Category: Carbon Pricing

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 7, 1995 – Business Council of Australia vs a carbon tax. Of course

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, February 7th, 1995, the lobby group for big business successfully fought off a carbon tax.

Canberra — The Business Council of Australia yesterday attacked the Federal Government’s proposed carbon tax, saying that it could jeopardise more than 47,000 jobs and $43 billion in production in the nation’s export energy industries.

Drawing on a report released by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics yesterday, the council said a carbon tax, at any level, would result in lost jobs, production and exports.

The executive director of the council, Mr Paul Barratt, said any carbon tax would have a serious impact on Australia’s oil and gas, coal, metal products, petrochemicals, pulp and paper and cement industries.

Thomas, C. 1995. Business Council Hits Plan For Carbon Tax. The Age, 7 February, p.50.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a fierce battle going on over a proposal for a carbon tax at federal level in Australia, and the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Mining Industry Council, (who made the tie-in official as the AIGN later) were at the forefront of a campaign to stop it. And one of the ways – not the only one,  but one of the ways – was to say that the “sky would fall” economically speaking.  

And what you do is you get some economic modelling by so-called independent experts who set their parameters in such a way that the sky will fall, you then turn that into a report, write a press release. You give it to some tame journalists, who then get it put up on the front page of a newspaper. Then get questions asked in Parliament. It gets picked up on television and the “common sense” that action on climate change will cost a fortune is just that little bit further embedded. 

And they have been playing this game for a very long time. They’re very good at it and the reason they keep playing it is it’s usually a winning tactic for them. 

What happened next. The carbon tax was defeated in February of 1995 before the BCA and its chums had to pull up the really big guns. Policy advocate interest shifted to emissions trading schemes. One was finally introduced in 2012, only to be abolished two years later. Australia deserves everything it gets.

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: 

 Feb 7, 1861- 161 years ago, a scientist identifies carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas

February 7, 1979 – Met Office boss bullshits about his carbon dioxide stance

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 6, 2007 – Rudd taunts Howard on 2003 ETS decision

On this day, February 6 2007 new Labor leade Kevin Rudd had asked Prime Minister John Howard if a submission proposing an emission trading scheme had gone before cabinet in August 2003 and if that proposal was rejected.

Rudd – and frankly everyone else – knew the answer was “yes”. It had been extensively reported, since at least 2004. In August 2003, Howard had met with some business mates and killed off the Cabinet proposal (which the entire Cabinet, including Joe Hockey, Peter Costello etc were behind). See here – August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Rudd was just trying to embarrass Howard, who had a couple of months before performed a screeching U-turn and appointed Peter Shergold (civil servant) and some business cronies to look at an an ETS.

What we learn – it was all theatre

What happened next. Howard’s U-turn made him look weak rather than caring, and he was swept from power. Kevin Rudd then saved the day (subs, please check).

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 1, 1990 – Australian Financial Review ponders carbon tax… (via FT)

Thirty four years ago, on this day, February 1st, 1990, an article about possible carbon taxes from the Financial Times (London) was syndicated in the Australian Financial Review (aka “The Fin”).

“Drastic measures to combat global atmospheric pollution caused by burning carbon fuels were urged yesterday by the International Energy Agency.”

Anon. 1990. Carbon Fuel Tax May Limit Pollution Levels. Australian Financial Review, 2 February.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422.3ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at Nordwijk in November of 1989, nations had agreed to keep talking about talking about negotiating a climate treaty. There were other meetings coming up. And the International Energy Agency was sticking its oar in with the suggestion of carbon taxes and pricing mechanisms. Also there was a federal election pending in Australia, the climate issue was very salient. 

What we learn is that debates about carbon pricing have been shaped by prestigious powerful – or prestigious, at least – outfits like the IEA in ways that I didn’t fully understand for my PhD thesis, but here we are. 

