Tag: Australian Conservation Foundation

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 2, 1994 – A green budget needed in Australia…

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 2nd, 1994, environmentalists were doing what they could to push for a carbon tax.

Canberra — The Australian Conservation Foundation has urged the Prime Minister, Mr Keating, to consider green-based Budget measures, including a radical tax on carbon.

The foundation’s president, Professor David Yencken, and its executive director, Ms Tricia Caswell, met Mr Keating yesterday. They sought support for a complex Budget submission and asked for a swift replacement for the former Environment Minister, Mrs Kelly.

Middleton, K. 1994. Conservationists Urge PM To Go For A Green Budget. The Age, 3 March p.7.

And

The Australian Conservation Foundation has proposed sweeping changes to the Federal Government’s taxation and spending practices to safeguard Australia’s future environmental and economic interests.

In its first detailed Budget submission, released yesterday, the ACF proposed measures it said would save the Government between $ 1.4 billion and $1.9 billion next financial year at the same time as promoting more environmentally responsible practices and creating jobs. The measures include a jobs levy, carbon tax, woodchip export levy, more money for public transport, and taxation incentives for nature conservation and the use of green technologies

AAP, 1994. Alter taxation, spending to aid environment: ACF. Canberra Times, 3 March, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people wanting to see action on what we then called “the greenhouse effect” had been suggesting a tax on carbon dioxide usage since the “Ecologically Sustainable Development process of 91-92. And there wasn’t really any coherent ideological or economic argument against this other than squeals of pain from the people who would have to pay it, who were doing the polluting.

Australia was a signatory to the UN Framework Convention, which was going to become law. And there was going to be the first “COP” meeting quite soon. And so in order to demonstrate credibility, so the argument went, the Australian Government could introduce a low tax, which would fund some energy efficiency, some renewables and the sky would not fall. And so that was the bid – entirely sensible, but unable to overcome, as we have seen, the power of the fossil fuel lobby in Australia. 

What I think we can learn from this is that politics is a blood sport. And everybody knows the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost. 

What happened next: The conservation lobby got their wish. There was a proposal for a carbon tax. And it was withdrawn because the opposition to, from within Paul Keating’s cabinet, egged on by the usual suspects beyond, was so successful that it was never going to get through cabinet. And the emissions kept climbing 

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 2nd, 1997- RIP Judi Bari

March 2, 2009 –  Washington DC coal plant gets blockaded

Categories
Australia

February 5, 1992 – Liberal leader Hewson snubs the Australian  Conservation Foundation

Thirty two years ago, on this day, February 5th, 1992, the Leader of the Liberal Party, John Hewson, decided he would not bother meeting with those irritating greenies, who had Betrayed Their Word after the fateful lunch on January 15 1990 (they hadn’t, actually, but it made for a good “Dolchstoss” myth…).

Anon, 1992. Hewson snubs Conservation Foundation. Canberra Times, 6 February, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberals felt that they had been shafted by the greens in March of 1990 and that they had not yet let this go. The Liberal view had hardened  – they felt that the 1993 election was eminently winnable, especially now the widely disliked Paul Keating was PM. Bob Hawke had given a piss weak response to John Hewson’s Fightback! and so, had been toppled by Labour, who chose Paul Keating, who was deeply unpopular with the Australian public as Treasurer. Meanwhile, green issues were no longer salient. And therefore, Hewson thought that telling the Australian Conservation Foundation to go fuck itself was a no lose proposition which would throw red meat and support to the headbangers. 

What we learn is that policies and politics are done by humans who have their senses of status and that can have long-term consequences because there is path dependency. 

What happened next Hewson managed to lose the unlosable election in March 1993. Prime Minister Keating went on to shit all over environment issues and especially climate issues which he considered amorphous. You know the rest. 

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.

See also

See also 12 0ctober 1989 piece by Andrew Fraser on Alexander Downer and market forces

Also on this day: 

Feb 5, 1974 – Energy security, meet anti-Arab sentiment #propaganda

February 5, 2007 – Australian Prime Minister trolled by senior journalist

Feb 5 1990 – A president says what he is told…

Categories
Australia Economics of mitigation Green Jobs

October 30, 2008 – a worker-greenie coalition? Maybe…

Fifteen years ago, on this day, October 30, 2008, the top Union body (ACTU) and Australian Conservation Foundation co-launched a report about a putative “Green Gold Rush” of jobs, an argument they’d also been making in the early 1990s.

