Tag: 1993

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing United States of America

April 22, 1993 – Clinton’s announcement used by anti-carbon pricing Aussies

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

Categories
United States of America

 April 21, 1993 – Bill Clinton says US will tackle carbon emissions.

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 21, 1993, new President Bill Clinton made some promises, while giving a shout out to an Australian politician who had bottled a carbon tax.

His stand is a reversal of that taken by the former US President, Mr Bush, who refused at the Earth Summit to support specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or to back the biodiversity treaty.

At the start of his speech, Mr Clinton made an unexpected acknowledgement of Australia’s Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly.

“We should introduce a guest from another country who is here with us – the environmental minister from Australia, Ros Kelly,” he said. “Would you stand up? We’re glad to have you here.”

Garran, R. 1993. Clinton pledge cuts new key to the greenhouse. 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

Clinton had come to power in the 1992 Presidential election without ever really saying terribly much about climate change on the campaign trail (his running mate Al Gore had a book come out during the campaign – “Earth in the Balance.”)

This ‘Earth Day’ announcement came two months after the Feb 17 1993 starting gun for a short, sharp and er – failed – attempt to put a tax on petrol (or ‘gas,’ as the Americans call it).

What I think we can learn from this

Those looking to tax energy to a) reduce emissions and b) pay for research and development into renewable energy, do not have a particularly glorious track record.

What happened next

Clinton’s BTU tax was defeated (you can read about it later this year on this site, or, if you’re really impatient, see here). But not before it was reported in Australia (see tomorrow’s post!).

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

Erlandson, D. (1994) The Btu Tax Experience: What Happened and Why It Happened.  Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 173 (1994-1995) Vol. 12, no 1. 

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1528&context=pelr

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

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

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

Brough, J. 1993. Keating, Crean deny energy-tax proposal. Canberra Times, Monday 19 April, p.3. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/126983159

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

Categories
Australia Business Responses Economics of mitigation

April 12, 1993 – “environmental economics” gets a puff piece

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 12, 1993, “environmental economics” returned as one of those “win-win” myths we like to believe, in the pages of the Canberra Times.

Environmental issues hardly rated a mention during the recent election campaign. This should not be taken to suggest there is no interest in such issues, just that economics appears to have been the dominant issue of the day.

Nor should it be taken as suggesting that economics and the environment are separate and distinct issues; they are not. The interaction of economics and the environment is taking on increasing importance, with one indicator being the rethinking that is going on about the way environmental regulations are being administered, including greater thought being given to the use of market-based approaches to environmental regulation.

One of the most prominent of the market-based approaches involves the use of tradeable emission permits, in effect using market mechanisms to encourage business to reduce its pollution output.

Davis, B. 1993. Enviro-economics gathers respectability. Canberra Times, 12 April, p.11.

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 green ‘surge’ of 1988 to 1991 or so was a distant memory. But people like Brent Davis, director of trade and policy research with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, were still thinking about how the circle could be squared.

“Ecological modernisation” was not yet an academic buzzword, but it was coming….

What I think we can learn from this

We have various fairy stories of how  “we” can keep having everything we want without consequences (a form of cakeism).  These are very seductive and contagious stories

What happened next

A second attempt at a carbon tax was defeated in early 1995. Thereafter attention switched to tradeable emissions quotas and emissions trading schemes etc etc.  Which really achieved a lot, oh yes.

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 Capture and Storage United Kingdom

March 29, 1993 – C02 Disposal symposium takes place in Oxford

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 29, 1993, the International Energy Agency (lEA) held a  Carbon Dioxide Disposal Symposium in Oxford

https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/1-s2.0-019689049390012Y/first-page-pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that coal was clearly going to continue to be burned. So how to do it cleaner? What are the options? Is sequestration in the deep oceans possible? Can you improve the gasification? There had also two years previously been a big event sponsored by the Australian Coal Association in Sydney. 

What I think we can learn from this

They’ve been banging on about clean coal for donkey’s years.