What happened next, Bob Hawke narrowly won the March 1993 election with small g. green votes, and was therefore obliged to follow through with this idea of ecologically sustainable development. 

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: 

Feb 1, 2007- Jeremy Grantham slams Bush on #climate

February 1, 1978 – US TV show MacNeill Lehrer hosts discussion about climate change

Feb 1 2023 – Interview with Russell Porter, Australian documentary maker

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 13, 2004 – Bob Carr rallies states for emissions trading

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 13th, 2004, NSW was trying to get an Australia-wide emissions trading scheme going, since John Howard wouldn’t…

NSW is keen to enlist the support of the other states for a national greenhouse emissions trading scheme, but analysts are divided on whether it would work. The Premier, Bob Carr, yesterday labelled as scandalous the Federal Government’s decision to abandon carbon trading as one way of reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions. Mr Carr, who is in favour of Australia ratifying the Kyoto protocol on climate change, wants the states to establish an alternative emissions trading scheme. 

New South Wales Premier Bob Carr says the Federal Government is “in denial” about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Government has decided to stop work on a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, saying it offers little incentive for business. The scheme is linked to the Kyoto protocol, which the Australian Government has not signed. But Mr Carr says the Federal Government’s move has potentially cost jobs for Australians involved in the emissions trading industry. “We’ve got an opportunity to benefit – Australia can benefit from emissions trading and the Federal Government is pulling out of this,” Mr Carr said. “Whether they sign up to Kyoto or they don’t, there’s a case for emissions trading and Australia can only benefit from being part of an emissions trading system.”

Peatling, S. and Pearlman, J. 2004. Carr rallies states for onslaught on emissions. Sydney Morning Herald, 13 January. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/12/1073877762902.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that personally Bob Carr had been aware of the climate issue since 1971. And as premier of New South Wales since 1995 he’d been trying to turn New South Wales into a carbon trader or place where the Japanese could buy some trees to offset their emissions. More broadly, he’d been campaigning for emissions trading schemes. There had been two attempts to get a national federal Emissions Trading Scheme through John Howard’s cabinet. One had been defeated in August of 2000. And another had been defeated in August 2003, at which point Carr presumably said to himself, “sod this for a game of soldiers. Let’s do it ourselves”. This was made easier by the fact that most of the states were at that time under ALP control. 

What we learn from this is that policies that are perceived as good ideas (and emissions trading is, after all, perceived as a good idea) are hard to kill. I mean, fair play to him, Tony Abbott finally succeeded in the period 2010 to 14, but before then, emissions trading was like this vampire policy, you just could not kill it off.

What happened next? The states kept talking about it. Finally, in the beginning of 2007, Kevin Rudd as opposition leader started promising an emissions trading scheme. And well, the rest is history. 

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 13, 2005- UN Secretary-General calls for “decisive measures” on climate change

January 13, 2021 – New Scientist reports on types of intelligence required to deal with #climate change   

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 12, 1995 – Australian carbon tax coming??

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, January 12th 1995 the game of chicken and dare around a carbon price in Australia was coming to a head. A front page story in the Canberra Times began as follows,

“A greenhouse gas levy remains firmly on the Government’s agenda, with the bureaucratic working group responsible for developing the levy meeting for the first time yesterday.”

 Henderson, I. 1995. Greenhouse gas levy remains to the fore. The Canberra Times, 12 January, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Conservation Foundation (a big green NGO) and others had been pushing for a carbon tax for years initially as part of the Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process. And although they had suffered defeats, they didn’t let it go. New Environment Minister John Faulkner had taken that on board and he had also taken on board Phlilip Toyne who had been a major force in the Australian green movement as head of the Australian Conservation Foundation. 

What we can learn is that there is a great deal of believing when you’re top of the web or “dissent ecosystem”, (not that you can be at the ‘top’ of such a thing) in that when you’re a big player it’s tempting to believe that you can join the system and change the system from within. Then there’s a logic to doing so, or wanting to do so: beyond easy claims and smears of careerism, and parlaying radicalism to take one of the jobs for the boys. Toyne tried. He failed to get the tax up – but that was because the opposition to it was clear and clever and the support for it did not have its shit together.

