Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Business Responses Economics of mitigation

April 12, 1993 – “environmental economics” gets a puff piece

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 12, 1993, “environmental economics” returned as one of those “win-win” myths we like to believe, in the pages of the Canberra Times.

Environmental issues hardly rated a mention during the recent election campaign. This should not be taken to suggest there is no interest in such issues, just that economics appears to have been the dominant issue of the day.

Nor should it be taken as suggesting that economics and the environment are separate and distinct issues; they are not. The interaction of economics and the environment is taking on increasing importance, with one indicator being the rethinking that is going on about the way environmental regulations are being administered, including greater thought being given to the use of market-based approaches to environmental regulation.

One of the most prominent of the market-based approaches involves the use of tradeable emission permits, in effect using market mechanisms to encourage business to reduce its pollution output.

Davis, B. 1993. Enviro-economics gathers respectability. Canberra Times, 12 April, p.11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The green ‘surge’ of 1988 to 1991 or so was a distant memory. But people like Brent Davis, director of trade and policy research with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, were still thinking about how the circle could be squared.

“Ecological modernisation” was not yet an academic buzzword, but it was coming….

What I think we can learn from this

We have various fairy stories of how  “we” can keep having everything we want without consequences (a form of cakeism).  These are very seductive and contagious stories

What happened next

A second attempt at a carbon tax was defeated in early 1995. Thereafter attention switched to tradeable emissions quotas and emissions trading schemes etc etc.  Which really achieved a lot, oh yes.

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.

Categories
Australia Business Responses Greenwash Uncategorized

April 9, 1990 – Australian business launches “we’re green!” campaign

 Thirty three years ago, on this day, April 9, 1990, Australian business tried to get ahead of the ‘green debate’

1990  “Launching its first policy on the environment in Sydney yesterday, the Business Council of Australia lamented the standard of the green debate.”

Lane, B. 1990. Business hitches a ride with green bandwagon.  Australian Financial Review, 10 April.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Business had been caught flat-footed and/or complacent about resurgent interest in green issues. They had also perhaps thought that the Liberal National Party would be back in power in 1990 and take care of them, so why make a big effort?   It didn’t turn out like that  – Labor scraped back in at the March 1990 Federal Election.

So, led by the at-that-time newish and dominant “Business Council of Australia”, industry said all the right platitudes about ecologically sustainable development etc.

What I think we can learn from this

Business is often slow off the mark when facing a new threat, because so many new threats evaporate on their own, (or rather, the problem is real but isn’t turned into an issue.)  Combatting advocates of an issue at an early stage may only help turn it into an issue. Better to watch greenies exhaust themselves even getting an issue onto the agenda, and then rely on structural “luck” to contain/constrain/corral it, no?

What happened next

The Hawke Government tried to keep everyone happy, through the promised “Ecologically Sustainable Development” process, with its working groups etc.  But in the end, push coming to shove, the ESD was watered down and watered down to the point of nothingness (see here and here and here).

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.

Categories
Australia

April 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

Fifty three years ago, on this day, April 8, 1970, Australian academic Charles Birch had an article in the Australian National University publication Woroni about “Pollution.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 328.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

This was all part of the huge rise in awareness of pollution/environment issues from the late 1960s… Birch was an interesting character.

 “Louis Charles Birch FAA (1918–2009) was an Australian geneticist specialising in population ecology and was also well known as a theologian, writing widely on the topic of science and religion, winning the Templeton Prize in 1990. The prize recognised his work ascribing intrinsic value to all life.“

What I think we can learn from this

Again, we knew. The people who run the countries of the world, the elites who attend the elite universities and go on to jobs in finance, industry, politics, academia, they were told about this, and that information has continued to be ‘out there’.

What happened next

Birch kept teaching his students about this problem, and writing about it.  When I was writing for The Conversation about Australia, people would occasionally leave comments to the effect that he had switched them on to the issue 45 years previously…, 

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.

Categories
Australia

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Twenty three years ago, on this day, April 3, 2000, Australian diplomats once again spread bullshit rather than truth about climate change.

At the  Pacific Islands Conference on Climate Change, Climate Variability and Sea Level Rise, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, well, see a contemporary account…

Mr Hare said he had recently been to a Pacific greenhouse conference in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, [3-7 April – where Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials had tried to play down the impact of the greenhouse effect. He said they had put up arguments that sea level rises were not as high as had been reported and might not necessarily be a result of global warming. Senator Hill said if the department’s officials were mounting that argument, it might be on the basis of scientific uncertainty in the area.. 

