February 24, 2011 | Graham

One alibi Julia won’t be using

With her acceptance on the 7.30 report that her proposed Carbon Pricing Scheme is a tax, Julia Gillard confirmed that she had lied about the issue in the 2010 election, just as much as John Howard lied about the GST in 1996, with one caveat.

The man who opponents loved to call a “liar” took his GST proposal to an election, but Julia will do everything she can to avoid taking her Carbon Tax to one.

Which is why, while strategically challenged Labor barrackers in the blogosphere excuse her deception on the basis of John Howard’s change of policy, Julia never will.

But if I were the opposition I’d be putting the challenge to her. If “Lying John Howard” had the guts to take his proposal to the electorate, and given that she is touting the “toughness” of her carbon position, why won’t she do the same?

It’s a high risk strategy that Gillard is playing. Even more high risk if you give any credence to the Galaxy polling released by the IPA today which shows only 34% of Australians believe that “the world is warming and man’s emissions are to blame”, while 26% believe “the variation in global temperature is just part of the natural cycle of nature”, and 38% believe “there is conflicting evidence and I’m not sure what the truth is”.

Interestingly, while skepticism is strongest amongst older, less well-educated Australians living in regional Australia, the gap between them and younger better educated Australians living in the inner-city has narrowed. Tougher economic times are increasingly convincing the young affluent and fashionable that there are more important issues.

While the survey’s shaded to favour the IPA’s skeptical stance, it does give us hard information that strong belief in the man-made global warming thesis is limited to only around one-third of Australians. This makes the Carbon Tax a weak issue for Labor, particularly as the official and media narratives so strongly favour the man-made global warming story.

Posted by Graham at 12:52 pm | Comments (25) |
Filed under: Uncategorized


  1. We’re saving the polar bears with the light globes Malcolm Turnbull insisted we change to.

    The cost is prohibitive for people on low incomes.

    And now we’re to have another tax. A carbon tax.

    Us low income folk who live way below the poverty line should just lie down now and hand over our pittance to the government. I’m sure it will help stop global warming.

    PS All pollies are to stop flying here there and everywhere as the carbon emitted by aeroplane engines is DEFINITELY adding to climate change.

    Comment by lyn clark — February 24, 2011 @ 11:09 pm

  2. there is another position, nobody is talking about, or surveying. That maybe there is some AGW going on but an ETS or Carbon Tax is not the way to fix it.

    i worked out how to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions” for free, with a little high school economics.

    why can’t Wayne, Jooolia or anybody else do it? All they want is a poverty creation scheme.

    Comment by formersnag — February 25, 2011 @ 1:52 am

  3. Julia Gillard is proving to be a liar and fails in her position of prime minister. Labour no longer supports the people. Now they are intending to introduce a carbon tax, this is contrary to what she said in her campaign before the last federal election. I have always voted labour, but will no longer vote for any treacherous party who ultimately harms the people.From now on I will be voting for independant candidates in order to keep the big parties honest.

    Comment by Duanne Brooks — February 26, 2011 @ 12:35 am

  4. @ Duanne Brooks, good on you. if only we could get more people out there to do this then there would be no more safe electorates.

    There are 2 minor parties out there who claim to be what the GAYLP was half a century ago before it was taken over by the Closet Communists.



    or you could try http://www.democrats.org.au/

    all 3 of the above minor parties are moderate, main stream, centrist organisations.

    there are millions of us out there who are tired of being Left, Right, out.

    Comment by formersnag — February 26, 2011 @ 1:36 am

  5. Any polluter of any kind should cleanup!
    I suggest we charge them $80 per tonne to do it for them.
    To Lyn and Formersnag, it was stated that the impoverished will be compensated under the scheme.
    To Duanne I say, the Australian population already voted to curb emitions when they voted for Rudd. How many times do we need to vote on the issue?

    Comment by Dave — February 26, 2011 @ 2:27 am

  6. Carbon is not pollution. It is the element upon which all biological life is based. People simply do not understand what carbon is. They don’t understand without it all living creatures disappear from the face of the earth. There is no such thing as Carbon pollution. The concept makes no sense at all.

    Its amazing what you can get people to believe~!

