Senator David Boren comes out against BTU tax, after Burson Marstellar astroturf campaign (see Agrawala and Andressen, 1999: 470)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
There had been enormous – and ultimately successful – local lobbying efforts. Boren had been picked off, in a kind of Serengeti strategy thing, but in the political sphere rather than the scientific. And this really spells the end for Clinton’s BTU.
What I think we can learn from this is that the opponents of climate action, smart, determined, strategic and well funded. These characteristics do not necessarily apply to the proponents of action, unfortunately.
What happened next
Clinton had to kill the BTU energy tax. And that was basically it for Clinton and domestic climate action (imo). It also meant that the opponents of action really had good proof of concept, and presumably, the Australians were looking at this and saying, “that’s how it’s done.”
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.
Thirty years ago, on this day, April 28, 1993, after returning from Washington, Australia’s environment minister changed her tune.
Australia would watch closely the international trend towards an energy tax and the effect such a tax would have on curbing greenhouse gases, the Minister for Environment, Ros Kelly, said yesterday.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Ros Kelly had just come back from a visit to the United States where President Clinton had given her a shout out at a press conference where he talked about his BTU tax proposal, which he had launched in February of that year. Kelly had in 1992, been explicit in saying a carbon tax was off the table for Australia (see here).
So this represented a bit of a turnaround, and will have alerted anti-climate people in the BCA and AMIC to the need to get their ducks in a row ahead of another battle. It will have been another reason to set up the “Industry Greenhouse Network”….
What I think we can learn from this is that issues or solutions that get dumped can be brought back because of the variety of political and personal factors. And this will be noticed because anti climate action activists remain vigilant, of course; that’s their job.
What happened next
Kelly didn’t last much longer as Environment Minister because of a scandal. Her replacement, Graham Richardson didn’t last. Because well, Graham Richardson. But then the next one, John Faulkner expressed interest in bringing in a carbon price or at least a basic carbon tax. And then the battle was on again
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.
Thirty years ago, on this day, April 22, 1993, Clinton’s announcement was used in the low-intensity conflict over carbon pricing…
A PLEDGE by the US President, Mr Clinton, to cut emissions of greenhouse gases will raise the pressure on Australia to take tougher action, according to a senior Australian bureaucrat and Australian business and environment groups.
A first assistant secretary of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Peter Core, told business lobbyists yesterday at a private seminar organised by the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, that Mr Clinton’s announcement would put renewed pressure on Australia’s stance on the issue.
And an assistant director of the Business Council of Australia, Ms Chris Burnup, said yesterday the move would dramatically change the complexion of talks on global climate change.
Garran, R. 1993. Clinton pledge cuts new key to the greenhouse. The Australian Financial Review, 23 April, p.9.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The business lobby and its proxies (including plenty in the Labor Party) had defeated the first attempt at a carbon tax during 1990-1991. They knew it would be back soon-ish though. This briefing to an AFR hack may have been an effort to smoke out proponents, force them to show their colours so they could be crushed. Alternatively, it might have been from a proponent, hoping to slowly raise the pressure, build a new normal…see the post from a few days ago about Keating…
What I think we can learn from this
You have to read newspaper articles thinking “which lying liar fed this to the hack, and what is the hack trying to push?” It’s exhausting to do this, and most of us most of the time just pretend that if it is in the paper (of our choice) it is ‘true.’ That’s nonsense, but there are rarely any personal consequences, so as an energy-saving habit, it persists.
What happened next
There was indeed another push for a carbon tax. It was defeated. Australia didn’t get carbon pricing until 2012, and then only for a couple of years. To be clear – carbon pricing is one very small part of what you would do if you were trying to respond to the threats of climate change. But it’s a brown M&M when it comes to how serious your government is..
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
Thirty years ago, on this day, April 17, 1993, newly-re-elected Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating made another mental note to hate environmentalists….
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
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The carbon tax idea had been around for quite a while, and in 1990-91 a combination of industry figures managed to defeat it. Environment Minister Ros Kelly had said, at the Rio Earth Summit, that it wasn’t something that would be done, but the proposed “solution” did not, of course, go away. If Australia were to meet its “stabilisation target”, let alone its 20 per cent reduction by 2005 target, economic measures like a tax were going to be needed…
What I think we can learn from this
People inside bureaucracies leak, either to put pressure on politicians, or to kill an idea by prematurely releasing it. In this case, who knows?
What happened next
The push for a carbon tax came up again, in 1994, and was defeated by early 1995. There wouldn’t be a price on carbon dioxide until 2012, and that only lasted a couple of years. And the emissions climbed….
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
Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 19, 1998, the Australian business press reported that industry might be okay with carbon trading…
A proposal to reduce greenhouse gases by trading emissions was greeted cautiously by industry yesterday, with some concern about whether the scheme was premature.
