Category: Carbon Pricing

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 28, 2006 – “National Emissions Trading Taskforce” report released

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 28th, 2006,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2026, 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 after two failed efforts to get a carbon tax up in the early 90s, advocates of economics-based action on emissions reductions had turned their attention to an emissions trading scheme. Two proposals had been defeated in John Howard’s cabinet in 2000 and 2003 and thereafter attention had turned to state-based schemes in Australia’s different states, with the possibility of trading between them. 

The specific context was that John Howard was the Prime Minister, was continuing to deride and, wherever possible, block such an effort, especially because it undercut his so-called authority.

What I think we can learn from this is that a policy that is popular, which is not to say would have been particularly effective, will persist, and its advocates will do their best to find other plausible venues, i.e. going through the states rather than the federal government.

What happened next A state-based scheme was supplanted, because in late 2006 it became obvious that Howard was going to have to do a U-turn on the question of an emissions trading scheme if he wanted to stay prime minister. And if he was in fact defeated at the upcoming election (spoiler, he was) then Labor was promising a federal scheme. That federal scheme finally happened from 2012 was then abolished by the next government of Liberal Tony Abbott, and the whole idea of explicit, explicit emissions trading schemes was then defeated.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 28, 1971 – snarky opinion piece in New York Times. Stephen Schneider rebuts days later

August 28, 1977 – First Australian“Greenpeace” action, against whaling 

August 28, 2000 – Victorian power generators refuse to sign up to reduction plan, because it is sticks as well as carrots.

August 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 17, 2006 – Howard attacks State government plans to introduce a carbon trading scheme.

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 17th, 2006,

Prime Minister John Howard has attacked state government plans to introduce a carbon trading scheme, claiming it will cripple the resource industry and cause massive price increases for petrol, gas and electricity. He told Parliament yesterday that according to a recent Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics report, a 50 per cent cut in Australian emissions by 2050 ”would lead to a 10 per cent fall in in GDP, a 20 per cent fall in real wages, a carbon price equivalent to doubling of petrol prices and a staggering 600 per cent rise in electricity and gas prices.” [Pearse 2007 is SCATHING on this]

 Beeby, R. 2006. Howard attacks carbon trading scheme. Canberra Times, 17 August, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2026, 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 there had been various efforts to get a federal carbon tax, and then an emissions trading scheme in Australia. Two emissions trading scheme proposals had gone before John Howard’s cabinet. In 2000 Nick Minchin had killed it off. In 2003 John Howard had killed it off. Insert links

The specific context was that from early 2006 onwards, and especially late 2006 the pressure for climate action became unavoidable, and here we see just before the issue breaks through in September, John Howard trying to attack state governments for being proactive on an issue that he wants to stay dead and buried.

What I think we can learn from this is that 10 years is a long time to be Prime Minister, and Howard had become more isolated and doctrinaire and had lost his feel for issues and simply couldn’t change his ways. And when he tried in 2007 it convinced absolutely nobody.

What happened next The idea of an emissions trading scheme didn’t lie down and die, and in fact, Kevin Rudd, as leader of the opposition, appointed Ross Garnaut to look into an emissions trading scheme, and this then morphed into a federal scheme. Garnaut was then sidelined because he was unwilling to sign off on enormous giveaways to big business, which Rudd felt was wise, and the rest is history. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1988 – “The Greening of Congress

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister”

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 1, 1992 – ACF reviews carbon tax studies

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 1st, 1992,

 (NB approximate date – sometime in August 1992, almost certainly not 1st August.)

1992 Peter Kinrade “Review of Recent Carbon Tax Studies” for Australian Conservation Foundation

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 Australia had been “woken up” to climate change from the late 1980s onwards, and there had been proposals for a carbon tax. These were met with a flurry of so-called “independent” and “scientific” reports based on economic modelling that a carbon tax would destroy the Australian economy. These reports – as if by magic – found their way to the front pages of newspapers and then into the mouths of politicians and columnists. Gramsci would laugh.

The specific context was that a carbon tax had been defeated as a policy proposal during the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process. The Rio Earth Summit had happened, Australia had signed, and would inevitably ratify. Here we see the Australian Conservation Foundation, which had pushed for a carbon tax, analysing the recent studies and showing that they were basically bullshit. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the economic modelling by so-called independent think tanks and tame academics against progressive policy proposals are indeed usually bullshit. That’s not the point. They are a sophisticated form of propaganda and policing of possibilities, and you can analyse them after you’ve lost the battle, and that’s maybe good if it helps you understand the next battle. 

What happened next In 1994 the Australian Conservation Foundation succeeded in getting a proposal for a carbon tax back on the policy agenda, and when then defeated again, partly by economic modelling and partly by tactical innovations on the part of the opponents of carbon pricing. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 1, 1964 – Popular Mechanics says the air around us is changing 

August 1, 1976 – Oak Ridge report on “The Global Carbon Dioxide Problem” released 

August 1, 1980 – Wall Street Journal does excellent #climate reporting 

August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty. 

