Monday, May 30, 2011

News Limited doesn't like ads made by millionaires

If they are about climate change

Michael Caton is seething inside his two bedroom Sydney flat.

“I have a gas heater and two fans - that is me,” he told the Herald after reading the pro carbon tax advertisement in which he features rubbished because it also features a multi-millionaire, the more famous actress Cate Blanchett.

Like Blanchett, the star of the The Castle and Packed to the Rafters agreed to front the ads for free. They will air for a week as part of campaign that cost a coalition of groups including the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Council of Trades Unions around one million dollars.

“I did it because I think Australia can make a difference. We were the first to give women the vote, we were the first to come up with the conciliation and arbitration commission, we developed the cochlear ear implant, but we’ve been becoming timid.”

“And look what happened. Cate Blanchett appears in an ad and gets her head kicked for being a rich bitch.”

“Can I be ironic? Cate Blanchett is in favour of the carbon tax because she is rich... Malcolm Turnbull is in favour of an emissions trading scheme because he is rich, Kevin Rudd is in favour of one because he has a rich wife - it’s a conspiracy. Apparently rich people aren’t entitled to express a view unless they are billionaires complaining about a mining tax.”

News Limited papers yesterday attacked Ms Blanchett for self indulgently campaigning for a tax she would find it easy to pay.

Coalition Senator Barnaby Joyce yesterday backed away from quoted remarks attacking Ms Blanchett saying he hadn’t seen the ad when he was asked for his opinion and now thought the only problem with it was that it was not labelled political advertising.

Ms Blanchett is overseas and did not want to comment.

Mr Caton said he wasn’t in her league financially and would probably would feel the tax. “I’m doing well at the moment but actors have ups and downs. I’ve been a bouncer, a nightwatchman, I’ve worked at a carwash, before The Castle came along I was painting houses. Electricity prices are going up anyway. If this helps it’ll worth the extra cost.”

Another participant in the advertisement, Ryde mother of three Lilia Bazzi says she agreed to take part because she became enraged by radio shock jocks while at home caring for her 21 month old daughter.

“It was angry fearful rhetoric playing on people's fears, and I’m sitting at home thinking these people don’t care about our kids,” she told the Herald.

“I come from Sydney’s south west. I am not rich enough not to feel the carbon tax, but I know it’s important.”

As part of the campaign 140 Australian leaders and community groups have signed an open letter published today pledging their support for a carbon tax.

Published in today's SMH and Age

Tom Arup in The National Times: Who knew Cate Blanchett was so wicked?





Related Posts

. They do things differently at NewsCorp

. A commenter asks about Murdoch newspapers

. Carbon tax. "We'll be rooned" What crap.


13 comments:

V said...

This is a case of do as I say not as I do. Kevin 747 has emitted more CO2 this year than many families would in 10, yet it is the ordinary family who will pay as consumer items become more expensive. After all K747 can shift his expenses onto the taxpayer and Blanchett will still lead a luxury high energy, thus carbon dioxide producing lifestyle, paid for via increased cost of seeing a movie.

Think Big said...

You know the anti-carbon-price spam-squad have no real arguments when they start attacking people's lifestyles.
They attack Cate Blanchett because she is rich but are completely silent on Gina Rinehart who is a hundred times richer.
Gina doesn't want to pay the price even though she can well afford it and buys shares in a TV station to promore her views to gullible idiots.

TKYC said...

V...
You know of Ms. Blanchett's lifestyle personally? Seen how many lights on in her house? How the heater gets a work-out in Winter?
I think not.
People can always live an eco-concious life, regardless of income / social status.
Unless you have some links / evidence, you are wasting time.

Anonymous said...

Interesting there has been a lot of playing the man and not of the ball from the anti-carbon tax side.

But as for the ads themselves, they don't have much of a punch to them. It reminds me a little bit of the pro-republic campaign; big on names, light on substance.

The Lorax said...

We are all hypocrites when it comes to this issue.

Cate is a hypocrite (How often does she fly across the Pacific?).
I'm a hypocrite (I enjoy overseas holidays as much as the next person).
Peter Martin is a hypocrite (he advocates action on climate change while applauding Australia's transformation into a giant coal mine).

Indeed Australia conveniently ignores the hypocrisy of getting rich from coal exports while lecturing others (Rudd at Copenhagen) on the need to cut carbon emissions.

Gina OTOH, is just plain self-interested.

V said...

@Tkyc

Oh so she rows or sails across the globe to Hollywood and other destinations does she!?
Changing a few lightbulbs isn't going to make up for that kind of travel intensive lifestyle. The reality is the movie industry is highly energy intensive, see the reality of the logistics required for the average movie production. I'm not saying we shouldn't have these industries, but the idea of putting a tax on CO2 as some sort of panacea is ludicrous.

The reality is this tax will affect those who struggle with cost of living as it is while doing absolutely nothing measurable to affect the climate. The notion that it somehow will is so full of conceit I wonder if you are capable of reason.

Bobalot said...

@ V

What you fail to comprehend is that, middle and lower income people will be compensated.

Instead of playing the man and not the argument (a tactic used by children and poor debaters), why don't you outline some technical problems with the tax?

Salient Green said...

The argument that Cate is being hypocritical because she has an energy intensive lifestyle is nonsense for several reasons.
In the first place, the argument is about CO2 emissions, not energy use.
We know she has a large solar array and for all those nasty detractors know she may well be offsetting her travel emissions.
If not, she will be paying more tax than most others, a tax she is in favour of.
There is also the fact that we ALL need to bear the cost of reducing emissions, together, according to our means. There is no point in Cate Blanchet adopting a low emissions lifestyle so that 'V' above and his mates can then go out and buy plasma TV's.

V said...

@bobalot

If low income ppl are being compensated the whole point of the tax, ie to change behavior will be nullified.

Peter Martin said...

Pull the other one V.

If the price of electricity goes up and I get a cheque, I'd feel an incentive to avoid the impact of the higher electricity price and bank the cheque. Wouldn't you?

Anonymous said...

@v

the purpose of any payments to low income earners is to address any distributional effects of the tax (i.e. food and power bills make up a larger proportion of a low income households expenses).

Low income households will still pay the same price for products attracting the carbon tax, and will still have incentive to adjust their spending patterns.

Bobalot said...

@ V

You fail to comprehend the purpose of the tax, and you confirm everybody's suspicion that you are an economic illiterate.

It's simple. Here's an example.

Bob = Low to Middle income earner.

Product A = Carbon Intensive Product = $30

Product B = Less Carbon Intensive Product = $32

Carbon Tax adds $5 to Product A. Government gives $5 back to Bob.

Bob has the choice of still buying Product A for $35 and he is no worse off, OR he could buy the less carbon intensive product and save $3.

The tax works buy shifting the price of carbon intensive goods and giving the money back to consumers. If consumers want, they can still buy the carbon intensive product or they can buy the less carbon intensive product and save money.

V said...

@Bobalot

You are assuming the carbon intensiveness of products is freely known to the market in the simplified example given. Also that there are substitutes available, I am suggesting it is not as simple as that. The length of the required legislation and lobbying for exemptions will tell you this.

@Salient
But we need our plasmas how else are we supposed to watch DVD merchandise of Cate?

Also guys have you checked to see who's withdrawn from the next Kyoto round?

Post a Comment

COMMENTS ARE CLOSED