Category: Carbon Pricing

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 9, 2000 – Report on emissions trading

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 9th, 2000,

“On March 9 a report on emissions trading by Allen Consulting was released to the Victorian Government. Modelling various scenarios but excluding the effect of international trading, the report put the cost on carbon in the range of $42 to $148 a tonne.

Analysts point out that an international carbon market is inevitable, and that this will considerably reduce the price of carbon. Let’s hope it does. The Allen report also predicted percentage point declines in national GDP and employment.

Hordern, N. 2000. Greenhouse gas and the high price of hot air. The Australian Financial Review, 29 March, p.18. 

AND

MELBOURNE, March 10, AAP – A compulsory system of trading of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia would be too expensive, according to a report prepared for the Victorian government.

The report on greenhouse emissions trading by The Allen Consulting Group said a domestic permits scheme would also be too complex.

However, the report recommended that Australia participate in an international trading system when an agreed model becomes operational.

“On balance, we do not support the imposition of a mandatory domestic emissions trading system in Australia,” the report said.

“The costs of permits under such a system may well be higher than those incurred later under an international system and could, therefore, lead to an unnecessarily high adjustment burden.”

Anon. 2000. Greenhouse emission trading plan too expensive – Aust report.  Australian Associated Press, 10 March,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide had been around for a long time. There was even a mention of it in 1970 in a major Australian newspaper. But it really only kicked into high gear in 1988-89, Two attempts at introducing a carbon tax had been defeated, in 1990-91 and then, more dramatically, in 1994-95

Then attention had switched to the idea of emissions trading. And of course, the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had signed but not ratified – and it was still a hope that Australia would ratify it at this stage – was allegedly going to enable international carbon trading. 

The specific context was … Allen consulting…. Well, the fact that it’s one of Geoff Allen’s babies should tell you plenty.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been dreaming up policy “solutions” to climate change, which don’t tackle the need for urgent, steep reductions, but allow people to feel that they are doing something, and allow those people and other people to get rich from All the consultancy fees, legal fees, etc. 

What happened next. Well, after being gifted the 2000 presidential election by his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, in March 2001, George W Bush followed instructions from the actual president, Dick Cheney and pulled the US out of negotiating around the Kyoto Protocol, In June of 2002 John Howard, Australian Prime Minister, did the same.

Eventually an emissions trading scheme came into force in Australia, thanks to the skill of Julia Gillard and her need to negotiate with Greens and Independents, but that was swiftly destroyed by the wrecking-ball liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott, 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 9, 1998 – First head of Australian Greenhouse Office announced – (Or “Infamous long AGO”)

 March 9, 2005- Albanese says “ecological decline is accelerating and many of the world’s ecosystems are reaching dangerous thresholds.” #auspol

March 9, 2009 – Scientist tries to separate fact from denialist fiction

March 9, 2009 – Carbon price being weakened by lobbying…

Categories
2003 Australia Carbon Pricing Finance Capital Kyoto Protocol Westpac

 February 17, 2003 – A bank wants to make money, and “save the planet”

Twenty three years ago, on this day, February 17, 2003,

SYDNEY, Feb 17, AAP – One of Australia’s big four banks has indicated its support for an international treaty to cut greenhouse gases.

Greenpeace today said initial findings of its survey of Business Council of Australia (BCA) members revealed Westpac supported the aims and objectives of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

AAP. 2003. Westpac supports Kyoto Protocol – Greenpeace. Australian Associated Press Financial News Wire, 17 Feb

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the idea of rich countries having to reduce emissions was there from the beginning of public international climate concern in 1988, but the administration of George HW Bush had, using its diplomatic muscle, prevented targets and timetables for reductions being in the UNFCCC’s text at that point, Australia was playing, and I mean that in every sense, the role of a “responsible middle power”. However, the domestic forces arrayed against emissions reductions and policy instruments like a price on carbon dioxide to make reductions happen were extremely strong. 

The specific context was that in 1997 the Kyoto Protocol had been agreed, Australia had managed to get an extremely generous increase in its reductions. De jure 108% but de facto, once you took into account the land clearing clause, 130%.

In September 1998 the Canberra Times reported that Cabinet had decided it would not ratify Kyoto unless the Americans did. In March 2001 the Bush administration pulled the US out of Kyoto, and in June of 2002 Howard had followed through on that, choosing to make the announcement on World Environment Day, primarily, I assume, to own the libs. 

But business had seen value in Kyoto ratification. New South Wales had lots of forests and could get so-called carbon credits, but only if Australia ratified. Meanwhile, carbon trading was going to enable nice fat fees for consultants and bankers in lots of loopholes, but Howard was opposed. Therefore it’s not particularly surprising to see Westpac coming out in favour.

