Posts tagged ‘carbon pricing’

April 11, 2012

Fairfax to English translation of their article: Carbon tax is ‘unconstitutional’, says tax expert

Sydney Morning Herald: Carbon tax is ‘unconstitutional’, says tax expert
This was the headline of a story run yesterday. Now not everyone is used to speaking this strange new language known as FairFox which is English mixed with Rinehart, so I have translated this story (or the first paragraph, once you have read that, you don’t really need to read any more).

Despite the headline, or the url, the actual title of the page, reading the html source code, is Carbon tax|IPA|Bryan Pape… which translates as, despite what they tell their readers, they know what they are doing. Which is an old News Corpse trick, as long as the information in the story is correct, the headline can be the opposite, because many people don’t read past the headline.

How many people will only read the headline, and walk away believing two things – it is a tax and it is unconstitutional, without questioning who the tax expert is that saying these things. The tax expert, Fairfax points out, further into the story is The University of New England academic and practising barrister, Bryan Pape, has provided legal advice to conservative policy think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, and here is his bio on the IPA website – ipa.org.au/people/bryan-pape/publications

Now to the body of the story…

A PROMINENT Australian legal expert says he believes
This is how the story starts out, translation: ‘prominent‘ means IPA hired gun, ‘legal expert‘ means IPA hired gun and ‘says he believes‘ suggests he is going for a The Castle defence It’s just… the vibe… of the thing. This is the Fairfox variation on the ABC’s default for beginning news stories with the opposition says, we now have news stories starting with IPA says… is there much difference these days anyway?

the Gillard government’s carbon tax is unconstitutional
This is how the first line continues ‘the Gillard government’s carbon tax’ means come election time, they want everyone to remember the name of the government that gave us this supposed tax. I don’t recall the last time any media outlet in this country referred to the Howard government’s GST. ‘carbon tax‘ means let’s not call it by its correct name, of carbon pricing, instead they are trying to cram the word tax into this story as many times as possible (which was 29 times on that page, screen shot below). ‘unconstitutional’ usually refers to any tax the faceless billionaires don’t want to pay (hint: all of them).

and that the three largest states stand a chance
The first line continues with reference to ‘the three largest states’ referring New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, this means someone will have to spend taxpayers money fighting this Federal Government policy, because it sure won’t be IPA, and it won’t be the Liberal Parties that led governments in those states, and it won’t be Nathan Tinkler (NSW), Clive Palmer (QLD) or Gina Rinehart and Twiggy Forrest (WA) – the cost will be borne by the taxpayers in those states, and the legal challenge loses, well there is plenty more money where that came from. ‘stand a chance’ means the IPA aren’t convinced that any court case would be winnable, but they only need to convince the voters and in 18 months we will have a new Abbott-government who will do what IPA tells him.

of successfully overturning the legislation in the event of a High Court challenge
‘in the event of a High Court challenge’ means the IPA is still trying to goad the Liberal premiers of NSW, QLD, WA into paying for a High Court challenge, and even if they don’t they have still muddied the waters in the eyes of the readers – voters. Just because there is a possible legal challenge to anything does not mean the case is winnable, mounting a challenge doesn’t make something unconstitutional, it just means something with money is prepared to spend it on a court case rather than paying that money in tax.

The rest of the article follows on pretty much in the same way, with the exception of the following piece reporting
‘federal Labor now trails the Coalition in every state and territory on both primary votes and on a two-party preferred basis’, when in fact Labor lead the 2PP (two party preferred) in South Australia and are 50-50 with the Coalition in Victoria. So apparently South Australia and Victoria have now been excluded from the Commonwealth, well that is okay, no faceless billionaire mining-magnates are based there.

text by @redglitterx


The word tax appeared 29 times on this page. As Vladimir Lenin said A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Also interesting about this page, the editors pick… Abbott PM, just so the voting public get used to seeing those words together.

Advertisements
April 7, 2012

The Truth About Carbon Pricing (or carbon “Tax” if you read Murdoch papers)

There are many lies being spread about carbon pricing, usually by those with an agenda, either that or they can’t read.

First of all: it is not being applied yet – any business that claims it is sacking workers or raising prices now because of the carbon pricing, is blatantly lying and ripping off consumers. The pricing goes into affect from 1 July 2012.

Second: Unlike the GST which put a 10% tax on just about everything you buy, with little options for finding non-GST affected products; Carbon pricing will only be on the top 500 polluting companies. If you don’t want to pay for a product which has carbon pricing attached, simple… buy a product that is Less polluting.

If you don’t want to pay carbon pricing, choose products with less impact. Simple. Third: opponents of Carbon pricing say that it is unfair, unlike GST which is fair and balanced. No. The reverse is true. GST disproportionately affects those on lower incomes, who spend a larger proportion of their income on GST taxable products, while those that attract no-GST tend to be luxury items (which had other taxes removed in exchange for the GST). If you don’t want to pay carbon pricing, choose products with less impact. Simple. If you want to continue to screw-up the environment, that is your choice. But you pay for the privilege.

Our planet should belong to all of us, not just those who can afford to pollute it. As it is now, those who can afford to buy more things, are doing a greater proportion of damage to our air, our water, our limited resources, our planet, our life-support system. That would like saying: it is okay for a rich person to beat the stuffing out of you, because if you can afford to sue them, they have can afford the compensation. Ignoring the damage done in the meantime.

Fourth: But what about our pensioners? They worked hard all their lives and now they won’t be able to afford heating or food? WRONG. Those on low-incomes, including pensioners will be compensated. And like each and every one of us, as consumers they have a mighty power, it’s called the dollar vote – the power of choice, if they don’t want to pay for the carbon price, all they have to do is choose a different product.

