Celebrity carbon ad spreads more lies

Cate Blanchett's ad about the proposed carbon tax is misleading, argues Andrew Bolt. Source: Herald Sun

IF THE science on global warming is so good, why are we told such lies?

That is the true disgrace of those behind the ad that features Cate Blanchett telling us to "say yes" to the Gillard Government's carbon dioxide tax.

It's not that it stars a multi-millionaire actor blithely instructing the little people to pay a tax that she wouldn't even feel herself.

It's not that it stars a hypocrite telling us to cut our emissions while she herself jets off to Cannes, New York and LA, and helps to flog luxury Audi cars.

No, it's the lies that should shame Blanchett and the ad's other star, Michael Caton, of Packed to the Rafters, who are not responsible for them, but speak the lines put in their mouths.

It's the flagrant lies in this ad that should shame all the green groups and unions which made the wretched thing -- and that should warn the rest of us there is much less to this scare than such shameless people claim.

How dare they? And where are the regulators? Does the Advertising Standards Bureau exempt global warming alarmists from its demand that "ads shall not be misleading or deceptive"?

The lies start with the very first shot of the ad, showing Caton standing under black skies made filthy by a power station billowing soot --labelled "carbon".

Says Caton: "What if we say yes to making big companies pay when they pollute our skies? We'd be saying yes to less carbon pollution."

Stop right there.

First, where in Australia are our skies black with "carbon"?

Answer: nowhere. The ad describes a problem we don't actually have.

Do our power stations -- the main target of the carbon dioxide tax -- actually belch out black smoke like that?

No. Most coal-fired ones here emit little more than steam and invisible gas. Drive past one and see for yourself.

So what power station are we shown in this ad?

The Battersea plant in Britain.

Does it vomit out black soot like that?

No, it was closed almost 30 years ago.

So will the Government's tax close the Battersea plant? Don't be an idiot.

Well, will the tax at least remove that sooty carbon in our skies Caton wants gone?

No, because the sign perched over Caton's head deceives, too. The Government's "carbon" tax is not actually designed to remove carbon, which is a solid, but carbon dioxide, which is a gas that's invisible, as you can see when you breathe out.

And that is what makes Blanchett's big scene completely wrong.

She appears in the ad, trilling that the tax would be "finally doing something about climate change", and demonstrating that change by replacing the sooty skies with a clean, sun-filled one.

That imagery is another lie.

No, this tax has got nothing at all to do with giving us cleaner and sunnier skies. Zero. Zip.

Pretending it will is a contemptible deceit -- and so are most of the other claims put in the mouths of the unwitting actors in this ad.

How about the actor who claims that by saying "yes" to the Government's tax, we'll be saying "yes to new money for clean energy that never runs out"?

One of the great problems with solar and wind power is that it does indeed run out.

Solar power stops when the sun doesn't shine, and wind turbines stop turning when the wind dies.

This is not some silly debating point. It's one of the hard facts that makes solar and wind power so horribly expensive.

To switch to such unreliable power sources means we still need backup power plants to take over when the renewables fail. That's twice the infrastructure to guarantee the same power.

But back to the lying ad, which also shows a woman claiming we'd be saying "yes to help for people struggling

with bills".

Actually, the reverse is true. The tax will instead make those bills an even bigger struggle, because it will drive up the cost of electricity and everything made with it.

Only half the money the tax raises will come back in compensation for just some Australians, and no compensation will be enough for those whose jobs will be killed off by the higher cost of power.

Then there's the claim by another woman in the ad that we'd be saying "yes to better health for our kids".

Pardon? Where's the proof for that emotive claim?

This seems a desperate attempt to suggest the Government's tax will cut asthma-causing soot, rather than plant-stimulating carbon dioxide.

And then there is the ad's ultimate fraud.

Just "say yes", it urges.

But where? When? To whom?

The ad suggests we do actually have a choice -- that the Government may even put the question to a vote in an election.

But as we know, we'll get this tax without us ever having said "yes".

Indeed, 146 of the 150 people in our House of Representatives were elected at the last election on the specific promise that they'd say "no" to it.

Yet here it is, to be imposed on us next year with no mandate. All we get is this ad, telling us to say "yes" to something to which our consent is in fact not sought and our objection is not heeded.

Such arrogance, and this ad drips with it.

Fancy the ad's makers thinking we'd swallow falsehoods that wouldn't fool a schoolgirl.

So how is it that such a deceitful and unscientific ad can not only be shown on television, but is endorsed by politicians demanding we "accept the science".

All that the rest of us can conclude is that if alarmists responsible for the ad must tell such lies, then the truth can't be so scary.

And that, at least, is true.