What I think we can learn from this is that “capital” is not unitary, not a monolith. There are competing, overlapping, conflicting interests, all of which need managing, usually within and between trade associations, but sometimes just the big beasts – the really big beasts – doing it behind closed doors.

What happened next: later on in that year, Howard blocked an emissions trading scheme for Australia that all his Cabinet wanted, and he went on to win another election. Westpac kept on talking, and in 2006 combined with the Australian Conservation Foundation, the biggest green group to push the case for “Early action on climate change” in April of 2006.

Meanwhile, during all this, the emissions kept climbing, the concentrations kept climbing, and the chances of humans, humanity, civilization, whatever label you want to stick on it, avoiding the absolute worst consequences of its own behaviour, shrank.

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 17, 1993 – President Clinton proposes an Energy Tax.

February 17, 2003 – “please ratify Kyoto Protocol” advisory group begs John Howard

February 17, 2003 – Bob Carr says John Howard showing poor leadership (too generous!)

Feb 17, 2004 – Zero Emissions Technology Conference in Australia. At peak excitement of tech solutions

February 17, 2013 – celebrities arrested at Whitehouse, protesting Keystone XL

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 18, 2006 – Carbon tax 2 (Peter Costello in Los Angeles)

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 18th, 2006 Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello gave a speech in Los Angeles. (In August, Anthony Albanese would use it, to punch the bruise).

On 18 January 2006, in a speech in Los Angeles supporting price signals for energy, Peter Costello stated that:

“A market based solution will give the right signal to producers and to consumers. It will make clear the opportunity cost of using energy resources, thereby encouraging more and better investment in additional sources of supply and improving the efficiency with which they are used. That has to be good for both producers and consumers and better for the environment.

“It is not surprising Peter Costello made this statement as in August 2003 a Cabinet submission to establish a national emissions trading scheme was co-sponsored by four Departments – Treasury, Environment, Industry & Foreign Affairs.

“Unfortunately, the joint Cabinet submission was scuttled by the Prime Minister who is stuck in the past and unable to embrace the future. 

MEDIA RELEASE – ANTHONY ALBANESE MP 16 August 2006

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian elites had been pretending they would act on climate change for almost 20 years by this stage.

The specific context was that John Howard, Costello’s boss, had squashed an emissions trading proposal in August 2003, in the face of a united cabinet.

What I think we can learn from this is they (Costello, Albanese etc) are weasels serving their own interests and those of their rich rich mates, who simply don’t care that hell will rain down.

What happened next 

In April 2006 business and environment groups (ACF) called for an emissions trading scheme.

At the end of the year new Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd started using the issue as a stick to beat Howard with.

The climate issue exploded into view before then, and at the end of the year, Howard did a kind-of-U-turn, which didn’t save him.

See also

Albo or John Howard? Who is the bigger climate criminal? – All Our Yesterdays

August 21, 2004 – The Australian reports on Howard cabinet split over ETS – All Our Yesterdays

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 18, 1964 – Nature mentions atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up

January 18, 1993 – Australian unions and greenies launch first “Green Jobs” campaign

January 18, 1993 – Job’s not a good un. “Green Jobs in Industry Plan” achieves … nothing. #auspol

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 18, 1995 – Carbon tax 1

Thirty one years ago, on this day, January 18th, 1995

FEDERAL Cabinet is considering a series of controversial measures to cut greenhouse emissions, including a carbon tax of up to $20 a tonne, which would raise $13 billion over three years, and an extra 10c/litre fuel excise.

The proposals – detailed in a Cabinet document obtained by The Australian Financial Review – are set to generate massive industry hostility, and to switch the environmental spotlight from Mr Beddall, the minister responsible for the woodchip controversy, to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, and his departmental deputy secretary, Mr Phillip Toyne, who is masterminding the greenhouse strategy.

 Callick, R. 1995. Revealed: Green tax shock *$13bn grab *$20/tonne carbon tax *New 10c/litre fuel levy. Australian Financial Review, 18 January, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the idea of taxing “bads” is hardly new (Pigou, much?) and had been suggested for carbon dioxide not merely in the late 1980s, but all the way back to 1970.

The specific context was that industry had already seen off a previous tax proposal (or the idea of one) in 1990-1, and had been prepping for another battle for a while, since it was obvious that those wanting climate action would try again.

What I think we can learn from this is industry mostly gets what it wants. We are screwed.

What happened next – those wanting a price on carbon switched to an emissions trading scheme. This makes bankers and consultants happy, and offers enormous opportunities for loophole finding and patronage which turns into post-election-defeat jobs.  Even that was resisted, successfully, for ages.

