Australian Trade and Industry Alliance targets 'world's biggest carbon tax' with tv ad blitz

Screen shot 2011-07-25 at 1.38.52 PM.jpgThe Australian Trade and Industry Alliance has launched a commercial targeting the Australian Government's proposed carbon tax.



ANDY said:

The agency that's waisting our $12 mil on wallpaper should take note better still

Anonymous said:


You sure won me over there, you and your huge intellect.

Anonymous said:

Is it now the prerogative of every industry group to lobby against government initiatives with a massive advertising campaign?

Mining, gambling, tobacco and now this? Shame on the lot of them.

Anonymous said:

I just waisted a fettucine with salmon, capers and broccolini. Honest!
It added 2 inches.

Bruce Loder said:

Peter Anderson,
Australian Trade and Industry Alliance.

Why Carbon Tax would be Irresponsible Governance
There are two widely accepted theories to explain the rise in the mean atmospheric temperature during the 20th Century, one that it was caused by increased solar activity and the other that increasing amounts of anthropogenic gases, principally carbon dioxide, produced by human activity were to blame. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concedes that both were responsible but has arbitrarily apportions contributions of 90% to the increased carbon dioxide content and 10% to increased solar activity.

In 2009 NASA astronomers forecast that a cyclical fall in solar activity would result in lower global temperatures for at least the succeeding decade. Its commencement was confirmed by scientists monitoring the temperature of the upper atmosphere when they reported a fall in temperature concurrent with the observed change in sunspot activity, a positive indication that since then the Earth has been absorbing less heat than it is radiating into space. As a result the upper northern latitudes have experienced extreme winters in the past two years and this winter has been the coldest in Australia for at least twenty years. The global temperature has fallen even though the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere has continued to rise, casting doubt on the theory that the greenhouse gases generated by human activity are a major cause for the temperature rise throughout the Twentieth Century.

The distribution of the temperature rises throughout the globe also questions the validity of the IPCC’s assertion that human activity is a major cause . The warming of the lower atmosphere during the Twentieth Century and indeed since the depths of the Little Ice Age in 1700 AD has been significant only in the upper northern latitudes where it has brought a welcome change in the local climate. There has been no change at the Equator and available evidence suggests that rises elsewhere have been minimal. These are the effects to be expected from an increase in solar activity whereas the effects from the greenhouse effect should be uniform all over the globe.

Although the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the greenhouse effect is well understood and based on scientific principles it has never been able to provide a scientifically sound and coherent basis for this assertion. The investigations on which the IPCC bases that claim were undertaken during the Eighteenth Century and none of them investigate the greenhouse effect which appears to have been developed by the IPCC since it was convened.

All available scientific and factual evidence supports variation in solar activity as being the dominant and overriding force causing global temperature change and it is apparent that human activities have little if any effect. When the moral objective of saving the globe is no longer relevant the imposition of a carbon tax would be irresponsible governance. It could only be perceived as sacrificing the Australian economy in a desperate bid to retain power at any cost.

Anonymous said:

That's a really boring ad.

Anonymous said:

who gives a flying eff about spelling mistakes. nothing to do with intellect. waist all you want. its about the gist, man

Groucho said:

Don't be too hard on Anonymous @ 5:54, he is clearly too dumb to understand that correct spelling ensures clear communication. No to mention indicates education, personal standards, and helps get a proper job. Keep sweeping pal.

Anonymous said:

Art director, 5:54/3:11? Thought so.

Anonymous said:

The Government ads give us pretty pictures and heart-warming words like "the future" and "our children", but no facts to back up any of the claims.

This ad, on the other hand, gives us a simple fact.

I suspect it's not the Government agency's fault; if they had facts, I'm sure they'd use them.

And that's the most damning thing that can be said for the proposed tax.

Caleb said:

I noticed your advertisement in todays West Australian. It looks dodgy.
Why 6.5 years?
Why compare to Europe instead of NZ, our closest neighbour who have had a carbon tax for 3 years?
Australia is also the highest per capita producer of emissions on the planet. You have failed to mention this.
If you are trying to change peoples perceptions of a carbon tax you need to acknowledge facts and present a better option. When you present a viable option you give people something better to focus on.
I support a carbon tax. I don't believe that the system being introduced is the best option but at least it's something. Please present a better option to consider.
We already have one completely incompetent fool saying no to everything - the mad monk.. Demonstrate that you are better and that the anti-carbon tax lobby can be positive.

Warren said:

What a misleading advertisement. There is not yet an implemented European carbon tax so what are you comparing Australia's projected carbon tax to? There is some fragmented carbon taxes in the eu region, so disclose your comparisons, a portion of Ireland carbon tax revenue in 2008 compared to aus for 2015?

