Carbon tax ad draws heat

Whilst Cate should be applauded for lending her celebrity status to this cause, the reality is that given her lifestyle and success she must have the largest carbon footprint of anyone in the country (flights, property etc). And yes, I would imagine that the ever increasing cost-of-living doesnt get tabled much in the Blanchett household.

What a load of left wing, green crap!

It’s appalling that millionaires like Cate should be allowed to do such ads.

Such ads should be kept the exclusive preserve of the ilk of mining companies that make billions of profit and pay their CEOs annually roughly what Cate’s lifetime financial worth is.

did you see what they did with the outline of Australia?? noice.

Yes, Cate should just shut up and and fade back into the pack of frequent flyers who don’t give a shit.

The grim image used in the background is from the Battersea Power Station which is a decommissioned coal-fired power station located on the south bank of the River Thames, in Battersea, South London.

This is very un-Australian!

Here come the lefty-luvvies with their champagne socialism!

“Buy this policy, because it will never personally affect me, because I’m insulated by millions of dollars as I slip into my Audi and slide back to Birchgrove/Vaucluse /Mosman…..”

Yes, we have ads about policy issues in Australia. In terms of what I thought mumbrella was about, this will rate pretty highly on the “non-issue” scale. Governments make ads all the time; good, bad and indifferent and they understandably don’t cause a ripple. However if this doesn’t turn into a slanging match about the issue I’ll be amazed…

Geeze – does anybody get the real message of this ad?
I read the above comments and you all seem to more worried about other stuff.

We need to do something NOW or our beautiful planet earth will be no more.

Then who will give a toss about celebrities, frequent flyers, CEO’s or left wing thoughts…..

I guess that Rupert Murdoch is against the carbon tax then?

I would think that RM has:
* Many more billions of dollars
* Many more Frequent Flyer Miles
* A much larger carbon footprint than CB?

On the other hand, maybe we should focus on the issues and not the people……….

What idiot made the decission to use a UK decommissioned power station as a role model. Proberly the same idiot that wrote this pathetic soft soap sales pitch.
Why would you give more money to any government to give it back in the form of compensation, how many more usless public servents will need to be employed to return our money back to us

Cate Blanchett is entitled to appear in any ad she wants. That’s not my issue – nor is her wealth. My issue is simply this. I don’t know what Im being asked to say ‘Yes’ to.
Could you imagine Cate, or anyone else for that matter, asking you to say ‘Yes’ to John Howard’s GST without knowing what the rate was, what it was being applied to, what were the exemptions, what compensation was being paid to those most adversely effected by its introduction? I don’t think so.

Unfortunately this carbon tax is way too little way too late. The world emitted a record 30.6 gigatonnes in 2009, that’s in a recession! Good luck earth.

A lot of the above comments need to have a series think about what they said as far as i know this is a free country and anybody has a right to have a say…good on Cate for actaully standing up for something that she has has a long history with knowing what the rednecks of this world were going to say about her

No one seems to mind that mining companies, tobacco companies and politicians advertise their opinions, why is Cate getting such a bad wrap. Also why does she get slammed and Michael Caton barely gets a mention?

Sorry but I just dont like being lectured to by actors or for that matter sports people. In that I dont include when they are speaking about a charity that people can voluntarily (sp?) be a part of.

The reason is most just dont live in the real world. Dont get sucked in that ‘our Aussie Cate’ is down to earth and living like ‘Joe Blow’, because she’s not. I love her films, (can watch ‘Elizabeth’ on permanent repeat) and think she’s a brilliant actress, but just stick to that please. Acting and Politics dont mix. Think Reagan and Schwarzenagger…

This is as always, merely just my opinion

I think the major issue is being completely overlooked?

I think this is a marketing fail in terms of the message it’s trying to convey (but maybe not in terms of driving share of voice and overall discussion).

Haven’t Australian agencies and marketers learnt a lesson that celebrities, particularly for these types of ‘divisive’ political causes, don’t really work here in Australia?

They also forget one of the principles of ‘celebrity’ endorsement; the important thing to remember is that putting a celebrity in an ad is not an idea in itself. Ideally, there should be an idea that makes the celebrity relevant to the product (cause) and the consumer. A celebrity’s presence should be contextual and endorsements work best when the celebrity isn’t introducing the brand. When the product / cause has a strong identity and a clear unique proposition that is well established, then the celebrity can come in and give the brand / cause an added fillip and generate more interest value. What is of paramount importance is the fit between the values of the brand / cause and the value of the celebrity.

