The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, following what the great Alan Jones has described as his “6-0, 6-0, 6-0 victory” over the director of the Australia Institute in a debate about the climate at the National Press Club in Canberra early this week, has today issued the following challenge to Malcolm Turnbull, the former leader of the Liberal/National Coalition, whom his party recycled last year for his naïve belief that “global warming” is some sort of “global crisis” –
Whereas one Malcolm Turnbull, Member of Parliament for Goldman Sachs, self-appointed leader of the Absolute Bankers’ Get-Rich-Quick, Gimme-the-Money, Subsidy-Junkies’, Profiteers’-of-Doom and Rent-Seekers’ Vested-Interest Coalition Against Hard-Working Taxpayers, has this day demonstrated wilful but indubitably profitable ignorance of elementary science by declaring that since all relevant matters of climatology are settled no one should pay any heed to a mere Peer of the Realm who dares to question the imagined (and imaginary) scientific “consensus” to the effect that unless the economies of the West are laid waste and destroyed we are all doomed;
And forasmuch as it is easy to identify the said Turnbull’s aircraft when it arrives at Canberra Airport because when the engines are turned off the whining carries on;
Now therefore I, The Right Honourable Christopher Walter, by the Grace of God and Letters Patent under the Hand and Seal of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (whom God preserve) Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, do by these presents challenge the said Absolute Banker to a Debate on live television, during which each party shall have the opportunity to state his case and to examine the other’s case, with a view to informing Hard-Working Taxpayers and allowing them to decide for themselves whether the truth is being told by me or by the said Member for Goldman Sachs, upon whom I call to take up this challenge, if he dares.
Given under my sign manual this twenty-second day of July in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eleven,
Please watch the following brilliant video, that some wise and alert Aussie soul has had professionally created.
Sums up perfectly the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, behind our government’s push for a carbon tax / ETS … aided and abetted since 2004 by The Goldman-churian Candidate, Malcolm Turnbull.
I apologise that I am unable to embed it here, so you will have to watch it after the jump – http://kzoo.co/VyQHed
The Transport Workers Union (TWU), appearing at the [Senate] inquiry on behalf of truck drivers, also claimed the carbon tax could “wipe out” profits of owner-operators, fleet operators and some trucking companies.
“The issue of whether it is a carbon tax, or any other cost impost on the industry that can’t be passed on is that people are sent to their deaths,” Mr Sheldon said.
“In the trucking industry there has been a history of incapacity … of being able to pass costs on, and what happens is that truck drivers and trucks get sweated, and when they get sweated, that’s what increases the death rates.
“A big hit like $150-$200 a week is a death tax.”
As of the time of writing this post (Friday evening), I have completed researching the identities, locations, and industry sectors of 742 of the 775 corporations listed in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) department’s Register of “polluters”.
So far, I count 76 companies in the trucking business, Australia-wide.
That’s a lot of “death taxed” truckies, Mr Sheldon.
Best you boys start fighting back.
UPDATE:
How timely. The truckers indeed are rising up in convoy.
Actually … lots of convoys:
Coalition of Industries supporting a vote of
‘NO CONFIDENCE’
in the Federal Government and sponsored by the National Road Freighters Association. Come one, come all, join the Convoy from your location, show your disapproval for the current Federal Government. The Convoy will start on the 17th of August and will arrive at Parliament House Canberra on the 22nd of August. Convoys will be on all major highways leading to Canberra, come in your truck, car, camper, caravan, bus or horse & cart, anything that moves, just join in!
Together we can force an Election!
And click here for full details of all the routes to Canberra that our beloved truckers – the folk who bring us our food, apart from anything else! – will be convoying along.
I was so amused and impressed by this insightful and eloquent rant from reader Fred in comments yesterday, that I’ve decided it deserves a wider airing.
Enjoy:
Oh Yeah! I heard Rob Oakeshot on ABC radio this morning! 702 I think it was. Thanks for reminding me; as I don’t mind a bit of tearing apart a stupid logical argument.
Rob went on about supporting the carbon tax and added that we need to trust the scientists on this matter, just as we need to, and often do, trust specialists like doctors or even an auto mechanic that are expert in their field.
Ahh, where to begin….