Fifth: Prime Minister Gillard is not personally benefiting from this – We Are. Our children, our grandchildren, our nation, our Pacific neighbours whose countries are disappearing under water, even as I type.

Australia has about 0.3% of the world’s population, but contributes about 1.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions. This puts Australians among the highest per capita emitters (source: Australian Bureau of Statistics). We are the country that is creating the mess, it is our responsibility to clean it up.

For much more detailed – and legally accurate – information, see ACCC – Australian competition & Consumer Commission: Carbon price claims

And if you think you are getting balanced, accurate information from an unbiased media, because media is neutral – read this: How Murdoch’s Aussie Papers Cover Climate Change by NPR in US America
Here is just a taste of that article…

The Australian has aggressively opposed the Green Party’s agenda of addressing climate change through greater regulation and taxation of pollution. Two years ago, the paper vowed in an editorial that it would seek to destroy the party at the ballot box.

text by @redglitterx
use of Sir Henry Parkes image, or the coin, is in no way intended to imply that Parkes, or the treasury would in any way endorse the contents of this post or blog

April 3, 2012

Rob Oakeshott and Greg Hunt disagree about Carbon Pricing



text below if images don’t load


Greg Hunt (@GregHuntMP) is Shadow Minister for Climate Action

Robert Oakeshott (@OakeyMP) is Independent Federal MP for Lyne.

text of image:
@GregHuntMP Interesting to know whether PM agrees with Minister Combet re carbon tax that “It’s not a tax…” Keen to hear today

@OakeyMP @GregHuntMP Greg, please refer me to the Carbon Tax Bill to support your case.I can’t find it.What I can find is ETS Bills,but no CT bills.

@GregHuntMP @OakeyMP the PM conceded it is a tax, 2nd the def’n of such is a fixed price floating volume impost – 3rd changing name does not fool public

@OakeyMP @GregHuntMP ok-so can u actually show me a CT Bill?The only tax-related bill 2 do with carbon I voted for is lifting the tax-free threshold.

@GregHuntMP @OakeyMP if you didn’t realise that the Clean Energy Bill was a carbon tax at $23/tonne, are you willing to withdraw your vote? #itsataxrob

@OakeyMP @GregHuntMP and thanks for at least acknowledging they are not technically tax bills.

added by @redglitterx
additional text by @OakeyMP , @GregHuntMP
use of quotes, images on their tweets, their tweets, is not intended to imply that either endorse the contents of this post or this blog

March 29, 2012

Gillard promised, Gillard delivered, Gillard vilified in Murdoch media

The federal election that elected the Gillard government was held on 21 August 2010. On 20 August 2010, The Australian ran a piece by Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan under the headline Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise.

The opening three sentences of this piece was:

JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.

In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.
source: Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise; 20 Aug 2010, The Australian

So, where is the Lie?


text by @redglitterx
additional text by The Australian

March 26, 2012

Australia: punching above our weight in sport is good, but in saving the planet is bad? ok

During those long, cold, dark years when JW Howard ruled the land, he often bragged that Australia was punching above its weight when it came to sporting events.

We were world leaders when it came to showering largesse on athletes in the hopes that for a couple of minutes every four years at least some of them could stand on a podium and increase their personal brand value to advertisers – I mean, win an Olympic™ medal.

Yet, when it comes to saving the planet, oh we cannot do anything, until everyone else does. When it comes to the planet that supports life, we get very selfish indeed.

However, under Prime Minister Gillard, Australia is making a difference, in saving our planet.

John Rice, vice chairman of GE, one of the worlds largest companies says:

I applaud the Australian government for having the courage to go through with it because I think over the long run, the world is going to be better served if there is a cost associated with the production of carbon…

It takes gutsy politicians and so we applaud the Australian government, the prime minister for following through.

It takes leadership and if you wait for the world to act in unison, it will never happen.
Source: here

Bill Gates, one of the worlds richest people, likes the carbon package:

I wish the world at large found it easier to get together on this because a carbon tax is a very important tool to encourage the invention of low-cost energy technologies that don’t emit carbon… To help that happen, a carbon tax really is a key piece.
Source: here

The CSIRO, (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) Australia’s national body for scientific research says that the impact of a tax on carbon will have less impact than a tax on all goods-and-services, and in other data modelling:

compared the impact of the carbon price with the introduction of the GST, the mining boom and disasters such as cyclone Yasi. It found the carbon price would have one-quarter of the 2.5 per cent impact on prices than the introduction of the GST. It would also be smaller than the 1.6 per cent effect of the trade and exchange rates that came with the mining boom in 2007.
Source: here

Which means, mining has a bigger impact on the rise in the cost of living than a carbon price would. Thanks Clive, Gina, Twiggy.

Australia is home to 0.5% of the worlds population, yet produces 1.5% of the worlds greenhouse gases. When it comes to destroying our life support system, we are truly punching above our weight. Then lecture nations of that can barely feed their populations that they have to pay the price, make the sacrifices for cleaning up the mess we created.

The Carbon Package (or Tax if you listen to Alan Jones and read Murdoch media) is not the monster it has been made out to be. And yet the Murdoch media empire is running a campaign against it… or rather the government that introduced it.

Why? There is a rabid fear of this carbon-package, I do not know.

However, when there is an anti-climate change rally, one thing you can be sure, there will be busloads of pensioners brought in to complain it. I wish they had been as vocal about opposing the GST.


image of Prime Minister, I forget the source, used for illustrative purposes and is no way meant to suggest the PM or the copyright holders in anyway endorse the contents of this post
text by @redglitterx