The proposal came in a report by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), which argues that a trading scheme could help Australia reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels set down in the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change agreed last December.
The report was given to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment inquiry into trading in greenhouse gases.
Hordern, N. (1998) The Australian Financial Review 20th March
NB IMAGE BELOW IS WRONG – it was 1998
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Australia had signed up to the Kyoto Protocol, or was about to. But ratification was still a ways away (and never happened!). However, the idea of having national trading schemes that then linked up with each other was, again, not sorry for the pun “in the air.”, and tradable emissions quotas were going to somehow magically reduce emissions. Carbon tax was definitely off the table second defeat in 1995. So ABARE, under attack for the clunkiness and shonkiness of its MEGABARE model and the use to which it was put [LINK TO AOY POST), was trying to get in front and put a positive spin on what it was doing.
What I think we can learn from this
Organisations try to repair their reputation, to get more funding, to get invites to events, to get quoted in the media. All the bread and butter of green confucians and technocrats everywhere. That doesn’t mean that we have to take them seriously. But of course, if you are public in your disdain, other people equally deserving of the same disdain will get nervous that you might soon turn your attention to them. So the nakedness of the Emperor must only be whispered.
What happened next
A proposal for a National Emissions Trading scheme went to Howard’s Cabinet in 2000. And it was successfully killed by Nick Minchin. And then there was another effort in 2003 that was only finally killed because John Howard consulted one or two of his handpicked business mates and then came back and said, “no, we’re not doing this.”
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.
Twelve years ago, on this day, March 5, 2011 veteran Australian political commentator Laurie Oakes nailed the climate denialist nutters.
“Wingnuts are coming out of the woodwork. The mad and menacing phone calls to independent MP Tony Windsor are just one indication. There are plenty of others online. The carbon tax and Tony Abbott’s call for a people’s revolt have crazies foaming at the mouth. You see it on the ‘Revolt Against the Carbon Tax’ Facebook page, for example. Like this message from a Gillard-hater about a rally in front of Parliament House being planned for March 23: ‘Just like Egypt we stay there and protest continuously until she and her cronies, Bob Brown Greens etc are ousted! We have got to get rid of this Godless mistress of deceit.”’
Oakes, L. 2011. Loonies latch on to the politics of hate. The Australian, 5 March.
Oakes, 2013: 86
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was an incredibly heated culture war that had been constructed around the question of having a price on carbon emissions. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had had multiple positions on carbon pricing and climate change (the Howard government had gone to the 2007 election with such a policy). Abbott admitted to being a weather vane n the issue
By March 2011 he had seen off Kevin Rudd and had been reportedly willing to sell his ass to become Prime Minister. In February 2011 Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard had announced that there would be an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price for two years. And as oaks puts it, all the wingnuts came out to play…
What I think we can learn from this
That settler colonies don’t deal well with the notion of environmental limits especially if someone who is only a woman is in charge.
That it is partly possible to import culture war techniques from the United States. They won’t work perfectly in other countries, but for a while, they give the appearance of effectiveness.
You also want to think about McCright and Dunlap 2011, anti reflexivity as part of the picture underneath all of this.
What happened next
Well, on the 23rd of March, there was the infamous rally with Abbott being photographed next to placards that talked about “Bob Brown’s Bitch” and “Ditch the Witch ”. The wingnuts kept coming out to play but with less than less efficacy. It’s not just left wing groups that suffer from burnout and emotacycles.
Abbott got the opportunity to show the world what a smart and effective leader he could be from September 2013. “Oops” doesn’t begin to cover 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.
Ten years ago, on this day, February 15, 2013, a journo for the Melbourne Age writes a piece about the then-all-the-rage topic of “unburnable carbon”
Energy analysts and activists warn that most of the world’s fossil fuels must remain in the ground, and that it can’t be business as usual for the industry.
Green, M. 2013. Bursting the carbon bubble. The Age,15 February, p.16.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
This “unburnable carbon”/”carbon bubble rhetoric was all the rage 10 years ago. It looked like the UNFCCC process was going to be a slow route back to feeling that the system could deliver. Copenhagen had been a failure, Paris was two and a half years off and it was still not clear that it would provide anything. So all those people who need to believe that there are levers and buttons in the policy sphere that we can push turn their attention to the idea that investors rather than statesmen could solve the problems; they just needed to be given stark advice that investing in stranded assets was a bad idea.
How do you strand an asset? Well, ultimately, you need to have markets and regulations that make some investments,a bad idea and other investments a better one. How would you do that on carbon? Well, you would need a strong legally binding international agreement (which you can’t get), and therefore, we’re all toast.
.
What I think we can learn from this
Using one “part” of the financial system – whether it is the re-insurers, the insurers, the institutional investors as the leverage point, the secret push-this-button-to-change-the-system is a long-standing and soothing idea for a certain kind of climate-motivated person. Some of them are super-smart. This does not mean they are right.
