Category: Carbon Pricing

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 9, 1999 – The Australia Institute calls for emissions trading

Twenty-six years ago, on this day, August 9, 1999, the Australian Financial Review deigned to cover climate change…

The introduction of a domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme could generate $7 billion in annual revenue, enabling government to cut the company tax rate to 30 per cent, abolish accelerated depreciation and reduce payroll tax by 60 per cent, according to a paper by the Australia Institute.

“Emissions trading has the potential to become an important tool in environmental protection and economic and fiscal management,” the institute’s Mr Clive Hamilton and Mr Hal Turton say in their paper Business Tax and the Environment Emissions trading as a tax reform option, released last week.

1999 Hordern, N. 1999. Emissions trading call `half-baked’. The Australian Financial Review, 9 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. 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 putting a price on things you don’t like, to encourage decreased use (cigarettes, anyone?) is hardly controversial, especially if you’re going to use money raised to explore alternatives.
Or rather, it is VERY controversial to those people currently making money and wanting that to continue. Two carbon tax proposals had been defeated already, and attention therefore switched to “emissions trading schemes.”

The specific context was that Australia had signed (but not ratified) the Kyoto Protocol, and so ways and means to ‘reduce’ Australia’s emissions (it had a 108% target!) were being investigated, not just by The Australia Institute but also other outfits.

What I think we can learn from this – the simplest and in some ways least significant actions turned out to be, well, impossible.

What happened next – Prime Minister John Howard killed off two proposals for Emissions Trading Schemes, in 2000 and 2003. States got interested in doing a “ground-up” scheme among various states. This never really got off the ground, before action turned back to the Federal level in 2006-7.

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 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Categories
Academia Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

August 5, 1997 – “Climate Change Policies in Australia” briefing

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, August 5th, 1997 – Clive Hamilton, founder of the Australia Institute,

“Climate Change Policies in Australia: A briefing to a meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate”, Bonn, Germany, 5th August 1997

The Government’s position has been bolstered by economic modelling analysis that purports to show that Australia would be especially hard hit. It is projected that wages in Australia will be 19% lower by 2020 under a scenario that reduces emissions by 10% below 1990 levels in 2020. It is also claimed that the economic cost for each Australian would be 22 times higher than for each European. These extraordinary claims have been challenged by many experts including 131 Australian academic economists who signed a statement declaring that policies are available to slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia.
It is also apparent that the modelling results have been presented in ways that are highly misleading. Despite the fact that the model is constructed in a way that exaggerates the impact of emissions reductions on the Australian economy, the results actually show that the impact would be extremely small.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 the UNFCCC had been agreed in 1992, but the text did NOT include targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. Why not? Because UNCLE SAM SAID SO THAT’S WHY NOT YOU PINKO TREE-HUGGER.

(i.e. the people around George Bush Snr defeated the “pro-action” forces). So in 1995, the “Berlin Mandate” had been agreed – rich countries would have to come to the 3rd meeting in 1997, with plans/commitments to cut their emissions.

The specific context was that the Australian government of Paul Keating had been deeply reluctant, and once there was a switch to John Howard, the anti-action work had turbocharged. This briefing came during a “charm” (sic) offensive by Howard’s people, trying to get a special deal for Australia. Clive Hamilton, who had set up the Australia Institute three years earlier, was not amused.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Australian political and economic elite are, of course, criminally incompetent when it comes to a host of issues. But especially climate…

What happened next – Howard succeeded in getting that extremely generous deal at Kyoto. Then STILL didn’t ratify it, on general (lack of) principle.

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 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens – All Our Yesterdays

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 25, 2008 – More economic “modelling” against an emissions trading scheme

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2008 the “sky will fall if we do anything to reduce emissions and here is some economic modelling to ‘prove’ it” bullshit continued, as the Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) release ACIL Tasman modelling, which of course gets uncritical splashes in the Murdoch press.

At the same time, will-be Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull joins then-Liberal leader Brendan Nelson in saying “delay the implementation of an emissions trading scheme.”

Federal opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has fallen into step behind his leader, declaring an emission trading scheme shouldn’t be introduced until it is in Australia’s interest.

In government, the coalition supported a start date of 2012, but earlier this week leader Brendan Nelson indicated it would reject the legislation until big polluting countries agreed to reduce their emissions.

Mr Turnbull, a former environment minister, had steadfastly supported a 2012 start date – until now.

“An emissions trading scheme shouldn’t start until it is ready and until it is in Australia’s interest for it to start,” Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio.

“The government is definitely rushing this, 2010 is far too soon.”

AAP, 2008. Govt ‘rushing’ carbon trading: Turnbull. AAP, 25 July. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. 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 use of “independent” economic modelling to say that any emissions reductions efforts would lead directly to Stone Age cannibalism was a favoured tactic of the incumbents (why change a game that had been winning since the early 1990s?).

