Gillard faced an uncharacteristically critical and concerned audience by Q&A standards, probably reflecting the lack of people on either side of politics happy with this tax.
Gillard’s answers were her usual lawyer’s smooth sidestepping of questions, condescending platitudes and empty slogans. She cannot be tripped up, because, unlike Abbott, she never even contemplates answering the question, she merely chooses the closest applicable pre-vetted safe statement. Tony Jones asked her if she advised Rudd against the ETS, and several other difficult questions three times and when he received no answer, just moved on.
Julia Gillard’s empty slogans “because it’s the right thing to do” and “it’s time to get on with this; we are going to get this done” was used over and over.
The pre-recorded video questions were embarrassing, being nearly all sycophantic. One, from the Youth Climate Coalition or some such, was not even a question, just a congratulatory message.
The twitter ticker tape was also extremely biased for the tax – perhaps a concerted effort by Greens or ABC bias.
It was unfortunate that the debate now fully accepts the emotive and misleading terms of ‘carbon pollution’, ‘biggest polluters’ or the worst – ‘price on pollution’. Even critics of the tax now seem to use it.
Despite near absence of any substance in her answers, she still managed to state many falsehoods:
- Price of $32 per ton will drive biggest emitters to change to alternative energy – no economist or scientists argues this – you would need at least $80 per ton.
- There is an international effort with other countries taking serious and increasing action on carbon dioxide and Australia will be left behind – no, they are all backing away, Kyoto is dead, US states are pulling out of their ETS, Japan, China has no intentions, New Zealand is cutting back their scheme.
- This tax is necessary to avert climate catastrophe to our agriculture, sea levels, barrier reef etc – no, there is no evidence for ths happening, nor for the tax to influence it.
- China is reducing their Carbon emissions - no only their ‘intensity per GDP’ (even Tony Jones pulled her up on this)
- Biggest emitters may not pass on cost – they have no choice and that’s why the compensation.
- We will be fully compensated, even for Tax rises and when trading commences – well, not those who loose jobs, and anyway, as if this government or anybody can model the true cost of this complex tax.
- We need respect for scientists and I choose CSIRO scientists over Alan Jones – no, no! Gillard received the biggest applause for this untruth. I am not sure if the audience was overwhelmingly Alarmists (but disliked the tax) or if they were thinking of the alleged (but mostly untrue) reports of death threats.
- In any case, it is not CSIRO versus Alan Jones, it is CSIRO versus many independent respected scientists like: Christie, Spencer, Landsea, Singer, Pielke, Ball, Plimer, Michaels, Gray, Daly, Akasofu, Happer, DAleo, Segalstad, Theon, Soon, Frauenfield, Izrael, Allegre, McIntyre, McKitrick, Carter, Landsea and even Lomborg and Curry, to name a few scientists.
Many will no doubt applaud Ms Gillard for braving an audience and not tripping up. That is only because she has confidence in her mains strengths – ability to spin and evade questions. The Australian people are no longer fooled by them.
if we let Gillard get away with this lie (THERE WILL NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERMENT I LEED)we set a precedence for furture political parties such as the Communist Greens to lie before an election and once they’re in we can never get them out.
Carbon tax is a load of croc… its just another excuse to rip us off. if you wanted to acctually make a difference on our enviroment, you would encourage companies to reduce their carbon out put by rewarding them when they do, not punish the rest of us for relying on their products. your estimate of 2 out of 3 families not being worse off is mis leading… how much worse off is that 3rd family? is that mine? your prediction of an increase of $3.30 per week electricity and 80c per week on groceries is un realistic and demeaning, how stupid do you think we are? and if by some miracle yur right about the increased cost, where are we going to find that extra $213.60 per year? i dont have it! so where is it going to come from? get your head outa your backside, and listen. your carbon tax will not affect those that waste and abuse our resources and enviroment it will put those already struggling with inflation and intrest rates on the dam street. so when i cant afford my electricity or my groceries, are you going to keep me warm and fed?
She has become impossible to listen to with the lie upon lie and condescending attitude, not to mention the voice.
Hi Kellie,
How stupid do we think you are?…pretty stupid.
(probably why none of you can spell)
@Kellie,
Let’s have a look at your hypocrisy:
(1) ‘A reward system for cutting carbon works better than punitive measures such as a carbon tax’ – First, that statement implicitly acknowledges the necessity of dealing with climate change. Having accepted that climate change is an immediate problem that will have severe consequences, why would you so strongly oppose a carbon tax, that has the support of nearly all mainstream scientists and economists as the cheapest possible measure with the greatest efficacy? Second, even the most rudimentary understanding of economics should allow you to realise that a rewards system that would have a similar impact to the currently proposed carbon tax would have to be of a similar scale, and hence be of the exact same fiscal cost. Only difference: that money comes directly out of Govt. coffers, and subsequently out of increased taxes on you. Without market competition to mitigate some of that increased cost through competitive innovation and cost-cutting, every cent of it is directly from you. That’s why a carbon tax is cheaper.
