Julia Gillard won't rule out carbon tax advertising campaign

[mellie]

PRIME Minister Julia Gillard is not ruling out launching a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign to better sell her carbon tax.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said he suspects it is on the cards given Labor's recent slump in the polls - an apparent backlash to the proposed tax.

Ms Gillard, currently on a week-long visit of the United States, would neither confirm nor deny the move.

"Look, on government advertising, from time to time we advertise to get necessary information to people," she told ABC Television yesterday.

"I'm not going to rule in or rule out government advertising in the future."

Ms Gillard met for talks with US president Barack Obama earlier in the day and confirmed climate change was on the agenda.

She insisted Australia will go ahead on a carbon price, even if the US does not, potentially reducing the international trade market for emissions permits.

She insisted Australia will go ahead on a carbon price, even if the US does not, potentially reducing the international trade market for emissions permits.

"Australia and America are great mates, but we're not the same country," Ms Gillard said.

"America, is its own country, its own democratic institutions.

"What should we do, we should make a decision in our own national interest."

She noted that 32 countries already have emissions training schemes, along with 10 states in the US.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nation ... 6018058734

Meanwhile she's left the door open for Obama to expand US military presence here in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/gillard-kee ... 1bmo5.html

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

[mellie]

Yesterday, headlines read ..."Julia Gillard and Labor punished for carbon tax"...tomorrow we'll read headlines like "Gillard the punisher launches Carbon campaign funded by disgruntled tax-payers/dissidents" (75%+ of the Australian population).

Gillard should call a referendum if she wants to drag Australians by the scruff of the neck kicking and screaming into dangerous seas.

Here are 11 of many reasons why I think this Tax should not be imposed at this point in time.

1) She said she wouldn't introduce a carbon-tax under a government she lead 5 days before the 2010 election.
2) If Labor have no mandate to form government, they have no mandate to impose a tax of this magnitude.
3) The social cost of carbon (SCC) has not been defined, it's a bit of a mystery prize.
4) Labors "We will pass it now and tell you how we plan to reabsorb the revenue back into our economy later " just isn't acceptable, and sounds more like a " buy now, pay later" scam than a tax-scheme.
5) With the EU model Gillard proposes, regionally speaking we would be going it alone, a long long way from home if we put a price on carbon.
6) Lucrative Carbon off-set gift certificates don't grow on trees, ...(What's the difference between this and Rudd ETS?)This tax only focus on one of many environmental pollutants, toxins, gases.
7) Its industry discriminant, socially irresponsible and economically dangerous, thus is to my way of thinking, unconstitutional.
8) The global Scientific consensus for AGW action has dwindled since Rudds ETS Copenhagen failure , particularly in light of Wikileaks Climategate scandal.
9) Lacks benefit-cost analysis, are not treasury still waiting for the blue print?
10)There are better, less economically daring models like that of the Swiss we should be exploring if any, has Gillard not opted for the fast-track Obama action method, Obama himself failed to sell to his more educated states (all bar 9 states ), only managed to sell it to the poor.

11) And has Gillard established a sound carbon market as per treasury recommendation in order to succeed?

Research done at the University of East Anglia and Sweden's Lund University found that some offsets sold in Britain would take about 100 years to recapture the carbon emitted by a flight, the same Carbon Tax model Gillards proposing.
And to think, if we are expect to consider the warnings of climate scientists that we have 10 to 15 years or so to move on climate change then surely such a lead would render this offsets irrelevant, rather insignificant in the whole environmental scheme of things, yes?

[mantra]

If Gillard can explain how the revenue from the tax is going to be used - and it's a sensible plan, she has every right to advertise this tax. How many years of brainwashing ads did we put up with under Howard? They were neverending and exceeded a billion dollars.

What's good enough for the gander is good enough for the goose.

[mellie]

I love it when you ask climate change surrealists to point out the positives of a Carbon-tax, their Global Warming hypothesis aside.

They very rarely do.

[Viking King.]

If Gillard can explain how the revenue from the tax is going to be used - and it's a sensible plan, she has every right to advertise this tax. How many years of brainwashing ads did we put up with under Howard? They were neverending and exceeded a billion dollars.

What's good enough for the gander is good enough for the goose.

Fair go, in the lead up to the last election Abbott never once gave an answer to any question put to him about plans,
all he could do was follow the words of old Joe,
"You you you, I I I , well you know, don't you worry bout that"
and he is still like that.
Problem is we all want everything done yesterday, none of us want to pay tax to fund projects and then complain that it's all being done wrong.
Same as changing the tyre on the car, there are steps to take and time is involved.

[Sappho]

If Gillard can explain how the revenue from the tax is going to be used - and it's a sensible plan, she has every right to advertise this tax. How many years of brainwashing ads did we put up with under Howard? They were neverending and exceeded a billion dollars.

What's good enough for the gander is good enough for the goose.

Fair go, in the lead up to the last election Abbott never once gave an answer to any question put to him about plans...

Viking, that is the stupidest response ever. Just because Abbott was a dick when it came to disclosing his vision... or any kind of vision beyond vitriol for Labor, does not make it right and something that Gillard can repeat.

You Labor supporters are worse than fanatical footy fans, because even they will tell it how it is if their team does bad... but not Labor supporters... their team can never do wrong.

I'm right wing, and I'm saying without fear, that Abbott is a tosser and the reason I voted informal. He gave no vision just as Gillard gives no vision to the people now. The only difference in these two scenarios... Gillard is the Prime Minister and Abbott isn't.

WHEN WILL YOU LABOR SUPPORTERS START THINKING AND ASKING QUESTIONS OF YOUR PARTY OF PREFERENCE!
THAT PARTY TAKES ADVANTAGE OF YOUR APATHY.
THINK AND QUESTION PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

And damn it all... I want to know what is going to happen to the tax windfall? Is it to be redirected into eco R&D or just dumped into the overall budget so that Gillard can make good on at least one promise... the budget surplus... which would be a dishonest and manipulative honouring of a promise.

[Pastafarian]

Is it to be redirected into eco R&D or just dumped into the overall budget so that Gillard can make good on at least one promise... the budget surplus... which would be a dishonest and manipulative honouring of a promise.

Exactly, if its going to be dumped in a surplus, you may as well just increase income and business tax.

[IQS.RLOW]

Is it to be redirected into eco R&D or just dumped into the overall budget so that Gillard can make good on at least one promise... the budget surplus... which would be a dishonest and manipulative honouring of a promise.

Exactly, if its going to be dumped in a surplus, you may as well just increase income and business tax.

How about you filthy liebor scum keep your fucking hands out of our pockets to pay for your fucked up ideas?

I still can't believe you fucks actually vote for MORE taxes- dear fucking god

[Neferti]

Folk who vote GALP are brain dead.

[Pastafarian]

Is it to be redirected into eco R&D or just dumped into the overall budget so that Gillard can make good on at least one promise... the budget surplus... which would be a dishonest and manipulative honouring of a promise.

Exactly, if its going to be dumped in a surplus, you may as well just increase income and business tax.

How about you filthy liebor scum keep your fucking hands out of our pockets to pay for your fucked up ideas?

I still can't believe you fucks actually vote for MORE taxes- dear fucking god

Yes I suppose I didnt vote for the airport levy, the sugar levy or the East Timor levy.