Laurie said:

A number of European countries have had carbon trading schemes for many years now. Doesn't your add simply show that the longer we take to implement a carbon price, the more expensive it has to be to make a difference? If we delay again it will simply cost more to implement later on.

John Grono said:

Has anyone else done the sums on this ad?

$4.9bn over 6.5 years is $750m per annum.

'Europe' has a population of around 800 million people.

That means the collective governments have introduced a tax that collects UNDER ONE DOLLAR PER PERSON PER ANNUM. That wouldn't even cover the paperwork!

I've leave aside the $20+bn inconsistency in the basis of comparison for another day.

Maths Teacher said:

I'm as cranky as anyone that the 'government' is imposing a tax that JG was adamant she would not do ("There will be no carbon tax under the government that I lead"). Well, I guess she did not lie ..... the Greens are leading it......
All other arguments aside, I am against the tax for this reason alone. The government ads for the tax are wishy-washy and full of fluff – they are boring and do not tell me how in fact this tax will solve the problem, and indeed, they do not tell me what the ‘actual’ problem is (‘climate change’ is too broad).
My disappointment stems from the fact that an ad against the tax now becomes fodder for one of my classes this week!
Part of the junior secondary mathematics syllabus deals with misleading graphs. Unfortunately for the ATI, this ad now makes a topical resource for me in class as a misleading ad. It is misleading in a few ways (see other comments), but the big visual hit, the grey column, is much wider. This gives the impression of being a larger portion that should be.

The ATI credibility is now shot unfortunately for intelligent people, given the misleading ads.
ATI - 0
Government - 1 (by default)

Troy said:

@Caleb, The highest per capita figure you are quoting is a complete fallacy, because those figures include our exports.

In reality Australias per capita figures is about mid range.

Regardless, the main figure is Australias 1.4% of carbon emmissions, of which we want to reduce it by 5%. Meanwhile China plans to increase there emmissions by 497%!

Which means for all the costs and sacrifice we do, China will replace our 9 years of pain withen 1 month.

But the real argument is, by how much will our pain reduce the earths temperature?

Funny no one seems to be able to answer one.

Moira said:

This ad is completely untrue and unfounded. Australia's proposed carbon tax is actually considerably smaller than most other current carbon taxes. See this article for details:

Truthseeker said:

If Australia gave a damn about truth in advertising, every person with anything to do with this campaign of lies would be in prison right now.

MM said:

one of the funniest ads I've seen on TV for ages with its fake indignation.

Sirfire said:

It is clear that repetitive wording and scare tactics about charging majority foreign owned mining companies a carbon tax that is not working as Australians are more intelligent than that. It's not unAustralian or we are whingers about losing our jobs that is a typical scare mongering piece of unintelligent propaganda.

How about you give some real facts about what benefits to Australia? Such as the Australians "have a go mate" at alternative energy businesses and what the tax money will be used for in Australia in terms of jobs and a better future for Australia?

Pando said:

There's a hoarde of golden accountants circling like vultures, preparing to feed on Australian businesses through this tax. It's another way to siphon money out of businesses and to create black holes in company budgets. The tax should be causing Australians to revolt against a government using such a dishonest way of getting its paws on profits generated by workers for their companies and families. This accountant-generated idea is criminal.

Interested party said:

I am interested in knowing, when the Gov collects the tax , who do they pay it to

Sue said:

The Trade and Industry alliance could stop wasting money with untrue ads. We in Australia DO NOT have a Carbon Tax, it has not been passed through paliment. They could spend the money by investing in new and efficient ways of producing sustainable power and industry. Get in on the ground floor and show some initiative. I rememember the world was going to end and we were all going to be unemployed when comuterisation was introduced and look at the many millions employed in that industry. Wake up to yourselves. AND STOP TELL LIES!!!!!

mungo said:


Valerie Elly said:


The government'scarbon tax is based on erroneous science, find out more here -

Make sure every Australian visits my website to learn why we must stop the carbon tax forever ...



Amazing Scenes said:

If anyone goes to the government's OWN website, the National Pollutant Inventory and clicks on Substances and Thresholds, you will find under 'C' Carbon disulphide and Carbon monoxide but NO mention of Carbon dioxide. If the government's OWN website doesn't list CO2 as a pollutant (because it isn't!) why do the PM and her Ministers keep saying that it is?

Alan Ryan said:

Hello. Finland taxes carbon at $27.40 and they affect the world with co2 less than we do.
Also at best that would make us the second highest tax but I suspect there are even higher ones out there as soon as you figure out the complex equations.

Leave a comment