did not require emerging countries - including China, the world’s largest carbon polluter - to make targeted emissions cuts.”

      So, once again, I ask you, why can we not wait 2-3 years for our tax, and what will it do, on a global scale, given that well, 5 really, of the worlds top CO2 emitters won’t ratify or agree to Kyoto?

    • Bobster says:

      01:08pm | 31/05/11

      Perse can think what she wants. I tend to agree with her here to a greater extent than some others (to the extent I’ve read her stuff, a bit of tl;dr issue a lot of the time) but, no, the Greens are not the reason we’re having this debate.

      The public shifted towards it in 2007 when the Greens were not a major concern.

      Aside from the breathless panic of News Ltd and the desperate anti-Greens proselytising from the Australian inparticular, I don’t see any reason to think the Greens have anyone by the balls about anything.

    • Rowdy says:

      01:10pm | 30/05/11

      Battersea Power Station?? WTF?? FFS…. Decommissioned 30 years ago, now only a shell…..obviously our power stations aren’t as polluting as these guys would like….

      All that’s missing is the flying pig over Battersea….as per Pink Floyd’s Animals album cover….

    • Super D says:

      01:11pm | 30/05/11

      Suggesting that people say yes only reminds them that they don’t get a chance to vote.

      A massive own goal by the earth worshippers.

    • L. says:

      01:25pm | 30/05/11

      “Suggesting that people say yes only reminds them that they don’t get a chance to vote”

      LOL..Ture… Asking us to simply say “yes” makes it sound as though there will be some kind of country wide forum in which we can all have a say..

      WHat do you call those things again..?? Oh yeah, a referendum.

    • MarK says:

      01:47pm | 30/05/11

      I agree totally Super D.

      This will be the line pushed into the future against this ad.

      Give us the chance to tell them their dreaming or whatever..

      Dumbest most useless ad ever and I include the Vegemite i2 or whatever it was and real coke.

      From my point of view it couldn’t get any better than that ad.

    • Bitten says:

      01:13pm | 30/05/11

      Well said! “Just do what we tell you to for god’s sake and stop asking questions!” is such a tired political technique and one, I’m sure, most people in favour of a carbon tax would strenuously (and hypocritically) deny supporting. It’s lazy and inadequate. The sticking point is really that if you (genuinely) want public debate over an issue, you will have to have points to make and you will have to be prepared to:
      1. defend those points;
      2. listen to people who do not agree with your point of view;
      3. fairly consider the points put forward by those people who do not agree with your point of iew.

      Which is apparently far too much like hard work for far too many people who take up the public’s time - right, left and sideways.

      The hypocrisy in the approach by the left noted here is the same thing that comes up whenever there is mention of immigration policy debate: the left proclaims ‘the truth’ and anything else is just racist/fascist/stupidist, take your pick. The left prides itself on preaching tolerance, yet apparently has so little time and/or interest in practising it. Not that I’m trying to change the subject: just pointing out the hypocrisy runs deeper than just on climate change.

    • Richard says:

      01:23pm | 30/05/11

      While undoubtedly Ant your proposed alternative ad would be a darn sight more effective than the laughably condescending Cate Blanchett one (“Looky here, all I have to do is just pull this lever and ‘Whallah’, blue skies!” /vomit), it would still be a gross misrepresentation of reality.

      Because basically, these are the facts that everyone has to face up to, and all the straw man arguments from the left to skirt around them and obfuscate the real situation just won’t cut it.

      There are only 4 technologies now and for the foreseeable future that can provide reliable uninterrupted BASE LOAD Power:
      Coal Fire
      Gas Fire
      Hydro
      Nuclear

      But the Greens hate all of these…

      For a wild-card entry, we’ll throw in Geothermal, but unless you live in Iceland or certain parts of NZ, it doesn’t really have the capacity to supply base load power.

      Wind and Solar can’t and never will, yet this is what the Greens want.
      Solar is surprisingly inefficient when it is dark and when it don’t blow, Wind energy doesn’t follow.
      The only way to store “solar” energy is via batteries and batteries ain’t exactly the most environmental friendly produced product.

      Solar is a non-solution Ant. The silver that the panels use requires carbon emissions to mine (and silver is sky-rocketing in price these days, making solar panels completely uneconomical.) It probably requires more carbon emissions to mine the materials, manufacture the product, transport it from the factories to wherever and install it than they would save in generating power over their suprisingly short life-span.

      The technology just isn’t there yet. It will arrive in a while though, when the time is ripe. And there is no way to speed up the process, the free market moves in mysterious ways. But for us to be in a position to implement the best technology when it becomes available, we have to keep our economy strong. We have to be wealthy enough to afford it when that time comes, and when the international consensus has arrived.

      But jumping the starter’s gun and climaxing too early, and smugly thinking we’re Oh So Moral for doing so, is the height of lunacy. I’m glad the majority of my fellow Australians are smart enough to see this.

    • Freeman says:

      02:01pm | 30/05/11

      brilliant post.
      I’m so sick of point out the limitations of solar and wind to those who say “but what about renewables?” the first question i ask is how they plan to store the power generated when it happens to be sunny or windy enough so that it could be used for base load.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:10pm | 30/05/11

      “The technology just isn’t there yet. It will arrive in a while though, when the time is ripe. And there is no way to speed up the process, the free market moves in mysterious ways.” If that isn’t a textbook case of religion, then, I don’t know what is. If God doesn’t solve the problem then the Free Market will provide. It is in the oil producers interests to stifle such technology to maximize profits.

      As I’ve said time and time again, A Carbon Tax is useless without population stabilization, carbon tariffs, no compensation and development of nuclear power.

    • persephone says:

      08:31pm | 30/05/11

      Richard

      firstly, there’s no suggestion that we stop coal fired electricity in the foreseeable future.

      It’d be nice if we could, yes, but it’s not possible.

      And it’s not necessary, either.

      We can achieve the reductions needed without doing that.

      And the best way to encourage the development of the new technology you’re talking about is to provide incentives, and a price on carbon provides that.

      We don’t need to eliminate coal; we need to reduce our dependence on it.

    • MarK says:

      08:54pm | 30/05/11

      pers read the report.

      We can’t.

      Stop denying.

    • Richard says:

      10:43pm | 30/05/11

      Yes persephone, I’m sure that’s how you socialist meddlers would like the world to work, but I gotta deliver a reality check to ya babe.

      Putting an artificial price on carbon doesn’t help alternative energy sources get developed any quicker than they would otherwise: there is already more than enough price signalling going on the way things are. Saying that “if we put a price on carbon it will encourage the development of new technology” is like saying that “if gold lotto tickets were twice as expensive then you would have more chance of winning the jackpot”, but that’s nonsense, the price paid for the ticket does not influence the sequence in which the little balls come out. Its just the luck of the draw.

      In fact a carbon price would in effect act just like a government subsidy, i.e. it would create a false price signal, which would encourage malinvestment in inefficient and unsuitable solutions. We would see that with a carbon price, funds that could have gone into a yet undiscovered technology that presents a real solution to the problem, instead would react to the false price signal and get malinvested in wind or solar solutions.

      So the critical matter is, if we have to use coal, if there is no other option, like you and I both say, then any plan to arbitrarily and artificially raise the price of that coal power is not just pointless, its actually down-right idiotic and destructive.

      I keep warning about stagflation, and people keep ignoring me. But the inflation numbers keep on coming in above expectation, above the RBA’s target band, and the growth numbers keep on coming in below expectations, and will actually signal a contraction in the last quarter when the come out later this week.

      Stagflation is the direct result of artificial and arbitrary rises in energy prices, we saw that in the 1970’s with the OPEC oil crisis. I call upon this government and all its apologist to stop focussing on unimportant non-issues like climate change, which might have some impact in 100 years time (or might not), and start focussing on the bloody problems that are right under our noses and are pressing for immediate attention, like the spiralling cost of Australian power bills all around the country right now.

    • Nathin says:

      01:28pm | 30/05/11

      How can we say “yes” or “no” Comrad Julia doesn’t even want to know what we think…

    • Saskia says:

      01:28pm | 30/05/11

      Why does the ad lie so much?  It is NOT carbon pollution it is carbon dioxide!  This is a clear gas!  The images of soot billowing into the sky are a pure lie and simply a scare campaign.

      Don’t drink the Kool-aid.

      This govt is truly the one that George Orwell predicted.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      01:35pm | 30/05/11

      When someone says it better than you can paraphrase it, you might as well just quote it:

      “. It was discussed on the Sunday morning political talk shows and featured prominently in the evening news on every channel. The confection led the evening news on the ABC. Simplification, trivia, celebrity and vitriol won the day.” - Malcom Farnsworth over @thedrum

      Sideshow indeed

    • MarK says:

      02:09pm | 30/05/11

      I must get to the Drum then.

      Sounds super fun over there.

    • Delraiser says:

      01:38pm | 30/05/11

      I’m happy for you to call BS on the ad, but I’d also expect someone to call BS on barnaby’s “out of touch” comment. It appears that unless you are an arse-out-of-the-pants battler with 17 kids, massive power bills and a half million dollar mortgage, you aren’t in touch with the ‘real’ Australia.

    • Lucas says:

      01:44pm | 30/05/11

      ‘Even the staunchest anthropomorphic global warming denier would surely concede there are all sorts of benefits in cutting carbon emissions, not least cleaner air and the transition to smarter industries and renewable energy sources.’

