Category: Carbon Pricing

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 25, 2003 – Australian Treasury says “carbon pricing. It’s not rocket science”

Twenty two years ago, on this day, February 25th, 2003,

In an attachment to a cabinet memorandum dated 25 February 2003, Treasury warned that “the current approach to domestic emissions mitigation is not a sustainable long term approach, with its heavy reliance on spending programs, prescriptive regulation and ‘picking winners’”.

Treasury said this would come “at a very high economic cost” whereas any credible long-term climate change strategy must involve shifting the bulk of the responsibility to emitters.

It said a broad-based market mechanism, such as an ETS, had the benefit of “inducing a least-cost path to reducing emissions and best positioning the economy to respond to future developments” https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/jan/01/liberal-coalition-cabinet-papers-emissions-

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in June, 2002 John Howard had said that he would not be putting Australia’s membership of participation in the Kyoto Protocol forward for ratification,e. Australia would be outside. 

But the climate issue was still live, with the Millennium drought ongoing and various attempts to sensitize people. There had been an attempt to get an emissions trading scheme through Howard’s cabinet, in August of 2000. That had been defeated thanks to Nick Minchin as the front person. And at this point, I suspect it was fairly clear that there was going to be another attempt at putting an ETS through. Treasury was simply saying what was obvious .

What I think we can learn from this is that there really was, among people who work on the economy, not a lot of debate about the need for some sort of price on carbon. That’s what you do. You raise the price of things that are causing harm, and hopefully you use the money to research things that will cause less harm. That’s the theory anyway.

What happened next Howard would literally, single-handedly killed off the emissions trading scheme later, in 2003. The emissions kept climbing, and we are absolutely toast. 

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 25, 1981 – National Party senator nails the climate problem

Feb 25 1992- business groups predict economic chaos if action is taken on #climate

Feb 25, 2007 – “Clean Coal Initiative” as move in game of one-dimensional electoral chess #auspol

February 25, 2011 – Alan Jones versus sanity

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 24, 2011 – the fateful press conference of Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Greens Bob Brown…

Fourteen years ago, on this day, February 24th, 2011,

She announced this in her courtyard, alongside the Green party (as for the multi-party committee the previous year) and this time also bringing in the independent MPs. Look, it said, parliamentary numbers are locked in, this is not a hypothetical any more – she had the will, and it would be done. An hour later in question time the PM would describe the carbon price as ‘a scheme that would start with a fixed price for a fixed period, effectively like a tax’ – no lawyer language or weasel words, no hiding: she was going to make the case.

I was one of those who thought it seemed like the best of a bad lot of options at the time.

Instead, it became proof that she’d lied.

(Cooney, 2015: 87)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the 2010 Federal election had led to a hung parliament (not as much fun as it sounds, say the ‘comics’). This meant that neither Labor nor the Coalition could form a government without getting the agreement of a bunch of independents (and one Green). And most of the independents wanted… a carbon price. So Julia Gillard signed on the dotted line and created a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change. The Liberals and Nationals were invited, but declined to take part. The MPCCC beavered away and on this day a press conference was held. The evening held extra horrors for the PM, who – and this is hard to believe – had not workshopped/rehearsed a response to the obvious question “How come you’re introducing a carbon price when you said days before the last election that you wouldn’t?” 

Here’s some more quotes –

Prime Minister Julia Gillard called a media conference for mid-morning on 24 February 2011 to announce the Discussion Paper on a proposed carbon mechanism. It was a showing of the prime minister flanked by other MPCCCC members from the Labor Party, the Greens, Rob Oakeshott and me. Before I went down to join the group for a photo my policy adviser, John Clements, cautioned me about standing with the group. He thought that being seen with the Greens might be interpreted as agreeing with their agenda. He didn’t quite say it would be, ‘A courageous decision, Mr Windsor,’ in the best Yes Minister’s Sir Humphrey voice, but that’s what he meant.

(Windsor, 2015: 137)

It is my greatest regret that I did not provide more fearless advice to Julia to avoid this error [tax/fixed price]. Labor’s carbon price was an emissions trading scheme and we should have argued that until we were blue in the face.

(Combet, 2014: 252)

Within twenty-four hours the ‘no carbon tax’ election pledge cut through the electorate like a scalpel. Every media interview for months was dominated by a broken promise that was falsely marketed as a ‘lie’. Debate on climate change and carbon pricing was derailed by the poisonous politics. My job was to try to make the science and policy the issues once again.

(Combet, 2014: 252)

On 24 February 2011, six months after the election, a proud Julia Gillard announced agreement in principle between Labor and the Greens on a carbon pricing scheme for Australia. The Greens and the independents stood beside her in the prime minister’s courtyard, Bob Brown given virtually equal status. Gillard was making minority government work. In the process she signed her death warrant as prime minister.

