Category: Business Responses

Categories
Australia Business Responses

May 5, 2000 – Business Council of Australia boss on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues”

Twenty four years ago, on this day, May 5th, 2000 former Federal public servant turned BCA Boss David Buckingham opined on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues for Australia.” Business Council of Australia

http://www.bca.com.au/media/strategic-greenhouse-issues-for-australia

Suggests a voluntary domestic emissions trading scheme might be a goer, as a “learning by doing” exercise.

See also Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill 2000. Warming to the Challenge; The Role of Australian Business in Combating Global warming. Address to the World Business Council on Sustainable Development and the Australian Business Council Forum, Melbourne, 5 May.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were various big conferences being held because there had been the Kyoto Protocol, at the end of ‘97. It looked like Al Gore would be the Democratic Party nominee for the president, and he might win, in which case the US would be taking more climate action, even if Kyoto itself weren’t necessarily on the cards. And therefore, everyone was making plans to be ready for that reality if it emerged in Australia. Yes, the Lavoisier group had been set up, but there were also tensions within the peak bodies, especially the Business Council of Australia about what the Australian response should be of interest in carbon trading, carbon farming and offsets and money to be made. 

And so it wasn’t a simple case of denial or bowing down before the great God of technology, at least not for the more thoughtful members of the business policy outfits. And here we have David Buckingham, who had been a Federal Environment civil servant, before being poached, first by the Minerals Council and then the Business Council. 

What we learn from this is that business was seriously scratching its head about what might be coming and how best to take advantage of what might be coming. 

What happened next? Well, Bush was selected president by his dad’s Supreme Court chums and then quickly pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. In 2003, the BCA had to move from opposition to Kyoto ratification to a “neutral” stance because of fierce fights within it. 

And of course, the emissions 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.

Also on this day: 

May 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Business Responses

May 3, 1989 “Exploration Access and Political Power” speech by Hugh Morgan

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 3rd, 1989, Australian businessman and all round lovely guy Hugh Morgan makes a speech at the Australian Mining Industry Council’s “Minerals Outlook Seminar” at ANU

Its title was “Exploration Access and Political Power” and some representative quotes are here –

‘The true environmentalist, the revolutionary who sees man as vile and nature as sacred, is indifferent, if not hostile to economic benefits’ (Morgan 1989, 31).
‘If the politics of nature worship and economic decline … take hold and become institutionalised, then Australia will be seen as a place to leave, not as a place to come’. (Morgan 1989). (cited in McEachern)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at this stage there were probably still a lot of concerned conservatives and businessmen saying “just keep a low profile and it will all blow over; the greenies will find something else to be hysterical about. And if we are a small target, then we stop it from continuing longer than it otherwise would”. Hugh Morgan was not one of those people. And Hugh Morgan was determined to take the fight to the enemy, i.e. people who gave a damn about future generations and ecological survival. 

What we learn is that there are always ideologically committed people within any faction whether it’s the environs of the business lobby, who think that they see the deep underlying pattern. And they may well be right. Just because they’re in a small minority. doesn’t mean they’re wrong. 

What happened next, Morgan kept giving these sorts of speeches about the defence of Western civilization and democracy, by which he meant capitalism and shareholder value and the right to screw other people over. Morgan’s henchman, Ray Evans, then started fighting on climate stuff too, and made links with American outfits. And the emissions 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.

References

Cahill, D. 2004. The radical neo-liber radical neo-liberal movement as a hegemonic force in Ace in Australia, 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36978766.pdf

Doug McEachern (1995) Mining Meaning from the Rhetoric of Nature—Australian Mining Companies and their attitudes to the environment at home and abroad, Policy, Organisation and Society, 10:1, 48-69, DOI: 10.1080/10349952.1995.11876636

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10349952.1995.11876636

Also on this day: 

May 3, 1978 – First and last “Sun Day”

May 3, 1990 – From Washington to Canberra, the “greenhouse effect” has elites promising…

Categories
Business Responses United Kingdom

April 24, 2004 – Launch of the Climate Group

Twenty-years ago, on this day, April 24th, 2004, the business outfit the “Climate Group” was launched, with a speech by Tony Blair.

24 April 2004 Launch of the Climate Group. Blair speaks at it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3662303.stm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC process was potentially coming back on board with Kyoto moving towards ratification. Businesses were worrying. The Global Climate Coalition was dead. There was a space for new business activity. And along comes the Climate Group launched today but probably conceived a couple of years before. 

What we learn is that the early 2000s mark a kind of shift, there is that split in business between what the headbangers have wanted and succeeded in destroying, i.e. destroying high ambition. And then there’s all the other companies, which might make money from the green transition, or can just read a bloody Keeling curve, and see that there’s trouble ahead. 

What happened next, the Climate Group had its peak years probably in the run up to Copenhagen. It’s still going. I’m not quite sure why. There is now a coalition called “we mean business” as well. But there’s always a proliferation of these groups, I guess, representing slightly different interests and making work for well-meaning but fundamentally dim technocrats.