      It is becoming evident that the people wanting to believe in man made Global Warming are becoming even more dogmatic and dismissive in defence of this increasingly globally marginalised theory. Facts are suitably ignored in favour of hype and exaggerations. Debate is something that most, if not all, Global Warming proponents avoid like the plague. Here are some facts:
      1) Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential for life. If you refer to it as a pollutant you are deliberately misleading the naive and gullible.
      2) After 1998 being the hottest year in the last 100 years or so, the Earth has been cooling over the last 10 years. No scientist can dispute the satellite data and this fact is conveniently ignored by the Government’s propaganda machine.
      3) The debate is clearly not over. Thousands of climate scientists disagree with Global Warming. The most notable ones include Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter and Piers Corbyn.
      4) Tim Flannery and Al Gore are not climate scientists. Neither is Ross Garnaut or Greg Combet.
      5) The Earth’s temperature has fluctuated greatly over the last billion years. The Earth has been through at least 3 Ice Ages, the temperature was far warmer during the age of the dinosaurs and Europe experienced warmer weather during the Medieval Warm Period.

      I am still struggling the Australian media’s almost universal mindset not to question or ignore the obvious flaws in the Global Warming theory and the role of a Carbon Dioxide tax in fighting the ‘catastrophic climate change’ and ‘rising’ sea levels. Having spent the last few years living overseas, the whole ClimateGate scandal (which was front page news in the UK but received little or no coverage here) and the failure of Copehagen have seen the governments of the rest of the world moving on from emissions trading and ‘carbon’ taxes. The Australian public are waking up to these facts but I just get the feeling that most of the media are almost willing the Government to impose this tax and hence the lack of quality investigative journalism and hard questioning of Julia Gillard. I mean, it wouldn’t be hard to ask Julia why she keeps on stating the misleading term of ‘carbon pollution’, why she believes the debate is over if thousands of scientists don’t believe in global warming and why has the Earth’s temperature cooled over the last 10 years. Should I be holding my breath?

    • Lails says:

      02:26pm | 30/05/11

      @Lucas. I totally agree with everything you have written!

    • Bobster says:

      03:29pm | 30/05/11

      Marginalised theory? Justify.

    • MDG says:

      04:51pm | 30/05/11

      1) Take a deep breath of the stuff and tell me how “essential for life” it is.  Any substance in sufficient quantity in the wrong place is a pollutant. 
      2) The last decade is the warmest on record.  http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html
      3) There are people with scientific qualifications who argue for divine creation, too.  And since there are tens of thousands on the side of climate change theory, turning it into a numbers game won’t help you.
      4) Neither is Chris Monckton, Andrew Bolt, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin or Bob Carter (palaeontology/geology) or Piers Corbyn (astrophysicist).  Since climatology is a relatively new discipline, most scientists active in it have come from somewhere else.
      5) It’s the speed of the fluctuations that is the problem.  Nobody has said that the climate is static.

      If you’ve been following “CIimategate” you’ll also know that two or three independent inquiries have cleared the CRU of wrongdoing, yes?  And as someone who clearly follows UK news closely, what’s your take on (Conservative) PM Cameron’s recent policy to halve UK emissions?

    • Ruby says:

      08:55pm | 30/05/11

      well said MDG.

    • Lucas says:

      09:14pm | 30/05/11

      @MDG
      1) Carbon dioxide is plant food. It’s a naturally occurring gas. We breathe it out, plants absorb it. Your statement is a generalisation intended to avoid this fact.  Can you tell me what the ‘sufficient quantity’ is that will make carbon dioxide a pollutant?
      2)  The total global temperature increase in the 20th Century was approximately 0.7 degrees culminating in 1998 being the hottest year on record (due to the strongest El Nino event ever recorded). The temperature has decreased by approximately 0.2 degrees in the last 10 years. The last 10 years have been the warmest on record (since 1880) BUT the warming stopped 10 years ago -coincidentally when satellite temperature data started to become more sophisticated. This lack of warming goes against every climate model and this is one of the most frustrating facts for global warming believers.
      3) Again, you ignore the fact. That is, the science is far from settled.
      4) Not sure if you are saying that Tim Flannery is or isn’t qualified to ‘advise’ the Government on the environment.  I would be alarmed to take advice from anyone who has stated that the Earth will soon come to life as a living creature; http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/do-not-feel-afraid-gaia-is-with-us/story-fn6b3v4f-1225980669696 
      5) Speed of fluctuations? Over the last 1000 years, humans have experienced the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age in the 17th Century and a slight increase in the 20th Century. There have been far greater fluctuations prior to that including the three Ice Ages.  You can’t possibly believe that a 0.7 degree increase in 100 years is significant. This is completely in line with historical changes. There is no ‘correct’ global temperature. If the climate didn’t change naturally, Earth would still be a ball of gas.
      ClimateGate: It was no surprise that the scientists were cleared. The first two investigations were self-inquiries and the third inquiry was done by the UN (the same UN that wants to manage billions of dollars to ‘manage’ global warming).  The content of the emails can’t be refuted including the ‘trick’ that was used to ‘hide the decline’ in temperatures and my favourite email quote of ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
      And then there is Dr Phil Jones’ admission after the scandal that there has been no ’statistical significant’ warming since 1995. Remember, the East Anglia Climate Research Unit where he works is one of the key contributers to the IPCC http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
      Conservatives’ pledge to halve emissions: Don’t be so naive, it’s easy for a politician to make a non-binding pledge e.g.  By 1990 there will be no child living in poverty. It’s much harder for them to actually commit, hence the farce that was Copenhagen.  And also overnight, the Obama Administration has confirmed that the US will not be signing up to an updated Kyoto Protocol.
      But hey, you could easily dismiss all of this and argue that the science is settled. I mean, facts tend to become inconvenient when trying to argue against the Global Warming religion.

    • Tea Party Time says:

      01:45pm | 30/05/11

      Just a bunch of rich wankers trying to take food of me plate.
      Instead of having all these well of wankers telling us about their views on a carbon tax how about equal time hearing what low and fixed income earners feel about a carbon tax.
      My hats off to the Sunday Tele….telling it how it really is…

    • Bobster says:

      02:05pm | 30/05/11

      Where is Gina Reinhardt on the issue? I need to hear that toffy accent telling us to Axe the Tax again.

      Why can’t we hear from a real battler like Gina like we did the last time this COMMUNIST government tried to redistribute MY wealth.

    • Daniel says:

      01:58pm | 30/05/11

      Piers Akerman doesn’t even think Climate Change is real and humans have anything to do with it. And he has the gaul to call me a nutcase.

    • Daniel's embarrassed parents says:

      05:44pm | 30/05/11

      Please spell “gall” correctly next time.

      Lesson over.

    • Mark says:

      08:36pm | 30/05/11

      @ Daniel

      He doesn’t? Well let’s hear what the Prime Minister had to say ...

      “Over time the scientific evidence that the climate is warming has become quite compelling and the link between emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity and higher temperatures is also convincing.”

      Being among the first movers on carbon trading in this region will bring new opportunities and we intend to grasp them.”

      John Howard 2007

    • Matt says:

      01:58pm | 30/05/11

      Yeah damnit! I want 100% oxygen in my air! None of this CO2 crap! Its DEADLY, in case you hadn’t heard!

    • nossy says:

      01:59pm | 30/05/11

      Well the battle lines are drawn Anthony - Gillard VS Abbott on the Carbon Tax. My gut feeling is that Gillard will carry the day. Meanwhile down in Tassie Wilkie has been given the “slows” on his Poker Machine reforms I read - Gillard has a major battle on her hands and has bigger fish to fry. Best thing we can do is sell Tasmania to the New Zealanders - I hear they are looking for some “stable” dirt to buy !  hahah And as an added bonus we get to say goodbye to Bob Brown as well ! Lets do it !

    • TimB says:

      02:54pm | 30/05/11

      Have to hand it to you Nossy. That’s not the worst idea I’ve ever heard raspberry.

      Not only do we get rid of Brown, but Wilkie too. AND 4 other Labor MP’s.

      With the House of Reps now sitting at 145, 73 votes would be required for a majority…

      ALP (68 MP’s) + Bandt, Oakeshot & Windsor= 71.
      LNP (72 MP’s) + Katter OR Crook = 73

      Libs in power. Whee!

      Let’s do it. Lets sell Tasmania. Right now!

      Joel will be livid, but I think we’re prepared to make that sacrifice.

      Buh-bye Taswegians!

    • fairsfair says:

      03:05pm | 30/05/11

      I don’t know if I am prepared to give up Joel B1, this needs further thought.

      Screw it TimB - just announce it, we’ll sort the rest of it out later.

      wink

    • Joel B1 says:

      03:21pm | 30/05/11

      @TimB and @fairsfair,

      Thanks, but if was for the good of Australia (ie getting rid of Labor and Gillard) I’d personally put up the “For Sale, slightly used” sign.

    • Steve says:

      03:36pm | 30/05/11

      Have a think about it Nossy. Tasmania is a welfare state so it voted for your Labor mates. They have 5 federal seats and sent 4 Labor and Wilkie( further left of Labor) to Canberra. That means not one coalition lower house seat Nossy. How the hell do you expect to keep your nemesis out of power without that welded on welfare support that Tassie provides? Hahahahahahahaha. tears down my eyes nossy fella.

    • nossy says:

      03:48pm | 30/05/11

      @TimB - there we go again Timmy - in agreement fella !

    • bella starkey says:

      03:55pm | 30/05/11

      Crook is a very unfortunate name for a politician.

    • fairsfair says:

      04:38pm | 30/05/11

      OMG - I just realised… the “Sydney to Hobart” will bring an entirely new meaning to Boat People….

    • jb says:

      06:07pm | 30/05/11

      Hey crusty, I couldn’t agree with you more!
      More like this and we could be friends again…
      Enjoy the single blend champ!

    • Ripa says:

      02:01pm | 30/05/11

      “because yes is what makes Australia great”
      This ad is worse than anything i have seen, it is so full of bullcrap, a dung beetle could have written a better script , no sorry i take that back, dung beetles are a valuable part of the planet and actually DO something worth while and make a difference. Cate n Caton you guys look and sound like blithering idiots.

    • Anti-Cate says:

      02:02pm | 30/05/11

      Cate Blanchett is worth $53 million, apparently. How about she donates, say, $25 million to the carbon tax slush fund, and stops laying a guilt trip on those who struggle to feed and clothe themselves and their families on a wage of $50,000 per annum? She has a husband and 3 kids, how much money does she need, while berating those of us who struggle to buy fresh fruit and vegetables?

