Tag: Australian Financial Review

Categories
Australia

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

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1994, the Australian political elites lived up to their convict heritage.

“Cabinet is understood to have agreed in January 1991, before talks on the UN convention, that Australia would not proceed with measures which had “net adverse economic impacts nationally or on Australia’s trade competitiveness in the absence of similar action by major greenhouse gas-producing countries”.

Former environment minister and former senator, Mr Graham Richardson, used exactly the same words when he described the joint Commonwealth-State position on climate change to Parliament on March 16.”

Gill, P. 1994. Minister signals change of policy on greenhouse gas. The Australian Financial Review, 26 May, p.6. [On Evans using exactly the same words on 24 May]

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 is that Australia had made a very weak eye-catching commitment in October of 1990, saying that it would reduce emissions if other large emitters did so, on the proviso that there were no economic consequences to speak of. Australia had not introduced any carbon tax and only had a pissweak “national greenhouse response strategy” which was utterly toothless. The UNFCCC treaty had been ratified by enough nations quite quickly, and was going to become law imminently. And therefore the problem for Australia was they’d signed it. What might they have to do? And this was Graham Richardson, who only five years earlier had been a tub thumping “we must save the world” activist who can be credited with having won the 1990 election for Hawke. He was backtracking, or in his eyes, reading aloud the fine print. 

What we learn from this Is that a politician will be a fire breathing tub thumper when it suits him or her. But as soon as implementation of firebrand tub thumping policies might impinge on donors and elite allies, they suddenly change their tune. 

What happened next. A carbon tax was defeated again. The next Environment Minister went to Berlin and was forced to agree with the idea of Australia joining other rich nations in negotiating emission cuts under the so-called Berlin mandate. And Australia then shat all over that, of course. 

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, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 14, 2007 – Australian Treasury eyeroll about politicians on #climate, (scoop by Laura Tingle).

Seventeen years ago, on this day, March 14th, 2007, civil servants get caught out despairing of their political “masters.”

The country’s most senior economic bureaucrat has delivered a scathing assessment of the federal government’s water and climate-change policies and warned his department to be vigilant against the “greater than usual risk of the development of policy proposals that are, frankly, bad” in the lead-up to the federal election.

In a speech to an internal Treasury forum, obtained by The Australian Financial Review, Treasury Secretary Ken Henry confirmed his department had little influence in the development of the government’s recent $10 billion water package, and expressed his regret that its advice both on water and climate change had not been followed in recent years.

The revelations came as the government was on the defensive yesterday about its failure to address climate change in its latest intergenerational report.

Dr Henry’s speech, in which he reviewed Treasury’s achievements and challenges, was given to an internal biannual departmental forum at Canberra’s Hyatt Hotel on March 14.

He noted that the department had “worked hard to develop frameworks for the consideration of water reform and climate-change policy”.

“All of us would wish that we had been listened to more attentively over the past several years in both of these areas. There is no doubt that policy outcomes would have been far superior had our views been more influential,” he said.

2007 Tingle, L. 2007. Revealed: Treasury chief’s blast at government policy. The Australian Financial Review, 4 April, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Treasury officials had been having to sit politely for a decade while various “economically efficient” emissions trading schemes were proposed. Two had been put before cabinet in 2000 and 2003, only to be shut down. In the first case by Nick Minchin the second by John Howard alone. And of course, the Shergold report process was underway at this point, because Howard had done a save-my-skin U-turn. Also, Kevin Rudd was banging the drum. And it looked like the state-based Emissions Trading might come back, who knew for sure. And so hardly surprising that top mandarin,  who actually knew one end of a spreadsheet from another, might have a little private exasperation. 

What we can learn is that civil servants often have to just grit their teeth as really stupid. elected members run the place – which is of course how it should be. On  tap not on top and all that crap. 

What happened next? The Shergold report was released in May 2007, but convinced no one. Aong came Keivin Rudd who then completely fucked up the introduction of the emissions trading schemes. He got toppled by Julia Gillard and, well, alright 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.

Also on this day: 

March 14, 1997 – Australian senator predicts climate issue will be gone in ten years…

 March 14, 2007 – Top Australian bureaucrat admits “frankly bad” #climate and water policies

Categories
Australia Denial

January 23, 1992 – denialist bullshit in the Fin

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 23rd 1992 the allegedly fact based business newspaper, the Australian Financial Review” (“the Fin”) published more denialist shite, including the inevitable quote from Pat Michaels.

SEA levels may be unlikely to rise significantly for many decades to come, but the flood of published material about the enhanced greenhouse effect has become a matter of serious concern.

The flood threatens to inundate small libraries around the world and force the larger ones to build retaining walls in their periodical sections. Fortunately, the main book collections are so far unthreatened.

But while most of us can only watch the increasing flood levels of articles about the effect and wonder what it all means, there are signs that the worst may be over….

Lawson, M. 1992. Cooling the global warming predictions. Australian Financial Review, 23 January . SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Fin had been running denialist hit pieces, which was very common in the business press this time, even in the quality business press, like the FT allegedy part of the battle of ideas.