Firstly, on matters of grave irreversible importance you should not just trust your doctor. You should get a second opinion and possibly even a 3rd or 4th. And when the doctors opinions do not align, you’ve got to think carefully about the more invasive options espoused by some. And how many times has an auto-mechanic told me that I need to get some work done on the widget when it did not need it? Plenty.
Fail. There are plenty of second opinions on climate science and they ought to be sought.
Secondly, trusting your auto mechanic and even your doctor, and trusting climate scientists are not in the same league; with the impact of the former two limited pretty much to you and costing in the hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars. The impact of the latter, climate scientists, will costs billions if not trillions of dollars and will greatly affect families, nations and industries, probably irreversibly. Even if a doctors choice kills you, it would be bad, but on the whole, at the economic level, it’s small potatoes.
Fail. Your sense of when and how trust should be applied is warped.
Thirdly, doctors and mechanics are doing their stuff day after day. It’s a trade. They get good at it, they test, they can see the good results and not so good results and they can adjust, learn and improve. By the time you see them, most are very good at diagnosing and rectifying. Comparing that to the carbon tax, we’ve never done it, the subjects are vastly different scale, the impact good or bad (of an ETS) will be huge and possibly irreversible, and the boof-heads in charge may be incompetent or worse.
Fail. Medicine and mechanics are pretty well proved. Fixing climate problems, and possibly fabricated problems, with financial tools is not proved. So they can not be compared.
Fourthly, that Rob would stoop to such ridiculous analogies that even plodders like me can make him look stupid by tells me that he ain’t thinking too straight, or he’s a little too cute or desperate or bought. Either way; your fitness for office now stinks.
Rob, I thought you were an OK guy until today. I had no problems with your political choice and I was pleased to see you shake up the lower house a little. But based solely on your idiotic and insulting rhetoric today on an important topic; you’ve lost me.
Media Release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 18 July 2011 (emphasis in original):
This morning on ABC Newsradio Rob Oakeshott claimed that he had a “mandate” to support the carbon tax in Parliament.
“… I believe that the policy of an emissions trading scheme, as I have taken to the last two elections locally and been successful on and been given a mandate on, is the right policy for Australia and now is the right time to pursue it.”
Is this the same Rob Oakeshott who had this to say about the word “mandate” during his 17-minute speech to support a Labor government?
“This is not a mandate for any government. We should have a great big swear jar for the next three years and if anyone uses that word mandate they should have to chip in some money.”
While we are talking about mandates, what mandate did Rob have to support a Labor government?
Rob Oakeshott needs to explain himself to the people of Lyne. If it’s his policy he should defend it.
The member for Cowper, Luke Hartsuyker, has offered him the perfect opportunity, a debate in his local electorate.
Rob should explain his position to the people in his electorate not just the Canberra press gallery.
In the same interview Rob went on to complain about a newspaper that is run by some former Nationals staffers in his own electorate.
“There is a local newspaper here called the Port Paper which was set up by the press secretary of the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, you know the National Party and it is essentially now run by the National party. The editor is a former electorate staff member of the National party member for Cowper. So these are real issues that we need to look at not only at a community level, not only at a news limited level, but also why certain people are choosing to get involved in boards of, for example, Channel 10.”
Is Rob suggesting that some people should not be allowed to publish newspapers?
You are right Rob. It’s all just a huge clandestine plot. Every night we secretly rendezvous from all corners of Australia in Port Macquarie and talk into the wee hours of the morning about you (and where we are hiding the aliens in area 51) then we write editorials.
Under the Government’s proposed Carbon Pricing Mechanism around 500 facilities will become liable…
So which facilities are included in that list of 500? The government has released a Factsheet detailing the types of facilities that will be covered and their distribution by State, but no information on which private and public bodies will actually be responsible for paying the tax.
The page goes on to bore you to tears with information about criterion and so forth.
More interesting are the constant stream of weasel words and disclaimers concerning just how many “biggest polluters” there actually are. And, why there are no substantial details provided about them (emphasis added) –
… the legislation includes caveats to protect the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information…
For these reasons, the NGER data is not an accurate reflection of a company’s greenhouse gas emissions…
Nonetheless, and although imperfect, the NGER data is the only public information that provides any indication as to which companies may be liable under the proposed Carbon Pricing Mechanism. Bearing in mind the limitations of the data as just detailed, below is the latest NGER list, ordered by decreasing scope 1 emissions.