Rearguard actions by dinosaur technologies can “work”

What happened next

Technologies were proposed. They were rapidly prototyped, the business models sorted, the regulatory issues sorted. The technologies then shared and everyone in the world started burning coal cleanly. And we all lived happily ever after.  Except for the mining accidents, and the mercury, and all the rest of it…

And then I woke up…

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

Tilley, J. 1993. IEA carbon dioxide disposal symposium Oxford, United Kingdom 29th–31st March 1993 IEA Perspectives on global climate change issues.  Energy Conversion and Management Volume 34, Issues 9–11, September–November 1993, Pages 711-718

Categories
UNFCCC United Kingdom United Nations

March 26, 1993 – UK government to ratify climate treaty

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 26, 1993, there was a  House of Commons debate  In reply to a question on the subject, the Government confirmed that they would be ratifying the UNFCCC.- 

“At this week’s [EC] Environment Council [22-23 March 1993] all member states agreed to take the measures necessary to enable them to ratify the convention not later than the end of 1993. This matches the UK’s earlier commitment, along with our Group Seven partners, to ratify the convention by the end of 1993.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1992, nations had come together and held hands in Rio, and signed a massively watered down treaty. John Major had offered to host the follow up to Rio because at this point, it wasn’t clear that the treaty would receive enough ratifications quickly enough to start holding its official meetings. So the UK still wanted to be seen as a leader on international climate policy. 

What I think we can learn from this

Sometimes things happen quicker than people think (like UNFCCC ratification)

What happened next

The Global Forum in Manchester, which was a serious egg-on-face for the Labour Council…

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
Coal United Kingdom

March 23, 1993 – UK “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper published.

Thirty  years ago, on this day, March 23, 1993, the UK government released its “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper

Main conclusions were:  

subsidy to be offered to bring extra tonnage down to world market prices, 

no pit to be closed without being offered to the private sector,  

no changes to the gas and nuclear sectors,  

increased investment in clean coal technology, 

regeneration package for mining areas increased to £200 million

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had defeated the miners’unions using the police, MI5, the media and so on. Coal mines were being closed, left and right. And mining communities were being torn apart. It was unclear what if any future coal had in the energy mix. And of course, by this time, greenhouse gas concerns were present. And so the white paper comes out in that backdrop and the hope is that there will be such a thing as “clean coal.” 

And by 1993 the IEA was organising symposia on clean coal and sequestration and set forth why we needed it (AOY links).

What I think we can learn from this

Technologies that are on the backfoot especially if they are long lasting, don’t go down without a fight as a real rearguard action. And Bruno Turnheim wrote an entire PhD thesis about this. 

What happened next

Coal continued to dwindle, looked like it might possibly make a comeback, and then didn’t.

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
Energy United States of America

February 17, 1993 – President Clinton proposes an Energy Tax.

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 17, 1993 , new President Bill Clinton  gave his state of the union address and said an energy tax was in the cards…

“Our plan does include a broad-based tax on energy, and I want to tell you why I selected this and why I think it’s a good idea. I recommend that we adopt a Btu tax on the heat content of energy as the best way to provide us with revenue to lower the deficit because it also combats pollution, promotes energy efficiency, promotes the independence, economically, of this country as well as helping to reduce the debt, and because it does not discriminate against any area. Unlike a carbon tax, that’s not too hard on the coal States; unlike a gas tax, that’s not too tough on people who drive a long way to work; unlike an ad valorem tax, it doesn’t increase just when the price of an energy source goes up. And it is environmentally responsible. It will help us in the future as well as in the present with the deficit.”

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton%27s_First_State_of_the_Union_Address

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Vice President Al Gore had been switched onto the climate problem while studying at Harvard (Roger Revelle had taught him). He had had a book called “Earth in the Balance” come out while he was on the campaign trail. He thought you could raise money to reduce the government deficit while also cutting emissions….

What I think we can learn from this

War game the heck out of your proposal, with red team and blue team and all that…

What happened next

Resistance from the “energy lobby” (who knew?!) Brutally successful opposition too.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?41041-1/republican-leaders-btu-tax

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References and see also

Erlandson, D. (1994) The Btu Tax Experience: What Happened and Why It Happened.  Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 173 (1994-1995) Vol. 12, no 1. 

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1528&context=pelr

Categories
Australia

 February 11, 1993 – Liberal Party plans would not meet climate goals, says expert

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 11, 1993, with a Federal election campaign underway, an academic ran the numbers on the Liberal Party’s Fightback! policy and what it would mean…. 

