After July 1, when the carbon price is in place, pensions are up, taxes are down and life goes on pretty much as usual for ordinary Australians, a very heavy onus will fall on the opposition to explain why it would cut pensions and increase taxes, if elected.

We’ve heard this before from the carbon tax proponents, the idea that everyone is going to be so happy with the changes, so no one will want big, bad Tony Abbott to reverse them. This ignores the fact that the winding back of “compensation” and tax cuts would go hand in hand with the axing of the carbon tax.

Only a certain percentage of revenue raised from the carbon tax would be put into compensation, with the rest thrown at renewables, carbon credits and the UN. Therefore, the population would be financially worse off overall. Hawke suggests that when Abbott fulfills his “pledge in blood”, people will be opposed to it, as more would be better off under the carbon dioxide tax. Such an outcome could only be achieved through a substantially uneven redistribution of money. While not the primary goal of this scheme, this example of social engineering is certainly an appealing aspect of this tax to its advocates.

It’s a Labor policy through and through: taking money from some to buy votes from others.

Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies totalling more than $US130 billion to citizens to invest in solar energy, according to Germany’s Ruhr University.

[...]Indeed, despite the massive investment, solar power accounts for only about 0.3 per cent of Germany’s total energy. This is one of the key reasons why Germans now pay the second-highest price for electricity in the developed world (exceeded only by Denmark, which aims to be the “world wind-energy champion”). Germans pay three times more than their American counterparts.

[...]Instead, the Germans simply allow other parts of the EU to emit more CO2. Germany’s solar panels have only made it cheaper for Portugal or Greece to use coal. Defenders of Germany’s solar subsidies also claim that they have helped to create “green jobs” but each job created by green-energy policies costs an average of $US175,000, considerably more than job creation elsewhere in the economy. And many “green jobs” are being exported to China, meaning that Europeans subsidise Chinese jobs, with no CO2 reductions.

While it doesn’t approach the $US130 billion that Germany has wasted on solar power, the Coalition’s direct action policy would spend $500 million over four years. This is just for solar panels. The total cost is $3.2 billion. Tony Abbott should dump this ridiculous policy. I suspect he would like to but fears the political fallback (as with industrial relations reform). I doubt very much that this would be significant. Anyone who is overly concerned with ”action” on reducing emissions is already voting Labor/Greens and for everyone else, it is not a major issue.

As I watched the video last Tuesday evening, news was just emerging  that  mining billionaire and Asia’s richest woman, Gina Rinehart, had  bought $192  million worth of shares in Fairfax (the publisher of  Brisbane Times, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and many regional   newspapers and city-based radio stations) to take  her share in the  company to about 12.6 per cent.

To me, these two events were intrinsically linked, and not just because Mr  Manners is a personal friend of Ms Rinehart’s.

And skeptics are the conspiracy theorists?

Once again, so? Do warmists not discuss ideas? Do some of these warmists not also have lots of money (though not quite as much)?

Monckton supporter and News Limited columnist  Andrew Bolt, (an “expert” along with Lord Monckton on the activist climate  sceptic group the Galileo  Movement) blew his dog whistle, sending a handful of his regular  lap dog commentators over to my blog to post insults, which I duly deleted.

Is he suggesting that Bolt instructed his readers to write vitriolic comments? If he’s trying to smear skeptics by highlighting some of the idiots, then perhaps he should look at the stuff warmists come up with. There are nuts on both sides, Graham.

Campaign group Get Up! was more than a little spooked at the  video. They republished it, adding some subtitles, and posted it on their YouTube  channel.

Spooked is right. What is wrong with someone establishing a new channel putting forth a different view? Afterall, we need something to counteract the bias of the ABC (which we still have to pay for).

In his response, Lord Monckton claimed he had previously revealed a  United  Nations plot to install a world government (he didn’t) and that  he had “parachuted” in to a UN climate conference (he didn’t do that  either, according  to a contact who was there and tells me he dropped in  to a beach three  kilometres away).

While Readfern has his fingers in his ears, the UN continues to discuss proposals that resemble such an entity (here, here and here). Also, when I see Readfern perform a similar stunt to express his views, then I’ll pay this dismissal of Monckton’s effort some respect.

Once Lord Monckton returns from the gates of hell to retrieve his Nobe (sic) Peace Prize,  perhaps Ms Rinehart, Ron Manners and the rest of  Monckton’s supporters  could then go off in search of some credibility, which is  irredeemably  tarnished by their association with him.

Only in the eyes of alarmists such as yourself, Graham. And this is the position the global warming movement is now in. When the science is letting you down, resort to smear tactics.

Harvey is the subject of a highly personalised attack by the Left-wing activist group Get Up and the environmental organisation Market for Change, which has decided to make some groovy little YouTube ads ripping off the “Go Harvey Go” commercials over the retailer’s promotion of Australian-made furniture.

There have been a lot of dumb campaigns launched over the years, but this one is hands-down the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Indeed, if our closest primates, the orang-utans, were able to talk, they would probably be shaking their heads in disbelief at the actions of Get Up in launching this juvenile and ludicrous assault on the only retailer that is discouraging the purchase of foreign-made furniture made with rainforest timber in countries that pay their workers bugger all and couldn’t give a damn about the environment.

…

It is urging a boycott of Harvey Norman, claiming the retailer stocks furniture made with timber from native Australian forests, which contributes to global warming and endangers the habitats of koalas and eagles.

Their claims are based on a total misrepresentation as to the amount of native forest being used to produce Aussie furniture, and a total misrepresentation as to the availability of plantation timber.