Does anybody seriously believe an actor earning millions and millions of dollars, living the lifestyle Cate does and is not known for these values is relevant? I could imagine a Bindy Irwin or some other ‘celebrity’ who lives the values (or is at least close to them) would be more relevant.

It’s unfortunate that ads like this need to be made, but when you’re up against multinational media conglomerates with barrows (of cash) to push, they have to be. There’s so much bullshit and fear being served up on a daily basis that the benefits of the scheme (putting a price on carbon – ie pollution – gives industry an incentive to reduce its output and invest in other technologies, bringing the price down and making it cheaper for everyone) has been lost in the ‘haze’.

I wonder how much News Limited criticism there would have been if some of the campaign’s reported $20 million budget was spent with them? Did they get any?

Is mumbrella only being read by the audience of Alan Jones. Surprised by the response.

what a relief to see the quality of the comments improve, particularly the last two posts…and who WERE all those dingbats in the first few comments, surely to god they don’t work in advertising?

Back to the issue, all I can say is that i hope the bloody campaign does work, the carbon tax story needs somebody to deliver it in a way that has more resonance to the scared/ignorant/greedy public.

Is Australia ready to face up to ““the greatest moral imperative of our time” (K Rudd)? Do we have the moral fibre for leadership? Based on the reaction to this campaign (lead ingloriously as ever by the tabloids) , one wonders.

Everybody has the right to express themself, CATE TOO!

Ralphy- yes the world did emit 30.6 gigatonnes of emissions in 2009 but that is less than 5% of the total amount emissions given off naturally. For example the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland has emitted over 17 gigatonnes of carbon gases so far. At the end of the day the carbon tax is just another tax that generates government revenues to help bring us out of debt. I am all for doing our thing for the environment, using cleaner fuels etc but to say everyday Australians need to be taxed for contributing a tiny percentage of carbon emissions which has no actual bearing on climate change at all is ridiculous.

tightest jeans I ever saw Mav…

Evan, you might want to check the facts – everyday Australians are not going to be taxed, only industry. It’s not like the ATO will be knocking on people’s door asking for their carbon tax, although I can certainly understand the confusion given the hysterical media coverage of the debate.

Yes, industry will in turn past most of those costs onto consumers, but people at the lower end of the economic scale will be compensated.

What the scheme will do is create an economic incentive for industry to invest in cleaner manufacturing and energy technologies, which is something they don’t currently have. The more investment, the more developed and reliable they become which will bring down the price of these technologies for everybody – industry and consumers alike.

As for your Icelandic volcano – that nasty brown stain you see on the horizon of our cities on most days doesn’t come from the Arctic Circle…

Dear @ Adam Paull,

I’m sorry but your comment sounds almost word for word like the Labor Party pitch. If you truly believe the Labor party spin that this will not impact ‘consumers’ and that because of some compensation (limited to low income earners) it won;t have a significant impact on the economy and ALL Australians, you are seriously deluded. Further, if people seriously think this will have any impact on carbon emissions or in some way ‘incentivise’ high carbon emitters , they are also deluded.

What pisses me off with this whole so called ‘debate’ is that there is no debate. The left are vilifying anyone questioning the best solution and the right are generally in denial.

Most rational people believe that something must be done.

The real debate should be around what is the best solution to achieve a signficant impact on carbon emissions. There is absolutely no consensus on what the best solution is. This is the real debate which sadly is being completely lost in all the bickering and hysteria.

At the moment rationale people who simply question whether Labor’s strategy approach is the right approach are demonised as climate deniers or right wing / Liberal supports. This is not a healthy environment in which to be making serious Australia wide decisions, largely politically driven rather than being commonsense and thoughtful decisions.

If every would calm down and drop party political ideologies and work towards rational and thoughtful solutions vs rushing through new taxes and demonising dissenting opinions, we might do something right for the environment and for all Australians without destroying our economy.

@ anon 30 May 6.06pm – No it’s not just Alan Jones listeners, just like it’s not just viewers of Hungry Beast or listeners of Triple J.

