Category: Carbon Pricing

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…

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Denial

November 30, 1994 – Another denialist dolt – “Global warming a clouded issue”

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 30th, 1994,

ANDREW McINTYRE finds that the gap is just getting wider between the politicians and the scientists.

Greenpeace has just made a submission to Federal Cabinet claiming greenhouse gases should be subjected to the same stringent regulations as other damaging materials. Cabinet will make a decision early in December, and is likely to consider measures including the introduction of a carbon tax. But will it base its decisions on the facts or the fictions?

McIntyre, A. 1994. Global warming a clouded issue. Canberra Times, 30 November, p.16.

and

Meanwhile, the BCA has eschewed the denial angle, and sends a letter to Keating-

The brief introduction explains the purpose of the letter. The Business Council presents its argument in the next five paragraph and refutes [well, maybe] the view of pro-carbon tax lobbyists in the following seven paragraphs. (Worden, 1998, p133)

It concludes “Costly policies such as a unilateral carbon tax or an environmental levy are not necessary for Australia to make an equitable contribution to global emission abatement. On the other hand we believe that complementary industry and government action within a no regrets framework provide good scope for further emission abatement.” (cited Worden 1998, p130)

Letter to the MP from BCA 30 November 1994 (Wordern, 1998, ch 6)

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 the day before the IPA had had GB Tucker writing gibberish, and now the Canberra Times was running a denialist screed. It was the second time that year, at least, by an IPA hanger-on. 

What we learn is that even a fundamentally okay newspaper like the Canberra Times was still running denialist tripe out of a misplaced sense of “balance” (See also Boykoff and Boykoff article about bias as balance). 

What happened next? The carbon tax was defeated. The IPA is still with us. The Tasman Institute was abolished – surplus to requirements, job done, mission accomplished. And then Prime Minister John Howard delivered everything that the fossil fuel lobby could expect. 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: 

November 30, 1978 – House of Lords debate on Atmospheric Changes…

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

Categories
Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Uncategorized

October 2, 1994 – twenty years of boredom, for trying to change the system from within (Phillip Toyne becomes civil servant)

Thirty years ago, on this day, October 2nd, 1994, as the battle for a carbon tax heats up…

THE FRIENDS and enemies of Phillip Toyne, acquired during years of very public struggle over Aboriginal land rights and the environment, were in a stunned state at the ALP’s national conference in Hobart this week.

The news that one of the hardest nosed and most controversial among Australian activists had joined, of all things, the Commonwealth’s environment bureaucracy (at deputy secretary, level, no less), delighted and appalled in equal measure.. …..

Brough, J. 1994. What kind of pudding will Toyne make? Canberra Times, 2 October, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Phillip Toyne had been a thorn in the side of the Hawke government. He, as the chair of the Australian Conservation Foundation, had also done really useful work on Aboriginal land rights. And now he was tempted to try to change the system from within by becoming a senior bureaucrat for John Faulkner, the Federal Environment Minister, who was publicly toying with the idea of introducing a carbon tax. 

What we learn is that people who try to change the system from within get sentenced to 20 months or years of boredom. And sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. 

What happened next. Toyne was unsuccessful. I don’t know when he quit, but it was pretty clear after February 10 1995, that no meaningful action was going to happen on climate change in Australia, at least not at the federal level. Toyne died in 2015. Having fought the good fight. 

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 2, 1927/64 – Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar die.

October 2, 1942 – Spaceflight!!

October 2, 2014 – Low emission technologies on their way, says Minerals Council of Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 18, 2004 – Australian States back ETS plan

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 18th, 2004, the Melbourne Age had the following report on page 3

The Victorian Government and other states are close to finalising a plan for a groundbreaking greenhouse gas emissions trading system to curb pollution caused by industry.

Flagging a major Government focus on the environment, renewable energy and sustainability over the next five years, Premier Steve Bracks said Victoria would take a leadership role in pushing the model.

While the plan is yet to be finalised, it is likely that it would cap companies’ greenhouse gases. If companies exceeded their cap, they would have to buy credits from other companies….

