Tag: 1995

Categories
Australia

 March 29, 1995 –  “a transparent attempt to promote the Australian coal industry”

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 29th, 1995, Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner, fresh from losing the carbon tax battle) gave a press conference 

J Faulkner (Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories),Press conference for the release of Greenhouse 21C, speech, 29 March 1995 

Greenpeace’s climate campaigner, Mr Keith Tarlo, said the biggest single item was the $25 million program to promote clean coal technology in India.

“This is a scandal. (It) is a transparent attempt to promote the Australian coal industry and can only lock India into escalating greenhouse emissions,” he said.

Boreham, G. 1995. Industry Says Yes, Greens Say No To Emissions Policy. The Age, 30 March, p.3. 

AND

Greenpeace said the biggest item in the package was $25 million to promote “clean coal” technology overseas. This was really meant to boost Australian coal exports and the “clean” meant only low sulphur content, it said.

Shehan, C. and McCathie, A. 1995. Bid To Cut Gas Levels – But It’s Voluntary. Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a bloody and ultimately successful campaign against a mild, minor carbon tax. And here John Faulkner, who had proposed that tax had to pretend the booby prize, which was the Greenhouse 21 challenge (presumably had been written by civil servants or given to them by business as the lowest common denominator) would make a blind bit of difference.

What I think we can learn from this is that if you’re not going to have anything serious, but you still have “presentational problems” on an issue that voters might care about, then you come up with these bullshit voluntary schemes. 

What happened next

Greenhouse 21 was a joke, as was the Australian Greenhouse office, as was Greenhouse Challenge Plus. And everybody stopped pretending that it was worth continuing to pretend by about 2005. But the pretence continues – it has to…

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: 

March 29, 1979 – Health impacts of carbon dioxide discussed…

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

March 29, 1995- Kuwaiti scientist says if global warming happening, it’s not fossil fuels. #MRDA

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

March 27, 1995 – former Nature editor John Maddox admits was wrong on Greenhouse, without, er, admitting it.

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 28th, 1995,

27 March 1995, to another Australian audience – “On the greenhouse effect, Sir John suggested that the onus of proof had shifted towards those who denied it”. https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-253921166/view?sectionId=nla.obj-259513073&partId=nla.obj-253927437#

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first IPCC report had come out, and the second was near completion. John Maddox, finally, 25 years after his first attacks on carbon dioxide concerns, was conceding that those worried had been right and he’d been wrong. Not that he put it in those words of course.

The older context was that in 1971 Maddox on a visit to Australia had rubbished worries about carbon dioxide….

What I think we can learn from this is it takes old white men a very long time to change their tune. It’s not clear to me that the former Met Office supremo, John Mason, for example, ever did. 

What happened next

The second IPCC report came out saying that there was a discernible influence of human activity. And this word got monstered. The denialists knew enough not to go for Bert Bolin, so they went for Ben Santer instead.

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: 

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

March 27, 2008 – James Hansen writes a letter to Kevin Rudd

Categories
United Kingdom

March 16, 1993 – VAT to be imposed on domestic energy, called a “climate measure”

Thirty two years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1993,

March budget announces VAT on domestic energy, disguises it as a climate measure (see Pearson and Watson 2012, p14)

Here’s the speech from John Major

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the British state was having one of its periodic fiscal crises (though the crisis is now perhaps more permanent!), Anyway they put Value Added Tax (VAT) on domestic heating and called it a climate initiative. And this is brilliant, because it raises revenue and it smears the green cause as it were. It’s like the salting the earth. It’s very, very clever politics (terrible policy and governance, but clever politics).

What I think we can learn from this is that just because you’re evil doesn’t mean you’re stupid. 

What happened next

There was resistance to this, but it also made life harder for talking about actual green taxes. 

See 1995 post 

January 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

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: 

March 16, 1973 –  North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)

 March 16, 1994 – “We could bail from Rio” says former Environment Minister

March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 15, 1995 – Australian Financial Review editorial, gloating in the aftermath of the defeat of a small carbon tax proposal, groks Jevons Paradox

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 15th, 1995,  the Fin editorialises…

“But no-regrets policies cannot be counted on to significantly reduce Australia’s total greenhouse emissions. The reason is that making the economy more efficient and competitive will lead to higher levels of output.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a vigorous, indeed vociferous and ultimately successful campaign to stop the carbon tax. One of the inevitable arguments was, oh, but, you know, we’ll make everything more efficient. And the Australian Financial Review, to its credit, sort of at least understood something that economists had understood for at that point, I don’t know 130 years; that increasing the efficiency of a process doesn’t mean that less of it gets used overall, but rather more. i.e., Jevons paradox. 

What I think we can learn from this is that basic economic concepts (which doesn’t mean they’re right, but in this case, it seems to be) are sometimes seemingly too complex, or perhaps merely too inconvenient for some politicians who want to be able to use motherhood words like efficiency without being challenged.

