Not feeling the best at the moment with a touch of the flu coming on. Mood certainly hasn’t been enhanced by some of the crap being espoused in the Carbon Cate debate as well.
If you’ve missed it, a coalition of environmental groups and unions are running a television advertising campaign in support of the Government’s carbon price policy. The campaign uses a range of people from all walks of life who give their take on the policy and ask the public to support it, among them is actress Cate Blanchett and Mr Bonny Doon himself, Michael Caton.
It was only launched afternoon but strangly we woke up to all sorts of scary headlines in News Ltd papers yesterday morning before the first ad was even run.
Firstly, if another brain dead talking head on the news reports that ‘Gillard’ or the Government is being criticised for using celebrities to ‘sell’ its policy, I’m going to punch the nearest wall. Neither the PM or the Government have anything to do with the campaign so please stop giving that impression. It's coming across as quite a deliberate tactic.
The campaign is organised and financed by the Climate Institute which includes Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Climate Change Institute. Hardly surprising or groundbreaking that those groups might be in support of a carbon price policy.
Secondly, the hypocrisy involved in the scare campaign against the TV campaign is breathtaking. Because apparently Blanchett and Caton are the wrong kind of famous person. Apparently, they’re out of touch with the common people and shouldn’t be expressing their opinions because they’re rich.
Okay. So billionaire mining magnates are the right kind of rich and are entitled to have their say on an important issue. Because when they rallied against the super profits mining tax last year and spent millions on an advertising campaign to convince people it would be the end of the world, well, that was OK. That was all right.
One of the main hecklers whose views have been given undue prominence is Barnaby Joyce. His statements were splashed all over the front page and on the headline pieces saying that Blanchett was being ‘self-indulgent’ and that she shouldn’t be misusing her celebrity.
Right. So once again, some successful and well-off people are not allowed to express a view, but others like mining magnates and retail giants are. And all of this before Joyce admitted he actually hadn’t seen any of the ads when he made those statements.
The other person quoted liberally in the Sunday papers was Terri Kelleher of the Australian Families Association. Because of course, an Association that is vaguely famous for its campaigns against homosexuality and abortion must be a predominant source of wisdom on all things environmental.
Yes, I’m being drool. I admit there is a connection in that the carbon price policy will impact on families as the big polluters will probably choose to pass on their extra costs to consumers. But Ms Kellher and the Families Association haven’t spoken for me and my family on their previous campaigns and they certainly don’t here either.
In my view, doing something about climate change is the right thing for my children and my family. Because I certainly don’t think my grandkids in 2050 will be saying “thanks Grandad, it was great that you made sure you saved a couple of hundred bucks a year while allowing the poles to melt and the oceans to rise”.
Yes, I’m portraying quite demonstrably my thoughts and opinions on climate change. But please don’t take this as a strident argument about that or the carbon price policy. I’m not across the policy’s detail enough and haven’t formed a strong view either in support or defence.
But this post isn’t about climate change or the carbon price policy. It’s about the hypocrisy in opponents choosing to play the man, or in the case, the woman, rather than the ball.
Last time I checked, this is a free country. Everyone and anyone can have an opinion. And if they feel strongly enough to spend a million dollars on sharing it, then so be it.
EDM.
well said dobbs. I take my comfort in the fact that a complete policy vacuum has killed any power generation investment in the last 10 years. With that will soon come an extortionate increase in power costs as supply can't come close to matching demand.
ReplyDeleteEnd result thankfully - alternates are competitive soon anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some carbon action earlier because of the 'new economy' options it'll provide, but a democracy needs to be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. Currently our minority democracy is less 'robust european debate' and more 'lamb for dinner'.
BE (Mining) Hons
I think the advertising campaign was very misguided. It asks us to say "yes" to something that has already been taken out of our hands.
ReplyDeleteAnd while I agree with you that we should leave our planet in good shape for generations to come, no-one seems to have pointed out that this carbon tax will have zero impact on global warming.
I don't think any reasonable Aussie would have any difficulty paying a few hundred extra dollars, if it really made a difference, but this won't make any difference at all. And anyone who thinks that our competitors in the coal export business will follow suit is dreamin'.
The reality is that China and India are increasing their coal fired capacity at very fast rates (that's why the demand for thermal coal is so high) and we will continue to export coal to them while reducing our use of it at home. This makes absolutely no sense at all. The policy is bad policy and nothing can make it good.
Anonymous I respectfully disagree:
ReplyDelete1. 'zero impact on global warming' Moving to an emissions trading scheme (tax for the first few years) along with many other nations will slow the warming of the planet over time. All of the major polluters are acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. China, Japan and the USA either have or a planning ETS or carbon tax schemes, while the UK has committed to cutting their emissions by 50%.
2. Getting industry to pay for polluting is fair. Why shouldn't the biggest Australian polluters pay. This money would then be split between industry, families and renewable energy investment.
3. We need to implement a long term market based strategy to move toward a lower carbon economy and it does not come for free. There is a cost involved in moving to renewable energy and the lowest cost way is an ETS.
4. 'The policy is bad policy' both sides of politics agree on a reduction of 5% the only argument is over how to do it. Liberal policy involves letting industry pollute at will and the tax payer fitting the bill to offset their emissions. This is not cost effective. Ordinary Aussies would pick up the tab so that big industry don't have to reduce their emissions and can continue to make billion dollar profits.
Lets argue over the best way to do it not whether we should do anything.