There is a cross section of people on here and just because they dont agree with you, doesn’t mean they agree with Alan Jones either.

@ Elizabeth, yes Cate has the right to her opinion, I just dont care to hear her opinion anymore than I want to hear the opnion of the drunk wino on the train. Not saying the wino and Cate are in the same basket, far from it, but as is often said, “Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one…”

The issue I have with Cate on this is that she is using her celebrity to champion a political cause. Dont get confused that this is feel good cause. She’s not coming out and saying, “lets look after the earth” off her own bat, she is supporting a specific policy of a specific political party, and that’s where I dont like Movie/TV/Rock stars and sportspeople getting involved. Again, that’s just my opinion, (yes another opinion/arsehole)

I do also agree with a few comments on here pointing out that big business does a similar thing when the case is in their favour, (ala Tobacco vs anti-smoking legislation) and I don’t support that either.

Just like the GST was going to destroy our economy too, eh Martin? We’ve heard it all before.

I’ve never voted Labor in my life for the record, but I admire politicians from either side of the fence who are willing to stick their neck out and do something about it. It’s very easy to sit around, do nothing, then shoot down any proposal that comes along.

Perhaps this “tax” should have been called a “pollution charge” and the benefits of alternative energy investment should have been the main selling feature, but we’re dealing with a political party that couldn’t make billionaires (mining companies) paying more tax popular so you get what you can.

We’ve spent the past 20 years debating climate change and we’re probably going to be spending another 20 or more, which has been a distraction from what we should have been focusing on – energy.

In the mean time the oil and coal industries keep chugging along, which is exactly how they want it.

@Adam Paull

You’re still missing the point. I said most rational people believe in climate change and agree something must be done.

The point isn’t whether climate change is real or not, the point is what is the best solution to bring about real change with minimal impact on our economy and on the general public? People like you are drowning out and demonising alternative discussions about appropriate solutions, why?.

By the way, the last time I checked the Labor Party AND the Liberal Party are both banking on Australia still digging out natural resources to fund our growth for the foreseeable future so I don’t know who your actually blaming or defending.

I also wasn’t aware there has been widespread debate about climate change for ’20 years’!? Mainstream debate only really began between 2001 and 2005.

Anyway, you don’t just rush through a half baked solution simply for the sake of it just so you can say we’ve ‘done something about it’. The whole point of a solution is to get a meaningful outcome and the severity of the issue demands a thoughtful and considered approach and solution.

The carbon tax is a bad idea being adopted for a good cause and it’s largely being done right now simply for political expediency. A cap and trade system is a better (but still flawed) option but because of people like yourself, anybody remotely criticising the current proposed solution or wanting to discuss alternatives is either a Liberal Party stooge, a coal industry stooge, a climate change denier or somebody who is blocking ‘progress’.

According to people like you and the Greens the debate is over.

Can you please point me to where this rational and widely represented debate about what is the best solution took place and when?

Martin, how much debate do you want? Scientists have been sounding the alarm with gusto since the 60s – some even warned about CO2 emissions in the 1800s. Even with your claim that the debate didn’t start until 2001 that’s still 10 years of doing bugger all.

Given that the impact of the tax is going to be considerably less than the amount Australians loose to gambling each year ($12B vs. $22B) I can’t see how its impact is going to be as ‘devastating’ as you and the tabloid press claim.

Unfortunately there is no silver bullet solution – this carbon scheme is just a small measure that will help (and I emphasise ‘help’) bring alternative energy sources into the mainstream where we need them to be.

The truth is that a cost to pollute should have been placed on industry decades ago.

I personally believe that we should declare the Global Warming debate a lost cause – let the skeptics claim the win, it doesn’t matter anyway. All the debate has done is given the incumbent oil and coal industry something to muddy the water with – an ability to mount a well funded argument.

The environmental imperative can be won without the need to add Global Warming to the mix – the plain facts are that we are running out of oil this century, and the burning of both coal and oil is killing people. Even the most wealthiest oil baron in the world cannot argue that pollution is a good thing. We need oil for everything from plastics to fertilisers, so burning it for fuel is just insanity.

We need to be moving away from fossil fuel dependency – which is something the unfortunately named “Carbon Tax” will help (again, note the word ‘help’) achieve…

…and the economy will be just fine.