Just so we’re clear then, the information from the NGER is “not an accurate reflection” and is “imperfect”, but nonetheless it is “the only public information that provides any indication” as to who exactly the alleged “500 biggest polluters” might be.
Moving on then … voila! … a nice, long, impressive looking table is displayed.
Showing NGER Registered corporation names.
And their last self-monitored and self-reported Scope 1, Scope 2, and Combined Scope 1 & 2 emissions totals.
But.
The list is (conveniently) not numbered. So, you simply don’t know how many companies are actually listed there, unless you’re prepared to count.
It sure looks impressive though. Which I guess is the whole point.
Well dear reader, I’ve recreated their list. And numbered it, for your viewing displeasure.
I’ve also taken the liberty of highlighting a few of these evil “biggest polluters”.
Perhaps those readers who
(a) like to eat,
(b) like to drink,
(c) like to bathe,
(d) like renewable energy,
(e) like recycling,
(f) like public transport,
(g) like health services and hospitals,
(h) like the CSIRO, and/or
(i) like attending university,
… will find food for thought in this list of “biggest polluters”.
Oh.
Just one more thing.
Before you read the list, first take a moment to consider carefully how the government has described the “500 biggest polluters” on its new cleanenergyfuture.gov.au website (emphasis added):
Most are companies operating large facilities (with over 25,000 tonnes annual CO2-e emissions) that directly emit greenhouse gases, such as power stations, mines and heavy industry.
Got that?
The government’s official claim is that “most“ of the “biggest polluters” are “direct” emitters, such as “power stations, mines, and heavy industry”.
Frequency Infrastructure Australia Holdings Pty Ltd
ElectraNet Pty Ltd
IBM A/NZ Holdings Pty Limited
Port Waratah Coal Services Limited
Amalgamated Holdings Limited
Vodafone Hutchison Australia Pty Ltd
Global Switch Australia Pty Limited
Oh … you noticed.
Yes, that is only 299 “biggest polluters”.
With an enormous leap of faith, one might assume that the Government will find the other 201 “biggest polluters” from amongst the remaining 476 (of a grand total 775) corporations listed in the complete NGER Register.
Of course, to do so would mean that they would be including even more evil “polluting” corporations like some of those highlighted above.
Like …
The universities.
All of them.
The Royal Flying Doctor Service.
The Royal Children’s Hospital.
The Alfred teaching hospital.
The Melbourne Cricket Club.
Really, really evil “biggest polluters” like that.
From the Newcastle Herald, 16 July 2011 (emphasis added):
Key industries in the Hunter say they face uncertainty under the government’s carbon tax, despite the significant financial support to be provided to some.
The Hunter’s mining and aluminium industries, both major employers, say the tax will reduce their competitiveness internationally.
The Hunter provides one-third of Australia’s aluminium and production is expected to double in the next 10 years, but the industry says the tax will force a lot of it overseas.
The coalmining industry is still warning of job losses in regions such as the Hunter despite the government’s $1.3 billion support.
Regular readers will know that I have already pointed out the gaping holes … lies … in the Government’s scheme scam.
The handing out of “freely allocated” carbon permits to “trade-exposed” industries in particular is a classic example of why I have been right all along in insisting that this scam is not “a tax” … or “like a tax” … but is a sneakily disguised emissions trading scheme from Day 1.
Why?
Because while “purchased” carbon permits are not tradable in the initial 3 year “fixed price period” … “freely allocated” permits are –
Which they can either “surrender” back again to “pay” for their “excess” emissions.
Or, trade their free permits (for profit).
Or, sell their free permits back to the Government … who will use your money to buy those free permits back again:
Buy‑back of freely allocated permits
The holders of freely allocated permitswill be able to sell them to the Government from 1 September of the compliance year in which they were issued until 1 February of the following compliance year.
The latest NGER Report on “biggest polluters” emissions shows that just one of the Hunter’s alumium producers – Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri – emitted 366,598 tonnes of Scope 1 emissions, and 2.509 million tonnes of Scope 2 emissions in the most recent voluntary reporting period (2009-10).