The specific context was John Howard, who had killed off two Emissions Trading Scheme proposals brought to Cabinet in 2000 and 2003 had been forced into a u-turn in late 2006. The next Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had said he’d bring an ETS in, and various incumbent outfits were trying to delay the start date, while also creating all sorts of loopholes and give-aways.

What I think we can learn from this is that the opponents of policy always have fall-back positions. If they can’t stop something in the short-term, they’ll try to soften the blows. This also means that the policy will probably be less effective and easier to reverse in future. A nice little ancillary benefit…

What happened next – Rudd, and his underling Penny Wong, continued to give ground and give ground. Eventually Rudd’s CPRS scheme failed to get through parliament, thanks to new opposition leader Tony Abbott. Rather than call a double-dissolution election, the spineless Rudd pivoted, and tanked his credibility and popularity, which had remained inexplicably high until that point. All this led indirectly to serious blood-letting and bed-wetting. The Australian Labor Party learned all the wrong lessons, and is now just the PR mouthpiece and stabvest for the mining sector. Oh well, so it goes.

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: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 24, 2011 – Rubbery numbers about Gillard’s carbon pricing proposal are disputed…

On this day 14 years ago, the trade publication Australian Mining ran the following – 

Climate change groups have dismissed the anti-carbon tax ad blitz launched on Sunday, and its ‘shaky numbers’.

Industry groups came together as the Australian Trade Industry Alliance (ATIA) to create an ad campaign to derail the Government’s carbon pricing scheme, NineMSN reports.

In the ads, ATIA says only $4.9 billion was generated in Europe over the first six and half year by a carbon tax, as compared to a potential $71 billion over the period in Australia.

The Climate Institute have hit out at the advertisement, saying neither the alliance nor its figures, should be believed.

Not only was the $71 billion amount $10 billion off, but the campaign failed to mention that over six years Europe will generate $143 billion, the group said.

“This new industry alliance is just another shady front group with more shaky numbers as they argue for more delay, exemptions or special treatments,” the institute’s John Connor stated.

Anti-carbon tax ads slammed – Australian Mining

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 that Australian political elites had been warned about carbon dioxide build-up repeatedly. A carbon tax had been mooted in 1989, and fierce battles against it fought, especially in 1994-5. Liberal Prime Minister John Howard had defeated various emissions trading schemes, but eventually the tide turned and from 2007 onwards the political and economic elites had been wrangling. Kevin Rudd had comprehensively failed and his assassin/replacement Julia Gillard had hoped to kick the issue into the long grass, but parliamentary arithmetic did not allow (i.e. her government relied upon Greens and pro-climate action independents).

The specific context was that Gillard had announced the details of the scheme, and of course a huge anti- campaign had begun…

What I think we can learn from this is that even the mildest of actions are not acceptable to those who really run the show.

What happened next was that Gillard’s legislation got through (she had a remarkable record, btw, of getting legislation through).  But the carbon pricing scheme was then abolished by the next PM, a thug by the name of Tony Abbott, whose down party found him unacceptable a little over a year after that.

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: 

July 24, 1977 – Climate change as red light? “No, but flashing yellow.”

July 24, 1980 – “Global 2000” report released.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 12, 2011 – Tony Abbott and the The Australia Institute

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

The whole purpose of the carbon tax is to phase out the coal industry…. Now, I think that the coal industry is the foundation of a modern economy. I think that affordable power is essential to Australia’s economic future. I don’t want to close down the coal industry… the Government’s own figures they say that coal will go from 80 percent of our power generation to 10 percent or 25 percent, if you include clean coal using various forms of sequestration. So, the Government’s own figures involve a radical downsizing and ultimate demise of the coal industry (emphasis added Abbott,2011a).

T.,Abbott, 2011a.Transcript of joint doorstop interview:Dandenong South, Victoria, 12 July:JuliaGillard’scarbontax. 〈http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/down load/media/pressrel/922506/upload_binary/922506.pdf〉.

And

12 July 2011: Australia Institute publishes a detailed analysis of direct action and building on past schemes suggests around $100 billion would be needed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. 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 the Liberal Party, after a brief flirtation with competing for small-g green votes in 1990, had decided to stick with their mining mates and the culture war (unlike Labor, which wants to stick with its mining mates while NOT having a culture war).

The specific context was that from late 2006 the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide became “mainstreamed” (after long long resistance). But in late 2009 Tony Abbott became Opposition Leader, and ended that fragile consensus. He used carbon pricing as a scare campaign about the “great big tax on everything” on his way to become Prime Minister.

What I think we can learn from this is that political parties are not meritocracies around intelligence, integrity or vision. They are bear pits, where the most vicious and determined rise to the top.

What happened next. Abbott became Prime Minister (god help us) and abolished the (inadequate) carbon pricing scheme that Julia Gillard had managed to push through. And the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide? Up and up and up of course.

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: 

July 12, 1953 – “The Weather is Really Changing” says New York Times

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

July 12, 2007 – #Australia gets swindled on #climate change…