August 1, 2016 – Anti-wind idiots step on their own rake

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Uncategorized

 July 22, 2011 – David Cameron’s letter about Labor’s carbon tax plans…

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 22nd, 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron writes a letter about carbon pricing in Australia.

Mr Cameron’s letter, dated July 22 [2011], is the second high-profile endorsement for Labor’s carbon tax plans in less than a week, after former British Labour prime minister Tony Blair, in Australia for a series of corporate speaking events, said reducing carbon-fuel dependence was an “intelligent” move being adopted around the world, during a joint press conference with Ms Gillard.

http://www.thegwpf.com/cameron-thatcher-lawson-a-the-watermelon-theory-of-climate-politics/

I was delighted to hear of the ambitious package of climate change policy measures you announced on 10 July and wanted to congratulate you on taking this bold step …

He said it ‘will add momentum to those, in both the developed and developing world, who are serious about dealing with this urgent threat’.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. As of 2026, 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 Cameron had used ‘green-ness’ as a way of de-toxifying the Conservative brand. He had formed a coalition government with the Lib Dems in 2010.  Meanwhile, Gillard had become Prime Minister in 2010, after Kevin Rudd’s comms director dissed her to a journo.  She’d been on course to win the following election, but lots of mysterious leaks were happening….  So, she ended up having to form a minority government. One price for support was a carbon price.

The specific context was that for months (Feb to July) there was daily madness around a carbon price.  The Murdoch media went into over-drive. It was a truly bizarre time.

What I think we can learn from this – not much. It’s just an historical curiosity.

What happened next

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-31/cameron-praises-gillard-carbon-tax/2817716

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 22, 1966 – “The Conservation Society” holds launch event 

July 22, 1968 – Andrei Sakharov’s manifesto mentions carbon dioxide build up as one to watch… 

July 22, 1968 – Gordon Macdonald tries to warn about carbon dioxide build-up… 

July 22, 1991 – two #climate idiots on the Science Show 

July 22, 1996 – “Gremlins in the Greenhouse”? No

.

July 22, 2010 – Obama’s climate bill dies 

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 1, 2012 – Australian ETS comes into effect

Fourteen years ago, on this day, July  1st, 2012, 

Australian emissions trading scheme comes into effect. See here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm. As of 2026, 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 the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide because of its global warming impacts was hardly new. In 1988 the Science Minister Barry Jones had suggested as much (not that he was at the centre of policymaking around this stuff, unfortunately).  There had been several efforts to get it accepted, and lots of resistance from the mining companies etc (somebody should write a PhD thesis about this).

Finally, a woman was left to clear up the messes…

The specific context was that in the first half of 2011 an extraordinary campaign – spilling over into all sorts of misogyny, lies, vituperation, bullshit economic modelling – was launched against the Gillard ETS scheme.  However, in September 2011 her legislation passed through both houses of Parliament and became law.

What I think we can learn from this – even the mildest and most straightforward responses to the climate threat (and there is so so much more to be done beyond putting a price on carbon) have been rendered virtually impossible thanks to the resistance by some of the worst people on the planet. Oh well.

(As a very smart friend, who proofreads these posts commented – “the example of ETS mostly is a significant piece of evidence that the carbon lobby/incumbents have a documented history of losing their minds, going to any lengths to prevent ‘even the mildest and most straightforward responses,  etc. etc.” 

What happened next

Gillard’s ETS did, perhaps, help to push emissions down (or was that simply Tasmanian hydro coming onto the grid? People will argue).  And then, in 2013 the Liberal National coalition came to power, led by Tony Abbott. He got rid of the emissions trading scheme. Australia still doesn’t have a real price on carbon dioxide.  Oh well.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

March 23, 2011 – Ditch the Witch rally in Canberra

References

Power Failure by Phillip Chubb

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 1, 1950 – “Is the World Getting Warmer?” asks Saturday Evening Post

July 1, 1957- A key “year” in climate science begins…

July 1, 1959 – Gilbert Plass article on climate change published in Scientific American

July 1, 1983 – Australian High Court “saves” Franklin River (it woz the activists wot won it)

July 1, 1984 – CSIRO film “What to do about C02?”

July 1, 1999 – GEODISC gets green light 

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Uncategorized

 April 17, 1993 – Keating abjures a carbon tax

Thirty three years ago, on this day, April 17th, 1993,

The Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Simon Crean, have denied knowledge of alleged Treasury proposals for a $1.9 billion energy tax.

Mr Crean rejected reports in The Weekend Australian and The Age on Saturday [17 April] which suggested that a tax on the energy content or fuels and possibly carbon emissions, being discussed by Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, had drawn on studies by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy.