The denialists were very good at calling themselves truth tellers and claiming that they were being censored and silenced. See Boykoff and Boykoff 2004 “Balance as bias” – it is really good on this. And the denialists also knew how to give the elite and business press what they wanted, or what was needed to get something printed. So getting a prestigious American over to yap some bollocks was still enough to get published. 

What we can learn from this is that the denialists were cunning and persistent. And of course, the organizations were well-funded.

What happened next? The denial kept going, kept escalating, and reached an early peak in 97 before Kyoto. Then the Lavoisier group came along, just to stiffen Howard’s anti Kyoto spine and then it exploded into public in 2009-11. And here we are. 

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 23, 1957 – New Zealand scientist warns about consequences of carbon dioxide build-up  

January 23, 1995 – The Larsen B starts to break up with us.. (Ice, Ice, baby)

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

July 26, 1988, – Australian uranium sellers foresee boom times…

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 26, 1988, the Australian Financial Review reported on what “the greenhouse effect” might do to the energy mix (it didn’t).

Environmental problems associated with the “greenhouse effect” could force the world to replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy – which would give Australia the opportunity to become the foremost uranium supplier, according to a leading petroleum industry expert.

Mr Bob Foster, general manager, external relations, for BHP Petroleum said last week: “Australia can lead the world on how to mitigate against the greenhouse effect.”

Sargent, S. 1988. Environment problems seen with fossil fuels. Australian Financial Review, 26 July.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone had started to talk about climate change. And the biggest Australian miner BHP was able to see dollar signs because it had lots of uranium and could envisage a turn to nuclear. The deeper context is that from the 1950s and 60s onwards, advocates of nuclear had been talking about it as a greenhouse solution. See, for example, Philip Abelson in 1968, New York Times 1969 Thatcher 1979 for a very small selection

What I think we can learn from this is that proponents of the nuclear dream (or nightmare, depending on your perspective) have been using all the arguments that they can for a long, long time. 

What happened next

Nuclear power did not save the world. Nuclear power was never going to save the world,

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

December 28, 1994 – Australian Financial Review says “say yes to Tradeable Emissions Quotas”

On this day, December 28 in 1994 the Australian Financial Review (“the Fin” – and on its best days merely a poundstore version of the Financial Times) had an editorial about the value of emissions trading schemes.

A very large part of the contribution of rich, energy-intensive economies such as Australia should be the financing of emission-reduction projects in countries where the social cost of emission reduction is lower.

One mechanism for this kind of transfer is the often proposed system of tradable emission quotas (which the quotas distributed in a way to transfer income to the developing nations).”

Anon, 1994, 28 December

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 359ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The Labor Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner was trying to get a carbon tax proposal through into the next budget. There was a major effort to stop this, and the Fin’s editorial was a minor part of it (“look, there’s a more efficient way of pricing carbon”).

Why this matters. 

It doesn’t, in the big picture. Just be aware that whatever you propose, if the rich and powerful don’t like it they will either oppose it outright or – more subtle version – go for a concern troll approach “we both want the same thing, but HERE’s how you should do it…[proposes something that will never work].”

What happened next?

The carbon tax died in February 1995, didn’t get in the budget. Emissions trading became flavour of the month for more than a decade.  Delivered nowt, except fat fees to consultants and bankers. (You can argue about the reduction in emissions after Gillard’s scheme came in, and others will point to Tasmanian hydro entering the picture.)

Categories
Australia Economics of mitigation

December 4, 1989 – first anti-climate action economic “modelling” released in Australia

On this day, December 4 in 1989, the first anti-climate action “economics modelling” in Australia came out, and was reported by the business press. Oddly, they neglected to mention that the funding for this “research” came from… a company that was digging up and selling coal.  Can only have been space constraints that stopped them mentioning it, oh yes….

Australia will have to suffer the consequences of reduced economic growth to achieve the proposed international goal of a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over 15 years, according to a group of leading economists.

A paper to be presented to a conference entitled Greenhouse and Energy, which starts at Macquarie University in Sydney today, states that, among other effects, the fight against the greenhouse effect will result in increased electricity bills and reduced increases in real wages.

Lawson, M. 1989. Fighting Greenhouse has an economic cost. Australian Financial Review, 4 December.  

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 353ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Everyone was talking about emissions cuts and how much (earlier in the year the Thatcher government had shat all over the Toronto Target (see here).

Why this matters. 

The “models” do not “reflect” reality. They are just made up bullshit.

John Kenneth Galbraith said it best – “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”

What happened next?

Those who want to stop climate action – because it would cut their profits and/or power, because it offends them, will always find some shonky “modellers” to give them the answers they want. Then equally shonky “journalists” will uncritically run the crap on page 1, and it will get picked up by shonky politicians… and presto, “common sense” is created.