(2) ‘Predictions of a 0.7% increase in cost of living are “un realistic [sic] and demeaning”‘ – I’m happy to take Treasury’s figures. If you’re not going to take the word of an impartial body employing some of the most qualified economists in Australia, I’d certainly like to meet your sources.
(3) ‘if by some miracle yur [sic] right about the increased cost, where are we going to find that extra $213.60 per year?’ – Let’s work on the assumption that you were listening to the policy announcement. There is a compensation package associated with the carbon tax. 9 out of 10 households will be compensated to some extend. 6 out of 10 will be fully or overly compensated. Those 4 out of 10 that aren’t fully compensated are the households that have been deemed by treasury to be able to cope with the increased cost. But even over and above immediate increased in costs of living: you yourself admit the necessity of dealing with climate change. I trust you therefore realise the immense costs associated with failing to do so. Rising sea levels, increased rates of extreme weather conditions, a dramatic reduction in land open to agriculture, degradation of biodiversity. Summed up, less production of food, less habitable land, less industries, less jobs, increased cost of living. Except by then, you can’t do much any more. Feel free to advocate the destruction of human kind if you wish, though.
(4) ‘your carbon tax will not affect those that waste and abuse our resources and enviroment [sic]‘ – Basic economics, again. Business = continuous endeavour to reduce costs in order to increase profits. Carbon tax = cost to pollute. Cost to pollute = incentive to reduce pollution. Incentive to reduce pollution = more green innovation, less unnecessary emissions, cleaner environment, better world for you, better world for future generations.
Yes? I’ve read the article …
Deniers of climate change must stop frothing at the mouth about this tax for a minute and actually look objectively at the weight of professional scientific opinion that supports action. It’s overwhelming. Compared to the introduction of the GST this is a tiny impost. Did life grind to a halt after the GST was introduced? No. So…we have a small sacrifice which should (according to a lot of economists) point us in the right direction versus no sacrifice which (according to a lot of scientists) will end in tears. I suggest that we treat this as an insurance policy and a small price to pay to safeguard our most important assets, be they farms, fisheries, forests or children.
I’m absolutely flabbergasted that anyone even bothered watching that lying fraud Gillard. You would have to be a brainless idiot!
Mz. Gillard; it is not CSIRO versus Alan Jones, it is CSIRO versus many independent respected scientists like: Christie, Spencer, Landsea, Singer, Pielke, Ball, Plimer, Michaels, Gray, Daly, Akasofu, Happer, DAleo, Segalstad, Theon, Soon, Frauenfield, Izrael, Allegre, McIntyre, McKitrick, Carter, Landsea and even Lomborg and Curry, to name a few!
*****Very good, credible sites to visit; http://www.galileo.movement.com.au and GlobalWarmingHoax.com [GOOGLE; debunking global warming]
Well said Harry!
Julia did very well and won over many people, I think.
The carbon tax is coming and it will be good to see the move away from big carbon pollution and exciting to see the new technologies come into operation. You can cry about it or you can get with the program!
The tweets on QandA were fantastic. A lot of the negative questions just came across as self interested winging and the tweets picked right to the core of it. Funny to watch!
Cheers!
Having trouble finding where chatities, community and sporting clubs etc. will receive any compensation
Why can’t lying Gillard just give a yes or no answer, to a simple, pertinent question?? Gillard always rambles on about anything else! Thus, dismissively, completely ignoring the very simple question!!! Then calling the question/questioner both stupid!
Could you please answer the following queries please:
Hi Some Real Economics,
You seem like a very smart person.
1…How do you refute the arguement that humans are only responsible for 3% of the carbon that is created worldwide?;
2…Is it true that of that Australia only contributes 0.001% of the 3%?;
3…Is their going to be a world wide price put on carbon in 2015?If yes and it is set at less than the price that we have set does that mean that money that is generated from the tax will then go overseas?If yes again how will that money be made up as the compensation will have been paid?;
4…Is it true that much of the compensation to industry and individuals runs out over the next few years? If yes what will happen to those industries/jobs then?;
5…Why aren’t the G8, G20 and the UN making everyone do a carbon tax if the science is so strong and it makes such good economic sense?;
6…How can it be cost neutral if it then costs four billion to implement?;
7…Is now a good time to be doing this when the world economy is weak? Wouldn’t it be better to do it in a couple of years when we have recovered from the Global Financial Crisis a bit more?