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 18, 1964 – Nature mentions atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up

January 18, 1993 – Australian unions and greenies launch first “Green Jobs” campaign

January 18, 1993 – Job’s not a good un. “Green Jobs in Industry Plan” achieves … nothing. #auspol

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

November 8, 1989 – somebody suggests the polluters pay….

Thirty six years ago, on this day, November 8th, 1989,

SYDNEY: The Federal Government should consider introducing a “polluter-pays” tax on companies which add to the greenhouse effect, the Minister for Science, Barry Jones, said yesterday.

Anon. 1989. Polluter-pays’ taxation suggested by minister. Canberra Times, November 9, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 the idea of pollution taxes had been around in the early 1970s, including in Australia. Barry Jones, who is pretty smart, will have known all about that. I mean, it’s not a controversial position, is it?

The specific context was – thanks to Barry Jones’ “Commission for the Future”, working with the CSIRO on “The Greenhouse Project” in 1987, Australians were pretty well-informed about the problems that they would face.  By late 1988 the issue was hot hot hot.

What I think we can learn from this – putting a price on something “bad” to discourage it is not controversial sometimes. Other times, it is made controversial.

What happened next – There were ferocious campaigns against any form of carbon pricing (tax or emissions trading scheme) that ebbed and flowed. Finally, albeit briefly, a carbon price was in place from 2012, but was then abolished in 2013-4.

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: 

November 8, 1989 – ALP Minister says environmentalism a “middle-class fad” – “greenies” respond…

 November 8, 1989 – Thatcher gives climate speech to UN General Assembly – All Our Yesterdays

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Categories
Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

Oct 15, 2009 – The Australian Conservation Foundation models back

On this day sixteen years ago the ACF tried to stop Kevin Rudd from giving away more and more “compensation” (i.e. taxpayers’ money) to polluters.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/13467/20120118-0823/www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/Financial_Impact_CPRS_151009.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 the ACF had pushed as hard as it could for carbon pricing in 1994-5, and been defeated. Various carbon pricing schemes had been defeated in the subsequent decade and a half. What a horrible settler colony, with such contempt for everything.

The specific context was that business had been fighting hard, and winning all the time. The CPRS had already failed to get through parliament once, and a second go was coming up.

What I think we can learn from this – you can – and have to – try using your opponents’ tools, but don’t expect to get that much traction.

What happened next – Abbott toppled Turnbull as Leader of the Liberal Party/Opposition. Rudd’s dreadful scheme fell, but he lacked the spine to call a double dissolution election and Julia Gillard had to clean up his mess.

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: 

October 15, 1971 – “Man’s Impact on the Climate” published

October 15, 1985 – Villach meeting supercharges greenhouse concerns…

October 15, 1999- Australian economy headed for trouble because of carbon dioxide emissions, admits government through gritted teeth. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

October 12, 2011 – Carbon Pricing legislation passed

Fourteen years ago, on this day, October 12th, 2011,

“Carbon pricing (fixed for the first three years, then floating as part of an ETS) therefore passed the lower House of Representatives on 12 October 2011 with the support of Oakeshott, Windsor, Bandt and Wilkie with a vote of 74:72.” (Crowley, 2013: 377)

At 9.40am on 12 October, Gillard notches up a decisive victory with the passage through the Lower House of eighteen pieces of legislation making up the Clean Energy Future Bill which, inter alia, establishes the carbon price mechanism and its regulatory body.

(Walsh, 2013:87) Stalking of Julia Gillard

The day the carbon price bills passed the Parliament on 12 October 2011, journalist Annabel Crabb wrote for ABC The Drum online:

“Inside Rudd’s office, they used to speak of ‘kicking the can down the road’ – delaying decisions for a future date by which time conditions, it was hoped, would improve. Of all the criticisms that can validly be made of Julia Gillard’s Government, this is not one…

Julia Gillard is picking up the can that has been kicked down the road by John Howard, Kevin Rudd and, in his own way, Malcolm Turnbull…. There’s a compelling, almost cinematic quality to her determination; it’s like watching a slalom downhill skier deliberately hitting every peg.

(Cooney, 2015: 218)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 putting a price on carbon – either by a straightforward tax or an emissions trading scheme (the latter has more scope for loopholes and the enrichment of consultants, so guess which was considered more “efficient”) – had been pushed since the late 80s. And the fossil fuel lobby and its ideological henchmen had done an extremely effective job of stopping it, repeatedly, with help from John Howard on several notorious occasions.

The specific context was that Kevin Rudd’s cowardice and incompetence on carbon pricing had tanked his reputation, and in the end cost him his job. His replacement, Julia Gillard, was forced by the electoral mathematics of her minority government to push through a carbon price, in the face of an extraordinary campaign of vitriol (looking at you, Murdoch media minions and worms).

What I think we can learn from this – women have to clean up men’s messes.

What happened next – the next government, of Tony Abbott, abolished the pricing mechanism. God help us all. 

