On this day, December 28 in 1994 the Australian Financial Review (“the Fin” – and on its best days merely a poundstore version of the Financial Times) had an editorial about the value of emissions trading schemes.
A very large part of the contribution of rich, energy-intensive economies such as Australia should be the financing of emission-reduction projects in countries where the social cost of emission reduction is lower.
One mechanism for this kind of transfer is the often proposed system of tradable emission quotas (which the quotas distributed in a way to transfer income to the developing nations).”
Anon, 1994, 28 December
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 359ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
The Labor Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner was trying to get a carbon tax proposal through into the next budget. There was a major effort to stop this, and the Fin’s editorial was a minor part of it (“look, there’s a more efficient way of pricing carbon”).
Why this matters.
It doesn’t, in the big picture. Just be aware that whatever you propose, if the rich and powerful don’t like it they will either oppose it outright or – more subtle version – go for a concern troll approach “we both want the same thing, but HERE’s how you should do it…[proposes something that will never work].”
What happened next?
The carbon tax died in February 1995, didn’t get in the budget. Emissions trading became flavour of the month for more than a decade. Delivered nowt, except fat fees to consultants and bankers. (You can argue about the reduction in emissions after Gillard’s scheme came in, and others will point to Tasmanian hydro entering the picture.)