Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 19, 1998, the Australian business press reported that industry might be okay with carbon trading…
A proposal to reduce greenhouse gases by trading emissions was greeted cautiously by industry yesterday, with some concern about whether the scheme was premature.
The proposal came in a report by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), which argues that a trading scheme could help Australia reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels set down in the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change agreed last December.
The report was given to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment inquiry into trading in greenhouse gases.
Hordern, N. (1998) The Australian Financial Review 20th March
NB IMAGE BELOW IS WRONG – it was 1998
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Australia had signed up to the Kyoto Protocol, or was about to. But ratification was still a ways away (and never happened!). However, the idea of having national trading schemes that then linked up with each other was, again, not sorry for the pun “in the air.”, and tradable emissions quotas were going to somehow magically reduce emissions. Carbon tax was definitely off the table second defeat in 1995. So ABARE, under attack for the clunkiness and shonkiness of its MEGABARE model and the use to which it was put [LINK TO AOY POST), was trying to get in front and put a positive spin on what it was doing.
What I think we can learn from this
Organisations try to repair their reputation, to get more funding, to get invites to events, to get quoted in the media. All the bread and butter of green confucians and technocrats everywhere. That doesn’t mean that we have to take them seriously. But of course, if you are public in your disdain, other people equally deserving of the same disdain will get nervous that you might soon turn your attention to them. So the nakedness of the Emperor must only be whispered.
What happened next
A proposal for a National Emissions Trading scheme went to Howard’s Cabinet in 2000. And it was successfully killed by Nick Minchin. And then there was another effort in 2003 that was only finally killed because John Howard consulted one or two of his handpicked business mates and then came back and said, “no, we’re not doing this.”
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.