(To be clear, the pricing mechanism was utterly inadequate as a response).

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: 

October 13, 2005 – “Climate Change: Turning up the Heat” published 

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation Incumbent strategies

September 22, 1994 – another “sky will fall” report

Thirty one years ago, on this day, September 22nd, 1994, 

The Federal Government’s response to the greenhouse gas problem will inevitably cut billions of dollars from Australia’s economic growth but a carbon tax would devastate the economy, according to a major new report.

The study, by the Melbourne-based National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, says that current government ambitions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are “unrealistic” and cannot be achieved without major economic costs.

It confirms there are no easy choices facing the Government in dealing with the greenhouse problem, particularly in the short term.

Commissioned by the Electricity Supply Association of Australia, the two-year, $400,000 research project, suggests that a longer-term greenhouse response would mitigate the impact on the national economy. The new analysis will be publicly released today. … coal industry closed down by 2000.

Gill, P. 1994. Carbon tax to ruin economy says new study. The Australian Financial Review, 22 September, p.6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 business had been running scare campaigns against any government action on any given issue for ages – that’s what they do.  Starting in 1989 or so, they did the same for “the Greenhouse Effect.”

The specific context was that the Federal Environment Minister, John Faulkner, had spent the last few months trying to get people on board for a carbon tax.  This was part of the pushback.

What I think we can learn from this is that they always do “sky will fall” economic reports. Why change a winning game?

What happened next: The carbon tax was defeated in early February 1995.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

September 22, 1971 – Australian communist talks about climate change

September 22, 1991 – ESD RIP. Australia’s chance of a different future… squashed flat.

September 22, 2014 – “We Mean Business” coalition formed

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Kyoto Protocol

August 23, 2000 – Nick Minchin in gloat mode

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, August 23rd 2000,

The Government will only implement a mandatory domestic emissions trading scheme if the Kyoto Protocol is ratified by Australia, has entered into force and there is an established international emissions trading regime. This decision does not rule out the subsequent introduction of such a scheme if further analysis demonstrates that this would be in the national interest. Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, Media Release, Government Provides Greater Greenhouse Certainty For Industry, 23 August 2000

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. 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 policy elites had been confronted with the idea that you have to put a price on emitting carbon dioxide for over a decade. The first two goes were a carbon tax. These were defeated. Then the attention and “intellectual” energy switched to emissions trading schemes (which offer more scope for avoidance and enrichment by consultants and bankers etc)

The specific context was that the first proposal for a Federal emissions trading scheme had just been defeated in Howards’ Cabinet, with Nick Minchin leading the charge.

What I think we can learn from this is that even the simplest actions were too much for us to contemplate. We are stupid hairless murder apes who will take down pretty much all the other species with us. With luck the planet won’t go full Venus, and in a few (dozen?) million laws the biodiversity will return?

What happened next – in 2003 Howard’s Cabinet was united in favour of an Emissions Trading Scheme. Howard exercised a personal veto, having spoken to a couple of business mates.

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 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

August 23, 1856 – Eunice Foote identifies carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

 August 13, 2009 – Senate kibboshes “CPRS”

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 13th, 2009, Kevin Rudd’s car crash of a climate “policy” began to collide with, well, everything…

Endeavoring to keep its commitment to enact the CPRS into law prior to the meetings in Copenhagen in December 2009, the CPRS Bill was introduced to Parliament on May 14, 2009, and was passed by the House of Representatives on June 4th. It was defeated, however, in the Australian Senate on August 13, 2009, by a 42 to 30 vote where the Opposition, the Greens, and two independent Senators hold the balance of power. Carbon Capture and Storage:

Wishful Thinking or a Meaningful Part of the Climate Change Solution MICHAEL I. JEFFERY, Q.C.*

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. 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 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had used climate change as one of his ways of attacking John Howard (Prime Minister from 1996 to 2007). Once in office he avoided doing simple powerful good things and instead went for a complex  “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” that was, by this time very clearly, a give-away to the most powerful industries – the carbon intensive manufacturing, fossil fuel export and energy production sectors.

The specific context was that Rudd and his supporters were not bothered about the legislation the first time – they expected it and enjoyed watching the Liberals and Nationals tear each other apart.

What I think we can learn from this is that Rudd was terrible on many things. Most consequentially, climate.

What happened next  The CPRS was re-introduced in November, and defeated. It brought down Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull, who was replaced by Tony Abbott.  Rudd was delighted, thinking that Copenhagen would be a success and he could come back and defeat Abbott… tumbleweed…. Funny how life turns out, isn’t it?

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 13, 1882 – William “Coal Question” Jevons dies

August 13, 1991 – clouds and silver linings 

August 13, 2007 – Newsweek nails denialists