It was good old-fashioned ecological modernisation and green Keynesianism

AND 

On the same day, the Treasury released modelling that had been commissioned to support the wretched “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. 

“Australia’s Low Pollution Future: The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation”:

Treasury modelling establishes that there are benefits to Australia acting early if other countries also adopt carbon pricing but that delaying action may lead to higher long-term costs (source).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

In Australia everyone was talking about the climate, ahead of the long awaited launch of the CPRS White Paper in December.

Eco-modernist green jobs rhetoric was attempting to square the political circle, and at least reds and greens were talking to each other again (it had been rocky).

There was of course a history of this – see “Green Jobs Unit.”

What I think we can learn from this

We do like our stories of harmony and win-win. They soothe us. 

What happened next

The White Paper was shonky af (see Ross Garnaut’s op-ed ‘Oiling the Squeaks’). Rudd’s legislation attempts the following year were farcical giveaways. And then it fell apart… 

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

October 17, 1973 – the coup at the Australian Conservation Foundation

Fifty years ago, on this day, October 17, 1973, a “coup” happened at the Australian Conservation Foundation.  The ACF had been set up by “Great and Good” figures in the mid-1960s. By the early 1970s its membership had shot up (as part of the global wave of concern about pollution. Lots and lots of the newcomers had a different understanding of what the root causes of the problems were, and how to solve them.  Matters came to a head…

“How The ACF Was Taken Over: A report to ACF Members on the events of 17th October, 1973, by the Seven Councillors who resigned on that day” 

From Hutton and Connors, 1999.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the ACF had been set up in the mid 60s by the great and the good. Garfield Barwick etc, as your typical elite conservationist programme. I think there were moves for it to actually be the official offshoot of the then new World Wildlife Fund, but I could be wrong. And for a few years, it was able to put out newsletters and hold conferences. It was fantastically well connected with the Australian industrial and political elite. But then with the coming of the late 60s, many more people started to get interested in and concerned about conservation, ecology, etc. And the fact that the ACF had been founded by and was being still controlled by a bunch of extremely well-connected, what we would now call old white men. began to be a problem. Because people were moving beyond the idea that the problems were caused either by greedy, poor people or a lack of information. And so there was a two or three year power struggle within the ACF – people getting elected to the board with different perspectives from the founders, countermoves, et cetera.

What I think we can learn from this

You see this a hell of a lot when a group has been established and then there’s an influx of people with a different view. Now, on one side, the incumbents can say, “Well, why don’t you just go and found your own group?” and on the other, the challengers can say, “Hang on, I thought this was a democratic organisation? And anyway, we’re the ones who brought in all the extra money and members and ideas. And we shouldn’t have to walk away from that.” It’s an age old dilemma. In this case, it was solved by a putsch. And the old ACF guard had to quit. The document described their version of history, and may or may not be accurate. I don’t care – that’s beyond the point of this website, which to remind you, is here to help people understand the patterns. 

What happened next – The ACF became more “radical” if you want to call it that, it depends what your baseline is. And we also saw the rise of Friends of the Earth and Ecology Action, which is best I can tell was a very New South Wales and especially Sydney focused thing. 

By the mid 70s, because of the enormous economic dislocations, the environment movement in Australia had shrunk. This was a worldwide pattern. “Whatever happened to the revolution,” as the Skyhooks sang 

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 Nuclear Power

September 7, 2005 – “rule out nuclear” say Aussie green outfits.

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 7, 2005, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Greens call on the gov to rule out nuclear energy and release a report “Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Howard government had asked a pro-nuclear scientist to do a review of nuclear power. This was after Howard and Bush had had one of their periodic meetings. The review made the same point that nuclear power was not going to be economic for Australia, and take too long to develop.

But it was also a useful “dead cat” strategy for Howard because he could wedge greens – he knew that some of them are pronuclear. Further, he knew it will take up time, energy and bandwidth and therefore distract from what he was (not) doing on climate.

But this is tricksy, and eventually the magician plays the same trick so many times that people spot how he does it and stop being impressed or even amused. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this is that nuclear is always a good “go to” if you want to avoid talking about what needs doing in the here and right now. And allow you to keep doing what you’re doing.

What happened next

Nuclear was not developed. It will not be developed in Australia because the population is not big enough and there aren’t enough big electricity consumers and anyway everyone has got wind and solar and the nuclear boat has sailed (and I don’t think the nuclear submarines will sail either. But who knows.)