As The Australian reported this week, only about 6 per cent of Australia’s native forests are open to logging, not the 70-odd per cent fictitiously claimed by the rattier environmentalists.

According to that document, the 29-member group, known as the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination  (CEB), discussed bold ambitions that stretch for years beyond the Rio conclave  to consolidate a radical new global green economy, promote a spectrum of  sweeping new social policies and build an even more important role for U.N.  institutions “ to manage the process of globalization better.”

I advise reading the whole thing in full. It provides an interesting insight into the hidden agenda of the UN.

(h/t- Andy Semple)

THE Gillard government will be pressured by global aluminium giant Alcoa and Victoria to cut a better deal under the carbon tax for its struggling Point Henry aluminium smelter in Geelong as part of a broader assistance package to save 600 jobs at the plant.

Victoria will push the federal government to design an automotive-style bailout for the smelter, which Alcoa has placed under review amid a surging Australian dollar and collapsing metal prices, and ahead of the extra impost of the carbon tax from July 1.

Surely if the aim is to curb carbon dioxide emissions, then the closure of Alcoa is a desirable result, given the magnitude of its emissions. Even if so many unionised workers go out of a job, I mean, if we’re really in for all the doom and gloom that we keep hearing from the alarmists.

Mr Baillieu yesterday backed the Alcoa campaign for more generous treatment.

“The clear option, which is the standout at the moment, is (that) the compensation for the carbon tax in relation to the aluminium smelter is not adequate,” he said.

“The commonwealth have got to address it.”

This is pathetic by Baillieu. How about instead of trying to accommodate the carbon tax, he stand up for his state and fight against it. And he’s got another two Liberal premiers who should be standing with him, not to mention another one on the way in Queensland.

Julia Gillard has described as “disgusting” attempts by Tony Abbott to insert carbon tax concerns at the centre of Point Henry’s plight.

The queen of hyperbole at her best.

As with the car industry, Labor seems determined to appease the Greens with the carbon tax, yet is trying to bandage a wound that she has caused with this barrage of corporate welfare.

 In July last year, climate-denialist Christopher Monckton advised mining industry insiders to create a US-style Fox News channel in Australia, supported by the “super wealthy” in order to provide supportive coverage for the mining industry.

I have previously called for an Australian version of Fox News and would welcome such an idea. Fox News in the US started when one man saw an unexploited market in the media, which led to a conservative voice standing alone amongst the liberal bias present over there. The result: Rupert Murdoch’s channel now has the highest ratings of any American news network because people want to watch it.

The video, filmed in the boardrooms of pro-mining organisation Mannkal Economic Education Foundation, shows Mr Monckton offering to work with commentators such as Andrew Bolt to establish the channel.

Hissss. Andrew Bolt. Can’t have that, can we?

Sound like anything that’s happening at the moment? What happens to our media when it’s owned by vested interests?

And so there’s nothing wrong with the blatant left-wing bias by Fairfax and the reprehensible partisanship of the taxpayer-funded ABC?

GetUp has tried these shenanigans before (here and here), aimed at curbing free speech. Here is the bottom line: if people want to watch a TV channel or show, then they will. If they do not, then they will seek a voice which they find more agreeable, and the enterprise will die. The attempts at denying conservatives a greater say in the media, which we are crying out for, is detrimental to a free society. If you don’t like what is on TV, then don’t watch it.

In the video, which I am sure is supposed to spark rage, Monckton’s proposal received unanimous support amongst those evil, rich mining bastards. While I look forward to such a new media outlet, the left will surely kick up a fuss and try to shut out this conservative voice. We must stand up for our free speech.

[...]today’s machinery – almost exclusively powered by fossil fuels like coal and oil – does the same work that used to be done by slaves and servants. “Energy slaves” now do our laundry, cook our food, transport us, entertain us, and do most of the hard work needed for our survival.

Intriguing similarities between slavery and our current dependence on fossil-fuel-powered machines struck me: both perform roughly the same functions in society (doing the hard and dirty work that no one wants to do), both were considered for a long time to be acceptable by the majority and both came to be increasingly challenged as the harm they caused became more visible.

Mouhot at least maintains that electricity enthusiasts aren’t as reprehensible as slave owners.

Obviously, there are differences between the use of slaves and of fossil fuels. Fundamentally, slavery is a crime against humanity.

Actually, so would burning fossil fuels, if certain eco-nuts got their way. Also, I would have thought that the fundamental difference was the exploitation of another human being and the denial of freedom, a crime to which coal-burning does not even compare. Mouhot admits that “fossil fuel use is not a moral evil”, yet contradicts this.

Consumers of goods made by slaves or absentee plantation owners who lived in Britain in the 18th century also benefited from the slave system without maintaining direct connections to it. Those beneficiaries can certainly be said to have committed a morally comparable sort of human transgression to that of people who benefit from fossil fuels today.

So driving a car is comparable to buying goods produced through slave labour?

Pointing out the similarities between slavery and the use of fossil fuels can help us engage with the issue in a new way, and convince us to act, as no one envisages comfortably being compared with a slave-owner.

That’s good. Compare people with slave owners so they’ll stop driving, heating their homes and turning on their lights. If the greenies do go with this tactic, people will call out this offensive hyperbole rather than change their behaviour. Name-calling, like alarmism, doesn’t work. I would have though they would have learnt this by now.

And just when we thought that Mouhot could go through the article without dropping the c-bomb.

It should thus come as no surprise that there is so much resistance to climate science. Our societies, like slave-owning societies, have a vested interest in ignoring the scientific consensus.

Similarly, it should come as no surprise that warmists have a vested interest in ignoring empirical evidence.