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: 

April 24, 1980 – the climate models are sound…

April 24, 1994 – a carbon tax for Australia?

Categories
Australia Business Responses

April 10, 2006 – “Business warms to change” (Westpac, Immelt)

Eighteen years ago, on this day, April 10th, 2006, business groups split on climate action.

New research on global warming has caused a split at the top end of town, writes Deborah Snow.

WESTPAC chief executive David Morgan had an interesting story to tell at an invitation-only breakfast for a handful of journalists in Sydney last week.

The anecdote concerned a recent private conversation with the head of the giant General Electric Company in the US, Jeff Immelt.

“He said to me he was virtually certain that the first action of the next president of the United States, be it Republican or Democrat, would be to initiate urgent action on climate change. And he wasn’t saying that as a casual political comment … he is [allocating] billions of dollars worth of investment in the confidence of that development.”

Snow, D. (2006) Business warms to change The Sydney Morning Herald 10th April , page 10.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified and become international lore, sorry, law. The European Emissions Trading Scheme had come into effect. And the big banks were looking at all the money that might be made from carbon trading, and thinking “we’d like a piece of that.” There was already a failed history of getting a Futures Exchange going or getting Australian Prime Minister John Howard to listen to insurers and banks from like 2003. But it’s always worth another roll of the dice, another go. And that’s what happened here. 

What we learn is that a lot of what’s driving their alleged philanthropic efforts is actually about sniffing out new markets, especially if the international environment, for want of a better phrase, is changing. 

What happened next, the Westpac thing went nowhere. But it added to the load and in September of the same year, the issue broke through and in November 2006, Howard was forced to create this Shergold Report process to look at emissions trading. 

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: 

April 10th, 2010 – activists hold “party at the pumps”

April 10, 2013 – US companies pretend they care, make “Climate Declaration”

Categories
Business Responses Denial United States of America

March 15, 2002 – GM bails from Global Climate Coalition

Twenty-two years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2002, a major automaker decided to leave the denialist/predatory delay outfit the Global Climate Coalition.

DETROIT — Environmentalists are claiming victory following General Motors Corp.’s decision to quit a lobbying group that has led the opposition to a 1997 global warming treaty reached in Kyoto, Japan.

Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler Corp. withdrew earlier.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article/usa-general-motors-quits-global-warming-lobby-group

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that almost everything the Global Climate Coalition had fought for, had been won – a weakened initial treaty followed by the avoidance of any domestic carbon tax followed by the avoidance of the US being involved in Kyoto (beforehand by the Byrd-Hagel resolution, and then afterwards in March 2001, by George Dubya Bush‘s announcement of pulling out of Kyoto in contradiction of his election promise to regulate CO2.) 

What we learn from this is that culture wars can get out of hand. The Global Climate Coalition had done some things that were reputationally risky and dubious. And you often see corporations which have to worry a lot about their reputation with customers getting nervous when the gloves come off, and lobbying becomes a vicious public bloodsport. It is not because they are in any way “woke” – it’s just that they worry that they won’t be able to flog their product as easily if they are regarded as assholes by customers. 

What happened next is very shortly after this, thanks to other outfits leaving, I think Ford, and so forth, the Global Climate Coalition basically dissolved itself, declaring “mission accomplished.” 

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: 

March 15, 1956 – scientist explains climate change to US senators

March 15, 2019 – New Zealand school strike launched, called off.

Categories
Business Responses Canada Denial

February 27, 1989 – Barron’s “Climate of Fear” shame…

Thirty five years ago, on this day, February 27th, 1989, a Canadian business publication (Barron’s) comes out with the entirely predictable denialist bullshit that has aged so well.

Jonathan Laing, “Climate of Fear: The Greenhouse Effect May Be Mostly Hot Air,” Barron’s, February 27, 1989

https://www.fortfreedom.org/s32.htm

As two commentators put it – “Such a dismissive or distorted approach to serious environmental problems does a disservice to these publications’ readers, if only by spreading misinformation that may stifle industrial innovation in devising technologies that could lead to solutions to these problems, thereby downlaying new profit opportunities.”

(Oppenheimer & Boyle, 1990: 227) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the business press had decided that the hippies had had enough fun and that it was time to push back. Articles started popping up in right-wing business press saying “it’s all a big scare and hoax or exaggeration.” 

What we learn is, there’s always pushback. And it starts with these sorts of things and then grows into organisations like the George C Marshall Institute (which already existed, but pivoted) and the Global Climate Coalition.  It’s supported by outfits like the IPA. For every action, there’s an equal and oppositional batshit crazy reaction. 

What happened next is that more articles got published in the business press and they get approvingly cited in Parliament and speeches to create a new common sense; Gramsci, Hegemony etc etc.