(Kelly, 2014:362)

Abbott’s media conference the same day saw one of the most brutal assaults by an Opposition leader in a generation. Labor never saw it coming. Abbott called Gillard’s position ‘an utter betrayal of the Australian people’ and predicted a people’s revolt. He enshrined the issue as trust: ‘If the Australian people could not trust the Prime Minister on this, they can’t trust her on anything.’ He said ‘the price of this betrayal will be paid every day by every Australian’ in terms of higher power prices. Abbott launched a campaign that would make Gillard unelectable. Yet most of the ALP thought they had just negotiated a minority government triumph.

(Kelly, 2014:362)

What I think we can learn from this is that optics matter.

What happened next?  An indescribably wild six month fight about carbon pricing, with it on the front page of the Australian “newspaper” almost every day…

See also all the misogynistic crap about “Ju-Liar,” “Ditch the Witch” and “Bob Brown’s Bitch”

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

February 15, 1995 – Australian Financial Review editorial, gloating in the aftermath of the defeat of a small carbon tax proposal, groks Jevons Paradox

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 15th, 1995,  the Fin editorialises…

“But no-regrets policies cannot be counted on to significantly reduce Australia’s total greenhouse emissions. The reason is that making the economy more efficient and competitive will lead to higher levels of output.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a vigorous, indeed vociferous and ultimately successful campaign to stop the carbon tax. One of the inevitable arguments was, oh, but, you know, we’ll make everything more efficient. And the Australian Financial Review, to its credit, sort of at least understood something that economists had understood for at that point, I don’t know 130 years; that increasing the efficiency of a process doesn’t mean that less of it gets used overall, but rather more. i.e., Jevons paradox. 

What I think we can learn from this is that basic economic concepts (which doesn’t mean they’re right, but in this case, it seems to be) are sometimes seemingly too complex, or perhaps merely too inconvenient for some politicians who want to be able to use motherhood words like efficiency without being challenged.

What happened next The Fin has deteriorated as a paper, I would say. The carbon price, rather, was instituted very briefly and then became toxic and was killed off

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

February 13, 1995 – Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner runs up the white flag on a carbon tax.

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 13th, 1995

CANBERRA, Feb 14 (Reuter) – Australian Environment Minister John Faulkner said the government had decided not to go ahead with a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, known as an environment levy.

“I’ve indicated that it’s just not going to go forward,” Faulkner told 2GB Sydney radio. “As far as I’m concerned a greenhouse levy is off the agenda.”

Australia govt drops plans for carbon tax-minister. Reuters, 14 February 1995

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a fierce and ultimately successful resistance to the first serious proposal for a carbon tax in Australia. It was on this day that John Faulkner had to admit he just wouldn’t have the numbers to get it through Keating’s cabinet. Australia was already muttering about finding loopholes in the UNFCCC or exploiting them, of course, John Howard, who by this time, was Liberal leader would, shortly after this, say that Australia should never have signed the UNFCCC climate treaty. 

What I think we can learn from this is that 30 years ago, there was an effort to get a small, sensible economic measure going. It would have been grossly inadequate, but it would have been a start. 

What happened next is the proponents of the carbon tax switched to an emissions trading scheme proposal, hoping that would suit neoliberalism a bit better. And of course, that was also the prevailing wind from the United States in its attempt to water down any international action. And eventually, Australia did get a carbon price in 2012 and it was very quickly abolished. 

And the emissions rise, as do the concentrations.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 3, 1995 – Senator McMullan sows the CEDA of our doom..

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 3rd, 1995, a Labor Senator – and I hope you are sitting down when you read this – assures business-types that “the economy” [i.e. corporate profits] is a higher priority than reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

 In a largely unreported speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in Melbourne on Friday [3rd February 1995] , Senator McMullan said: “The levy will be dealt with on the basis of its appropriateness as a measure to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rather than on the amount of revenue it might raise.” “What we need to avoid is any situation where we unilaterally place a wide range of export and import-competing industries at a competitive disadvantage without actually contributing effectively to reducing global or domestic greenhouse emissions,” he added.

Gill, P. 1995. Official warns of small cut in gas with carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 7 February, p.3. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was an almighty battle going on within the Keating government about a carbon tax and the opponents of said tax were trying to ally shop and venue shop and water down and weaken as much as they could. This speech to an economics business think tank/talking shop called CEDA should be seen in that context.

What I think we can learn from this is that introducing a new order of things, as per Machiavelli, is extremely difficult, even if it’s urgent and important. Perhaps especially if it’s urgent and important. 

What happened next: The carbon tax was defeated. Emissions trading schemes were defeated. Finally, Julia Gillard in 2011 got one through. But oh my, what a shitshow. 