Clennel, A. 2000. Greenhouse Gas Conference `stacked’. Sydney Morning Herald, 15 April, p.15 

See here too.

 [Compare with Australian diplomats rumoured behaviour at the first IPCC report meeting in Sundsvall in August 1990]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Howard Government had bludgeoned its way into a sweet sweet deal at Kyoto, but it was obvious they would not ratify unless the Americans did (vanishingly small chance of that).  Meanwhile, the Australian diplomatic corps(e) was continuing its minimisation techniques (as per the Sundsvall meeting in 1990). 

What I think we can learn from this

Bureaucrats have their own views, and run their own games.  To think of them as merely passive lackeys of elected politicians is very naive.

What happened next

The oceans have kept on rising. Australia has kept on being a villain. The small island states have kept pointing out that in the absence of serious action, they are screwed (they are screwed).

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..

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

John Howard sucks up to George Bush on climate wrecking – April 1, 2001

2001 On 1 April 2001 Prime Minister Howard wrote to President Bush and supported the United States’ position. He stated:

“I have long shared your view, and Australia has consistently argued, that a workable international framework to address climate change needs to be economically manageable and include developing countries, whose emissions will exceed those of OECD countries within this decade.

“In my view an effective global framework to address climate change needs to include commitments from all major emitters; unrestricted market-based mechanisms, including emissions trading; an approach to carbon sinks that captures both economic and environmental opportunities; a facilitative, rather than punitive, compliance system; and assistance for the most vulnerable countries to adapt to climate change.

“This will require that we engage developing countries, and seek firm commitments from them on future annual emissions. We will also need to encourage the European Union to re-think its opposition to market mechanisms and sinks, key issues for a cost-effective response to climate change.”

Letter from Prime Minister John Howard to United States President George W. Bush, see http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Howardletter.html [dead link]

Cited in NSW Parliamentary Library publiication 2002 – The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change: An Update By Stewart Smith

Clennell, A. 2001. Lead The World On Greenhouse Treaty, PM Urges Bush. Sydney Morning Herald, 16 April. p.2.

Hill revealed letter’s existence on 15 April. Greens Senator Bob Brown said yesterday the letter was mostly a public relations exercise for “domestic consumption”.

The context was

Bush had pulled out of Kyoto (despite campaign promises to regulate carbon dioxide) and this  was music to little Johnnie’s ears.

What I think we can learn from this

Those in power at the time were cretins. Thank goodness we know have giants in charge…

What happened next

Lots of technobabble and false promises. And climbing emissions.

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

Categories
Australia Business Responses United Kingdom

March 31, 1998 – two business-friendly climate events in UK and Australia

Twenty years ago, on this day, March 31, 1998, there were two climate events on opposite sides of the world about just how business was going to save us all.

In the UK there was the launch of the Marshall Report

Climate change : a strategic issue for business : report presented to the Prime Minister, 31 March 1998 / Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment

In Australia there was  “Greenhouse Beyond Kyoto: Issues, Opportunities and Challenges” Bureau of Resource Sciences, 31 March – 1st April 1998

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 367.ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

There are two events on either side of the planet worth mentioning in the same blog post. 

The first is the release of a Blair government-era report. Treasurer Gordon Brown had commissioned Bob Marshall to talk to fellow business people about climate and climate policy. This process had been dominated, of course, by BP. Early proposals for carbon pricing had been minimised – more “death of a thousand cuts” until eventually you end up merely with a levy that is easily gamed and supplies ideological cover without driving any change. 

On the other side of the planet, you have the beginning of a three day conference about Kyoto and beyond in Australia. And there’s a similar dynamic really, if we think about it. Business is hoping to shape and minimise what is happening and the government in Australia is more nakedly on their side than it In the UK, partly because Australia is a quarry with the state attached. And partly because Prime Minister John Howard is such a prick. 

What I think we can learn from this

Business never sleeps, it is always in the words of Adam Smith, him what wrote the Wealth of Nations ‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices‘.

What happened next

UK climate policy staggered on. Between 2003 and 2009 Climate and Energy Policy were kind of knitted together for various reasons and have stayed entangled. In Australia, they haven’t been entangled nearly as well, imho. There has been enormous tumult and heat, but not much light for various reasons. 

And the emissions have kept climbing….

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.

Categories
Australia

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Ten years ago, on this day, March 25, 2013, the Australian federal government killed off the Department of Climate Change, now that the “carbon tax” (actually a carbon price) was in situ, and the whole issue was unbelievably toxified.