Gray, D. 2004. States Push Emissions Trading Plan. The Age, 18 September, p. 3

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after the defeat of a straightforward Carbon Tax in 1995, attention had turned to various emissions trading schemes, which had the added benefit of helping banks get rich. And economists could argue about which particular iteration was the most “efficient”, all the while ignoring the fact that these systems will be gamed. There’ll be loopholes, there will be grandfathering clauses, etc. Anyway, there have been two efforts to get the federal Emissions Trading Scheme and Prime Minister John Howard had successfully defeated two proposals for an emissions trading scheme. In 2000, Nick Minchin had been his point man, and then 2003 he had done it literally all by himself. So it was fairly obvious that if you wanted an emissions trading scheme, you’re gonna have to do it so-called “bottom up” with each state, coming up with its own, but then there being transferability and interoperability. And one of the champions for this was Bob Carr, who was still the New South Wales premier (had been since 1995). And here, they were saying that they were going to make it happen. [I don’t know why they didn’t. Did the Federales step in and tell them to go up themselves? That would be a good question to try and answer.] 

What we learn is that good ideas and semi-good ideas and wretched ideas are hard to kill off. Especially if they go with the grain of neoliberalism and are going to make some people very rich.

What happened next. The states’ scheme came to nothing. Kevin Rudd, as Labor Opposition Leader, started talking up an ETS, forcing Howard to do the same. Then the horrors of 2008 to 2012…

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: 

September 18, 2013 – Greenpeace try to occupy the “Arctic Sunrise.”

September 18, 2013 – Feeble denialists launch feeble denialist “report”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 14, 1994 – Business told to brace for climate regulation/tax (which it then handily defeats)

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 14th, 1994

CANBERRA NOTEBOOK

Industry can expect tougher government action as a result of publication in the past week of Australia’s first inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. The Environment Minister, Senator John Faulkner, says he is working on a range of measures to take to Cabinet by December to help cut Australia’s gas emissions in line with international obligations.

Hooper, N. 1994. Greenhouse Action. BRW, 19 September, p.14.

and

A carbon tax, which could have a significant impact on Australia’s resources sector, will be examined as part of the Federal Government’s business tax reforms.

While it is not one of the Ralph report recommendations, a paper has been prepared by Treasury that is expected to be used by the Government when it begins negotiations with the Australian Democrats on the business tax reform package.

In negotiations to secure approval for the Government’s landmark business tax reforms, the Democrats are expected to push for a more systematic approach to Australia’s commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions under the Kyoto targets. This might involve a tax on emissions or other measures, such as greenhouse credits for tree plantations.

Dodson, L. and Lewis, S. 1999. Government puts carbon tax on agenda. The Australian Financial Review, 14 September, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Businesses told that they can expect regulation, that they should brace for it. 

The context was that the carbon tax idea that had been promulgated, put forward in the late 80s, early 90s And then defeated was on its way back. It seemed John Faulkner who was the Environment Minister for Keating was proposing attacks that would raise some funds, needed funds for Treasury and also pay for a little bit of research and development of solar power. Business knew that business groups would fight very hard; but they were realistic that things could go wrong and that they might end up with regulation or taxation. This of course might also have been a warning in order to whip up more interest and finance from potentially affected groups, so the troops were energised; who can say. 

What we can learn is that business fights dirty and hard, obvs.

What happened next Business won that round, and almost all of the rounds to follow. 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.

Also on this day: 

 September 14, 1993 – scientists suffer backlash (not outa thin air though)

September 14, 2004 – Blair “shocked” by scientists warnings – “time is running out for tackling climate change”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

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

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 21st, 2004, a newspaper tells the tale… (I know this because the ALP’s Anthony Albanese was using the article to attack Prime Minister John Howard in March 2005.)

Albanese speech in parliament 9 March 2005

“Even Treasurer Peter Costello and the former environment minister, David Kemp, supported a national trading scheme. As reported by the Australian on 21 August 2004:

Federal cabinet rejected such a scheme— an emissions trading scheme in 2003— … even though Environment Minister David Kemp and Treasurer Peter Costello promoted it, after industry lobbied John Howard

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had polished off the emissions trading scheme for the second time, even though his Cabinet had been united against him. He’d hit a pause button, gone and talked to his business mates, came back and said “nah.”

