Sunday, July 17, 2011

I deny I'm a denier

So we're getting a carbon tax and our most unpopular Prime Minister at her school marmish best says it's for our own good.  I watched her being interviewed by Laurie Oakes this morning and after she claimed that yes she did say there would be no carbon tax prior to the last election he asked her what had changed.  And we got spin.

LO: But politics is also about leaders being able to win support and to persuade voters. What is the difference between your position now and that of Kevin Rudd when you tapped him on the shoulder, except that the Government is now less popular than it was then and the leader is now less popular than the then leader was? What’s the difference?
JG: Laurie I'm not going to go back in time and talk about those events. I have talked about them...
LO: But you haven’t you see, you have always refused to talk them.
JG: Well I explained why the Labor team made the leadership decision that they did last year. And what they had...
LO: And what is the difference now?
JG: What they have now is me as Prime Minister, pursuing with determination, a plan, that the Labor team believes in. We never thought it was going to be easy. We knew it was going to be tough. We knew we would have to go out and campaign and persuade and get people the facts. And we are determined to do that.
LO: But you see, what they had a year ago was a leader who had been told by you in February he shouldn't go to a double dissolution on pricing carbon, and he had been told by you in April that he should shelve that plan. And now you are out there saying, "I’ve always believed in pricing carbon."
JG: Laurie, you are making a lot of assumptions and I’m not going to share those assumptions with you. I've always believed...
LO: But don't you think you need to answer those questions if people are going to have any faith in you.


This was important for the nation, she was doing what is best for us, no one will be worse off except the big carbon polluters etc, waffle, bull shit.   I also remember during the last election when after the first few weeks of campaigning she told us that we would now see the real Julia.  Well the real Julia lied when she said there would be no carbon tax so my question is why should we believe anything she says now.

Another thing I am getting very sick of is that because there are people skeptical of the whole man made climate change argument we get told that none of them know what they are talking about, that they are denying climate change exists.  Well let me say this.  Climate changes.  I actually wrote my honours thesis on climate change in the Victorian Alps.  I know that 60,000 years ago we were in an Ice Age with gradual warming until a peak around 8,000 years ago when sea levels were actually higher than they are now.  And since that time we've had times when the Earth was warmer than now when grapes were grown in Newfoundland in the 11th century, and a Little Ice Age said to have last from the 16th to the 19th centuries.

And we know that climate is also affected greatly by the fluctuations in the Suns outputs, in fact there have been arguments for decades over what causes the periodic Ice Ages but one thing is sure, those massive fluctuations in climate have been occurring independently of anything man has done.

Yeah, I know, some of you will argue, isn't it better that we do something, and I'd say if you guarantee that the rest of the world is gonna be doing the same thing as us then you might be right, but we are a small country of 22 million people and there are cities in India and China that produce as much greenhouse gas in a month as we do in a year and I don't see them rushing to introduce a carbon tax.

The Prime Minister will have us believe that China is cleaning up it's act when in fact it is building bigger coal fired power stations and burning coal they buy from us.   So how is it that China buying or coal and burning it is great for the economy and ensures that we will have a strong coal mining industry in the future.  And we're supposed to believe that it is better for the world for China to burn our coal than to burn it ourselves.  What is the logic to that argument Prime Minister?

I heard our Climate Change Minster interviewed on 3AW a few days ago and she was asked who the Top 10 polluters in the country were.   Her answer - "I'm sorry I don't know and I don't have that information with me."

Huh????    You don't know that and yet you can tell me the tax will only raise the price of a packet of Tim Tams by something less than a cent a packet?  Doesn't make sense to me.  And if you look a t bit more closely at what we do know then you'll see that the government doesn't actually know how many companies will be liable for the tax.   See this article from the Annabel Crabb of the ABC.   The government knows how much the tax cuts will cost in terms of lower collection of income tax, but they have very little idea about how much carbon tax is going to be collected.  And if they don't know that, how is the modelling on the supposed $8/week increase for the average household supposed to hold up.    This economic modelling sounds to me pretty much like the global warming modelling.  All over the place.

And how is it that all this Treasury modelling and the wonderful tax cuts that 9 out of 10 families will get, are still valid when the day before the tax was announced we were told that the top 1000 polluters would be taxed and the very next day the announcement said it was the top 500.   Given it took months of rigorous research and modelling by Treasury to come up with the package in the first instance how was it changed in 24 hours?   And was it the real Julia who changed it or one of the other two we saw before the election?

I've heard a lot of Labour supporters try to say that this is the same as John Howard introducing the GST.  But the difference is he had the guts to take the issue to an election.   This is more like our State Labour Government telling the people of the eastern suburbs that there wouldn't be tolls on Eastlink, prior to the election, and then a week after he was re-elected stating that things had changed.

So that's my rant for the week.  And what I've learnt this week is that politicians lie.   I was previously very naive wasn't I.

2 comments:

River said...

Way back then, I was prepared to give her a fair go.
Now?
She's just another politician taxing the life out of our country.

Loz said...

I have for the most part kept politics out of this blog. I have in the past voted for both major parties and the democrats back when they were about keeping the bastards honest. But I am getting sick of being played for a fool. We all deserve better than what we're being served up in Canberra at the moment. If I can borrow an old line - it's time for something new and it's not green in color either.