So, with a carbon dioxide price set at $23 per tonne, and the Government planning to give Hydro Aluminium free carbon permits covering 94.5% of their emissions … well, you can do the math.
Sounds like an awful lot of free carbon dioxide “money” to me.
Because the Government’s claims about the “500 biggest polluters”, are misleading and deceptive in the extreme.
Especially so, when the Government is counting (eg) universities, hospitals, area health care services, Snowy Hydro Limited, Arnott’s Biscuits, Bega Cheese, Heinz Watties, McCain Foods, Nippon Meat Packers, the Big Four banks, The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q), local councils, government-owned water utilities, public transport corporations, the NSW Forestry Commission, and more unlikely candidates, in order to come up with as big a headline number of so-called “biggest polluters” as possible.
It appears that in the Brown-Gillard weltanschauung, everyone is a “biggest polluter”.
Which is understandable, when you want a big round number to fear-monger about on the telly (“1000 biggest” … oops, make that “500 biggest”).
I’m collating all the NGER data (and, researching all the missing data) in order to confirm – in detail – that the “around” this and “estimated” that plethora of claims made on the Government’s “500 biggest polluting companies” webpage – claims that are allegedly based on the NGER data – are simply more lies.
Senator Joyce writes for the Canberra Times (my emphasis added):
Are you sick of it yet? It’s only just started. The carbon tax legislation has not even been introduced.
Why does it have so much resonance? Why has it managed to do something that so many issues don’t manage to do? That is, that cherished political attribute where the vast majority have an opinion on it and are not afraid to express it. They either love it or they hate it.
Politics at times can be a peculiar art form. As I have said it’s thixotropic. You believe something is solid until it is shaken up and dissipates through your hands leaving the policy gel to drip between your fingers. It has The Bad Touch, as the Bloodhound Gang would say, yes it’s getting two thumbs up.
The Labor Party spent years telling me how to vote on issues when they thought my vote would be crucial and to be fair I crossed the floor 28 times. I know for an absolute fact, having just returned from the Hunter Valley, that there are at least three Labor members there who are not representing the views of their constituents.
Sharon Grierson in Newcastle, Joel Fitzgibbon in Hunter, and Greg Combet in Charlton are in seats that do not want a carbon tax. It is not sort of ”don’t want it”, we are talking ”red-hot rejection”.
So if they are people of honour, who put their electorate first and foremost, who are strong enough to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and take arms against a sea of troubles, they should stop this tax. The torture of Hamlet I have been there, ably counselled by Labor Party promoters and their agents. Sometimes they were dead right. If I was in a coal seat, knowing that a policy had been co-written by a person who has said quite adamantly the coal industry should be closed down, and I was elected on a promise not to introduce a carbon tax, I think the only honourable thing would be to oppose a carbon tax.
This same policy is also just going to put up the price of power on top of the 50 per cent that electricity prices have increased in the past three years. The end result of this is that the temperature of the globe doesn’t change, our domestic emissions go up, according to the Treasury modelling, and we send more than $3billion a year overseas to buy carbon credits abroad.
It is tough to cross the floor against your party but why else are you in politics but to represent the views of your electorate? Take it from me, you get used to having dinner on your own and your mates in Canberra will get over it eventually.
See it is not just Julia Gillard that has failed to tell the truth on this one, it is everyone who was the benefactor of that promise given. Every Labor member that was elected at the last election did so on a platform against a carbon tax. It is quite obviously a major promise that they should honour and do everything in their power to honour that promise in how they act.
When you don’t honour your promises it doesn’t just make a fool of you, and the Prime Minister in this case, it makes a fool of everybody because the people in your electorate know that what you say is meaningless.
In Canberra, Andrew Leigh, Gai Brodtmann and Senator Lundy all won their seats with a policy commitment that they would not introduce a carbon tax. Not one of them said I am putting a caveat on that because I might introduce a carbon tax. Each one of them is as responsible for their actions as Gillard.
What is the purpose of listening to an election speech if it is completely and utterly without honour? How are you going to hold the other side to account when you let your own side deceive? You don’t have to believe in the philosophy of the commitment but you should believe in the principle that a person should honour the key commitments they make when they are endorsed by the electorate. That is the essence of what a democracy is about.