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: 

February 27, 1988 – Canberra “Global Change” conference ends

February 27, 1992 – climate denialists continue their effective and, ah, well EVIL, work

Feb 27, 2003 – the “FutureGen” farce begins…

Categories
Business Responses United States of America

November 20, 2008 – Green capitalism flexes a (weak) BICEP

On this day a new business lobby group was founded…

Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) is a coalition of businesses coordinated by Ceres whose primary goal is to call on the U.S. government to pass broad, bi-partisan energy and climate legislation.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by August 2008 it was likely that – whoever was next president – there was going to be a push for climate action because Republican candidate John McCain was not a climate denier. And Barack Obama as a Democrat was going to have to pander to his constituencies (even though Obama had made vague comments about having lots of coal while on the campaign trail).

So, if you know that the next President is going to be more willing to do something on climate then George Bush (which, frankly, is a pretty low bar) then you’re going to want to get a lobby group together that can credibly push the versions of policy that you want, as opposed to what the radical civilization-hating communist Luddite greenies want.

And of course if you’re a specific company under attack for planet-butchering, then membership of such a pressure group can also be used in your adverts when you’re trying to convince consumers that the latest version of the crap that you peddle – that they maybe need but probably merely want – is somehow “green,” and that they’re doing something good for the planet by buying it (spoiler they are almost certainly not). 

And so BICEP was born.

What we learn

See above

what happened next 

BICEP kept going as far as I know, it’s still going, still doing its thing. Whether it got up on its hind legs, and attacked the Trump administration is another question. Probably played dead.

Categories
Australia Business Responses

August 29, 2008 – business tells Labor to go softly (Labor then does, obvs).

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.

Categories
Australia Business Responses

June 20, 2000 – Australian business writes the rules.

Twenty three years ago, on this day, June 20, 2000, business was getting what it wanted…

It’s quite plain who has the Government’s ear on greenhouse issues, writes Andrew Clennell.

At 4pm on June 20 on a busy parliamentary sitting day in Senate committee room 1S3, the big players in industry put their views to Government on greenhouse. A single sheet of paper was placed on the table. Now, as the Government takes its place in talks on global warming in The Hague, we can appreciate the full significance of that piece of paper. Policy on greenhouse coincides with business’s June wish list. See also his piece – Clennell, A. 2000. Industrialists Urge Caution On Gases Plan. Sydney Morning Herald, 21 June, p.5.

A contingent of industry leaders asked the Federal Government last night to state clearly that it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases unless the United States did so first, and to pledge that Australian jobs would not be sacrificed.

Representatives from BP Amoco, Rio Tinto, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Alcoa Generation met the Industry Minister, Senator Minchin, the Environment Minister, Senator Hill, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, and ministerial advisers from three other offices to discuss Australia’s greenhouse policy.

On the red leather chairs at the rectangular table were three ministers Robert Hill (Environment), Nick Minchin (Industry) and John Anderson (Deputy PM) and advisers from their offices and from the offices of the Treasurer, the Finance Minister and the Forestry Minister.

Facing them were BP’s Australian head, Greg Bourne, miner Rio Tinto’s managing director, Barry Cusack, and heads of the major lobby groups the Business Council, the Minerals Council, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry among others.

Clennell, A. 2000. Taking Care Of Business. Sydney Morning Herald, 14 November, p.15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Xxx John Howard was now 4 years as prime minister and facing another election soon. He had displayed just how willing he was to stop environmental policy if it hurt the interests of the fossil fuel industry, and what the above Google shows is the detail of how lobbyists helped make that happen.

What I think we can learn from this

We can learn that even though business is structurally lucky and in a mutually supportive relationship with the state apparatus usually, it never really takes anything for granted and so, the lobbying and smoothing of the wheels continues non-stop.

What happened next

 Howard made sure that the Kyoto protocol was not brought forward for ratification and prevented an emissions trading scheme from being started. ronically this would have helped some forms of business but he also was unrelentingly unremittingly hostile to renewables.

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 States of America

June 11, 2003 – US and Australian think tanks conspire vs (pluralist) democracy 

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 11, 2003, AEI + IPA vs, well, life on earth.

On June 11, 2003, AEI and an Australian think tank, Institute for Public Affairs (IPA), cosponsored a conference titled “Non-governmental Organizations: The Growing Power of an Unelected Few,” held at the AEI offices in Washington, D.C. The conference laid the ground for the launch of “NGO Watch” – a website and political campaign cosponsored by AEI and The Federalist Society.

(Hardistry and Furdon 2004)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Public Affairs were both long-lived think tanks which had been captured by the neoliberals in the 70s and 80s. And were now launching a full frontal assault on civil society and NGOs. In order to get the ignorant rabble in line. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a never-ending war for public perception and the power struggle to make sure that the state is insulated from popular pressure and can be a trough for favoured industries and research and development, and also function to continue to batter the proles until they submit.

And the “DDT is good for you” myth never goes away. 

What happened next

As you’d have predicted, the IPA then set about trying to attack and smother civil society organisations in the United in Australia. It set up a fake environmental group in 2005 in order to try to confuse people, because that’s who these scum buckets 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.