Regards, Barry
hows about we just tax every element in the periodic table, i mean at the very least we should tax oxygen, if oxygen wasn’t so reckless we wouldnt end up with all its byproducts that are so apparently deadly to life on earth, dont even get me started on hydrogen!
“some real economics” says
“Having accepted that climate change is an immediate problem that will have severe consequences.”
Who has accepted?
Harry Harris says evidence is “overwhelming”.
Well, why do I get the feeling that I am being bullied?
To “some real economics” (and Harry etc), is there ANY instance
in history where the the majority of the ruling (read academe) class
was right about anything?
LOL you think your worse off now!
she is a sneaky women all the media outlets seem to be forgetting julia’s last bit of her speech that the carbon price will be out of the governments hands after she brings in a ETS after 3 years. Emission trading scheme is what it stands for.
A central authority will control carbon price not the australian government!money will be sent oversea’s for carbon credits.You think the central authority is gonna care if the average aussie is struggling.
Here’s what people need to be asking?
Who is the central authority?
Who governs this central authority?
Why are Australians going to be paying tax to forgeiners who arent even in the country?
“Price of $32 per ton will drive biggest emitters to change to alternative energy – no economist or scientists argues this – you would need at least $80 per ton.”
Where is your citation? The idea that a certain price will suddenly cause a behaviour change is ludicrous, the higher the tax the more incentive to adopt low-pollution methods, simple as that.
“There is an international effort with other countries taking serious and increasing action on carbon dioxide and Australia will be left behind – no, they are all backing away, Kyoto is dead, US states are pulling out of their ETS, Japan, China has no intentions, New Zealand is cutting back their scheme.”
Absolute irresponsible nonsense. The climate talks are finally starting to make progress, New Zealand already has carbon tax, and China are investing far more in clean energy than Australia. DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS GARBAGE.
“This tax is necessary to avert climate catastrophe to our agriculture, sea levels, barrier reef etc – no, there is no evidence for ths happening, nor for the tax to influence it.”
Your statement is reckless. http://www.cleanerclimate.com/useful-information/what-is-climate-change
“Biggest emitters may not pass on cost – they have no choice and that’s why the compensation.”
Obviously they do have a choice of cleaner industrial practices, they just need an incentive which is the carbon price.
“We will be fully compensated, even for Tax rises and when trading commences – well, not those who loose jobs, and anyway, as if this government or anybody can model the true cost of this complex tax.”
So you’d rather pollute the planet because tax is complicated? When you change ANY policy some people will lose jobs, others will gain jobs, the percentages are small, get over it.
“it is not CSIRO versus Alan Jones, it is CSIRO versus many independent respected scientists like: Christie, Spencer, Landsea, Singer, Pielke, Ball, Plimer, Michaels, Gray, Daly, Akasofu, Happer, DAleo, Segalstad, Theon, Soon, Frauenfield, Izrael, Allegre, McIntyre, McKitrick, Carter, Landsea and even Lomborg and Curry, to name a few scientists.”
95% of climate scientists accept the evidence for man made global warming. Yes the remaining 5% does include over 25 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Julia Gillarad is a liar and sux balls
Mates, just remember polititians are always writing in their memoirs 20 yers down the track: “I wasn’t wrong, it was just a good decision for that moment.”
Congratulations ‘Some real economics’ a breath of common sense among the conspiracy theorists constantly looking over their shoulders and the narrow world view of the NIMBYs. It remains stagggering how many people will ask their neighbour for their view before they will ask a scientist or do some robust research. Lord Monkton and his ilk as well as the ‘scientists’ referred to above are to science as Homeopathy is to medicine. Rude, crude and unrefined. Appealing to those who will defer to an appealing opinion rather than a fact. The weight of evidence is in the corner of Climate change. We need to think Big Picture and plan for the future – not for the next tax return.
Administrator Comment, MichelC58: the ‘scientists above’ are extensively published well respected mostly climate or earth scientists, some were IPCC reviewers. Please, no argument by ad hominem.
The Prime Minister did not lie (that’s simply a furphy) – she changed her policy according to the circumstances. We voted for the Greens, and the honourable position is to adapt to this. The biggest fraud is to pretend that the experts are wrong, burying your head in the sand and believing shysters and flakes.
Ok Dr Music, whatever!…talk to the hand
Tony Abbott, July, 2009: “I suspect that a straight carbon tax or charge could be more transparent and easier to change if conditions change or our understanding of the science changes.”
How will the Gillard carbon tax provide the cost of renewables when the Melbourne institute zero carbon plan quotes 370 Billion dollars, for solar and wind sources, compare this to just replacing the latrobe vally brown coal plants at 1.1 billion dollars each to produce reliable electricity from Natural Gas this alone in the latrobe vally would reduce the emmissions of Australia’s carbon by 7% and this can move on to produce Hydrogen from the brown coal to reduce carbon in the same gas plants by 100% plus many skilled jobs and so on accross to all the black coal plants over time.