Unburnable carbon as a meme allowed people to hold conferences, put out press releases, videos, get interviewed on Newsnight and podcasts and generally feel that things were still salvageable. Am I too cynical? My therapist says so.(1)
What happened next
You hear less about unburnable carbon these days, now that Paris and Net Zero are flooding the zone.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
As someone who read this before publication said – “I understand the dynamics of hoping there is a secret lever to pull, but in dismissing that at the same time as providing a psychological sort of explanation for why people keep coming back to this, you might be throwing the baby out with the bath water. There may not be a simple lever we can pull, but even if a mass movement formed which highly organized, highly effective and coordinated, competent, resourceful and dedicated, in the way you would like to see, it would still end up having to deal with the power of capital and would be highly involved in trying to pull these various “levers”
Twenty seven years ago, on this day, February 6 1995, co-ordinated action to defeat a carbon tax was on display
“As part of its media strategy, the network sent out a series of five news releases on 6 February 1995 under the banner Carbon Tax Threatens Regional Jobs. The releases focused on the regions that would be most affected by the introduction of carbon tax.”
(Worden, 1998: 87)
The Business Council of Australia press release is a corker. A carbon tax “could jeopardise more than 47,000 jobs and $43 billion in production in the nation’s export energy industries” and have “a serious impact on Australia’s oil and gas, coal, metal products, petrochemicals, pulp and paper and cement industries” (Thomas 1995)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
John Faulkner, the Federal Environment Minister, had a proposal for a carbon tax that would fund research and development of renewable energy. Business organisations hated this so they dusted off their 1990-2 playbook and improved it. Press releases from various actors were coordinated, to influence the minds of those people (especially ministers) who were attending two round tables on consecutive days.
What I think we can learn from this
When threatened (or merely feeling threatened), business is very good at putting aside their individual differences and presenting a united front. They have the resources, and Secretariat usually, to do that. Whereas those advocating for a better world tend to be running on the sniff of an oily rag.
What happened next
Faulkner’s plan was defeated. Australia didn’t get a price on carbon until 2012.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
References
Thomas, C. 1995. Business Council Hits Plan For Carbon Tax. The Age, 7 February, p.50.
Twenty years ago, on this day, January 16 2003, a “milestone” was reached. Oh yes.
CHICAGO, IL – Efforts to develop market-based solutions to global warming reach a milestone today as leading U.S. and international companies and the City of Chicago announce they will be the Founding Members of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX®), a voluntary cap-and-trade program for reducing and trading greenhouse gas emissions. In an unprecedented voluntary action, these entities have made a legally binding commitment to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by four percent below the average of their 1998-2001 baseline by 2006, the last year of the pilot program.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.
The context was that a bunch of people thought – or chose to pretend they thought – that we could trade our way out of trouble, and that those who were early and/or quick could make a killing, and be doing well by doing good.
Carbon trading as a substitute for actual action… Because, you know, it would be cheaper that way…
What I think we can learn from this
That trading schemes are going to cause a feeding frenzy for banks and legal consultancies, and keen-to-burnish-image customer-facing businesses. Smart people take a breath and try to separate the hype and froth from what is actually being proposed.
What happened next
Turns out it didn’t work.
“CCX ceased trading carbon credits at the end of 2010 due to inactivity in the U.S. carbon markets,” (wikipedia)
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Twenty eight years ago, on this day, January 6, 1995, as part of a broad attack on a proposed carbon tax, business whined “yeah, but no other country is doing anything.”
”THE business push for a cautious approach by the Federal Government on greenhouse gas controls has been given a boost by a new study which shows only a handful of countries will meet their emission reduction targets.
The study, prepared by industry groups, shows only five of the 36 countries which are key members of the International Panel on Climate Change appear likely to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2000.”
Dwyer, M. & Wilson, N. (1995). Study argues against $320m carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 6 January, p.5. (See also the editorial – Anon. 1995. The trouble with a carbon tax. Australian Financial Review, 6 January, p.12)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360ppm. As of 2023 it is 419
.
The context was that Australian business interests had already defeated a carbon tax proposal in the lead up to the Rio Earth Summit, and were mobilising an even broader coalition of actors and ‘arguments’ (including our old friend ‘the sky will fall’ economic modelling) in this effort.
What I think we can learn from this
The fact that doing anything about climate change is a really hard collective actor problem is used to make climate change a really hard collective actor problem, and to ‘justify’ (excuse) doing nothing, and engaging in predatory delay.
What happened next
The business lobby effort was successful (for multiple reasons). The carbon tax was abandoned. Attention switched to emissions trading schemes. No actual carbon price came into play until 2012. And was then swiftly killed off by the next Australian government. The emissions and the atmospheric concentrations? They climbed. Of course they did.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
References
Dwyer, M. & Wilson, N. (1995). Study argues against $320m carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 6 January, p.5
