SAY NO! to CARBON TAX AUSTRALIA. ELECTION NOW

GILLARD BREAKS ELECTION PROMISE

During the 2010 Election Labor's Julia Gillard and her deputy Wayne Swan made the promise that they would not introduce a carbon tax if elected to Government.

Gillard broke that promise in the last week of February 2011 and Australians are very disappointed and angry that once again they face the prospect of increased prices.

More importantly Australians have reacted angrily that they have been treated with such contempt and let down by the head of Australia - the Prime Minister. It is a tax that will hurt every single Australian: electricity bills alone for the average family will go up by over $300 a year. But the real cost will be far greater than just electricity prices. The price of everyday day items will increase as the costs on doing business – transport, production and so on – will rise. This is simply another grab for cash by a wasteful government that will do nothing to address climate change.

SIGN OUR PETITION AND HELP SEND CANBERRA A STRONG MESSAGE: AUSTRALIA CAN NOT AFFORD THIS TAX!

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_193063764071722&ap=1

10 top reasons why Carbon Tax is wrong and utterly pointless.....It is a green ideological tax for social engineering under the guise of dangerous climate change. It is unnecessary, ineffective, and hugely damaging to Australian families and our industry.....

1. Deceitful: Julia Gillard pledged before the election to not introduce a Carbon Tax. Our government must not be allowed to contemptuously disregard key pre-election pledges to not introduce contentious revolutionary schemes, if elections are to have any meaning.

2. Misleading: The Carbon Tax or Pollution Tax is a tax on a pure gas, carbon dioxide or CO2, not carbon soot or general pollution, as dishonestly implied by these terms. CO2 is not pollution and does not need to be reduced in the first place, it is a natural trace gas we all exhale and is needed by plants to grow, notwithstanding its greenhouse effect.

3. Unnecessary: Fear of dangerous Global Warming from man-made CO2 is dissipating with more recent scientific evidence and exposure of much bias, exaggeration of dangers and neglect of benefits of warming in existing scientific consensus. Any warming from CO2 is likely to be a harmless < 1 Deg Celsius by 2100. Higher predictions are only computer model speculations, arguably due to the modeller’s confessed ignorance of natural climate cycles.

4. Obsolete: Most big countries are retreating from carbon pricing and from the many ineffective and expensive green schemes. These schemes have not even achieved net CO2 reductions, nor created net green jobs or economic benefits as claimed by proponents (Spain, Germany, USA etc).

5. Isolated: Big emitter countries such as China, Japan and USA have decided against renewing the Kyoto Protocol or significantly cutting their CO2, despite greenwash projects. Australia’s isolated sacrifice is thus utterly pointless.

6. Worthless: Even if CO2 were dangerous and we reduced it successfully in Australia or even globally, there is no physical evidence that it would have a significantly beneficial effect on climate.

7. Ineffective: Economists predict that a carbon price in Australia will just move carbon emissions to the other countries with smaller or no carbon price, especially as we export ever more coal to be burned elsewhere, termed ‘carbon leak’; this is what happened in Europe under Kyoto protocol.

8. Disingenuous: If Greens really believed a Climate catastrophe was approaching, they would surely concede to the lesser evil of building more dams and more nuclear plants. In fact, theirs is a primarily political agenda.

9. Damaging: After Labor’s record of green and general disasters of insulation bats, solar rebates, cash for clunkers, green loans, BER, Hospitals and NBN, it is optimistic in the extreme to expect anything but a disaster to come out of the complex Carbon Tax.

10. Premature: Conversion to a self-sufficient, renewable energy based economy should happen as technological developments bring efficient solutions, not by forcing gigantic schemes using current inefficient technology with huge public subsidies.