Department of Climate Change is disbanded:

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is abolished. Most of its functions are moved to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, with responsibility for energy efficiency transferred to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The context was that the Gillard government had expended enormous amounts of capital and had sustained, enormous reputational damage to push through a carbon price mechanism. That one that, if Kevin Rudd hadn’t been useless, would have happened on his watch. The Gillard government was by this time, intensely allergic to climate issues, understandably so. Disbanding the department wasn’t going to send a signal to anyone about anything, though it probably was a bad move, because the expertise is then scattered. But then the people were probably already shattered. Morale is always an issue for civil servants trying to construct decent policy while an idiotic culture war happens around them.

What I think we can learn from this

As an historian or political historian, it’s always interesting to see when, why Departments of State are created combined or abolished and whether the commentary and expectations at the time turn out to be accurate. So the best example I can think of is that in 2016, the assumption that the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK was going to be absorbed into the business department. Environmentalists were understandably fearful that climate would be subsumed within energy, and would be off the agenda. And that wasn’t the case. That’s not to say that BEIS has played a blinder every single day.

What happened next

Gillard got toppled by Rudd, who then lost the election to Tony Abbott, who was a wrecking ball. The emissions trading scheme was abolished, the earth salted. And here we are…

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.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

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.

Categories
Australia Denial Uncategorized

 March 14, 1997 – Australian senator predicts climate issue will be gone in ten years…

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 14, 1997, a Liberal senator spews his usual nonsense.

Senator Parer seems to be an exception. For instance, at the Australasian Institute of Minerals and Metallurgy Annual Conference at Ballarat Senator Warwick Parer said: “I don’t have any figures to back this up, but I think people will say in 10 years that it [greenhouse] was the Club of Rome” and “The attitude of this government is to look for ways to allow projects to go ahead.” The SMH (14.3.97 ‘Greenhouse effect? No worries says Parer’.).

(Duncan, 1997:83)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Warwick Parer – and I can say this because he’s dead – was a shonk and he caused political problems for Howard. He was the kind of old white man who wants to believe that physics doesn’t exist. And so he came out with that idiotic line about in 10 years, dot, dot dot. And Howard was busy, by this time, trying to do nothing or commit Australia to nothing around the Kyoto Protocol.

What I think we can learn from this

Old white men who don’t like the consequences of industrialization will try to wish it away. And they will predict that the whole fad will die. And it hasn’t, and it won’t

The basic question of how we’re supposed to survive the 21st century behaving as we do, has not yet been answered. 

What happened next

Parer was sacked as Minister in 1998. He produced an anti renewables report in 2002. He died in 2014. 

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..

References

Transcript of Kerry  O’Brien and John Howard –https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-10644

Categories
Australia Energy

March 13, 1992 – Australian climate advocates try to get government to see sense… (fail, obvs).

Thirty one years ago, on this day, March 13, 1992, advocates of climate action made one last plea to the (Labor) government to take climate change seriously as both a threat and an opportunity. 

A study [“Energy Futures: Efficient Energy Scenarios to 2020” ] by the Commission for the Future to examine the cost of reducing greenhouse gases found that Australia can break even if it enters the market for energy-efficiency equipment.

Announcing the findings last Friday [13th], commission director Archbishop Peter Hollingworth said, “The report highlights the urgent need for Australia to find a way through the difficult problem of maintaining economic growth and protecting the environment.

Anon, 1992.  How Australia can break even on greenhouse. Greenweek, March 17,  p.3.

The report is online, on Googlebooks.

Also, see here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context

This one of the last desperate attempts by the pro climate action people in Australia to influence Australian Government thinking before the Rio Earth Summit.

The Commission for the Future had been set up when Barry Jones was still Science Minister. It had played a blinder in the late 1980s, relatively speaking, but by now was a shadow of its former self.  It released a report that said energy efficiency would at least allow a breakeven on hitting the Toronto target.  Paul Keating had become prime minister in December 1991, and had made sure that all of the previous (Hawke) administration’s environment policies were buried in 17 committees and left to rot. And this was among them. 

If you were even more of a geek than me (not possible) you could do a comparison of the rhetoric and argument in the Feb 4 1990 document I wrote about here [LINK] 

I suspect that it was commissioned before the end of 1991. Because otherwise they wouldn’t have wasted their breath.

What I think we can learn from this

Policy Windows close. Not necessarily because there’s been an election, just because there are new people at the top saying what is and what is not important.

What happened next

The Tasman Institute  – rightwing “think” tank set up in 1990 to combat green groups – came out with a rapid rebuttal. Over the past year they had become quite good at doing rapid rebuttal reports. The Tasman Institute was wound up a victim of its own success by 1998. 

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...