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 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 20, 1995 – ACF says a carbon tax would be really helpful

Thirty years ago, on this day, January 20th, 1995, ACFto get the ALP to be less crap.

The Federal Government should increase its spending on the environment by $3.3 billion in the May Budget to repair damage to the nation’s land, water and air, the Australian Conservation Foundation said yesterday. Government spending on the environment was paltry, the foundation’s 1995 Budget submission said. About $820 million was spent nationally last year, which amounted to 0.2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. A carbon tax would fund about one third of the foundation’s proposed $3.3 billion spending increase on energy efficiency, public transport, clean industry production and sustainable agriculture. The tax levied at $2.20 a tonne of carbon dioxide among fossil fuel suppliers would raise $850 million, the submission said. Other revenue-raising measures included the elimination of some diesel rebates, an agricultural water-use levy, increases to personal income taxes and wealth and capital gains taxes. Industry and farming groups are opposed to a carbon tax.

Milburn, C. 1995. ACF Calls For $3.3b On Environment. The Age, 21 January, p.7. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was ACF put out it’s all singing, all dancing “gee it would be great if we get a carbon tax” submission ahead of a couple of round tables to be held two weeks later, (the green performance at the pro-round table was not good, and this  would spell the death for the carbon tax. 

What we learn is that good ideas can very easily get shot down, and usually do, Thirty years, Thirty years. ACF did its best, but there wasn’t that engaged, enraged civil society willing to march into the policy spaces and bang on the table, because that never really happens. That’s not how our societies are currently built. 

That’s not inevitable. You can imagine a different way of governing ourselves, besides technocratic neoliberal capitalism. But we don’t have it at present, and we won’t, because as the disasters pile up, people will become more and more frustrated and disenchanted with messiness and complexity, and they will seek a Savior. And there are always narcissists out there willing to say that they will save the situation, if not the individuals. 

What happened next

Instead of a carbon tax there was a feeble voluntary “Greenhouse Challenge 21C”. And other laughable palaver. Once a carbon price finally came into existence, it was then quickly repealed.

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: 

January 20, 1992 – Gambling on climate… and losing #auspol

January 20, 2011 – Shell tries to change the subject from its own emissions   

January 20, 2014 – Gummer sledges “green extremists”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 5, 1995 – Victorian premier comes out against carbon tax

Thirty years ago, on this day, January 5th, 1995,

“The Industry Greenhouse  sought support from the states for its campaign. Participant F says the network lobbied premiers, ministers, and the state bureaucracy, and forward copies of its carbon tax correspondence and reports.  ‘I think Kennett came out with a statement against carbon tax that I think was prompted by some of our lobbying of the Premier’s Office.’ The Victorian Premier sent out a news release on 5 January 1995 opposing carbon tax and using many of the points put forward by the Industry Greenhouse Network….”

(Worden, 1998: 111) 

(On the same day the greenhouse interdepartmental committee met for first time to plan Faulkner’s next submission… (see Henderson, 12 Jan 1995) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Faulkner, Federal Environment Minister, morning, was pushing for a small carbon tax that would help fund renewables research and development. The fossil fuel industries were up in arms about this, and were drawing in as many allies as they could. One of them was state premiers who were that way inclined, including Jeff Kennet, who of course, had famously privatized the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, and with that, destroyed any hope of a response to the greenhouse effect. 

What I think we can learn from this  is that, as well as “venue shopping,” policy entrepreneurs will go “ally shopping.” And in this case, they went for allies at the state level, as well as trades unions, the real two pronged approach. 

What happened next was that the carbon tax proposal was defeated because Faulkner realized he didn’t have the numbers in Keating’s cabinet.  Australia eventually got a carbon price, an emissions trading scheme in 2011/12, and it was then abolished by the next government, of Tony Abbott. The emissions have kept climbing, and we’re toast. 

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:

Categories
Carbon Pricing Europe

January 1, 2005 – the EU Emissions Trading Scheme begins.

Twenty  years ago, on this day, January 1st, 2005, the EU launched its emissions trading scheme. It will drive down the cost of “decarbonisation” and send long and loud signals to investors, pay for carbon capture and storage and generally Save The World. Oh yes… 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the idea of emissions trading for climate had been around since the early 1990s – an analogy was drawn with sulphur dioxide trading around acid rain in the US/Canada.  But there had been a lot of skepticism about whether it would “work” – because powerful vested interests would find way to game the system, by getting exemptions, or free allocations etc, and the price signal would end up simply not being loud enough to drive change among investors, industry or consumers.  But the Americans were very keen. And see this – 

The EU ETS would likely not have come into existence without the Kyoto Protocol, but the story of that relationship contains its share of irony. Briefly, emissions trading is an American institutional innovation in environmental regulation that was forced into the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol by the United States in late 1997 in the face of strong opposition from the EU. Resistance to the concept continued until the new American president pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, after which European opposition to emissions trading faded. 

