Image by MystifyMe Concert Photography™ via Flickr
After seeing some of the recent TV propaganda show Q&A, where the questions were all approved beforehand, if not actually written by the ‘carbon tax’ team, I am in a very critical frame of mind. This, together with an ‘on-side’ audience which applauded Julia continuously, is low politics. They even clapped when Julia said the carbon tax was necessary because the planet is still warming. Perhaps not true?
Who funded the excercise? Taxpayers?
Now I come to the latest attempt to support the argument that the carbon tax is appropriate and correct.
“JULIA Gillard has seized on a $4.7 billion coal takeover bid as proof of the industry’s ongoing viability as it emerged Tony Abbott repeatedly questioned the purchasing company’s prospects under a carbon tax. ”
Would Julia please explain why a business investment interest in continued “pollution” can make sense unless the industry plans to continue to pollute? Why does Julia think this is a good thing?
If interest in coal production was waning, that would mean that polluting is not a successful future industry, and that the ‘carbon emission reduction’ policy is working . But No! Julia spins the web of deceit larger and wider.
OR does this mean that the industry expects to be making more money from the tax-payer rebates, IMF or whoever, by being paid not to pollute? Another gravy train, perhaps?
Our government has sunken to an all-time low, IMHO.
Related articles
- Australia Implements Carbon Tax Scam (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
- Would you buy a carbon tax from this woman? (noplaceforsheep.com)
- BERSIH and Carbon Tax (godsmustardseed.com)
- Australia’s carbon tax – Hysteria and hype (pdalbury.wordpress.com)
- Abbott challenges PM to carbon tax debate (news.theage.com.au)
- The Carbon Tax: It’ll Cost An Extra $172 To Power Your Gadgets (gizmodo.com.au)
- Australia to tax carbon polluters (sayou.wordpress.com)
- Tumbling Stocks, Protests Greet Australia’s Carbon Tax (reason.com)
- Qantas sees $122m carbon tax cost (bbc.co.uk)
The GOLDEN RULE 
Hi Ken, we at the Carbon Tax Myth completely agree with you. The recent appearances by the PM on shows such as Q&A do seem like propaganda and are not thoroughly addressing the issue at hand that the carbon tax will not do anything at all in changing the environmental impact that large industries are deemed to be contributing to. Instead all that will happen is that ordinary working families will have to pay an additional cost on top of their already large bills, and judging by the response of consumers after their last electricity bill we can already see a sense of disillusion becoming apparent in Australian society.
Hi Ken, we could not agree more with point you make in the following statement:
“JULIA Gillard has seized on a $4.7 billion coal takeover bid as proof of the industry’s ongoing viability as it emerged Tony Abbott repeatedly questioned the purchasing company’s prospects under a carbon tax. Would Julia please explain why a business investment interest in continued “pollution” can make sense unless the industry plans to continue to pollute? Why does Julia think this is a good thing? If interest in coal production was waning, that would mean that polluting is not a successful future industry, and that the ‘carbon emission reduction’ policy is working . But No! Julia spins the web of deceit larger and wider.”
Why would a business take over another if it was not experiencing difficulties in making revenue and profits? It would be like throwing money in the bin. Thus, Julia Gillard has made another mistake by suggesting a $4.7 billion dollar coal company takeover bid shows there is viability in the industry because if there was viability companies, who are actually struggling, wouldn’t be being bought by others.