    Comment by John — February 26, 2011 @ 11:02 am

  7. We the people are the government, not the politicians or political parties we elect to serve us. The people must have a referendum vote to decide either for or against a carbon tax. If we are denied our inalienable rights of a referendum then that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that we the people have been enslaved by our government and politicians. Do we have to send a clear message (as is being shown by the people in Egypt and other countries of the world) that we will not tolerate being enslaved any longer?

    Comment by Tom — February 26, 2011 @ 10:01 pm

  8. Too much of any substance is detrimental to life John.
    Tom I reiterate Australians already voted on carbon reduction when we elected Rudd and his mandate. We were denied our vote by darker elements of the Liberal Party.
    Should the opposition fail to enter the negotiations and endorse the out-come then Australia will get a better more ethical result though a Greens negotiated process. Business will have only a marginal say in the result.
    Should the process fail before the next election and Liberals are returned, their abatement scheme seemingly will come directly from individuals pockets since they tend to prefer reduced business tax s and inputs at the expense of people.
    The debate is not about wether or not to do something, but instead what thing will we do.

    Comment by Dave — February 26, 2011 @ 11:39 pm

  9. Dave, Australia is a Democratic country and we the people have inalienable safeties in place as stated in our “Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900”, which is the Supreme Law, the law of the land,and common law. The Acts in our Constitution clearly states, to introduce any legislation which effects the people government must have an informed referendum of the people to vote on. So far to date we the people have not been given an informed information of the carbon tax or how it will ultimately effect and add great financial costs to the people. The general opinion of the people is they do not support a carbon tax and as the people are actually the government of Australia and the politicians are our representatives they must abide by our the peoples wishes. For far to long now politicians and governments have been eroding our inalienable democratic rights and freedoms of our common laws, replacing them with STATUTE U.C.C. MARITIME LAW. Every man, woman, and child has been given a fictitious corporate entity to enable enslavement of the people.

    Comment by Tom — February 27, 2011 @ 12:21 am

  10. Valid points one and all Tom, particularly maritime law. However all laws affect the people and we have elected officials to prevent expensive referendums occurring weekly. There is no reason in my opinion why we could not, in an electronic age, have a cheap electronic referendum on every item large and small. Provided of course that it could be ascertained that the voter researched the facts as presented by only qualified bodies.

    Comment by Dave — February 27, 2011 @ 4:46 am

  11. Dave you raise a good valid point, re electronic referendum, unfortunately not everyone has a computer nor the knowledge to research or use one. For many of us our computers are great for gaining knowledge by researching and communicating with other people to discover a broad range of views. With regards to a carbon, there are arguments both for and against, but taxation is not the answer as we are over taxed as it is. When it comes to taxation the working class people are very suspicious after the GST tax. If the carbon tax is only allocated for businesses to pay then those businesses will increase the costs of their products and pass it on to us consumers. People are fed up with the continual price increases for our basic needs, and yes I have heard suggestions from many saying we should follow the example of Egypt and other countries who are using actions to oust there governments. The recent federal election and the Victorian state election results would indicate that the people are not happy with either Labour, the Liberal coalission or the Greens parties. I beleive that the introduction of a carbon tax would be political suicide for any party at the present time.

    Comment by Tom — February 27, 2011 @ 12:09 pm

  12. Julia Gillard said you can call it a tax if you want, or a levy, whatever, but she correctly saw no honest point in playing with the semantics of the situation. Whatever you might want to say about it this legislation is not about the introduction of a tax . . . no matter how much you want it to be! It is clearly the case that it is about the introduction of a market based price on polluted carbon.

    Not even the whinging right can sustain the fallacy that the current government is in power on the sole basis of the ALP’s electoral platform. Over a million voters chose the Greens and their votes are now a valid part of the government that has been formed. They cannot be taken out of the equation by any amount of Liberal National media humbug.

    The world of minority government clearly doesn’t suit the people who were unable to form one. Their manufactured indignation says nothing worth hearing about electoral integrity. The Liberal National Front under Howard gave us a litany of “non-core promises”. Do they think we have forgotten what it was like living through the long morally anesthetised Howard-Abbott period – those draining, years of furtive deals and secretive rorts as we watched helplessly as the divide between their mates, and the rest of us, grew beyond anything we have ever seen before in our history?