See also – May 13, 1992 – Australian business predicts economic armageddon if any greenhouse gas cuts made

Categories
Australia

November 22, 2002 – private business battles on #climate become public in Australia

On this day, November 22 2002, the nasty spat within Australian business over whether to call for Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol broke out into public., with an article “Big business splits over greenhouse” by Miranda McLachlan in the Australian Financial Review

The dominant big business association, the Business Council of Australia, had backed Prime Minister John Howard in not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol (even though Australia had been able to extort an absurdly generous “reduction” target of … an 8 per cent increase in emissions (more once you added the land-clearing loophole.

But over time, key business leaders – proponents of renewables, carbon trading etc, fought within the BCA for a change in its position.  They fought each other to a standstill, as reported in the Fin, and the BCA went to a “no position” position on Kyoto ratification…

See also – Bell, S. (2008). Rethinking the Role of the State: Explaining Business Collective Action at the Business Council of Australia. Polity, Vol. 40,. 4, 464-487

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 373ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Why this matters. 

When the business lobby splits, that’s when the fun starts. Which is why incumbent actors work so hard to stop those splits…

What happened next?

Howard held the line. Public pressure on climate only really kicked in in Australia in the second half of 2006.  The BCA promptly moved to various fall back positions.

The emissions kept climbing. The atmospheric concentrations kept climbing. Then came the ‘natural’ disasters.

Categories
Australia

November 12, 1999 – John Howard and mates say “nope” to renewables

On this day, November 12, 1999 the cabinet of Prime Minister John Howard said “nope” to a pitifully small renewables target.

A proposal by the Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, implementing the Federal Government’s target of a 2 percentage increase in renewable energy was rejected by Cabinet because of industry concerns.

“Howard’s 2 per cent target has fallen victim to industry lobbying, again,” said Dr Clive Hamilton, executive director of Canberra policy research centre, The Australia Institute.

Two weeks ago, Senator Hill put a submission to Cabinet, arguing, according to industry sources, that meeting the target be made mandatory for business.

Hordern, N. 1999. Cabinet rejects energy target. Australian Financial Review, 12 November, p.17.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 368ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

In 1997 John Howard, desperate to prevent Australia having to adopt emissions reductions at the impending Kyoto Conference, had made various promises about renewable energy and so forth.  Once the moment had passed (Australia got an absurdly generous deal at Kyoto), he didn’t need to keep those promises (like any conman). And the industry lobbyists got to work, with their usual aplomb…

Why this matters. 

Australia could have been a renewable energy superpower.  Could have led the way.

What happened next?

In 2004 Howard got his fossil fuel mates to further undercut renewables in 2004, but the minutes of the “LETAG” meeting leaked. 

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

March 14, 2007 – Top Australian bureaucrat admits “frankly bad” #climate and water policies

On this day in  2007, Senior Australian bureaucrat Ken Henry gave a private speech to his staff, pointing out that Australia’s climate policy was a complete mess. Laura Tingle for the Australian Financial Review. got hold of this and published it as a front page story on 4th April

2007 Tingle, L. 2007. Revealed: Treasury chief’s blast at government policy. The Australian Financial Review, 4 April, p.1.

The country’s most senior economic bureaucrat has delivered a scathing assessment of the federal government’s water and climate-change policies and warned his department to be vigilant against the “greater than usual risk of the development of policy proposals that are, frankly, bad” in the lead-up to the federal election.

In a speech to an internal Treasury forum, obtained by The Australian Financial Review, Treasury Secretary Ken Henry confirmed his department had little influence in the development of the government’s recent $10 billion water package, and expressed his regret that its advice both on water and climate change had not been followed in recent years.

The revelations came as the government was on the defensive yesterday about its failure to address climate change in its latest intergenerational report.

Dr Henry’s speech, in which he reviewed Treasury’s achievements and challenges, was given to an internal biannual departmental forum at Canberra’s Hyatt Hotel on March 14.

He noted that the department had “worked hard to develop frameworks for the consideration of water reform and climate-change policy”.

“All of us would wish that we had been listened to more attentively over the past several years in both of these areas. There is no doubt that policy outcomes would have been far superior had our views been more influential,” he said.

The context is that under Prime Minister Bob Hawke there had been some noises about doing something on climate. Under Keating that had been tossed aside thanks to a wildly successful set of campaigns co-ordinated by the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network Howard had been successful resistance on multiple occasions to any action whatsoever that wasn’t symbolic and shambolic. 

But Henry was probably specifically speaking about two efforts to get emissions trading schemes in Australia in 2000 and 2003. These were discussed in federal cabinet, and on both occasions, defeated on the second occasion, by Howard on his own

Why this matters. 

We need to know that there are people in the bureaucracy of the state with their eyes open who do not agree with what their political masters are doing. And they try to keep the policy streams alive (even if the policies are neoliberal tosh).

What happened next?

Howard lost the 2007 election. Kevin Rudd came in with all sorts of promises. And then, in 2010, revealed himself to be unwilling to stick his neck out in defence of climate action, i.e. call a double dissolution election.

And that betrayal has made people think of politicians as untrustworthy on climate, and the climate issue has been rendered incredibly toxic (to be clear – the toxification was more than just Rudd’s fault – it was a clear-eyed and cynical attempt to create a culture war).