According to the director of science and technology policy at Murdoch University, Fightback! would result in a six per cent increase in car use immediately, and 28 per cent in a few years.

The table shows that Australia is the third worst polluter in the OECD region and that our poor performance is very much related to low fossil-fuel prices.

If Australia is to get its carbon emissions down to a level comparable with other OECD countries, some form of carbon tax will have to be introduced.

International pressure to move in this direction is likely to intensify over the next decade

Davidson, K. 1993. Hewson Error Of Emission. The Age, 11 February, p.13. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

From late 1991 Opposition Leader John Hewson had been successfully attacking Labor with an even more neoliberal set of policies than Labor had been using. He called it “Fight Back!” Hewson had spooked a tired Bob Hawke and this gave Hawke’s former Treasurer Paul Keating an opportunity for a second bite at the leadership cherry.  Fight back indeed!  Fight Back!  marked the end of the Liberal experiment with appearing green, (see, January 15, blog post).

But Fightback! would, as per this report, mean that environment issues would be further down the policy agenda. And the quality of the human and natural environment would further decline.

What I think we can learn from this

The intense battles in the realm of politics, often two bald men fighting over a comb, bear no relation to the actual problems that the society or species faces. We mustn’t mistake all of that heat for light. 

The Green Party’s and greens of the world have been saying this for decades, I’m saying precisely nothing new here. But hopefully, by dint of repetition, it will get into my own head. 

As per February 5 blog post, we mistake the shadows on the wall for the reality. We think that because some planet-destroying goon is getting laughed out then progress is being made. And on the whole, it’s not. 

What happened next

Hewson went on to lose the unlosable election to Paul Keating. Environmental matters were nowhere to be seen.  Hewson over time, has had a semi Damascene conversion. I don’t know that anyone has ever asked him if he regrets the Fightback! stuff. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Australia

February 4, 1993 – Australian business versus the future (spoiler: business wins)

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 4 1993, Australian business interests continued their fight against the future of the human species.

The Federal Government’s ratification of an international climate change agreement last month is a chance for Australia to rewrite its greenhouse policies and perhaps even argue for a national increase in greenhouse gas emissions instead of a cut.

That’s according to Woodside Petroleum managing director Charles Allen, who told the Outlook conference yesterday it was time for a “reappraisal” of Australia’s greenhouse policies.

Mr Allen said “emotional media and political treatment” of the greenhouse issue had obscured the real problem. While it was clear greenhouse was happening, he said, there were many scientific uncertainties about its magnitude and speed.

He said Australia produced only about 1.5 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases, even though per head of population emissions were on a par with major greenhouse producing nations. 

Mussared, D. 1993. Increase Australia’s greenhouse emissions: Woodside. Canberra Times, 5 February, p.13.

AND 

THE Federal Government would have to consider unpopular measures such as a carbon tax if wanted to achieve its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2000, according to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

A senior ABARE minerals economist, Mr Barry Jones, told the Outlook ’93 conference yesterday that the measures announced in the Government’s Greenhouse Response Strategy would not be enough to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions by 2000 compared with 1988 levels, or to cut them a further 20 per cent by 2005

Garran, R. 1993. Rethink needed on greenhouse The Australian Financial Review, 5 February, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Australian business interests were trying to claw back ground that had been lost, sort of, in 1992 when the Australian government had signed and ratified the UNFCCC. This was also taking place ahead of an impending federal election. The context was that the Hawke government had, in October 1990, agreed to the Toronto target (a 20% decrease in emissions by 2005) with caveats. Now business wanted to emphasize the costs and to point to the fact that other nations were not doing very much.

What I think we can learn from this

No battle is ever won. Your opponents will, if they have capacity – and business often does – try to undermine you, to clawback territory. This will not be big news usually, but they never sleep, they keep fighting. Often, therefore, they win. An analogy would be the fight against women’s reproductive rights and bodily autonomy in the United States. It took them decades, but they rolled back Roe v Wade…

What happened next

In Australia, there was a proposal for a carbon tax in 1994/95. It was defeated and then Australia switched to talking about an emissions trading scheme. There was prolonged debate about this finally in 2012. A scheme was introduced within a year, then abolished.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.