      And I am so sick of hearing the Sydney Theatre Co is carbon-neutral. How very nice for those few Sydney-siders who can afford to go to the theatre.
      They have a clear conscience (having no doubt driven there in their tewwibly twendy Prius). It doesn’t mean a thing to the rest of us who a) can’t afford to go to the theatre or b) don’t live in Sydney.

      Put your money where your mouth is, Cate.

    • Cake Hole says:

      02:29pm | 30/05/11

      Gina Rinehart is worth 10 billion dollars,
      How about she donates 5 billion dollars to the nation in return for us allowing her did leave great bug holes in the earth, pollute the environment and raping our non renewable natural resources.

      After all she didn’t work for her money, she was left it by daddy.
      Put your money where the cake goes Gina.

    • Reschs Monkey says:

      02:40pm | 30/05/11

      Those with real money to burn, and whose bleating we hear every time the words ‘climate’ and ‘change’ are mentioned, include mining magnates (Andrew Fisher, Gina Rinehart & Clive Palmer), the property developer who wants to rip up all of the trees in the Royal National Park, (Harry Triguboff), the retailer who wants us to buy more appliances so we can burn more coal, (Gerry Harvey), and chief sock puppet (Alan Jones).

      Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton are very small change indeed in comparison to these fat wallets.

    • Richard says:

      03:09pm | 30/05/11

      Oh how the left hates wealth. You’d think Gina Rinehart would be hailded by the left for being the first woman to become the richest person in Australia. But no, she’s been now declared Public Enemy #1 by the left, because she dares to be a Billionaire, (which she earned mind you from developing and making available to the market the bountiful Natural Resources of our country, so that you can have your iPhones and you Priuses).

      Well look here Cake Hole, without people like Gina Rinehard and Twiggy Forrest, our country would be like Spain or Greece, with 20% unemployment and on the brink of complete sovereign insolvency. Which would mean no Dole money for you. No HECS for you. No arts funding grants for you. You just do not fathom how fucked our economy would be without our brilliant and entrepreneurial Mining Billionaires, so just shut your Cake Hole.

    • MarK says:

      03:49pm | 30/05/11

      Oh hai cake hole and Reschs just a few questions.

      1. How many people do cate and michael employ?
      2. How mush tax have these 2 luminaries paid to Australia via their personal tax returns and those of their entities?
      3. How much risk has cate or michale taken on to produce real wealth for the country?

      One last thing. If you had to choose between the mining industry and cate or michael which do you think Australia can afford to lose?

      I bet a few people in Cessnock for example would be real interested in your answers.

    • Cake Hole says:

      04:04pm | 30/05/11

      Well done Richard
      Stopped from pushing things down your cake hole to share some words of wisdom with us.
      Carry on

    • Shane says:

      02:20pm | 31/05/11

      @Richard - the left hates wealth? WTF are you on about? If it’s the “left” that hates wealth, who are the ones screeching that because she has $53 million dollars she doesn’t have the right to an opinion?
      Try doing us all a favour and choking on your hypocrisy. And as for the rest of the lunactics on this strand, it’s rather frightening to think you can all vote. I am all for intelligent debate but it sure won’t be found here.
      By the way, Anthony. Have a bit of a read the type of people that agree with you. If you have these people on your side, it is time to change.

    • ifonly says:

      02:09pm | 30/05/11

      NASA Goddard Institute has published the latest monthly world land/ocean temperatures compared to the global mean temperature 1951-1980 for          
        Apr 2011        
      The monthly figure is   0.55   degrees      
      The average over the past 12 months is;-  0.54   degrees    
        0.12   degrees     cooler   than the previous 12 months
        0.01   degrees     cooler   than the 5 year avg
        0.00   degrees     cooler   than the 10 year avg
        0.11   degrees     warmer   than the 20 year avg

    • Tchom says:

      03:12pm | 30/05/11

      Thank you so much. Research. Figures. Not name-calling. Not hyperboles. Not hysteria. Facts.

      Well done, sir

    • asif says:

      05:35pm | 30/05/11

      But
      “In 2010, global temperatures continued to rise. A new analysis from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows that 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, and was part of the warmest decade on record.”

    • Semi Concerned Citizen says:

      06:08pm | 30/05/11

      Facts will not be considered in this argument.

    • Saint says:

      02:22pm | 30/05/11

      Cute idea for your ad except for the fact that solar cannot provide the baseload power we need so you’re comparing apples with kiwifruit. And modern coal-fired power stations are not loud and dirty.

      This is another part of the problem. A complete lack of honesty and realism in the argument from your side.

      I am a sceptic. That does not mean I want to rape and pillage the planet and leave it decimated. If I thought for one second this ridiculous tax would benefit the environment and solve environmental problems, I’d have my cheque-book out.

      People like me are frustrated and angry as the entire environmental debate has been hijacked by a range of people with various agendas and none of them are to do with the environment.

      There are those who have a political agenda, watermelons, who are using AGW as a cover to push their aggresive socialist agenda.

      There are those who have a power agenda and are using AGW as a cover for their own personal ambitions and as a mechanism to gain and hold on to power - see Kevin Rudd as an example.

      And there are those who are very astute and see this as an excellent opportunity to make enormouse amounts of cash. Hello Al Gore.

      And then there is the usual array of attention-deprived hypocrite celebrities who think that memorising lines and looking pretty qualifies and entitles them to lecture to the rest of us while doing exactly the opposite of what we are expected to do (sorry Cate, I know you have solar panels, but please go away).

      And all of these people and the massive industry that has formed around this fraud furiously pursue their various agendas with billions of dollars being spend and not a single bit of good being done for the environment which they claim to know so much about and care so much about.

      Wouldn’t it be great if we all just called bullshit on this whole insane business and channelled all the energy, good will and billions of dollars into researching and tackling real environmental problems?

    • John says:

      04:17pm | 30/05/11

      Just shut up and say yes.  Can’t believe I wasted my time reading that.

      *Murdoch Press Tony Abbott Murdoch Press Tony Abbott Murdoch Press Tony Abbott Murdoch Press Tony Abbott Murdoch Press Tony Abbott Murdoch Press Tony Abbott Murdoch Press Tony Abbott Murdoch Press Tony Abbott Murdoch Press Tony Abbott Murdoch Press Tony Abbott Murdoch Press Tony Abbott Murdoch Press Tony Abbott*

    • Steve Putnam says:

      05:41pm | 30/05/11

      Hey Saint make sure you check under your bed tonight for AGW alarmists!

    • persephone says:

      08:42pm | 30/05/11

      Well, Saint, it would be a bit pointless, given that you’d be ignoring the biggest environmental problem there is.

      You’re frustrated and angry because you’re losing the argument. You think independent thought means rejecting the evidence, rather than intelligent questioning. And the fact that your arguments are losing ground means you have to question whether you were right to question, or whether you’re just going to be left behind and looking silly.

    • David C says:

      09:41pm | 30/05/11

      this is not about losing or winning arguments. This is about presenting scenarios to the public and various solutions. As it stands the majority of the public does not agree with the govts solution.
      The scientists may present the science but they do not write policy that is not their job. Policy is the work of govts. And this one is making a mess of it.
      As I have stated many times when it comes to a choice between economic growth and cutting emissions the public will always choose economic growth. Why is everyone puling out of kyoto 2, why did Copenhagen fail?

    • Shane says:

      02:31pm | 30/05/11

      This whole “you’re with us or you’re against us” approach reminds me of George Bush. Ironic that the left pilloried the americans for taking this approach and then sees no hypocrasy in adopting it themselves…

    • Steve says:

      02:31pm | 30/05/11

      Sharwood, you’re a dill. Cutting carbon [dioxide] emissions will not give us cleaner air. CO2 is not dirty. On the contrary, higher power prices will force more people to use wood fires to heat their homes, which does indeed cause real pollution.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      02:32pm | 30/05/11

      Thank goodness for climate change, because it will be the reason Labor is kicked the hell out.

    • Brizben says:

      02:35pm | 30/05/11

      “The goal we’re united on is the need to cut carbon emissions.”

      I wish but I don’t think the Lib supporters believe in Climate Change or the need to take any action.

      “Even the staunchest anthropogenic global warming denier would surely concede there are all sorts of benefits in cutting carbon emissions, not least cleaner air and the transition to smarter industries and renewable energy sources.”

      I doubt that statement too. I don’t think the Libs are in it for the good of the planet. The Libs supporters should work at repealing their own party’s policy rather than Labor policy.

      What is Tony Abbotts alternative climate change policy? Has anyone even visited the liberals website to find out?

    • Richard says:

      03:01pm | 30/05/11

      Tony Abbott’s alternative climate change policy involves Direct Action to address the real problem, by taking common sense measures such as planting millions of trees to act as carbon sinks and assisting industries to transition to better low emissions technologies without slugging a huge arbitrary extra cost on top of their operations for no real purpose. It will result in exactly the same amount of emissions reduction as the government policy, except without the need for a fat and inefficient new tax, because it is funded out of already identified savings in the budget, so it won’t actually cost an additional cent.

      The real cost of the opposition’s scheme is only $3.2 Billion. There are numerous scare-mongers, (including the treacherous Malcolm Turnbull, who as former Australian head of the Investment Bank Goldman Sachs has too many conflicted and vested interests to be taken at face value) who will try to say that the cost will far more than that. But that is only by extrapolating the policy out 30 years into the future and making a whole bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions about the future validity of carbon storage in soils and a raft of other convenient but irrelevant quibbles etc.

      But the thing is, the situation will be so radically different in 10 or 20 years, its a good thing that we have flexibility under the Coalition’s Direct Action scheme, and won’t be bound immovably: that is one of the beauties of it. We will have the levity and the flexibility to adapt to circumstances as they arrive, so as to reduce emissions and comply with international treaties in the most efficient and appropriate way moving forwards, instead of just locking ourselves into a regressive and economically destructive Tax now when its not necessary to do so.