    What mandate do they imagine they had for their scandalous “Invest Australia” scheme where they courted foreign companies not interested in being here without massive, and I mean really massive, government handouts? Where are their honest admissions about the massive losses of their appallingly managed Future Fund? How much of our nation’s wealth went to foreign wealth accounts through bogus transfer pricing arrangements and the fire sale of our manufacturing and agricultural industries? They didn’t even bother to keep count!

    They seem these days to rely on a chimera of half remembered half truths, a kind of manufactured spin about their glory days of power, and the egregious bias of the Murdoch press, to get them through the winter of what seems increasingly likely to be the winter of a long period of discontent in opposition.

    Truth be told, you can’t keep a bunch of clever crooks down for long. They’re now showing us that we can push back the tipping point of irretrievable carbon accumulation in the only atmosphere we’re ever likely to have, by doing bit of voodoo polling. If only life were that simple, we could all just pretend that Julia Giallard did not form a constitutionally valid minority government with the Greens and the Independents, that Tony Abbot as PM, Howard the GG and the problems of refugees, global warming and glaring social inequalities all gone without doing anything more difficult than denying that they exist in the first place.

    Comment by Russel Pollard — February 28, 2011 @ 12:15 am

  13. @ Dave @ 2:27am, Yes, any polluter should clean up, but there are less disruptive ways to achieve this aim.
    Yes, the poor will allegedly be compensated but the end result will still be a shift in wealth from low income earners, middle income earners even high income earners to the the filthy, stinking, super rich. Why else would David de “sixredsigns” be pushing for pollution taxes, ETS, etc.
    Yes, we voted for Rudd but he did not have a truly clear plan in mind, everybody wants something to be done about cleaning up our environment, but not if that includes more taxation. Furthermore when people began to “really” discuss it & found out how truly disgusting this evil “poverty creation scheme” is & they saw the polls, they dropped it like the hot potato that it is.

    Then to add insult to injury Juliar went to the polls promising no carbon anything. And don’t forget about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Latham ‘s blank ballots 6% across the board nationally, as high as 14% in some western Sydney electorates, normally considered to be safe labour.

    If those people had wanted your poverty creation scheme they would have voted for the RED/green, getup, GAYLP, Socialist Alliance, not left their ballots blank.

    Next time those people will be voting for “real” minor parties & independents, not Closet Communists.

    @ John 11:02am, spot on mate.

    @ Tom 10:01pm, yes we do need to do something.


    if you can’t do the march personally, tell all your friends, relatives to go. there are similar marches all states & territories same time. “Be there or be square”.

    @ Dave 11:39pm, i reiterate, Australians voted against AGW reduction, which is economically damaging. to do otherwise would be treason.

    And your correct the debate IS about what we should do which does not includes an ETS, carbon tax, or any other type of price on carbon, all of which was clearly, unequivocally ruled out by the electorate. Why can’t the RED/greens accept “inconvenient truths”.

    @ Tom 12:21am, now we are getting somewhere, spot on mate.

    @ Dave 4:46am, yes another one of the intelligent policies that the RED/greens stole from the Australian Democrats to fool voters into accepting their other Anti Industry, Closet Communist policies.

    @ Tom 12:09pm, yes any form of carbon price is electoral suicide, hopefully the RED/greens will keep on pushing it & die.

    @ Russel Pollard 12:15am, oh dear where do i start?

    “How Trotskyists led the GAYLP to free trade”






    Yes indeed all the terrible things you attributed to the LNP was indeed terrible, but it was all done to us by Comrades Whitlam, Hawke & Keating from the RED/green, getup, GAYLP, Socialist Alliance.

    Comment by formersnag — February 28, 2011 @ 8:43 am

  14. Notice how they don’t mention Global Warming anymore? Instead now it’s Climate Change.

    Global warming science has already been exposed for what it truly is- a massive swindle.
    Check out the Climategate scandal where thousands of emails were hacked into and made public that showed climate research scientists falsifying and misrepresenting data. Turns out the earth was even cooling slightly for the last 10 years, so much for all the warming.

    When the emails were released to the public, the scientists couldn’t explain what had happened so the global warming propagandists kept quiet and waited for the storm to pass.

    Now they’re back to their old tricks again but of course with their new name- Climate change, which is now impossible to deny (earth’s climate is of course constantly changing)

    If politicians really cared about the environment, there are so many solutions to be had- one of which is to massively cultivate industrial hemp (look it up please) which can be used for so many purposes including the production of carbon neutral fuel.