And here we were a year later. I think in the run up to the 2004. Federal election (which happened in October. Mark Latham. Remember him?). A good old fashioned scoop that the Australian ran, presumably because they knew that if they didn’t, it would get given to someone else. It also made them look like journalists, which is always difficult when you’re The Australian. [Interesting question would be who leaked it and why? I don’t know that they ever necessarily got to the bottom of that. But it would be fun to find out.]

What we learn is that when somebody would leak something, you’d have to ask, what were they trying to achieve? What’s the timing? And have they protected themselves enough? Sarah Tisdall and all that.

What happened next, Howard won the 2004 election. Latham went way off the deep end. And Howard got another three years of being a complete fuck knuckle on climate.

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 21, 1961 – The UN holds a “new sources of energy” conference.

August 21, 1972 – Nature editor John Maddox says C02-temperature fear “found wanting”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 12, 2009 – Deutsche bank enters modelling war in Australia

Fifteen years ago, on this day, August 12th, 2009, the climate wars continue…

A leading global authority on carbon trading has questioned the claimed cost savings of the hybrid emissions trading model being considered by the federal opposition.

Deutsche Bank’s global head of carbon markets, Mark Lewis, said international experience suggested Frontier Economics was wrong to say its model would result in much smaller electricity price increases than would occur under the Rudd government’s proposed ETS.

Breusch, J. 2009. Doubts over emission cost savings. The Australian Financial Review, 12 August, p. 6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberals, then led by Malcolm Turnbull, were trying to offer an alternative to Kevin Rudd CPRS. But of course, it had to be distinct enough and therefore far enough from accepted economic practice norms. Which meant that outfits like Deutsche Bank would be compelled to say it’s crap. 

What we learn is that when there is a consensus around what is “economically efficient,” then bucking that will open you up to all sorts of attacks. And so it came to pass. 

What happened next? I don’t know if the Libs put Deutsche Bank on a blacklist or anything. But what’s interesting is that during the white heat of the climate wars (2010 to ‘13). various consultancies played as dead as they could for fear of missing out on future government contracts.

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 12, 1970 – US Senate warned about climate change

August 12, 1990 – Channel 4 shows crackpot documentary “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”

August 12, 2010 – BZE launches energy plan for Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

April 26, 1992 – Ros Kelly abjures a carbon tax

Thirty two years ago, on this day, April 26th, 1992 the entirely sensible idea of a carbon tax was killed off (for now), with the Australian Federal Environment Minister running up the white flag again.

A spokesman for Environment Minister Ros Kelly said the Government was not considering a “carbon tax”, which would hit fossil fuels such as petrol and coal. Instead – at least as a first step – it favoured “no-regret” options. These were measures to increase energy efficiency, which will have overall economic benefits even if dire greenhouse scenarios don’t eventuate. The spokesman said: “This Government would be delinquent if it did not take a precautionary rather than a cavalier approach to the greenhouse effect. The worst-case scenarios are terrifying.”

BCA spokesman Mark Emerson said Australia should not support the EC proposal for a commitment by developed countries to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000. “Business is concerned that, against the background of the enormous scientific uncertainties, inappropriate policy responses might be applied which would have devastating economic and social effects without any discernible environmental benefits,” he said. “None of Australia’s regional trading partners or competitors – except New Zealand – will agree to the EC option.”

Skinner, S. 1992. Greenhouse: Aust yet to set its policy. Sun Herald, 26 April, p. 13.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the idea of a carbon tax had been raised within the Ecologically Sustainable Development groups. Entirely sensible idea. And it had sent business or elements of business into a total meltdown. And now, under the new Keating government, it was off the table. But of course, Kelly would be going to the Rio Earth Summit in a couple of months. And the headbangers didn’t want her trying to sneak things in via the back door. 

What we learn is that simple straightforward ideas that would have helped were defeated by powerful greedy actors who had only their own short-term power and comfort in mind. And politicians went along for the ride. 

What happened next, Rio happened. There was another attempt to get a carbon tax through in 94/95, after Ross Kelly was forced to resign over sports routes. And it failed. And we as a species failed 

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 26, 1998 – New York Times front page expose on anti-climate action by industry

April 26, 1998 – “Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 14, 2007 – Australian Treasury eyeroll about politicians on #climate, (scoop by Laura Tingle).