    • The Badger says:

      03:25pm | 30/05/11

      I saw Abbott’s policy once.
      As far as I can remember it were real good.
      Talked about using the army to plant billions of trees or something Oh, and paying Barnaby’s mates the farmers to plant carbon dioxide as a crop. Apparently they have a lot of marginal farmland out in the desert they could use some help turning into a cash crop.

      It’s only gonna cost us 16 billion dollars a year in taxes to get off the ground. And the best part is those earning under 50,000 dollars pay the bulk of the 16 billion. 
      I think it also says something about in a further effort to reduce the amount of electricity usage, those unable to pay for theirpower bills will will have the power shut off and the connecting cables sold for scrap to finance welfare for mothers on 150,000$
      Sounds real good to me.
      Bring on an election.

    • Brizben says:

      05:09pm | 30/05/11

      @Richard You seem well versed in spinning the liberal policy. For someone touting direct action you seem scant on any direct action details. Planting trees increases CO2 uptake but it doesn’t really prevent people from emitting pollution.

      “But the thing is, the situation will be so radically different in 10 or 20 years, its a good thing that we have flexibility under the Coalition’s Direct Action scheme”

      I’m not to sure what that means, I do not see how the situation can be much different in 10 - 20 years time to now. I have only seen that argument used to promote climate denial.

      @Badger Don’t forget the 25 geothermal generators ...

    • WayneT says:

      05:57pm | 30/05/11

      You Dill Badger - Tell me how taxing the ‘Big’ polluters won’t stop them passing on the cost to consumers while at the same time provide them with little or no incentive to change their ways?  And pray tell, how will people under $50,000 dollars have to pay for Direct Action when they don’t pay their way now?  Creating Carbon sinks is a scientifically proven method for CO2 absorption.  Offering cash incentives is the only way industry would attempt to change, it’s also called by another name - Research and Development.  The PM doesn’t need to risk her position by an election, she can call a Referendum instead.

    • The Badger says:

      06:22pm | 30/05/11

      Oh WayneT you wally
      Where do you think that 16 billion dollars in tax is going to come from
      Come on Wally where?
      And of course you are right, people on 50,000 dollars pay no tax. cough, cough.
      PS - You should read up on this stuff before you call others a dill.
      BY all means, when you have your facts straight, come back and tell me how much direct action will cost (hint 16 billion to start); where Dr. NO is getting the money from and whether electricity bills will go up low income earners and pensioners.
      Go ahead, off you go.

    • persephone says:

      09:00pm | 30/05/11

      Richard

      no, the Direct Action plan does not propose the planting of ‘millions of trees’ - it’s about 40,000.

      Ironically, one of the power companies had a contract to plant exactly that many trees in the next few years, conditional on the CPRS being passed.

      So a carbon price would see more trees planted than the Direct Action policy would.

      No economist supports the Coaltiion’s plan as being better than the government’s, despite attempts to verbal some of them. They all agree it will cost more and be less effective.

      In fact, its wimpy approach to industry - ‘oh, we’ll give you some money, and if you could cut emissions it’d be nice’ -  is predicted to lead to emissions rising, not falling.

      It relies heavily on soil carbon sequestration to save emissions. For this to happen, 65% of all of Australia - not just the arable bits - would have to be given over to the task.

      And the Coalition plan to pay about $10 a tonne to those sequestering carbon in this way - when the dairy industry, for example, says the cost to farmers will be closer to $200.

      Soil carbon sequestration is not a long term solution - carbon laid down over a decade can be released back into the air within hours if flood or fire disturb the land.

    • Joejoejoejnr says:

      02:43pm | 30/05/11

      Just say “yes” to never buying a ticket to Cate Blandchet movie.
      Does anyone know who the ad company was behind this? It is terrible… so bad that not even the most diehard Labor voter has been able to jump into this conversation and defend it.

    • Erick says:

      02:44pm | 30/05/11

      Interesting bit of analysis. I suspect you’re at least partly right, even though I haven’t seen the ad. But I’ve seen enough of Cate Blanchett’s moronic elitism to know that she’s the wrong carrier for this message.

      I don’t really know how the government can win this one. They started out with a broken promise based on lies, and now they’re trotting out multi-millionaires to tell the rest of us that we must make sacrifices. Sacrifices that none of these hoity-toity Labor types have any intention of making themselves.

      Oh well, it’s only another two years to go, or even less if one of Julia’s supporters resigns or carks it. Then we’ll be rid of this nonsense - and we might have a chance to debate these issues seriously.

    • Warren says:

      03:23pm | 30/05/11

      As opposed to the anti-carbon tax mob who have poverty stricken Gina Rinehart to lobby for them.

    • Soames says:

      03:42pm | 30/05/11

      It’s astounding that it escapes you that having not seen the ad, you make an analysis of it. You betray only yourself as a ‘moron’ easily,  by using such language to describe a human being as such,  as opposed to the exquisite Cate Blanchett, having recieved accolades for her intelligence and wit, less so for recent opportunities in the Australian film Industry, but not to mention her success nor her advocacy in that industry. BTW, it’s karks. And, there’s nothing you can debate, ‘seriously’, seriously!

    • John says:

      04:05pm | 30/05/11

      I reckon Tony Windsor will knock this on the head, Gillard will say it’s all too hard and drop it.

    • Karen from Qld says:

      03:01pm | 30/05/11

      Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton are somewhat hypocritical. They are part of an industry that consumes an enormous amount of energy yet provides no real benefit to the human race - the film industry does not further the cause of medical research nor increase our understanding of the universe. They have no qualms at becoming rich and famous at the expense of the planet yet are advocating for a tax that will have no impact on the climate but will put at risk the livelihoods and living standards of many thousands of ordinary Australians. Let’s see how fair dinkum Mick and Cate are. Let’s see if they refuse the next lucrative tv or movie role because the production will use energy produced by coal powered technology. Somehow I just do’t see this happening.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      03:45pm | 30/05/11

      Film industry provides no real benefit to the human race? I think the human race disagrees…

    • Karen from Qld says:

      04:30pm | 30/05/11

      If the movie industry folded tomorrow it would not mean the end of life here on this planet as we know it. Humans being what we are will merely find something else to occupy our leisure time and the magazine industry will find someonelse to fill their gossip pages. As it is there are many people on this planet who manage to exist without going to the movies or watching tv. If you truly think that you could not survive without tv and film stars then you must have a limited imagination indeed.

    • John says:

      03:20pm | 30/05/11

      It’s seems to me this carbon originates from the cabal who rule the west. Who then order their minions (our so called politicians) to introduce caesars tax under guise of bullshit. When the population says no, they go and hire actors, our so called idols to manipulate us into supporting it. They never take no for answer, just constant, charge, after, charge. Once it’s introduced, they will never repel it.

    • philbe2 says:

      03:25pm | 30/05/11

      Fact zero: Atmospheric CO2 is increasing. There is no rational argument against this fact. See here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
      It is also unarguable that it is increasing due to mankind’s activity. (Said activities including both mining and burning fossil fuels, and clearing forests, releasing the CO2 stored in them)
      Fact 1: CO2 has strong absorption bands in the mid-infrared, of particular relevance are absorption bands near 10 microns ... the approximate peak of the outgoing radiation from the earth. (Space is a vacuum, all energy transfer to and from the earth must be by radiation.)
      Fact 2: While it is complex, we can calculate the radiation transfer through an atmosphere. We can also measure it with high spectral resolution and confirm the predicted behaviour. We have satellites looking down at the earth taking these measurements. We have groundbased instruments looking up. We can see the signature of CO2 in these spectra, see the radiative transfer behaviour theory predicts. See here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer
      Fact #3: when you do those radiative calculations (with an assumption of equilibrium, and holding everything else constant) you end up with a global climate sensitivity of about 1 °C/CO2 doubling, depending slightly on assumptions. These are not trivial calculations, they require rather large databases (via Hitran these days) of absorption spectra and lot of computer time for integrating over the spectral domain and the vertical column(s) ... but they are routinely done independently, and lots of different groups measure the spectra of the absorbing gases, etc.
      Fact #4: The Clausius Claperon equation (and of course measured data) for the vapour pressure of water vs temperature are well known. The water vapour pressure (over a free surface, e.g. the oceans) goes up with temperature.
      Water vapour is a strong “greenhouse gas.” H2O is most important as a greenhouse gas in the upper troposphere, indeed the tropopause height is set by the convection/radiation stability processes in the atmosphere that give us a tropopause (given N2, O2, and O3 absorption of UV in the stratosphere of course). A simple parcel updraft model (kind of thing you can assign as a qualifying exam problem in meteorology) does a reasonable job of getting the upper troposphere water vapour right, and predicts H2O amplification of CO2-driven warming.
      Fact #5: as the earth warms the areas covered by ice and snow retreat, and the ground albedo goes down. This is a strong positive feedback too, almost certainly the one which allows the Milankovitch cycles to produce the beautifully periodic ice-ages in the Quaternary. CO2 is obviously not the trigger for these (too periodic for that to make sense) but good evidence demonstrates that it amplifies the interglacials—this is not a contradiction.
      Fact #6: in the longer geochemical record of earth there are many very warm epochs ... epochs when dinosaurs and palm trees really did live near the north pole ... and they ALL had very high CO2 partial pressures, much higher than today.
      When you take all these facts together, it’s really tough to come up with any sane argument that “CO2 doesn’t warm the earth significantly or that mankind’s rapid release of CO2 to the atmosphere won’t matter”.
      Note that in this list I never mentioned “climate model” (as in complex hydrodynamical model) nor did I mention anything about “the hockey stick” or Mann or anything else.
      Now the reality is that our ability to precisely estimate the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” of the earth isn’t all that great for some really fundamental reasons… there is a public-level article about it in slate:
      http://www.slate.com/id/2177485/
      which discusses what has become a pretty famous simple scientific article on the climate issue ... an article by Roe and Baker (there is a link to it) which shows why it is very hard to get an exact estimate of the climate sensitivity and why it is hard/impossible to completely rule out really extreme sensitivities… due to the fundamental nature of the system having rather large positive feedbacks.
      But the bottom-line fact here is that there’s pretty good reason (including geochemical history and the results of the climate modelling, and a rather extensive error/uncertainty analysis) to think that this sensitivity must be something like 2.5 °C/CO2 doubling ... AND
      It can’t possibly be lower than 1°C/CO2 doubling UNLESS there is a MAJOR negative feedback mechanism we don’t know about. And a LOT of people have been looking hard ... and none have been found.
      So the real bottom line about AGW is that in order to believe it ISN’T a pretty damn serious problem, you need to believe that there is some physics science hasn’t found yet that will save us.
      That’s like believing in unicorns. That’s what AGW “skeptics” are really doing.