What happened next The Fin has deteriorated as a paper, I would say. The carbon price, rather, was instituted very briefly and then became toxic and was killed off

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

February 13, 1995 – Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner runs up the white flag on a carbon tax.

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 13th, 1995

CANBERRA, Feb 14 (Reuter) – Australian Environment Minister John Faulkner said the government had decided not to go ahead with a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, known as an environment levy.

“I’ve indicated that it’s just not going to go forward,” Faulkner told 2GB Sydney radio. “As far as I’m concerned a greenhouse levy is off the agenda.”

Australia govt drops plans for carbon tax-minister. Reuters, 14 February 1995

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a fierce and ultimately successful resistance to the first serious proposal for a carbon tax in Australia. It was on this day that John Faulkner had to admit he just wouldn’t have the numbers to get it through Keating’s cabinet. Australia was already muttering about finding loopholes in the UNFCCC or exploiting them, of course, John Howard, who by this time, was Liberal leader would, shortly after this, say that Australia should never have signed the UNFCCC climate treaty. 

What I think we can learn from this is that 30 years ago, there was an effort to get a small, sensible economic measure going. It would have been grossly inadequate, but it would have been a start. 

What happened next is the proponents of the carbon tax switched to an emissions trading scheme proposal, hoping that would suit neoliberalism a bit better. And of course, that was also the prevailing wind from the United States in its attempt to water down any international action. And eventually, Australia did get a carbon price in 2012 and it was very quickly abolished. 

And the emissions rise, as do the concentrations.

Categories
Australia

February 7, 1995 – Australian Treasurer claims UNFCCC treaty contains loopholes and get-out clauses

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 7th, 1995,

Treasurer Ralph Willis stated that the UNFCCC contained ‘let-out clauses’ and that the government might decide that a less ambitious target was appropriate Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 7

February 1995, 582 (Ralph Willis, Treasurer).

The Government also confirmed yesterday that it would be forced to renege on international targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the turn of the century.

The Treasurer, Mr Willis, told Parliament the Government would examine the “let-out clauses” of the United Nations agreement to stabilise greenhouse gas emission levels to 1990 levels by 2000.

“Those are not unimportant clauses (and) they have to be taken into account when considering whether we need absolutely to tie ourselves to achieving the (targets),” he said. “(But) we are concerned with ensuring that Australia does everything in its power to try to live up to its obligations to the convention.”

The backdown would be highly embarrassing for the Government in the lead-up to the International Convention on Climate Change in Berlin next month

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that very day, there was a round table about a carbon tax. Ralph Willison was in Parliament and was busy saying that there were get out clauses in the UNFCCC document that Australia would investigate and, if necessary, exploit so much for Australia as a middle power. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there is no bit of paper that anyone will sign that won’t be ignored if it becomes inconvenient to them.

What happened next

There was no carbon tax. There was finally a carbon price in 2012 that didn’t last very long. Tiny Abbott abolished it. The emissions kept climbing, and we’re absolutely doomed. 

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

February 3, 1995 – Senator McMullan sows the CEDA of our doom..

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 3rd, 1995, a Labor Senator – and I hope you are sitting down when you read this – assures business-types that “the economy” [i.e. corporate profits] is a higher priority than reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

 In a largely unreported speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in Melbourne on Friday [3rd February 1995] , Senator McMullan said: “The levy will be dealt with on the basis of its appropriateness as a measure to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rather than on the amount of revenue it might raise.” “What we need to avoid is any situation where we unilaterally place a wide range of export and import-competing industries at a competitive disadvantage without actually contributing effectively to reducing global or domestic greenhouse emissions,” he added.

Gill, P. 1995. Official warns of small cut in gas with carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 7 February, p.3. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was an almighty battle going on within the Keating government about a carbon tax and the opponents of said tax were trying to ally shop and venue shop and water down and weaken as much as they could. This speech to an economics business think tank/talking shop called CEDA should be seen in that context.

What I think we can learn from this is that introducing a new order of things, as per Machiavelli, is extremely difficult, even if it’s urgent and important. Perhaps especially if it’s urgent and important. 

What happened next: The carbon tax was defeated. Emissions trading schemes were defeated. Finally, Julia Gillard in 2011 got one through. But oh my, what a shitshow. 

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

Also on this day: 

February 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 20, 1995 – ACF says a carbon tax would be really helpful

Thirty years ago, on this day, January 20th, 1995, ACFto get the ALP to be less crap.

The Federal Government should increase its spending on the environment by $3.3 billion in the May Budget to repair damage to the nation’s land, water and air, the Australian Conservation Foundation said yesterday. Government spending on the environment was paltry, the foundation’s 1995 Budget submission said. About $820 million was spent nationally last year, which amounted to 0.2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. A carbon tax would fund about one third of the foundation’s proposed $3.3 billion spending increase on energy efficiency, public transport, clean industry production and sustainable agriculture. The tax levied at $2.20 a tonne of carbon dioxide among fossil fuel suppliers would raise $850 million, the submission said. Other revenue-raising measures included the elimination of some diesel rebates, an agricultural water-use levy, increases to personal income taxes and wealth and capital gains taxes. Industry and farming groups are opposed to a carbon tax.