The Opposition beginning to highlight the real purpose behind the global push for trading “hot air”.
The enrichment … and further empowerment … of the global bankster class –
Note that well:
But one of the things that I really want to draw people’s attention to today is the fact that we are learning more and more about just how much money is going to go overseas under this tax. It was obvious on Sunday that in 2020 more than $3 billion was going to go overseas to foreign carbon traders to meet the Government’s emissions abatement targets but if you go out just 40 years to 2050, no less than $57 billion of Australian money is going to go overseas to line the pockets of foreign carbon traders. Within a relatively short time, more than one per cent of Australia’s GDP is going to go overseas to line the pockets of foreign carbon traders. Now, all of us want to help the environment but a get-rich-quick scheme for foreign carbon traders is not the kind of environmental assistance that Australians want. So, I just think that as each day goes past and more details of the Government’s carbon tax package become apparent the less the Australian public like it.
I hope that readers will forgive me a little moment of fantasy. A small, petty indulgence.
In my imagining the teensy possibility that my discussion with Senator Joyce just 2 weeks ago may have just a weensy bit of influence on this small shift of emphasis, in the campaign against the carbon “X” scheme scam.
I met Senator Joyce for the first time on July 1, at the Martin Place No Carbon Tax rally. Despite the pressures of so many wishing to speak with him – as you can imagine – he was gracious enough to make time available to speak with me about several concerns.
The chief of those concerns relates to my view that regular readers will be familiar with.
That is, my firm view – now confirmed by the evidence of the final package – that this carbon “X” scam is and always has been a scam designed solely to benefit bankers, from Day 1.
And therefore, it has also been my view that there is great opportunity for the Opposition to take advantage of Julia’s recent to-ing and fro-ing over whether the scheme is really a “tax”, “like a tax”, or … “an emissions trading scheme”.
How?
By emphasising the simple, demonstrable fact that an ETS only benefits the banksters, and speculators.
Why do I believe it is so important to emphasise the bankster connection?
The reason is this.
While calling the scheme a “tax” has been very effective to date, in appealing to those of a conservative mindset – who in my view are generally predisposed to an ideology of lower taxes – I do not believe it is the most effective strategy for appealing to those of a more so-called “progressive” mindset.
It is my experience that “progressives” are not necessarily predisposed against bigger taxes – provided they can be convinced that it is in “a good cause”.
That is exactly how The Final Solution to global warming – the Great Global Carbon Trading Scam – has been sold to those of a “progressive” bent.
That it is “a tax” … or “like a tax” … that is “the best way” to “save the planet”.
A Robin Hood scheme, that takes from the rich, and gives to the poor, saving the planet in the process.
And so-called “progressives” have lapped this lie up.
It is also my experience that, in Australia at least, pretty much everyone … hates banks.
And it is my observation that so-called “progressives” are often their most fervent opponents.
In my discussion with Senator Joyce, I put this argument forward, and whilst congratulating him on his own frequent mentions of “bankers making fees and commissions from pushing bits of paper around”, impressed on Senator Joyce my view that the Coalition should raise the emphasis on the role of banksters in the Government’s planned scheme.
I explained my view that the polls clearly show those of a “conservative” bent are now very firmly against this scheme, irrespective of what title is given.
And that I firmly believe a significant raising of emphasis on the galactic-scale profit-making opportunity that the Scheme scam represents for global banksters – who are driving the push for global “hot air” trading – may be the best way to now begin appealing to “progressives” and the “undecided”. Using a touchstone for nearly all Aussies, conservative or progressive.
Hatred of banks.
I also suggested my view to Senator Joyce, that the Opposition should begin to do so only after a suitable interlude from the day of our discussion, being the day after Julia’s first backflip on what this scheme really is, a “tax” or an “ETS” .
An interlude of a week or two.
And here we are.
Exactly 2 weeks later.
Pure coincidence, I am sure.
But I do trust readers will understand my choosing to enjoy a little moment of vanity indulgence, on seeing the above statements by Tony Abbott yesterday 😉
Please do spread the word, to all you know.
That our Green-Labor-Independent government’s scheme, is nothing more than a global bankster scam.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Barnaby Is Right 
Comments