    • gytr says:

      03:52pm | 30/05/11

      Where’s your factoring of cosmic rays and low layer cloud cover? You know, Galaxy sized issues? Completely out of our control?

      CERN CLOUD, look it up and read about it. Then read the history of it.

    • The Badger says:

      03:56pm | 30/05/11

      AGW “skeptics” believe in the power of NO.
      They NO all about science.

    • Shane says:

      05:11pm | 30/05/11

      philbe2,
      To most readers that long winded rant would seem quite reasonable. I only take issue with this one small part:

      (with an assumption of equilibrium, and holding everything else constant)

      Global climate isn’t like your comfy home, office or car with computerised climate control systems that keep the temperature, humidity etc at perfect pre-determined levels. It varies. It always has done. There’s no exact historical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Sometimes the temperature varies while CO2 remains stable, sometimes its the other way around. Ice core analysis has shown that CO2 levels frequently rose after a rise in global temperature, not before. Until these inconvenient little facts (which seem to be missing from your post) are addressed by the believers in earth’s latest religion, people will remain sceptical.

    • philbe2 says:

      05:24pm | 30/05/11

      @gytr
      in case you are not a troll, cosmic ray flux has been observed since the 1950s. 60 years, no significant trend:
      http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/Misc/neutron2.html
      Would you care to postulate a mechanism by which constant cosmic ray flux would drive increasing atmospheric CO2?

    • gytr says:

      06:26pm | 30/05/11

      @philbe2 No, not a troll last time I looked. So, you are aware of CERN CLOUD and the previous SKY experiments? In conjunction with sun spot activity, a noted trend that with low layer cloud formation reduction during the years of intense sun spot activity were also in correlation with warming trends? You’re also then aware that the sun has been extremely active regarding sun spots for the past century?

      You’d also be aware that the CERN CLOUD experiment, which in December 2010 successfully reproduced the aerosoles required for cloud formation, will provide quantitative results which climate scientists can put into their models with regards cosmic rays, cloud formation and sun spot activity? All they have to do is wait another 2-3 years.

      So why the rush to implement a carbon dioxide tax right now? Surely getting the model more accurate, to attempt to settle “the science” and even reach “consensus” would be preferable?

      Or are you afraid that these experiments may actually destroy the CO2 models?

      Read some of Henrik Svensmark’s theories. In correlation with Nir Shaviv and Jan Viezer to name just two. And it relates to our solar systems location as we spiral around the galaxy. Rather large ramifications really.

      If you really want to find out how hard it was to get off the ground, including addressing the concerns of climate scientists regarding the theory, and thr answers to the questions raised, I suggest you watch the documentary “The Cloud Mystery”

      Perhaps it IS all beyond our miniscule control, given the galactic influences. And what if it is? What is a tax going to do? Surely we can wait another 2-3 years?

    • gytr says:

      06:29pm | 30/05/11

      Oh… One more thing… Given Japan, Canada, Russia and the US are now refusing the Kyoto Protocol, what will taxing us do to global CO2 emmissions?

    • philbe2 says:

      11:47pm | 30/05/11

      @gytr
      I have taken care not to mention models (or consensus) at all. So I am not “afraid that these experiments may actually destroy the CO2 models”.
      Regarding the theories of Svensmark’s, Viezer, et al… I repeat, 60 years of observations, no significant trend. It is extremely unlikely that cosmic rays are driving all global climate change. Serious scientific discussion is not about identifying one single “driver”, rather it is about the exact contribution of each factor.
      I ask you to re-read my facts numbered zero through three. From antarctic ice cores we know accurately the concentration of CO2 for the past 650,000 years. It varied from a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times to a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials. Over the past century, it rapidly increased to more than 390 ppm currently.
      (Worth pointing out that the oldest fossil remains of anatomically modern humans date to 195,000 years ago:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans )
      For comparison, the approximately 80 ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the last glacial took over 5,000 years. You have to go back many millions of years to find higher values than at present.
      It would take some extravagant hand-waving to argue that CO2 doesn’t matter.
      It is essential that humanity acts now. CO2 is increasing by 2 ppm/year (and the rate of increase is increasing). In 2008 James Hansen led a team of climatologists investigating a “safe” level of CO2:
      http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126
      They concluded that at 450 ppm +/- 100 ppm, the eventual effect would be the melting of the Antarctic ice cap (the Antarctic has been covered in ice for the last 34 million years) and a 75m rise in sea level . We are already in the “danger zone”. Sure, it might be 550 ppm before the Antarctic ice cap melts, but at the current rate of CO2 emissions growth, we are heading for 1,000 ppm by 2100.
      What will taxing us do to CO2 emissions? Reduce them by a tiny amount. What will not taxing us do? Give Japan, Canada, Russia and the US another excuse to delay reducing their emissions.

    • gytr says:

      07:37am | 31/05/11

      I understand what you are saying, and have re-read your points. Thank you for not personally attacking by the way.

      However, yes 60 years of observations on cosmic radiation has been observerved, but that 60 years has been inside a century long highly active sun spot cycle.

      Again, all I am struggling to understand is, why the rush right now? Why not wait until at least the quantitative results from the CLOUD experiments can be added into the modelling to give a much more accurate result of CO2 driven warming?

      I’ll give those interested an analogy for the idea, which is easily replicated (however you may lose your job if you do it):

      Imagine a comms or server room. Inside that room there are factors which heat the ambient temperature of the room, i.e. the servers and UPS’. There is a cooling factor. An airconditioner.

      Should the a/c fail, the temperature in the room doesn’t climb linearly. It climbs exponentially. The initial increase in temperature is slow, however as ever warmer air is circulated through, due to the cooling factor being removed, the temperature climbs extremely rapidly toward the end, until thermal overload happens.

      So, if for the last century the cooling factor (low layer cloud formation) has been impeded, perhaps what we are seeing in the j curve is actually indicating cosmic ray blocking by a particularly active sun-spot cycle. Remember this has been observed as occuring for just over a century now. So 60 years of data falls within the 100 years of cycle.

      Just wait 2-3 years is all I am asking for, to gauge the effect of cosmic radiation as a whole in the warming, not as an individual driver. I repeat, Raison d’être of CLOUD is to give quantitative values to help cancell cosmic rays in global warming models to assist in giving more accurate modelling sans background or “white” noise, thus allowing more accurate impacts to be assessed re global warming.

    • Richard says:

      08:12am | 31/05/11

      “What will taxing us do to CO2 emissions? Reduce them by a tiny amount. What will not taxing us do? Give Japan, Canada, Russia and the US another excuse to delay reducing their emissions.”

      No, this is wrong. Japan, Canada, Russia and the US are pointing towards China (the world #1 emitter remember) as their excuse to delay reducing their emissions. Whether such a tiny emitter as Australia reduces them by an even tinier amount is totally irrelevant in the world scheme of things, and its disingenuous of you to try and insinuate otherwise.

      In the broader scheme of things, I’ll say that you’re probably right about most of the things you say (although it is almost certain in my mind that the IS a strong negative feedback mechanism, because that’s just the way nature is. By and large nature always operates through mostly negative feedback mechanisms, and just because a bunch of group-thinking, compromised scientists with vested interests in pushing an hysterical alarmism haven’t found it, doesn’t mean that its unlikely to be out there. Looking at the real world data as well, its pretty obvious that warming and sea level rises have dramatically slowed down in the last decade despite rising CO2, which logically must in my mind be due to negative feedback loops).

      But here’s the deal: for the love of God would you please just stop meddling and let the free market take care of it! I mean I’m not a scientist (even though I do have a Science degree), but I am an Historian, and every time in History government’s have said “oh we know better that the free market, we’ll just intervene with our central planning and bureaucracy, we know best”, they have failed. They have caused even more problems.

      But every time in History the free market is left to its own devices and left unmeddled in by do-gooding governments, it has found innovative solutions to all problems, and has resulted in the advance of science and technology, it has created prosperity.

      Give the free market a chance! I mean this whole AGW thing was only recently discovered anyway. In the ‘70’s all the scientists and governments were in a panic about Catastrophic Global Cooling. No joke, the “infallible” scientific consensus in the ‘70’s was that we’d all be freezing our tits off in an ice age by now. So it wasn’t until the late 80’s really that Global Warming was even noticed, and if you just give the free market time it is going to solve this problem perfectly, like it always has in the past. So don’t panic.

    • Yon Toad says:

      03:29pm | 30/05/11

      Good stuff Ant. I was gonna type some more but thought “Who really gives a rats’s? Most commenters just want to throw shit at each other and that is what the ‘debate’ has become so why bother?”.

    • No oscar this time Cate says:

      03:31pm | 30/05/11

      I resigned my membership with the Australian Services Union (ASU) last week after they decided - with absolutely no consultation with their members to support the Carbon Tax and even went as far as posting on Facebook and Twitter than “they” support the Carbon Tax.