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

August 29, 1990 – The Australian mining and forestry industries threaten to spit the dummy

On this day, August 29, 1990, the Australian mining and forestry industries – so long accustomed to freezing the greenies out of policymaking forums, had a tantrum.

“The mining and forestry industries last night threatened to pull out of the Government’s sustainable development consultations unless the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, repudiated highly critical comments by the Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly.

In a speech to the Fabian Society last night, Mrs Kelly attacked the Australian Mining Industry Council and the National Association of Forest Industries for their views on sustainable development.

Mrs Kelly said AMIC’s idea of a sustainable industry was “one in which miners can mine where they like, for however long they want. It is about, for them, sustaining profits and increasing access to all parts of Australia they feel could be minerally profitable even if it is of environmental or cultural significance”.”

Garran, R. 1990. Mining, forestry groups threaten to leave talks. Australian Financial Review, 30 August.

On this day the ppm was  353 ppm.  Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

Sometimes, for reasons to do with public pressure, the normally closed shop of government (politicians and civil servants) and industry is prised open, briefly… It doesn’t last, and it rarely ends well…

What happened next?

The Ecologically Sustainable Development Process ended up happening, and some decent suggestions got put forward by various green groups, especially folks from the Australian Conservation Foundation. And it all got filed in the “circular file” thanks to the next Prime Minister, Paul  Keating, and Federal bureaucrats (see earlier post this month!). Turns out the state is not a wise neutral arbiter. Who knew…

Categories
Australia Denial

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

On this day, August 5  1997 Australian Democrat Senator Kernot called for the Federal Government to 

“suspend use of the dubious ABARE greenhouse models until the completion of a full Ombudsman’s investigation.”

(Duncan, 1997:75)

The context is this – the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics had spent the previous seven years producing dubious “reports” based on a ludicrous economic model called MEGABARE which always magically proved that any attempt to tax carbon dioxide/coal would be cataclysmic.

The development of the MEGABARE “model” was paid for by oil, gas and coal companies. Of course it was. [See August 7th post on this site…]

And the Minister would trot these numbers out, it would get reported by journalists and become received wisdom.

AND THIS HAPPENED UNDER KEATING BEFORE IT HAPPENED UNDER HOWARD.

Sorry for shouting, but the catastrophe that has been Australian climate and energy policy has been bipartisan. Labor has a faction that doesn’t want to cook the planet, that’s all.

On this day the PPM was 362.4. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

Ah, official reports, with their big sounding numbers. Gramsci. Hegemony. Weaponised Common Sense. Et cetera. Et Cetera.

What happened next?

The Ombudsman’s report (forced to happen by Australian Conservation Foundation action) came out in January 1998. You can read it here.

.ABARE’s numbers kept getting used by the Howard government. Too useful not to.

There’s great stuff about this in Clive Hamilton’s two books – “Running from the Storm” and “Scorcher” and also in Guy Pearse’s “High and Dry.”

Categories
Australia Green Jobs

Jan 18 (1993) Job’s not a good un. “Green Jobs in Industry Plan” achieves … nothing. #auspol

On this day in 1993 the Australian Conservation Foundation (sort of akin to the UK version of Friends of the Earth) and the Australian Council of Trade Unions  (akin to the TUC) released a joint statement about the environment and employment.

As Noakes (1993) reports – 

“A major new effort to develop jobs which protect the environment”, was how the January 18 joint statement by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Conservation Foundation described their joint Green Jobs in Industry Plan. The scheme was launched at the Visyboard Paper and Cardboard Recycling Plant in Melbourne by Peter Baldwin, minister for higher education and employment services.”

This came at the tail end of concern about “Ecologically Sustainable Development.” Its champion, Bob Hawke, had been toppled, the new Prime Minister (Paul Keating) was not – to put it mildly – a fan of environmentalists and their concerns. The whole thing must have seemed doomed (and it was).

What happened next? Well, does Australia have the environmental jobs sector it could/should have? Or the carbon tax (the ACTU had a role, in 1995, of scuppering one).

Why this matters – we need to realise that getting greenies and union types together is a lot harder than it looks/”should” be. We need to think about previous failed efforts, and why they failed. But we tend not to, because it would raise awkward questions and make us feel bad.

References

Noakes, F. (1993) ACTU and ACF launch green jobs program. Green Left Weekly January 27th