Fifteen years ago, on this day, August 29, 2008, business supplied the Labor government with the white flag they expected the government to wave.
“Today in the national capital, close to 60 business representatives will meet Resources Minister Martin Ferguson to outline their concerns over the draft ETS outlined by Ms Wong”
Lewis, S. 2008.
“Mr Rudd can’t afford to get this one wrong. The national economy is in a precarious state. Smoke signals send carbon trade talks around in circles. The Advertiser, 29 August, p.19.
See Lewis follow up story the following day!
Lewis, S. 2008. Government wilts as business turns up heat on emissions: Backdown on climate plan. Herald-Sun, 30 August, p.97.
The Rudd Government has given the first sign it will change its controversial emissions trading scheme amid warnings that billions of dollars in investment will be lost offshore.
In the most significant challenge to Labor since the November election, 60 business chiefs yesterday told the Government that big ticket projects would be canned.
And Kevin Rudd was warned his Government risks a repeat of the “GST food fight” as industry and policy makers battle over the shape of a carbon trading scheme.
Executives from a raft of firms — including BHP, Rio Tinto, Woodside, Chevron, OneSteel and Alcoa — warned they might be forced to halt investment during a meeting with Resources and Energy Minister, Martin Ferguson.
Other representatives from the cement, paper and pulp, coal and resources sectors also raised concerns during the Canberra summit, which is likely to lead to key changes in the design of the ETS.
In the first potential breakthrough, the head of the Climate Change Department, Martin Parkinson, signalled the Government was prepared to modify its scheme — to prevent a backlash. Mr Parkinson told the meeting in Canberra that the Government was willing to look at changing the formula for how “free” permits were issued.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Kevin Rudd had surfed to power on climate change as “the great moral challenge of our generation,” and had started a convoluted policy process which was open to all sorts of special pleading and lobbying, especially in the context of global financial crisis. And this above is an example of business – which was already very practised at presenting a united front even if there wasn’t one – in well lobbying ministers, which in a pluralist system is totally ok, and is absolutely not a display of naked business power at all, you crazed conspiracy theorist you.
What I think we can learn from this is that any policy you try to implement is going to get watered down rather than watered up. This is the sort of thing that Ross Garnaut was talking about when he said that never has so much been given by so many to so few in his December 2008 article “oiling the squeaks.”
What happened next
Rudd’s December 2008 white paper was even more of a giveaway to business. Then in 2009 the process got even more corrupted and watered down. Rudd clearly had a mouth for it but didn’t have the spine to stand up to the vested interests who run the country. By the time he discovered that spine in April May June 2010 it was too late.
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.