      Last time I check I was part of the ASU but since they decided to use MY MONEY and MY MEMBERSHIP to further Labor’s causes without any consultation with ME they can go take a hike.

      Cate Blanchett wouldn’t have a clue what the average person’s cost of living is like, nor does she have any idea the huge amount bills and general cost of living will go up if this tax comes into play. Nor can she or ANY member of the Labor party explain how a Carbon Tax will do anything to change the NATURAL climate change we going through.

    • Rick says:

      04:55pm | 30/05/11

      $2 a day should cover it, fancy a union supporting the Labour party hope you dont get retrenched sometime soon and are your going to pay back all those hard won pay rise’s your union got for you?

    • Ben81 says:

      07:02pm | 30/05/11

      “they decided to use MY MONEY and MY MEMBERSHIP to further Labor’s causes without any consultation with ME”

      Well yeah, that’s what they do.  That’s one of my main answers whenever a union rep asks me if I want to be a member -  no, I don’t really feel like donating my money towards political campaigns I don’t agree with.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      03:33pm | 30/05/11

      What chlldish drivel Antony.  Where were you when that harpy Gina was on her soapbox crying poor over the mining tax that would tax the super profits of cows like Gina who inherited a mine and has never worked a day in her life.

      The superficial cruelty against Cate is pathetic, what they hell did she ever do to all you Murdoch prats?

      Did you whine about fat Clive Palmer fronting mining tax ads?  Honestly you are trolls aren’t you?

    • MarK says:

      05:11pm | 30/05/11

      Malyasian solution Marilyn.


      Just thought I would toss that at you. Must be giving you an aneurysm.

    • TimB says:

      06:37pm | 30/05/11

      Marilyn, Gina turned that business around when she inherited it. Everything she has today, she worked for.

      http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/02/03/gina-rineharts-rise-is-just-beginning/

      Not only that, her company provides employment for how many people? How much tax does the Government get from her operations?

      Compare this woman to the likes of you: What do you do with yourself these days? Spend all your time writing nasty emails and letters to various media outlets. What a stellar contribution to society.

      Get off your high horse.

    • The Badger says:

      07:39pm | 30/05/11

      Timmie
      lie much?
      Gina owns the leases and prospecting claims for the ore in the ground.
      That’s what she inherited.
      Her wealth was accelerated by the ever rising price of the resources.
      Go off and lie somewhere else.

    • Ben81 says:

      07:55pm | 30/05/11

      Come on Mad Mazza, the comparison isn’t Cate defending the film industry is it.

      Contrasting an actor with someone like Gina and saying the latter “never worked a day in her life” was pretty funny by the way, good one.

    • TimB says:

      08:54pm | 30/05/11

      She also managed her business well to take advantage of that Badger. She didnt just sit there and watch it come to her.

      And even if you dispute that, my point still stands. Gina still employes many Australians and still pays a ton of tax to the Government. She contributes far more for this country than Marlyn does.

    • The Badger says:

      09:34pm | 30/05/11

      9 billion dollars buys an awful lot of good publicity timmie.

    • TimB says:

      10:12pm | 30/05/11

      Badger:

      Do you dispute that Gina employs many Australians?
      Do you dispute that she and/or her companies pay a crapton of tax?
      Do you dispute that she contributes more to Australia than Marilyn does?

      Take your time. I know you find questions hard.

    • Kika says:

      03:36pm | 30/05/11

      Who cares if they support what. I don’t care. All I know is that big business won’t do anything unless it affects their bottom lines. Why can’t the government go Communist style and buy back the energy companies and make themselves change the system? They were the fools who sold off all the assets to begin with.  I will support the system if it forces companies to clean themselves up and get off the carbon needle.

      And I don’t care whether climate change is real or not. We have to think of the environment. Because if we don’t, who will? If everybody ignores the reality that overpopulation is the real problem and keeps popping out more kids what kind of future environment are we allowing these poor kids to grow up in? Not just them but their kids and their kids. Think people think. Stop being so Darn Selfish!!!

    • St. Michael says:

      03:58pm | 30/05/11

      “If everybody ignores the reality that overpopulation is the real problem and keeps popping out more kids what kind of future environment are we allowing these poor kids to grow up in? Not just them but their kids and their kids.”

      Reverend Malthus, is that you? I was sure you weren’t coming back after you had two daughters and a son.

    • JT says:

      04:13pm | 30/05/11

      ‘‘Stop being so Darn Selfish!!!’‘

      Exactly, so do the environment a favour and stop exhaling carbon dioxide Kika.

    • RyaN says:

      04:32pm | 30/05/11

      @Kika: “Why can’t the government go Communist style” what do you think the intention of this carbon tax is? Newsflash Kika, your PM is the No1 communist in Australia today, in case you didn’t know her history with the socialist alliance.

    • Joel B1 says:

      03:55pm | 30/05/11

      Sharwood “Then I would have stood him in front of a batch of gleaming solar panels…. And I would’ve scripted one line, How’s the serenity?”

      Sure, but they don’t call those panels “Solar” for nothing. Just as you get home and want to cook dinner, heat up the take-aways, watch TV, have a shower the bloody sun goes down.

      And we all know the reason you couldn’t stick what-his-name in front of a Wind Turbine is that the sub-sonics and flashing of the blades at optimal seizure frequencies would have him and the crew lying on the ground foaming at the mouth.

      See that’s your problem, renewables is BS.

    • nossy says:

      03:56pm | 30/05/11

      Actually I am coming to llike that new “Say Yes Australia” ad - it reminds me of a play we did way back in 4th class where we made all the props ourselves !  hahahah

    • Kassandra says:

      04:05pm | 30/05/11

      The world has been warming ever since the end of the last ice age and will continue to do so until the onset of the next one, which is due anytime now. Minor changes in the rate of warming from time to time are not really significant in the overall scheme of things. Remember that in the last ice age vast swathes of the globe were covered by ice. When it does cool the world’s agriculture will be decimated and God knows how many billions we will be trying to feed by that time. If people were really serious about helping the environment and preparing for the future they would be trying to reduce the global population rather than imposing a futile tax on carbon dioxide emissions, which is really nothing more than a new source of tax revenue for the government which needs it after its foolish spending spree and the failure of its campaign to whack a big new tax on the mining industry.

    • Rick says:

      04:59pm | 30/05/11

      So Kassie we continue pumping shit into the air at an ever increasing rate untill there is no breathable air to be had exept from a can? c u in the next ice age.

    • Steve says:

      04:09pm | 30/05/11

      “Even the staunchest anthropogenic global warming denier would surely concede there are all sorts of benefits in cutting carbon emissions, not least cleaner air and the transition to smarter industries and renewable energy sources”

      You are advocating a carbon tax as a pollution control mechanism. It feels like going to war for WMD then continuing it on in order to depose a brutal dictator.

    • Rick says:

      04:47pm | 30/05/11

      Then continuing on to win the hearts and minds, then continuing on to save face.Then continuing on becuase?

    • BJA says:

      04:11pm | 30/05/11

      The Punch, a community service website, providing an outlet for all right wing political bores. Job well done.

    • Joel B1 says:

      04:29pm | 30/05/11

      Yeah, well at least they publish any and all comments unlike the fascists at the ABC.

      Oh yeah, and it’s my taxes that pay for the ABC too.

    • RyaN says:

      04:34pm | 30/05/11

      @BJA: and you had the chance to put forward your educated view pointing to the irrefutable evidence of a human marker in climate change and converting us all yet you wasted your chance with this drivel. Job well done.

    • john says:

      04:37pm | 30/05/11

      @BJA -dont despair that there isn’t any pro ALP material to read at the moment, something praising labor might come along soon. Wait in hope, that the heroic caped dual of Carbon Cate & Captain Carbon Caton will come to the rescue and save the day!

    • ifonly says:

      04:29pm | 30/05/11

      Over the past 5,000 years the earths oceans have risen by about 1mm per year          
      The level of earths oceans are measured by a satellite Jason-2          
      Jason-2 observations are published about every 10 days          
      35 observations are approximately 1 year.         
      Observations are based on +/- mean sea level          
      The latest observation, {2011.0673} is   28.37   mm    
      The average of the past 35 observation (current yr)  35.77   mm    
      Change from previous yr   -0.15   mm (  -0.15   per year)
      Change from 5 yrs ago   4.98   mm (  1.00   per year)
      Change from 10 years ago   15.67   mm (  1.57   per year)
      Change from 20 years ago   50.31   mm (  2.52   per year)

    • MarK says:

      05:13pm | 30/05/11

      Oh shush silly.

      The science is settled.

      Tory sorted that out.

      No need for facts or stuff from Google. We are onto the big issues like who will win the advertising war.

      That’s where it is at man

    • L. says:

      05:18pm | 30/05/11

      “Change from previous yr   -0.15   mm (  -0.15   per year)
      Change from 5 yrs ago   4.98   mm (  1.00   per year)”

      That’s a big difference… Receding 5.mm in one yr

    • Joel B1 says:

      05:50pm | 30/05/11

      @ifonly, Hang on there a bit pardner!

      “Combining these data with the precise location of the spacecraft [Jason-2 & 1] makes it possible to determine sea-surface height to within a few centimetres (about one inch)”

      Umm, the error level is pretty well near the levels of data you present.

      Still that wouldn’t stop an alarmist would it?

    • asif says:

      06:04pm | 30/05/11

      But
      “In 2010, global temperatures continued to rise. A new analysis from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows that 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, and was part of the warmest decade on record.”

    • Duncan says:

      04:55pm | 30/05/11

      Talk about putting words into your opponents mouths! You say “The goal we’re united on is the need to cut carbon emissions. Even the staunchest anthropogenic global warming denier would surely concede there are all sorts of benefits in cutting carbon emissions, not least cleaner air and the transition to smarter industries and renewable energy sources.”

