The Carbon Tax is so bad, people are asking if this is treasonEmails are flying, submissions are flooding in. It’s a nation in uproar. The implications of what Henry Ergas wrote are setting off a wave of fear and anger. People are using words like “sickening”, “shocking” and describing Gillard’s actions as “vindictive” and a “treacherous spoiler”, and using the word treason. There’s a plea: “God help us!”
Here’s a few samples of what has been CC’d to me.
UPDATE: I should have added that I put the first email up to show just how deep the sense of betrayal runs. I don’t think Gillards actions represent a grand well thought out plot. This is scrabbling desperation to notch up a “success” (the country be damned). Even she advised Rudd to give up the ETS. A weak government is the most dangerous kind.——————————————————————————————-
Please drop everything and listen to this:
Professor Henry Ergas reveals the hidden deadly dangers in the Carbon Tax legislation to Alan Jones.
The vindictive implications for Australia are worse than horrendous.
The shameful and treacherous group (loosely described as the “government” of this country) should be thoroughly exposed as SPOILERS [snip cliche].
PLEASE BRING THIS TO EVERYONE’S ATTENTION!
The second response registers the telling impact this dynamite interview is having on ordinary Australians as they come to grips with the explosive revelations made in this interview. The reaction of people hearing this for the first time is bad enough, however once its insidious message filters through, it becomes overpowering in the utter sense of hopelessness it engenders. The Australian people are just now beginning to feel like the proverbial rabbit caught in the full headlight glare of what is being proposed in the parliament of our beloved country right now, and it is sickening: -———————————————————
Date: 20 September 2011 6:55:18 AM AEST
Subject: God help us all
This morning I listened again to the exchange between Professor Ergas and Alan Jones.
There can be no mistaking that what is being planned by Julia Gillard is both vengeful and completely treasonous.
Never before has a government legislated the deliberate and permanent destruction of its country’s economic future viability. There is NO other word than “treason” in the English to appropriately describe the intent of the Carbon Dioxide Tax legislation.
This woman, unable to accept that she is now the subject of ridicule and scorn from the majority of Australians appears to have become completely unhinged. So determined is she to punish this country and its people for daring to doubt and mock her, she is planning to the equivalent of a massive “Suicide Bomber” strike.
The Japanese used the word “Kamikaze” to describe its suicide bomber pilots during World War II.
Today, that word applies equally to Australia’s Prime Minister .. although her motives are infinitely more warped and seemingly of a revengeful, personal nature.
The legislative weapon of mass destruction that this red-haired mad woman intends to detonate in the heart of Australia’s parliament has been maliciously designed to destroy immediately, yet it has been constructed to deliver fallout with a deliberate and deadly radio-active half-life of forever!
God help us all as this evil and godless creature of communism seeks the worst for us all.
H/t Jeff Greenwood
Is this legislation unconstitutional?The blogger BarnabyisRight is calling the legislation “unconstitutional” and canvassing legal routes to seek a High Court injunction. It’s an interesting theme, with great potential to stop the whole Circus dead in it’s tracks.
UPDATE: Barnabyisright has popped in at #4 (and #5):
“Please consider adding your name (and relevant details) to the JSC submission at my blog. Given the debacle and resultant political embarrassment the Government has endured arising from having their Malaysia “Solution” smacked down in the High Court, I believe it is worth our giving them food for thought as to the possibility of having the Constitutionality of their so-called “Clean Energy” legislation likewise challenged in the High Court.
People are trying every angle under the sunThere is also a Petition to The Queen. We can only hope. (No I don’t like the chances but it’s a fair thing to ask).
Other examples of submissionsFrom Anton Lang about the “clean energy” details
The Joint Select Committee for The Clean Energy Bills,
Stuart Robert MHR,
With the ensuing passage of these Bills through the House and then The Senate, I was wondering if members in favour of these Bills might perhaps be able to bring Australians along with them by explaining how these Bills might facilitate the move to the current Clean Energy options of choice, Wind Power and the two versions of Solar Power, Solar Photovoltaic, and Concentrating Solar.
Perhaps they might be able to point out just one plant in existence on the whole of Planet Earth, or even a plant that is in planning that can produce the same electrical power for consumption that is currently being generated by one large scale coal fired power plant, of which there are many in existence here in Australia.
- Perhaps they might mention how much power will actually be generated for consumption by this one example of any Renewable Plant.
- Perhaps they might mention on what time frame a renewable plant of this nature might be delivering its power.
- Perhaps they might mention the cost of this equivalent Plant.
- Perhaps they might mention how long it will take to construct this plant from the planning stage to the power delivery stage.
- Perhaps they might mention how long a plant of this nature might last.
- Perhaps they might mention how much Government (taxpayers) money will be given to (a) the construction of this plant, and (b) the subsidising of the generated electricity to the grid in an effort to make it somehow competitive with current power generation from coal fired power.
- Perhaps they might mention how much the cost of retail electricity to all consumers will increase with the introduction of a renewable plant of this nature.
There’s really no point in addressing any of the 7 responses mentioned here, because there is no equivalent plant of this nature in existence anywhere in the World, and there is none planned or even contemplated in the near future.
The bills are against our wishes, and don’t make economic or scientific sense
To the persons responsible for the carbon tax bills, after a cursory reading of said bills please receive my submission as follows.
As an Australian citizen by birth, I, [insert your name and address] am deeply concerned that the proposed laws are unsound, unjustified, incomprehensible, or just plain wrong, particularly as:
- An overwhelming majority of Australian voters believed that there would be NO carbon tax (or anything similar) from either major political party at the last federal election.
- They are NOT based on real scientific evidence about climate changes, particularly any that maybe caused by human beings. See Note (*) below.
- The carbon-tax/ETS will have NO discernable impact on the climate, or the world’s temperature. See Note (#) below.
- There is NO economic benefit to Australians in increasing their cost of energy, particularly as we have an abundant, and relatively cheap, source of coal.
- There is NO definition of just what is ‘carbon pollution’, let alone what are the deleterious effects of it on anybody, or anything.
- Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant but an essential ingredient for all plant life, upon which all animal life rely for survival, omnivorously.
- The need for so-called ‘carbon polluters’ to buy emission-permits will see a massive transfer of Australia’s inherent wealth to other countries with NO benefit for Australians, nor the environment, nor humanity.
- There are NO details on how emission permits will be vouched, guaranteed, or otherwise proved, to be what they really are.
- NO future government will be able to change these laws easily to suit the prevailing conditions without a substantial expense to the Australian taxpayer. See Note (+) below.
- If there is really a need to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels then the proposed laws are NOT rational, NOT logical, and do NOT cover all aspects and users of all of those fuels.
[your name and address]
h/t Allan Cox and Peggy