Instead we go for 500 wind turbines for each replaced coal power plant and 1 Billion dollars at Moree to produce one seventh of the power from one comparable gas or coal fired power plant.
Hydrogen from coal can be used in transport of all kinds plus power stations biomass gas also in these plants, yet grens and labour are all for the big cost items, all of which are now being made in China at 10 times less than the cost here(which means subsidising jobs here=more debt) so the “level playing field” will rob all local jobs.(carbon captured in this anerobic process used for carbon fibre technologies)
Our future depends on our debt repayments for very bad decisions it could depend on our new technologies that can compete with gas or coal over time without a carbon tax to level them up and lob us with debt and power supply problems.
One question remains for Gillard and Abbott who owns the Gas as no one wants to talk about this low cost alternative)to “solar and wind”"renewables”"green trees”+ bla Bla Bla..
Dear Barry,
[1…How do you refute the arguement that humans are only responsible for 3% of the carbon that is created worldwide?]
Nobody refutes that. Natural sources are most definately the main emitter of CO2, what do you think feeds the billions of plant species in the world? But there used to be a BALANCE of CO2 being emitted to the atmosphere and retransferred back to the earth before the industrial revolution. What is eating up the 23.5 Gigaton/year humans
are adding to that? 60% of this is being added to the atmosphere, not to mention the 5.6Gt/y extra that is not being absorbed due to deforestation etc.
[2…Is it true that of that Australia only contributes 0.001% of the 3%? ]
No, we emit 1.5%, yet we have only 0.32% of the world population. We are the largest per capita producer of CO2 emissions in the developed world.
[3…Is their going to be a world wide price put on carbon in 2015?If yes and it is set at less than the price that we have set does that mean that money that is generated from the tax will then go overseas?If yes again how will that money be made up as the compensation will have been paid?]
I believe one goal put forward is a global emissions trading scheme. Under which, every country would have targets they are supposed to meet, if they produce less emissions than the targets, they can sell their carbon credits to over-producers. Given point 2 above, we would be forking out unless we do something about it now.
[4…Is it true that much of the compensation to industry and individuals runs out over the next few years? If yes what will happen to those industries/jobs then?]
Companies know that the compensation is not infinite. Competitive forces will cause them to seek lower costs now. Australian Workers Union, the largest union in Australia, are satisfied that no-one will lose their jobs under the carbon tax.
[5…Why aren’t the G8, G20 and the UN making everyone do a carbon tax if the science is so strong and it makes such good economic sense?]
The UN are not a global government, each country has to pass their own legislation. But let’s look at the state of some of the G8 countries:
France – runs on 80% emission-free nuclear power (whether nuclear is great or not is another whole issue)
Germany – Committed to cut emission 40% (not the 5% we have) by 2020.
UK – shut down their coal industry in the 90s
Not to mention the Scandinavian countries that introduced carbon taxes in the 90′s. Lots of other countries are in better shape or doing more to combat climate change than we are.
[6…How can it be cost neutral if it then costs four billion to implement?]
That’s the cost to implement, not to run. Compensation starts from day one, income from tax gets collected later. That money has to come from somewhere.
[7…Is now a good time to be doing this when the world economy is weak? Wouldn’t it be better to do it in a couple of years when we have recovered from the Global Financial Crisis a bit more?]
It’s a domestic policy, and Australia has one of the strongest economies in the world right now. The longer we wait to implement a carbon reduction scheme the more expensive upfront it will become.
The day every last labor candidate takes a long look in the mirror and stop this partnership with the completely redundant and braindead indoctrinated losers over at the greens party will be the only day of true victory this country will have, hell i sometimes wish this was the USA so someone would put a bullet in bob browns head and julia gillards, and anyone that takes their place, on top of that the shithouse brainwashed sheep morons that this country is so apparently made up of need to pull it out and get a clue, how can they agree on even a scrap of labor policy, do they even know what it is?
Im dont have a great interest in politics nor am i the smartest person in the world, what i do see is numerous Australian manufacturers and businesses moving offshore for mostly economic reasons. If this situation escalates as i think it will do, where will that leave Australia???.
Shouldnt we be encouraging Australian businesses to stay in Australia and help Australia move forward, rather than sending money offshore and then letting such countries come back and start buying up our country.
There was so much that you can get from this Q & A. They really informed you on what is going on and what changes that need to be done. I hope to see these changes happen. Fundraising Toronto
[...] Julia Gillard on Carbon [dioxide] tax on Q&A [...]
[...] contrary to your normal Q&A audience. Body language reveals all. Perhaps this demonstrates the sheer weight of opposition to this plan. However, the tweets that were displayed on the screen were dominated by warmists with [...]