      Er, no. For a start, we’re not cutting emissions of carbon - a black sooty substance. It’s carbon dioxide - a colourless, odourless gas which we don’t experience as dirty air at all. The transition to “smarter industries” is just rhetoric, and the move to renewable energy sources will inflate our energy prices even more in a country where we have vast amounts of cheap fossil fuels.

      So take it from this denier - your opponents see no benefits to cutting carbon dioxide emissions at all unless except for the people that make money from enforcing rules or trading permits.

    • Justin says:

      04:57pm | 30/05/11

      Why can’t we just come up with an opt-in model? If you think you can save the world, then pay the premium. If you don’t, then don’t. What do you think the take up numbers would be? And would those taking it up feel that they have to make up for the lesser Australians who don’t?

      Surely if the argument is so convincing, everyone will opt-in wouldn’t they? Hello? Is this thing on…..?

    • gytr says:

      05:02pm | 30/05/11

      “Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty.”

      “The future of the Kyoto Protocol has become central to efforts to negotiate reductions of carbon emissions under the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose annual meeting will take place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.”

      So, what’s the point again? Four large, carbon dioxide producing nations have pulled out of the next round of CO2 cuts…

      As of Saturday 28th May 2011.

      Yet still, our minority government presses on with destroying our economy.

    • fairsfair says:

      05:22pm | 30/05/11

      Yet the sideshow focus on Cate Blanchett. That Lindsay Tanner is perhaps on to something? Those in agreement wills ay lets not focus on the actual govt pressing on though - it is just easier to blame the media for ruining the country.

      Did I hear correctly this moring that Tony Windsor would not commit to backing the tax? He is the biggest attention whore that I have ever come across. Worse than Peter Beattie and that is saying something.

      These clowns have got to go, but I am also frightened of who/what are likely to replace them. KRudd, Turnbull - haven’t we already been down that road to failure already?

    • Joel B1 says:

      05:23pm | 30/05/11

      @gytr “So, what’s the point again?”

      The point is it lets Gillard pretend to be a PM for 2 more bloody years as she buys the Green vote.

      It’s just a cynical grab for power from a back-stabbing 2nd rate politician.

      Unfortunately it will ruin our economy.

    • Joel B1 says:

      05:33pm | 30/05/11

      Thank you so much. Research. Figures. No name-calling. No hyperbowl. No hysteria. Facts.

      Well done, sir

    • Gary says:

      05:12pm | 30/05/11

      The say yes ad makes it clear it is only the big polluters who will pay,not consumers.But the government says they will compensate lower income earners.Compensate them for what?

    • Dash says:

      05:28pm | 30/05/11

      Gary - yep that’s right. This policy is about wealth redistribution. tTe people that will pay are middle and high income Australians. Families are to be descriminated against on the basis of income not pollution. So therefore this policy has nothing to do with the environment. It’s nothing more than a socialist tax by the Queen of the Socialist Forum herself and her Communist buddy Brown!

    • WayneT says:

      05:17pm | 30/05/11

      YES to what? There is NO detail about a price, NO detail about compensation, NO detail about the impact on families, NO detail about the impact on our economy, and NO mechanism for the electorate to say YES (or NO for that matter). Who is this ad targeted at - Politicians? They are the only ones who can vote YES. We don’t get a say.

    • Dash says:

      05:23pm | 30/05/11

      Wouldn’t it be great if this policy went the same way as all of the other ALP policy initiatives and never got delivered. Like say:

      Grocery Choice
      Fuelwatch
      260 childcare centres
      root and branch tax reform
      the Coast Guard
      more affordable housing
      cheaper better childcare
      fiscal conservatism
      no onshore detention centres
      Full support for PM Rudd
      Abolision of Uni union fees
      Not touching the private health tax rebate
      The East Timor solution (LOL)
      etc

      Oh hang on, but the promise was not to have it!! Damn! Looks like the promise is going the same way. Don’t you think people should have learnt from this socialist, lying, deceitful pack of morons by now?

    • Dash says:

      05:39pm | 30/05/11

      Doesn’t “say yes” imply that the people of Australia have a choice? Given Gillard and Swan both said on the eve of last election that this would not happen, where the hell is the choice? Gillard is a dictator!

      The line about “making big polluters pay” is a complete fabrication. It’s a fraud. The fact is that the compensation scheme the ALP are pushing will see middle and high income families pay on the basis of income. They will not pay based on how they pollute but on how they earn!

      Two families polluting exactly the same, yet one will be compensated and the other expected to pay the price. How the hell is that about making “big polluters pay”. Its a lie and a sham. This policy is socialism gone mad.

      The ALP are corrupt! They and Gillard have zero credibility left and zero shame!

      Bloody disgraceful!

    • Barry says:

      05:43pm | 30/05/11

      I am always worried about people who spend their whole lives earning money pretending they are someone else.
      They are not on my credibility list, nor do I have much respect for their opinions.
      Stick to acting kid and leave the politics to those most affected!

    • stephen says:

      06:38pm | 30/05/11

      Global warming will affect the rich and the poor, and Cate B. has every right to state her concerns and to spend her money as she sees fit, i.e. advertizing her position on an important matter.
      She doesn’t need the money or the fame, so I can only think that a genuine concern and worrysome mettle is her motive, much less like every sceptic under the sun who is only thrashing out in their own minds how to selfishly derail the Science.

    • RyaN says:

      07:22pm | 30/05/11

      @stephen: what science? All the science has been thoroughly debunked, the IPCC scientists themselves claim that this carbon tax will do nothing.

    • Mike says:

      05:52pm | 30/05/11

      SPOT ON! Exactly my point. They don’t even know what we’re supposed to say YES to yet.

    • Tez says:

      05:55pm | 30/05/11

      To Againsttheman: perhaps we trust the same political party who welched on the solar panels rebates?

    • dendy says:

      05:58pm | 30/05/11

      These days I look at the Murdoch press with my jaw agape. I read each new episode of their plan to tell us what to think with a sharp intake of breath. Surely, surely by now you have jumped the shark.

      I mean, seriously. There’s our Cate who, entirely through her own hard work and talent is wealthy and successful. A role model for every young Australian. Then there’s Gina. Who inherited her billions from her father who made his billions when he stumbled across a mountain of iron ore because his plane got lost. Gina, who’s most entrepreneurial exploit was taking Rose Porteus to court. (Jeez. Gina and Rose. What a pair).

      Which of these women embodies all that is good about Australia? Which would you like your daughter to emulate? And which one gets smacked down by News Ltd? The one who doesn’t want to pay more tax even when she’s making billions? Or the one who stands up and says we have to do something for our children’s sake?

      Jeez, there are times when I feel like weeping for my country.

    • Michael says:

      10:51pm | 30/05/11

      Got wealth envy much buddy?

      Gina inherited about 4 billion in assets they were halved by some market force or another i forget. Then she rebuilt the fortune and increased that position to where she is now, sounds like hard work to me, maybe not sweat and blood but mentally demanding…isn’t that the Australian way? work hard in whatever your chosen field is and prosper.

      Surely if there is an inheritance someone must have bent their back at some stage.

    • bikinis on top says:

      06:16pm | 30/05/11

      The Federal Government should get Coalition Forces to drive Abbott and the Coalition Parties back to Abbottobad

    • Ian says:

      05:43am | 31/05/11

      Their trying, but it’s not working (latest newspoll) there still in Gillardaworse. Even after 2 weeks of constant fire from the Government and media and the Coalition setting off their own bombs. The Federal Government are still in a losing position and Gillard’s still bleeding.

    • bikinis on top says:

      06:19pm | 30/05/11

      The Right is wrong and The Left is right.
      abbott belongs in Abbotttt obad

    • kp says:

      07:32pm | 30/05/11

      You and your communist comments are pathetic bikinis on top. Go and hide back under your rock, and please, don’t even BOTHER voting at the next election.  Save us all from that !!!!

    • Joeyjoejoejnr says:

      06:21pm | 30/05/11

      “your” Cate is a hypocrit ... plain and simple.
      She also appears to be as sharp as a ball… lecturing us to just “say yes”, when we neither have been given the chance or the question.
      What the hell is the question???

    • albie says:

      06:54pm | 30/05/11

      Just ask Dickless Smith - he has all the answers to all Aussie problems!
      Just send him or even Cate Blanchett a dollar or two of your hard earned taxes and I’m sure that they will come up with the answer as to a good lefty latte drinking hideout. for you to visit.
      Doesn’t it just make you sick that you have elitist dumbos such as these telling you what is good or not good for you!

    • Say NO to wealthy Socialist Celebrities says:

      06:58pm | 30/05/11

      Cate want us to drink the Kool-Aid.

      George Orwell’s eyes would roll at this govt.

    • Bobby Huge says:

      07:07pm | 30/05/11

      Nothing is as unsexy as a socialist woman.

      Thanks Cate - you have saved me a fortune in tissues thanks to your ad.

    • Ben81 says:

      07:51pm | 30/05/11

      “Nothing is as unsexy as a socialist woman.”
      Ah come on, how about Helen Keller? nudge nudge wink wink

    • Helen Keller says:

      08:35pm | 30/05/11

      .:’...;;—::..

    • Ben81 says:

      07:29pm | 30/05/11

      Anthony your “how’s the serenity” idea with the solar panels is a nice thought but it would be just another lie like the ones already in the ad.

      Unless of course the carbon price will be set in the hundreds of dollars a tonne to make that source of electricity and other greenie methods viable alternatives to our baseload power production that magically become as reliable and economically efficient as coal, and don’t need propping up anymore after the big bad polluters are gone and aren’t paying their tax.

      Great isn’t it, at the “well south of $40 a tonne” rate (that being the price Labor is hinting at and the price needed to make a switch from coal to gas viable before we even start looking at renewables) the tax will be completely pointless, and if it is driven up enough to be effective we’ll be stuck with extremely expensive electricity prices and no measurable impact on the world’s emissions to show for it!