1993 Brough, J. 1993. Keating, Crean deny energy-tax proposal. Canberra Times, Monday 19 April, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2026 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the anti-greenhouse action forces had won famous victories in 1991 and 1992,  watering down the National Greenhouse Response Strategy and the Ecologically Sustainable Development process to derisory levels. However, they knew that, because of international ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the battle would not be going away…

The Business Council of Australia and others were paying very close attention to what was happening in the United States under Bill Clinton and the BTU tax, and also what was happening and Europe, where carbon tax had been defeated there.

 I don’t know who leaked what to force Keating and Crean into this public statement, but the obvious question is cui bono? And a leak like this, feeding a story to tame journalists (there is rarely another kind sadly) means that you get to fire a shot across the bows of the pro-tax crowd. But of course, suppressing fire, as anyone who’s been in a proper fire fight will tell you, doesn’t really work.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are always games, wheels within wheels, you name it. This is one of them. We learn that 33 years ago, the straightforward, surely uncontroversial proposition that you tax things that are harmful in order to discourage their use and to encourage the creation of alternatives, was beyond the pale (Keating really hated the greenies).

What happened next

Well, there was an environment minister called Ros Kelly. She had to resign. Her replacement was another guy who knew all about the issues, the late Graham Richardson, he had to resign, quit, I forget which. And then Senator John Faulkner came along… And in early 1994 was saying, “Yeah, we might be looking at a carbon tax.”

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.

See also 

April 26, 1992 – Ros Kelly abjures a carbon tax

Also on this day: 

April 17, 1981 – David Burns writes in New York Times about trouble ahead – All Our Yesterdays

April 17, 1993 – Paul Keating versus the idea of a carbon tax…

April 17, 2007 – UN Security Council finally discusses the most important security issue of all…

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 18, 2008  Guy Pearse submission to Garnaut review

Fifty years ago, on this day, March 18th 2008, Guy Pearse made his submission to the Garnaut Review, “Protecting Australia’s new climate change response from the Climate mafia”.

Reading the fine print on emissions trading

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australian political elites have been receiving warnings about carbon dioxide build up, really, since 1986, which would be a good date to start. 

I mean, obviously there’s also stuff in the late 1970s and the Office of National Assessments fossil fuels in the greenhouse, though it’s not clear to me how that was distributed and who talked about it.   

National Party senators were also talking about the carbon dioxide problem as well in the early 1980s…

Then, to understand this story, you have to understand that Guy Pearse, (not the actor), had been a young Liberal staffer and speech writer who had gone to the States and then ended up working on briefly, on the Al Gore campaign rather than Republicans in ‘88 because he was switched on to environment and especially climate.

But the Liberal Party was not welcoming place for people concerned about environment and climate, in part, because of the Dolchstuss myth, the stab in the back from 1990. 

Pearse had then been working as a lobbyist, and realised that lots of his friends were busy undermining climate policy, in the agriculture, tourism, et cetera, positions.

He had then done a PhD part time where he basically interviewed his friends and constructed a really brilliant PhD about this. He had done this PhD at Australian National University and with Clive Hamilton as one of his supervisors. Hamilton had already written a book called Running from the Storm about climate policy. 

And Pearse’s work had been exposed to the public in 2006 thanks to an ABC Four Corners documentary on the greenhouse mafia.

The specific context was that alongside all of this in late 2006 partly with thanks to things like the Four Corners documentary, the climate issue had exploded into public consciousness and the new Labor leader of the opposition, Kevin Rudd was using Iraq and a scandal about grain supplies and climate change as his two principal sticks with which to beat long-serving Prime Minister John Howard. 

And one of Rudd’s stunts was to ask economist Ross Garnaut to write a report about the economics of climate change to inform whatever policy degree the Rudd Government, if it were to happen, would put in place. So this was called the Garnaut Review, and here we see Guy Pearse trying to drop some truth bombs.

But “you people can’t handle the truth,” etc, etc.  

What I think we can learn from this is that if you really want to understand a document like this, you have to understand the back story. That takes time and there’s only so many hours in the day. But enough whining about methodology!

What else we learn is that Australian policy elites have been grappling with the climate problem with some success. If your success metric is how to make it look like you’re taking action without taking action.

That has become more difficult over time, because people get wise, get – you can call it “cynical”, – but I would call it sensible.

What happened next

Garnaut produced his report, but it was sidelined because he was going to demand too much of Rudd, who didn’t want to upset rich donors, etc. Rudd got toppled and Garnaut got brought back to inform Gillard’s climate policy process. Pearse kept writing about it for a while, but I think eventually realised that it was a lost cause.

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 18, 1958 – Military man spots carbon dioxide problem

March 18, 1968 – Bobby Kennedy vs Gross National Product

March 18, 1970 – Ministry of Transport says “exhaust emission is a minor pollution problem not warranting public expenditure“

 March 18, 1971 – “Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn”

March 18, 2010 – “Solar” by Ian McEwan released.

March 18, 2022 – Antarctic has a day 38.5 degrees above seasonal average

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