    The fact that this amazing plant is illegal to cultivate industrially in almost all countries should speak volumes about who and what politicians truly care about.

    I hope all fellow Australians will research as much as possible (ignore the rhetoric and look at the facts) before making up their minds on the issue. Please tell all your friends to do the same.

    Comment by Lysander — February 28, 2011 @ 6:43 pm

  15. Lysander, I too prefer show my ignor…
    Polluters should be allowed to pollute. I myself have been known to get gaseous from time to time. I believe that the 4 or 5 tons of peer-reviewed evidence supporting the science of climate change are wrong. The hand full contrary documents by qualified individuals paid for by the carbon lobby are right. I formulated an opinion on climate change a long time ago and I will not change.

    Comment by Mr.Pong — March 2, 2011 @ 9:28 am

  16. I feel compelled to ask all if they are in a financial position to pay for climate change, regardless if its a tax or a levy? I certainly am not in a position to pay as I am already struggling financially, and there would be multitudes of others in a likewise position throughout Australia. We could suggest that corporations pay the carbon tax or levies but that would not work, they would increase the costs for their products so as they are not out of pocket, so we the people would be out of pocket whichever way it went if the government introduced a climate tax or levy.

    Comment by Tom Isaac — March 3, 2011 @ 9:45 am

  17. Mr.Pong @ 9:28 am, good luck with that mate. This is an ETS, Economic Treason Scam. Later this year when Tony Abbot becomes PM there will be parliamentary committees on UN Australian activities & anybody who has been in favour of it will be going to a Labour Camp.

    Comment by formersnag — March 5, 2011 @ 1:37 am

  18. @ John: “There is no such thing as Carbon pollution. The concept makes no sense at all. Its amazing what you can get people to believe.”

    Yes indeed John and I daresay that first year chemistry students would tear their hair out when reading posts such as yours and then proclaim: “Its amazing what you can get people to believe.”

    Among the carbon based chemicals contained in fossil fuel emissions is a toxic brew of hazards which present significant health threats to the biosphere (including humans).

    CO2 is the progeny of these hazards (and some not so hazardous). CO2 is irrefutably a warming gas. Try sitting on your radiator mate. What do you think it is doing to the equilibrium of an outraged planet?

    Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are potent atmospheric pollutants. Naphthalene is the simplest example of a PAH. Naphthalene is a respiratory toxicant and carcinogen. PAHs occur in oil, coal, and tar deposits, and are produced as byproducts of fuel burning.

    As pollutants, they are of significant concern because some of these compounds are identified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic. Add a bit of chlorine to the mix, coupled with poor combustion and dioxins are formed, the most toxic chemicals ever invented by man.

    Benzene is a Category 1 carcinogen, based on evidence from extensive research in both people and laboratory animals. The link between benzene and cancer has largely focused on leukemia and cancers of other blood cells, particularly acute myeloid leukemia.

    Workers exposed to high levels of benzene, such as those in the chemical and oil refining industries and in coal tar are at significant risk where the results of worker exposure can be passed down to the human progeny.

    CO2 *is* a hazardous pollutant. Today’s (literally) CO2 emissions will hang around for 100-200 years. The impacts of climate change we are experiencing right now are no doubt a result of the carbon pollution emitted by our ancestors. Such ignorance could have once been sustained but certainly not in the last forty years.

    Surely no-one in possession of half a sensory neuron would swallow the spin of the IPA these days, a recipient of big fossil fuel donations and a luddite institute which has not yet evolved from a nineteenth century technology to which they desperately cling from ignorance and vested interests.

    The fossil fuel industry has a belching tail pipe and its wheels have fallen off.

    Your choice, our destiny John.

    Comment by Dryblower — March 7, 2011 @ 1:31 am

  19. Once the smart money has shifted to the low carbon emission industries most of the ‘scepticism’ about AGW will disappear.

    Comment by Russell W — March 9, 2011 @ 3:20 am

  20. Russell W,


    Dave s pick going long on green stocks PAX, IFN, SOO, PTR, LYC, GXY, MBT and CFU.

    Comment by Dave — March 9, 2011 @ 11:59 pm

  21. Dryblower, just read your last rant. You’re running on empty. CO2 isn’t any of those compounds you mention. If you’re worried about polluting, suggest you don’t breathe out. Your first year chemistry class would be able to tell you that your breath is full of CO2.

    Comment by Graham — March 12, 2011 @ 10:10 am

  22. Graham – Astonishingly, unbelievably ignorant on the chemical reactions of fossil fuel chemicals for one who feigns such vast knowledge on climate change:

    1) “Combustion of Fossil Fuels:

    “Combustion is a reaction with oxygen. In the case of the combustion of fossil fuels, the combustion reaction is what we think of as a burning process. During the combustion reaction, the hydrocarbon molecules are converted to carbon dioxide and water:


    2) ‘When a hydrocarbon fuel (that is, one that is made up of hydrogen and carbon) burns completely, the oxygen in the air combines with the hydrogen to form water (H2O) and with the carbon to form carbon dioxide (CO2). If the burning is not complete, then some of the carbon atoms only combine with one oxygen atom rather than two, to form carbon monoxide (CO), a highly poisonous gas.’


    3) “Environmental fate:

    “Although carbon monoxide is not considered a greenhouse gas, it is a precursor to greenhouse gases. Carbon monoxide elevates the concentrations of methane (a greenhouse gas) and ozone in the atmosphere. It eventually oxidises into carbon dioxide.”


    4) “Combustion:

    “Like any other hydrocarbons, benzene and methylbenzene burn in a plentiful supply of oxygen to give carbon dioxide and water:


    5) Benzene is a Group 1 carcinogen:


    Are these scientific facts too difficult for you to digest Graham? Would you like the whole list of fossil fuel chemicals that burn to CO2?

    Comment by Dryblower — March 14, 2011 @ 10:40 am

  23. If Gillard’s carbon tax replaces GST and fuel excise, she can take it to an election and win. The high carbon price will get the environmental vote, while the elimination of GST compliance costs will get the small business vote.

    Comment by Gavin R. Putland — March 17, 2011 @ 1:23 am

  24. Dear Blowhard,

    As I said, you’re running on empty, we’re talking about CO2 not things that can be combined to make CO2. Lots of harmless compounds can be made from compounds that aren’t. Just because they can doesn’t make them harmful.

    CO2 is a colourless odourless gas which is beneficial to mankind, no matter how you try to spin it.

    I’d back my chemistry grades against yours anyday.

    Comment by Graham Young — March 18, 2011 @ 7:41 pm

  25. Dear Windbag

    Industrial chemists would be most amused to read the spin that you pass off as fact to disadvantage humanity.

    Further, everyone (except greed barons – I’m lookin’ at you pal) knows that a disturbance in chemical equilibrium of the carbon buffer can cause a life threatening situation to occur.

    They also understand that of all the man-made (unnatural) activities, fossil fuel combustion for energy generation causes around 70-75% of the carbon dioxide emissions. The remainder of the emissions are caused by land clearing, forest combustion, other man-made burning activities, emissions from motor vehicle exhausts etc.

    Although the combustion of fossil fuels mainly adds carbon dioxide to air, some of it is also released during natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, however humans now release >100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

    Of course a pre-primary school student understands that without the flour, you can’t bake a cake. And without fossil fuel chemicals, you can’t produce CO2 in the bulk of industrial processes.

    And ullo ullo! The National Pollutant Inventory advises that oil and gas extractions, petroleum and coal manufacturing, electricity generation (and let’s not forget metal ore mining) all produce similar hazardous compounds:

    Toluene, n.Hexane, ethyl benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, CO, SO2, PM2.5, PM10, mercury, copper compounds, xylenes, phenol, VOC, chromium VI etc. Many are potent human carcinogens – they’re killers. And they are just a few of at least 60 substances that are wiping out the biosphere from humans plundering Momma Nature’s hazardous waste repositories.

    The oil and gas extraction industry are the highest emitters of VOC in Australia. The “O” in VOC represents “organic.” Organic means “carbon.” Catch on?

    Perhaps you could enlighten Mr Plimer, Anthony Watts, IPA, Heartland Institute, Tony Abbott et al, the butt of the jokes in the science community and the majority of citizens, in possession of more than half a sensory neuron?

    Comment by Dryblower — March 21, 2011 @ 3:05 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.