What happened next a month and two days after this was in the newspapers, Environment Minister John Faulkner pulled the plug on a carbon tax. Instead, there was a meaningless voluntary scheme, the Greenhouse Challenge, which was reheated a couple of times, but frankly, never amounted to a bucket of warm spit. 

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: 

Jan 12, 1983 – RIP to the “master organizer in the world of science”, Carroll Wilson

January 12, 2008 – Australian mining lobby group ups its “sustainability” rhetoric #PerceptionManagement #Propaganda   

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

December 4, 1989 – Greenhouse tax urged…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, December 4, 1989 a climate action advocate suggested a perfectly sensible economic response to climate change – tax things that are unhealthy, as governments were doing for cigarettes…

The Federal Government should move to control car exhaust emissions and expand the public transport system to discourage people from using cars, a greenhouse effect expert said in Melbourne on Tuesday. [December 4/]

Dr Ian Lowe, the Director of Science Policy Research Centre at Brisbane’s Griffith University, was speaking at the launch of his book explaining the greenhouse effect’s repercussions and ways to avoid them.

He predicted a transport system dominated by hydrogen and electric cars in 50 years.

Some countries already issued fuel efficiency targets for cars, taxing car-owners according to how well they met the targets, while others issued mandatory efficiency targets for company-operated fleets, he said.

Anon. 1989. Greenhouse gas tax urged. Green Week, December 5, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone had been talking about the problem, and possible targets, for a year. But what, specifically, to do? Well, a tax is a logical response to an environmental problem, 

What is amazing is just how little traction it got. Of course, there was a very successful campaign. First against the existence of the problem then the fallback position is to admit that there might be a problem but the solution is too expensive. 

What I think we can learn from this

We knew enough and we didn’t act. 

What happened next

We didn’t put any taxes or prices, or economic disincentives in place. And guess what happened? Business as usual, which is literally destroying the planet’s ecosystems.

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

Categories
Carbon Pricing United Kingdom

November 25, 1993 – House of Commons briefing on carbon taxes

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 25, 1993, the UK House of Commons library did a briefing on a particular climate policy possibility – carbon taxes.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp93-106/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was in 1989, at the beginning of the Greenhouse Effect wave of concern, the World Bank had said we need carbon taxes to reduce fossil fuel use and to use the money to subsidise the development of renewables. That had not been a goer in the UK. In 1993 there had been an attempt to justify an increase on VAT on energy bills as somehow a green measure written about this previously – it was a cynical attempt to poison the well, making it harder for proponents to get traction.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons library did what the House of Commons library does, it pulled together really useful data in a briefing that can be used by MPs, policy wonks, etc. God bless the House of Commons library basically. 

What I think we can learn from this

You should always stop there first. You shouldn’t take what they say as gospel of course, – you shouldn’t take what anyone says is gospel. They will miss stuff, they will misinterpret stuff, because they’re human. But on the whole really, really useful stuff.

What happened next

In 1995, Crispin Tickell and others tried to get environmental measures into the budget, but by this time John Major was a busted flush, facing rebellion within his party. And the whole thing went nowhere for several years.

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 4, 2000 – industry says sky will fall if there’s a carbon tax

Thirty three years ago, on this day, September 4, 2000, industry did another of its ‘the sky will fall’ efforts.

Victorian economic growth could be slashed by more than 2 per cent, thousands could lose their jobs and the aluminum industry could close if a strict anti-greenhouse gas regime is introduced, according to a landmark study.

The study by the Allen Consulting Group has estimated that Victoria’s gross state product would be between 1.3 per cent and 2.6 per cent smaller in 2012 if an emissions trading system or carbon tax scheme were introduced to combat Australia’s growing rate of unwanted greenhouse gas emissions.