Seventeen years ago, on this day, March 14th, 2007, civil servants get caught out despairing of their political “masters.”

The country’s most senior economic bureaucrat has delivered a scathing assessment of the federal government’s water and climate-change policies and warned his department to be vigilant against the “greater than usual risk of the development of policy proposals that are, frankly, bad” in the lead-up to the federal election.

In a speech to an internal Treasury forum, obtained by The Australian Financial Review, Treasury Secretary Ken Henry confirmed his department had little influence in the development of the government’s recent $10 billion water package, and expressed his regret that its advice both on water and climate change had not been followed in recent years.

The revelations came as the government was on the defensive yesterday about its failure to address climate change in its latest intergenerational report.

Dr Henry’s speech, in which he reviewed Treasury’s achievements and challenges, was given to an internal biannual departmental forum at Canberra’s Hyatt Hotel on March 14.

He noted that the department had “worked hard to develop frameworks for the consideration of water reform and climate-change policy”.

“All of us would wish that we had been listened to more attentively over the past several years in both of these areas. There is no doubt that policy outcomes would have been far superior had our views been more influential,” he said.

2007 Tingle, L. 2007. Revealed: Treasury chief’s blast at government policy. The Australian Financial Review, 4 April, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Treasury officials had been having to sit politely for a decade while various “economically efficient” emissions trading schemes were proposed. Two had been put before cabinet in 2000 and 2003, only to be shut down. In the first case by Nick Minchin the second by John Howard alone. And of course, the Shergold report process was underway at this point, because Howard had done a save-my-skin U-turn. Also, Kevin Rudd was banging the drum. And it looked like the state-based Emissions Trading might come back, who knew for sure. And so hardly surprising that top mandarin,  who actually knew one end of a spreadsheet from another, might have a little private exasperation. 

What we can learn is that civil servants often have to just grit their teeth as really stupid. elected members run the place – which is of course how it should be. On  tap not on top and all that crap. 

What happened next? The Shergold report was released in May 2007, but convinced no one. Aong came Keivin Rudd who then completely fucked up the introduction of the emissions trading schemes. He got toppled by Julia Gillard and, well, alright you know the rest. 

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

 March 14, 2007 – Top Australian bureaucrat admits “frankly bad” #climate and water policies

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

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

Fifteen years ago, on this day, March 9th, 2009, the ABC revealed just how much lobbying was going on.

The ALP government’s intransigence is no surprise. The ABC’s Four Corners on March 9 2009 provided detailed confirmation that the CPRS is the product of immense pressure and lobbying from the corporate interests that profit most from Australia’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/s2511380.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Kevin Rudd had become prime minister, in part by using climate change as a stick to beat Liberal John Howard with. Once in office, though, he just subcontracted this out – largely ignored the issue except for the occasional set piece speech. He was more interested in the global financial crisis and running around saving capitalism and strutting and fretting his error upon the stage. In December of 2008, the carbon pollution reduction scheme white paper had been released. There were protests when Rudd did a speech at the National Press Club. And economist Ross Garnaut who had been Rudd’s pet economist for a little while, but proved to be too honest called that process “Oiling the squeaks”, saying that never in the field of human of Australian lobbying has so much been given to so many so few but so many. 

Anyway. 2009 was the year that Rudd’s lot were supposed to turn the White Paper into actual legislation. And business knew that if it kept kicking and screaming it would keep being given more and more of what it wanted because Rudd is basically a spineless technocrat. And this is a good example of it. 

What I think we can learn from this is that vested interests will never be satisfied with what you give them. (This is the accusation levelled at climate activists, but I think there’s some projection going on).

What happened next

Rudd introduced the legislation. It fell the first time which was fine by him because it gave him more chances to beat up on opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull (who admittedly had been a bit of a douche. Gordon Gretch etc). Then in late 2009, Turnbull ran up the white flag and wanted to get the climate issue off the table. He sent feelers to Rudd who batted him away, convinced he would get the legislation through, defeat the Liberals and go to Copenhagen for victory lap. And then along came Tony Abbott. And you know, the rest. 

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 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