Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 2, 2000, BHP was defending its interests…
Clennell, A. 2000. BHP Threat To Greenhouse Gases Program. Sydney Morning Herald, 3 August, p.5.
BHP yesterday threatened to opt out of the Federal Government’s Greenhouse Challenge program, saying there was inadequate incentives to reduce emissions.
The company said existing policy contained no “simple, powerful rules” to reward large firms for early action. It proposed that the Government introduce “emissions permits [that] would be granted to companies that acted to reduce emissions post January 2000.”
Those permits would later become part of any Australian chapter of an international emissions trading scheme planned after the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
It is understood under BHP’s plan that for every tonne of emission reductions before 2001, a company would receive emission permits of four tonnes when a domestic carbon trading scheme is introduced.
For every tonne reduced between 2001 and 2002, the company would receive permits for three tonnes. The allowances would fall until 2004. 2000 – BHP hesitant over Greenhouse Challenge Programme
http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s158734.htm
AM Archive – Thursday, 3 August , 2000 00:00:00
Reporter: Alsion Caldwell
COMPERE: BHP says it’s not ready to commit to the Federal Government’s greenhouse challenge program, arguing it needs greater certainty in government policy.
And BHP isn’t alone. Industry groups are hesitant, saying they want greater certainty and an incentive to act now on cutting back greenhouse gas emissions.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry spokesman, Mark Paterson, spoke to Alison Caldwell.
MARK PATERSON: The ramifications for Australia, for employment, for Australia’s international competitiveness is right on the line.
Businesses are quite clearly saying that they want greater certainty as to the regime we’re going to be operating in. But I think there’s a clear recognition that too much too soon is potentially harmful and too little too late is harmful.
There are a number of issues on which an international understanding has not yet been reached, and if Australia were to push too far ahead, we could well be out of step with international regimes and therefore potentially do Australia harm.
We don’t yet know what the flexibility mechanisms are going to be. The definition of sinks and the role of sinks is not yet resolved internationally. The nature of the international trading regime, if one is to be introduced, the nature of that regime is not yet known. And the role of bringing developing nations into the Kyoto outcome is not yet clear. And all of those are critically important issues for Australia.
ALISON CALDWELL: Now BHP is one of the founding members of the Greenhouse Challenge Program. If they’re concerned about committing, what does that say about the Program’s future?
MARK PATERSON: Many people have been active participants within the Greenhouse Challenge Program which is about voluntary actions to reduce emissions. And it’s been a very successful voluntary program. I think it will continue to be a successful voluntary program, notwithstanding the fact that a company like BHP may hold a different view in relation to it.
COMPERE: Mark Paterson from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry..
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that Australian political elites had been aware of the potential problem of carbon dioxide build-up since the 1970s (front page news on the Canberra Times etc). In 1988 they’d been forced to start to pretend to care about it actively.
The specific context was that Prime Minister John Howard had come to office in 1996 and realised that actively pulling out of the UNFCCC was probably a) too bloody and b) actually unnecessary. Instead he lobbied for a special deal at the Kyoto conference in 1997 and also turbo-charged some public relations “voluntary scheme” created by the previous Keating government.
What I think we can learn from this is that even pretending comes with costs and incentives, as BHP were pointing out here.
What happened next – Howard kept resisting any and all significant climate action. Finally, in 2006 he was forced into one of his U-turns, but it didn’t save him – he lost the 2007 “climate change election” and his own seat.
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.
Also on this day:
August 2, 1970 – LA Times runs #climate change front page story
August 2, 1991- Pledge and Review… – All Our Yesterdays
August 2, 2007 – Russia plants a flag on the Arctic sea-bed.