Hopkins, P. 2000. Study Warns Of Greenhouse Gas Mayhem. The Age, 4 September, p1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Victorian government was proposing things that industry did not like. So that was enough for yet another “oh my god the sky will fall if you so much as tax a single molecule of hydrocarbons, we will all starve to death.” These economic models get put in reports and get turned into press releases and speeches which are dutifully reported by stenographers to power.

What I think we can learn from this is that these nonsense economic modeling reports are a favorite weapon in the war against sanity and the public good.

What happened next 

I am a bad historian, I haven’t bothered to go and look at what happened next. Did the government find the backbone to stare down this report? Sometimes they can. It depends on all manner of things not just the particular courage of the particular minister.

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 1, 1998 – Sydney Futures Exchange foresees a bright future. Ooops.

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 1, 1998, carbon trading seemed to be coming to Australia…

SYDNEY (Dow Jones)–Sydney Futures Exchange said Tuesday it has formally established the Australian Emissions Trading Forum to provide opportunities for members to exchange information on greenhouse issues and encourage debate on emissions trading.

An advisory committee to the AETF, comprising representatives from a range of key industry and government agencies, has also been formed, the SFE said in a statement.

“There is growing interest in the prospect of greenhouse gas emissions trading as a means of meeting our greenhouse target, however, many potential stakeholders have found it difficult to obtain information about how the various schemes might develop,” Les Hoskings, SFE’s chief executive said.

At the U.N. climate change convention in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, a number of developed countries made binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Australia has committed to limit emissions to 108% of 1990 levels.

1998 Sydney Futures Exchange Sets Up Forum On Emissions Trading. September 1 Dow Jones International News

See also Fullerton- 31 August 1998 http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s48208.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various people thought that there would be a rush towards emissions trading, once Australia had its own national scheme and had ratified the Kyoto Protocol (which it had already signed).. The foreign money would come pouring in from nations where cutting carbon was harder (e.g. Japan, which had gone seriously energy efficient after the 1973 oil shock). These nations would instead of making expensive local investments could instead buy some trees in New South Wales and say “job done.” Meanwhile the middlemen and the bankers would get seriously rich. That was the idea, that was the cunning plan.

What I think we can learn from this is that smart people with an eye to the main chance are always coming up with cunning plans. Pity that these didn’t help with the decarbonization effort. Oh well

What happened next

The Sydney Trading Futures thing shut down in 2000 just before the Minchin/Hill Cabinet showdown… 

It get off the ground basically emissions trading didn’t either in Australia and the emissions kept climbing and climbing at least globally (t’s all a bit dodgy depending on how you do your accounting)

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 30, 1989 – A global tax on emissions?!

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 30 1989 the Australian newspaper the Canberra Times reported on the crazy ideas that … might have made a difference.  What a stupid stupid species we turned out to be.

“A third set of more imaginative options are ruled out as too costly. These include a global tax on carbon emissions, major investment in renewable energy, and the banning of coal.”

Guest, I. 1989. World Bank tackles global warming. Canberra Times, 30 August, p. 9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that debates about the responses to climate change – what we used to call the greenhouse effect – were well underway, because various nations were adopting or thinking about adopting emissions reductions targets such as the Toronto Target. What’s entertaining in this is the question “compared to what?” So, if there had been a global carbon emissions tax and the money raised had gone into investing in renewable energy and compensating the workers affected by the demise of coal, then we might have gotten somewhere… But it would all have been too costly to save the world.

What I think we can learn from this is that the ideas we needed were there but turning ideas into a political program requires more skill and resources than we had. This is largely (but not totally) because of the veto power of business and the obduracy of large technical systems and so on.

What happened next

We never got a carbon tax. We got attempts at emissions trading schemes. The so-called major investments in renewables came very late, too late. And although we may exit coal, we will do it far too late.

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.