Milburn, C. 1995. ACF Calls For $3.3b On Environment. The Age, 21 January, p.7. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was ACF put out it’s all singing, all dancing “gee it would be great if we get a carbon tax” submission ahead of a couple of round tables to be held two weeks later, (the green performance at the pro-round table was not good, and this  would spell the death for the carbon tax. 

What we learn is that good ideas can very easily get shot down, and usually do, Thirty years, Thirty years. ACF did its best, but there wasn’t that engaged, enraged civil society willing to march into the policy spaces and bang on the table, because that never really happens. That’s not how our societies are currently built. 

That’s not inevitable. You can imagine a different way of governing ourselves, besides technocratic neoliberal capitalism. But we don’t have it at present, and we won’t, because as the disasters pile up, people will become more and more frustrated and disenchanted with messiness and complexity, and they will seek a Savior. And there are always narcissists out there willing to say that they will save the situation, if not the individuals. 

What happened next

Instead of a carbon tax there was a feeble voluntary “Greenhouse Challenge 21C”. And other laughable palaver. Once a carbon price finally came into existence, it was then quickly repealed.

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 20, 1992 – Gambling on climate… and losing #auspol

January 20, 2011 – Shell tries to change the subject from its own emissions   

January 20, 2014 – Gummer sledges “green extremists”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 5, 1995 – Victorian premier comes out against carbon tax

Thirty years ago, on this day, January 5th, 1995,

“The Industry Greenhouse  sought support from the states for its campaign. Participant F says the network lobbied premiers, ministers, and the state bureaucracy, and forward copies of its carbon tax correspondence and reports.  ‘I think Kennett came out with a statement against carbon tax that I think was prompted by some of our lobbying of the Premier’s Office.’ The Victorian Premier sent out a news release on 5 January 1995 opposing carbon tax and using many of the points put forward by the Industry Greenhouse Network….”

(Worden, 1998: 111) 

(On the same day the greenhouse interdepartmental committee met for first time to plan Faulkner’s next submission… (see Henderson, 12 Jan 1995) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Faulkner, Federal Environment Minister, morning, was pushing for a small carbon tax that would help fund renewables research and development. The fossil fuel industries were up in arms about this, and were drawing in as many allies as they could. One of them was state premiers who were that way inclined, including Jeff Kennet, who of course, had famously privatized the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, and with that, destroyed any hope of a response to the greenhouse effect. 

What I think we can learn from this  is that, as well as “venue shopping,” policy entrepreneurs will go “ally shopping.” And in this case, they went for allies at the state level, as well as trades unions, the real two pronged approach. 

What happened next was that the carbon tax proposal was defeated because Faulkner realized he didn’t have the numbers in Keating’s cabinet.  Australia eventually got a carbon price, an emissions trading scheme in 2011/12, and it was then abolished by the next government, of Tony Abbott. The emissions have kept climbing, and we’re toast. 

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:

Categories
United Kingdom

December 14, 1995 – Monbiot nails it with “it’s happening” article

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, December 14th, 1995, George Monbiot wrote in Guardian “It’s Happening”

As memories of the scorching summer are soothed away by snow, the 600 water tankers trundling around Yorkshire have been all but forgotten.Yorkshire Water regards the situation as exceptional – the Met Office has told them that the drought was a once in 500-year event. The possibility that it might reflect a long-term trend, the company confesses, hasn’t even been raised.

The findings of the world’s foremost climate scientists, officially revealed at this week’s conference in Rome, expose a strange disjunction. We’ve all heard about global warming. Most of us are aware that the world has basked in nine of its ten warmest recorded years since the early 1980s, and everyone knows that our own summers have been exceptional. But these considerations don’t seem to connect in our heads. When two Englishmen meet, they talk about the weather, but somehow they seem to have missed the point.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now agrees that the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate. While they are properly hedged with cautions and uncertainties, its members’ data should be enough – poor thermal insulation notwithstanding – to throw us all into a muck sweat.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first COP had taken place in Berlin in March/April of that year, and there had been an agreement that rich nations would turn up in a couple of years with proposed cuts to their own emissions, the so-called Berlin mandate. Meanwhile, and this was the hook for Monbiot’s piece, the IPCC had been launching its second Assessment Report and coming under fire from denialists like Jastrow and Singer and so on. They were targeting Ben Santer and so forth. And what Monbiot was doing was trying to say, “hey, we’re in trouble as a species.” 

What we learn is the dynamics of the problem were laid out 29 years ago and here we are having not succeeded in creating social movement organisations and social movements capable of staying in the game. And we’re doomed. 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

December 14, 1988 – Greenhouse Glasnost gets going…

December 14, 1992 – UK “releases “National programme on carbon dioxide emissions”