      Have the people still clinging to this government and policies like this gone mad? Even ignoring all the pesky facts, wasn’t the PM specifically telling them during an election campaign that this would not happen enough to wake the up the diehards from their little world?

    • John the Zombie says:

      07:34pm | 30/05/11

      The greatest effect that on climate is population if you follow the argument of the left. due to increased polution the earth is suffering and if we dont do anything in the next 10 years we will be all swimming.

      Now as the population increases the amount of power will have to increase as well. As this power requirements increase we are going to pump more pollution into the enviroment unless you think that solar panels and the wind turbines are built magically with out having any carbon foot print.

      So all those leftist here do you think we should have population control as well?

    • Glen says:

      07:45pm | 30/05/11

      Acting is a business. I find it mind-boggling that multi-millionaire actors, who are clearly somewhat decent business people given they have money, are out to basically destroy themselves through blind support for the skirge that is The Left. I can only put it down to self-hatred on the actors’ part, kind of like self hating Jews lol.

      And for The Left - well they just hate Australia. The silent majority have woken up to them; support your current Green policies Labor and you are heading for total wipe out! I mean have you heard Milne recently clearly state she won’t be happy until we have ZERO emissions… I mean FFS think about that for a second… Labor you can’t do business with these lunatics. Please for the sake of your core voters grow a backbone!

    • Ben81 says:

      08:05pm | 30/05/11

      I wonder what’s next, I predict a GetUp advertising campaign featuring the national hero of the Australian left David Hicks trying to sell the tax to us.

      I can’t make up my mind if i’m more serious or joking here by the way.

    • dobbo says:

      08:18pm | 30/05/11

      Strange, don’t recall half this fuss when Joe Cocker’s “Unchain My Heart (wallet)” was used to flog off the GST.

      Maybe it was because by then Joe was a burnt out old hasbeen like little Johnny would one day become.

      Cate on the other hand is still very much a force to be reckoned with.

      Yes maybe that’s it.

    • MarK says:

      08:56pm | 30/05/11

      “Cate on the other hand is still very much a force to be reckoned with.”

      BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      Yeh she rocked the house with the 20/20 conference. That really went well.

      What a farce,

    • dobbo says:

      05:30am | 31/05/11

      MarK…sense a real shitstorm coming Coalition’s way and your over-the-top fear-driven response confirms it.

      True, a lot of the campaign will be designed to appeal to the emotions with star power and significant folk in the community selling carbon pricing by their presence alone. But guess what?  It’s gonna work.

      It’s karma anyway. A worthy balance to the “no, no no” mindless bullshit dribbling from old Tone’s lips.

      BTW how richly ironic if ALP was to resurrect Cocker singing “I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends”.

    • Wayne says:

      09:43pm | 30/05/11

      Remember in 2007 when Krudd said if we didn’t act immediately the sky would fall in? Well it didn’t. What is more how much will a carbon tax in Australia reduce the temperature? answer NIL, how much will the sea level rise be reduced by? answer NIL, will this save the barrier reef? answer NO, will it change the climate, answer NO. This tax has nothing to do with climate change, but is wealth redistribution by stealth with left over funds to plug budget holes. There are currently no viable base electricity apart from gas, coal or nuclear and taxing current electricity is money for nothing for the government. I cannot see a solar or wind powered tractor cutting it for agriculture, or to power trucks to move goods.

    • Joan says:

      10:54pm | 30/05/11

      @Wayne

      No, because he didn’t. You just made that up.

    • Joan says:

      03:00am | 31/05/11

      Yep,  Wayne, the two cuckoo dummies Juliar and Combet want to slam a big Carbon Tax on everything without securing nations base load .  UK has nuclear power and will introduce more nuclear as they introduce carbon tax. Euro countries with carbon tax have nuclear power or source from French nuclear power when winds don’t blow eg Denmark. Norway natural terraine utilises hydroelectricty. But no one in the world as dumb as Juliar and Combet with just a Carbon Tax grab . China has the best of all worlds, 300 coal powered stations more on line fueled by Australian coal, 9 nuclear plants more on the line and builds wind turbines to impress the rest world suckers…turbines not connected to anything. Dummy Juliar and Combet have no understanding of base load and just a policy to slam a Carbon Tax on everything and send jobs off shore to nations powering ahead with coal and nuclear. You`re right Wayne , the sky didn’t fall in, in fact it`s rain that has been falling and our rivers and dams on east coast are running and full. and Lake Eyre abuzz with life. The only thing that will end life as we know it , is Juliar`s big Carbon tax on everything., as jobs get sent off shore. Juliar the disaster to befall Australia in 2011

    • Get Real says:

      12:07am | 31/05/11

      Carbon Dioxide Tax….....At last the left have attained the nirvana long sought by governments of all ilks since taxation was first thought up - a way of taxing a portion of the very air we breathe…......

    • Gandalf says:

      12:22am | 31/05/11

      Anthiny Sharwood wrote: “Even the staunchest anthropogenic global warming denier would surely concede there are all sorts of benefits in cutting carbon emissions, not least cleaner air and the transition to smarter industries and renewable energy sources”

      That’s right, CO2 is such a dirty gas, and paying more for electricity when we have cheap coal fired power stations is really really smart. Thankfully more and more people are realising from their own research and logical observations that global warming, er climate change, is not caused by CO2 emissions.

    • Brian Taylor says:

      03:45am | 31/05/11

      staunchest anthropogenic global warming denier .... god I hope he was talking about me.
      it’s all crap I tell you

    • Brian Taylor says:

      03:51am | 31/05/11

      “As any husband and wife knows, no one wins when they start shouting over the top of each other”
      Bullshit, the woman always wins lol
      I’ve been married three times so do know what I’m talking about

    • Harquebus says:

      09:01am | 31/05/11

      Got some news for you Anthony. Climate change is not mankind’s greatest threat, peak oil is. It will kill far more people and is happening now.
      Anthony, where is your article on peak oil? The ABC is way ahead of you guys on this one.

    • Joan says:

      11:24am | 31/05/11

      Flash is mankind’s greatest threat.

    • Harquebus says:

      12:40pm | 31/05/11

      Third Joan.
      Religion, resource depletion along with over population, Flash and then climate change.
      Things to do. Plant lots and lots of trees.

    • fred firth says:

      08:28pm | 31/05/11

      Shame on you Anthony Sharwood!
      You are supposed to be a reporter, even if you did only manage “a half-arsed degree from the economics faculty Sydney Uni. I bet they teach climate science there now, to people with half-arsed brains.
      You say “The goal we’re united on is the need to cut carbon emissions” Really!
      We are not united. In fact, our affections are systematically divided. Unconstitutional declarations, made by this rag-tag collective of a government, are buried under layers of sensational drivel to today’s shock-horror stories of animal cruelty
      Only the greedy, corrupt or the dull and stupid are united in wanting a Carbon Tax. The majority of us don’t believe in the so called science and if it is rammed much further down our throats, there will be a revolt!
      Incidentally, J P Morgan’s 2008 acquisition, Climate Care, is selling Carbon Credits for US$ 12.71 per ton! That’s before the UN and Al Gore’s cut.  So why is our Government finding it difficult to settle on a price?
      Of course it is just another trick to move the public’s thinking from, is or isn’t global warming a load of rubbish to do we charge X$ or Y$ per ton? What do you think?
      Just like the car salesman who closes the sale with “would you like it in a red or blue?
      I can promise you Ant, you will not like living in the world you are helping to create.

    • gra gra says:

      08:57pm | 31/05/11

      Joan, Rosie, Erick, and all of the other experts, what do you think our P.M. should do to properly deal with this obvious problem of Australia’s pollution? Please tell us why she is wrong and Abbott and you lot, are right. Outline what we should do or please desist from simple, very simple, groundless criticism.  C’mon, constructive, helpful comments. Or fold up your tents and go away.

    • Harquebus says:

      01:35pm | 01/06/11

      Plant lots and lots of trees.

    • Bloggs says:

      06:03pm | 04/06/11

      We do not emit carbon, you twisted sod, we emit carbon dioxide.  There’s a small difference.

    • envessgon says:

      02:11am | 03/05/12

      The type of discounted price Celine Handbags unquestionably are reliable and definitely will assist the step for carrying some sort of once a day reasons for having to you. Actually, basically because points presently there “cheap Celine handbags” wouldn’t often recommend they are simply low-cost after only top of the line, that a variety of a lot of women have a tendency to believe about. “Cheap” tend to be only showing you the value and moreover very little many different.celine fat Your own low priced Celine Bags don’t seem to be naturally well-known relating to the internet business woman, at this time they have also been well-known for anyone who is more youthful a few years. Very, a lot of women among all taking walks with regards to daily life have fun with the Celine selection. The store’s features which have been used in demand when making the Celine dust bags are often originating box [url=http://www.celinehandbagsusa.com/]http://www.celinehandbagsusa.com/ [/url] epidermis effectively kangaroo epidermal.
        vn417

    • Meniannounc says:

      03:59pm | 20/05/12

      Also there isn’t prerequisite to depart your ship when in vent. A number of passengers prefer to enjoy panel as well as lay by the pool since the ship is much less crowded soon after most of us have long gone on land. Shore excursions take advantage perception any time few attractions are within easy reach and native means of travelling are scarce.Hope until this tip will be helpful for those first-timer cruiser. Bon Expedition!!Yochention and the spouse like to journey plus they want to share their particular understanding of travelling to partners.Black as well as gold can be a lovely combination, especially when put in a single clutch i465. This kind of clutch i465 black is actually traditional and elegant. It really is to provide glamor in your totality.Because observed in this particular Tube Evident Clutch system by simply Jimmy Choo, you??ll concur which it absolutely identifies the particular classiness and type of an african american along with platinum combination.
      cheap jimmy choo shoes
      jimmy choo shoes
      jimmy choo sale uk
      jimmy choo shoes:http://www.jimmychooshoesukstore.com/
      ae4177fbfb52fc9e64fe134

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter