http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/05/29/3229963.htm

The Federal Opposition is calling for the Government to rule out using public funds for a carbon price advertising campaign.

Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt alleges the Government has set aside $13.7 million in the federal budget for a national ad campaign to push the controversial scheme.

He says advertising about the carbon price would be a misuse of taxpayers' money.

"The Prime Minister should say no and rule out taxpayer-funded advertising for the carbon tax," he said.

"This would be a blatantly political use of public funds. An attempt to try and bolster the fortunes of the ALP, not to explain what the Government is doing.

"It's a complete abuse of the political system."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/29/3230064.htm

--------------------------

Gus: to which Greg Hunt adds: "We know it's an abuse of the political system because we used to do it till the cows came home, during the Howard years...."

And yes "it would explain what the government is doing" since the media (70 per cent of the press owned by Murdoch, most of the rest owned by various other rabid-right-wingers) is not willing to tell its readers how to "understand" the why and therefore of trying to save the planet...

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch's stance on climate change is at odds with that of his Australian newspapers, entrepreneur Dick Smith says.

At the launch of his book, Dick Smith's Population Crisis, he said that, while Mr Murdoch believed that climate change should be addressed, the views of the many papers he owned were contradictory.

Mr Smith claimed the papers, particularly The Australian, had "gone off the rails".

"In their editorials they say they accept that human-induced climate change is a real danger ... yet (The Australian's) news pages and opinion pieces are full of endless attacks on politicians and others who support putting a price on carbon," he said in a presentation today.

"Just look at yesterday's Sunday Telegraph attacking Cate Blanchett's leadership on this issue.

"It seems it's OK for Rupert to support a price on carbon with his $6 billion wealth but not for Cate."

But Mr Smith also said he believed Mr Murdoch had too little influence in Australia.

"Rupert, I ask you to come back to Australia and show the leadership that has made you one of the most successful businessmen in the world," he said.

"I ask you to come home to become the Lord Beaverbrook of the 21st century."

Lord Beaverbrook was the Canadian-born newspaper magnate who entered British politics, became a government minister, and devoted himself to winning World War II.

"Rupert, we need you back here in Australia," Mr Smith said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/smiths-plea-to-murdoch-on-climate-change-20110530-1fbpy.html#ixzz1NnfSxipc

Hey, Dick, are you throwing a stick or a carrot at Uncle Rupe?....

But Caton says just because people are financially successful, it does not mean they cannot be passionate about a cause.

"It goes with the turf - if you're going to do something like this, you know that with 60 per cent of the population against the carbon tax, you're going to cop flak,' he said.

"And you've just got to be prepared for that.

"At the same time, the attacks on Cate I think are very dirty pool. It's basically saying that because you're rich you can't be passionate about something."

He said people should not be barred from making political statements just because they are wealthy.

"If that's the case, what is Malcolm Turnbull doing in politics? What is Kevin Rudd doing? His wife is one of the richest women in Australia," he said.

"I think that criteria is very unfair and below the belt."

The chairman of the Climate Institute, which is among the 11 groups which have paid for the campaign, has rejected Senator Joyce's criticism.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/30/3230404.htm?section=justin

Entrepreneur Dick Smith says he was too "gutless" to feature in an advertising campaign supporting a carbon tax because he was afraid he would be criticised by Rupert Murdoch's newspapers.

Mr Smith said he was asked to appear in the television ads alongside Oscar winning actor Cate Blanchett, but declined.

"I didn't appear on it because I knew that I would be a front page of lies in the Rupert Murdoch press here," he said in Sydney today.

"So there was no way I would destroy my name that way. I was gutless, I didn't stand up for the truth."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/i-was-gutless-over-climate-ads-dick-smith-20110530-1fbwk.html#ixzz1NomTTWzd

A couple of comments above I asked "Hey, Dick, are you throwing a stick or a carrot at Uncle Rupe?...." I am pleased to say it's a stick...

From the Duke of spin, Gerard Henderson

...

Support for the carbon tax is highest among well-educated Australians who enjoy relatively secure employment or comfortable retirement - many of whom live in the inner cities. Concern about a carbon tax is greatest among Australians whose jobs are not so secure or who live on retirement incomes where life is a daily struggle - many of these Australians live in the suburbs and regional areas.

Viewed from the perspective of the ABC studio in Ultimo, the top 1000 emitting companies tend to be regarded as the big polluters. Viewed from Wollongong and Campbelltown, they tend to be considered the big employers. Of all the members of the Gillard cabinet, the Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, understands this best.

Writing in her Open Salon blog last year, Ann Nichols put it this way: "It is very easy to preach about the value of the grass-fed, the solar, the phosphate-free and the organic when you are in a position to afford it all - or willing to decide for yourself that you can live without cars, meat or a washing machine." That is a question of affordability. Double standards add to this frustration.

It is true that the wealthy miners such as Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest publicly opposed the Rudd government's proposed mining tax. But they were urging others to do the same. It was a case of: "Do as I do." The problem with the Australian Conservation Foundation's advertisement is that the Blanchett line appears to be: "Do as I say but please don't do as I do, lest the planet burn." It's not a credible message.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/its-all-hot-air-from-the-jetsetting-eco-brigade-20110530-1fcu1.html#ixzz1NsPrJ0ou
----------------------

I am speechless... but I still can write sumpthin'... Err... When Gina and Andrew opposed the mining tax, they were only urging others to oppose the tax but not really join them as digging the dirt for richness together, were they?  They were doing it out of self-interest in grabbing the loot — a bit like Looney Tunes' Daffy Duck in Ali Baba's treasure cave: "Mine! Mine!! All mine!!!" And mining is what they do.. and don't invade their turf.
And from my own research (vague and spotty mind you) most people support Kate's right to support a carbon tax (79 % at the SMH) and also quite a lot support the mining tax — even in the most precarious jobs and situation (65 %)... Contrary to Gerard's assertion, the section of the Australian community mostly opposed to Kate and the carbon tax sits comfortably in the richest leather sofa... Yes, the rich conservatives who support Abbott are the ones mostly opposed to a carbon tax because it might impact on their big weekly pocket money by a few bucks.
Come on, Gerard, stop being such a sook — a crybaby. Kate has hit the mark, otherwise the conservative media and the conservative pollies would not be so frazzled...
And tell the navel-gazing Ann Nichols that many little earners are also doing far more than the rich bastards to cultivate their own vegies and be eco-conscious... see toon at top...

We are talking about Cate Blanchett rather than the carbon tax. That's why this ad doesn't work, writes Rowan Dean.

Forget about who's starring in the carbon tax ad. Is it any good as an effective piece of advertising?

Thus far, all the attention has focused on the appropriateness of having a multimillionairess and Hollywood superstar appearing on behalf of the average Aussie.

Both actor Michael Caton and Cate Blanchett have hurried into the fray to inform us that they, too, have a right to speak on behalf of the issue. Of course, they do. But it's irrelevant. And doesn't answer the question. Is the ad any good?

In terms of generating awareness, the ad has been a blockbuster. There can hardly be a person in Australia who has not seen or heard of the ad by now. Job well done.

But awareness is a double-edged sword, and in this instance the impact of having our most famous actress appearing, and then being criticised for appearing, has managed to "vampire" the message itself. The discussion is about Cate, not carbon. From an advertising point of view, this becomes a problem.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-cate-vampired-the-carbon-tax-ads-20110531-1fdxo.html#ixzz1Nv0W8cdw

Crap... There is no problem... The advert with Kate Blanchett has pushed the concept that there are some pretty good people who see the light... It actually has made far far far bigger impact than what otherwise would have been a short-lived put-your-pants-on "green advert"... This one will stay and perturb the psyche of the nation as it should, to become an awareness catalyst. Howard Dean should know that carbon tax is a harder balloon to sell than a few tins of fosters using Paul Hogan. May be he should come up with a concept to push carbon tax as a palatable medicine... A cough sirup to save kids' future...

...

The recommendation is contained in the  the final report on carbon pricing from economist Ross Garnaut which he released at the National Press Club today.

It could be critical in helping the Government's efforts to swing the global warming debate away from Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's theme of a punishing "carbon tax" on families.

Prof Garnaut said a carbon price of $26 a tonne would generate about $11.5 billion. A 55 per cent share would mean $6.3 billion going to tax reform.

Under the Garnaut scheme, business would get about $4 billion to help in the transition to reduced carbon emissions, and just over $1 billion would go to innovations in renewable energy and energy efficiency devices.

Prof Garnaut believes compensation to households for rising prices caused by the penalty payments should be in the form of a 40 per cent cut in taxes (worth $4.6 billion); a 15 per cent jump in family payments and other benefits ($1.7 billion); and a 1 per cent increase in sponsoring energy efficiency ($115 million).

By 2021-2022 that would increase to a 50 per cent tax cut, and a 10-15 per cent boost to benefits.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/tax-time/ross-garnaut-says-low-and-middle-income-earners-to-share-6bn-windfall-from-climate-tax/story-fn8qmzek-1226066492771#ixzz1NvSV2gjY

 

It is interesting to see a swing of mood here... The Murdoch press is actually reporting the "GOOD" news about the carbon tax policy... See toon at top and read Dick Smith's carrot to Mr Murdoch...

Or is there a secret tactic of retreat, to jump harder on Julia?... I'd say put a price of $27 per tonne... It's a "lucky" number...   3 x 3 x 3 = 27.

One thing I despise about public life in Australia today is the way power-chasing pollies and self-promoting media personalities seek to advance themselves by encouraging people living during the most prosperous period in our history to feel sorry for themselves. Apparently, the soaring cost of living is absolutely killing us.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/earning-150000-and-whingeing-heres-a-reality-check-20110607-1fqsu.html#ixzz1OfoVQzjs

What if one of the biggest debates in federal politics today - the increasingly hysterical and partisan debate on a carbon price - actually mattered very little in terms of the practical outcomes purportedly being sought: the de-carbonisation of the Australian economy?

First some basic assumptions so that this doesn't get into a debate between "believers" and "sceptics". We are talking here to those, like us, who believe that climate change is real, human-driven, and poses a serious threat to ecology and society. We proceed on the basis that the consensus scientific opinions on the nature and scale of the threat are roughly right, and that rich countries with high carbon emissions like Australia need to slash emissions by over 90 per cent by 2050 if they are to play a just part in averting a global problem.

Yet it is precisely the immediacy and magnitude of the threat that leads us to reject the argument put by Wayne Swan in his speech to the National Press Club this week, that the "only way to drive investment in [clean-energy] technology is to put a price on pollution. Only a market mechanism does the job". Instead, we believe that seeing a "price on carbon" as central to a low-emissions future, whether in the form of a carbon tax or trading scheme, is both inadequate to the task at hand and a dangerous distraction from effective climate action.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2751414.html

---------------------

Gus: clever and important dissertation...

But one of the problem here in this very important subject is to find a wedge to penetrate the thick armoured skin of capitalism — which in all the good it produces forgot to included major environmental factors in its equation. An ETS is not ideal, a carbon tax is not ideal, an Abbott direct-action is atrocious. The proper choices is left to the ingenuity and the truthfulness of people in understanding and finding proper solutions to global warming — i.e., kill off the carbon economy — without reducing the average comforts we have become used to.

Capitalism is the daughter of the "extra" carbon equation and of the privatisation of ideas. So far, despite the world wide financial crisis, CO2 emissions have accelerated... Presently the "only" way to pin-prick capitalism without creating a world wide traumatic revolution, is via a carbon tax... Then we can move on to the next level.

So far we've done... nothing.

We are now impatiently waiting for Barnaby, Tony and all the shock jocks to decry Dame Elisabeth Murdoch for having an opinion on the carbon tax. After all, what would she know about struggling working families? She is a signatory to a letter that clearly states she wants a ''sustainable future for the sake of our children and grandchildren'', and that apparently wasn't a good enough reason for our Cate.

Wendy Atkins Cooks Hill

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/tough-reality-is-ill-health-necessitates-change-20110615-1g3qf.html#ixzz1PTr7JUXv

see toon at top...