Ellerman, A. D., & Buchner, B. K. (2007). The European Union emissions trading scheme: origins, allocation, and early results.

What I think we can learn from this

The defeat of the proposed European Carbon Tax in 1991-2 was the killer victory (alongside Bush versus targets and timetables for Rio).  And emissions trading schemes are a nice-to-have, at best. At worst, they are a tar pit for energy, attention and a great delaying tactic, while the consultants get rich.

What happened next

Europe’s emissions have come down a bit – if you count territorially.  If you look at consumption, and embedded carbon, maybe not quite so much…

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

Convery, F.J. Origins and Development of the EU ETS. Environ Resource Econ 43, 391–412 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9275-7

(haven’t read it yet)

Ellerman, A. D., & Buchner, B. K. (2007). The European Union emissions trading scheme: origins, allocation, and early results.

Also on this day: 

January 1 1958 – control the weather before the commies do!

January 1, 1981- “Climate Change And Society” published

January 1, 1988 – President Reagan reluctantly signs “Global Climate Protection Act” #CreditClaiming

January 1 2007 James Hansen – “If we fail to act, we end up with a different planet”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

December 30, 1997 –  “How seriously should we take the greenhouse effect?” asks deeply unserious economics hack

Twenty six years ago, on this day, December 30th, 1997

How seriously should we take the greenhouse effect – how fast is the world’s temperature rising, and how important is it that we should take precautionary measures, and of what kind? How much should we spend now, given the uncertainties of the whole issue? And how, or on whom, should we spend? 

1997 MCGuinness on ‘environmentalist propaganda’ McGuinness, P. 1997. Running risks of global warming. Sydney Morning Herald, 30 December, p.6

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people have been talking about Australia’s “national interest” and climate change and limits to carbon for a long time because the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol had been going on all year. And here’s Paddy McGuinness, a libertarian economist who had given aid and comfort to the Centre for Independent Studies recycling his bullshit, and refusing to actually think that gosh, he and his beloved ideology might be wrong. 

What we learn is stupid people gonna stupid, especially if their stupidity gets them a seat at the top table, and helps make rich people stay rich/get richer. They need useful idiots in the war of ideas. 

What happened next? Well, McGuinness died, which is why I can speak freely about him. 

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: 

December 30, 1957 – a letter from Gilbert Plass to Guy Callendar

December 30, 1976 – President Jimmy Carter is lobbied about #climate change

December 30, 2006 – “Industry snubs climate strategy”

December 30, 2007 – Bert Bolin dies.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

December 5, 1994 – Taxing times for Australia, maybe…

Thirty years ago, on this day, December 5th, 1994, Keating’s government was supposed to discuss a carbon tax (but it got bumped).

“Conservation groups yesterday stepped up pressure on the Federal Government to adopt tougher measures to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Cabinet will consider the issue tomorrow.

In Yallourn, Greenpeace activists chained themselves across railway tracks used by coal trains which feed the Yallourn W power station.

They also unfurled a huge banner down the side of one of the station’s smoke stacks.

 Birnbauer, B. 1994. Greenies Mount Campaign For Greenhouse Tax. The Age, 6 December, p.3.

AND 

LOCAL coal prices would double and the $8 billion export coal industry would be rendered unprofitable if Federal Cabinet introduced a new carbon levy to help reduce greenhouse gas, according to a major study released yesterday.“… But the Australian Conservation Foundation also released a new report yesterday (5 December), prepared for the ACF as a submission to the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.

“On both a per capita basis and in terms of emissions per unit of GDP, Australia now has by far the highest level of all greenhouse gas emissions in the industrialised world,” said ACF executive director, Ms Tricia Caswell”.

1994 Dwyer, M. 1994. Coal fire on carbon levy. The Australian Financial Review, 6 December, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Greenpeace had been launching court cases to try to stop coal-fired power stations. They’ve not been successful, sadly, no fault of their own. And also there was a carbon tax proposed by Labor Environment Minister John Faulkner (with the campaign to get this happening spear-headed by ACF). So this protest can be seen as two birds one stone sort of.

[It’d be fun to get hold of Greenpeace newsletters magazines from 1994 to ‘95. See what they had to say.]

What we learn is that nonviolent direct action against coal-fired power stations has been going on for a long time. Sadly without much success. 

What happened next? Australia kept building coal-fired power stations. The carbon tax was defeated and the emissions kept climbing. We are all going to die. 

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: 

December 5, 1952 & 2009 London sees climatic pollution events

December 5, 2002 – Australian Government CCS support begins…