Tag: Australian Financial Review

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 18, 1995 – Carbon tax 1

Thirty one years ago, on this day, January 18th, 1995

FEDERAL Cabinet is considering a series of controversial measures to cut greenhouse emissions, including a carbon tax of up to $20 a tonne, which would raise $13 billion over three years, and an extra 10c/litre fuel excise.

The proposals – detailed in a Cabinet document obtained by The Australian Financial Review – are set to generate massive industry hostility, and to switch the environmental spotlight from Mr Beddall, the minister responsible for the woodchip controversy, to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, and his departmental deputy secretary, Mr Phillip Toyne, who is masterminding the greenhouse strategy.

 Callick, R. 1995. Revealed: Green tax shock *$13bn grab *$20/tonne carbon tax *New 10c/litre fuel levy. Australian Financial Review, 18 January, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the idea of taxing “bads” is hardly new (Pigou, much?) and had been suggested for carbon dioxide not merely in the late 1980s, but all the way back to 1970.

The specific context was that industry had already seen off a previous tax proposal (or the idea of one) in 1990-1, and had been prepping for another battle for a while, since it was obvious that those wanting climate action would try again.

What I think we can learn from this is industry mostly gets what it wants. We are screwed.

What happened next – those wanting a price on carbon switched to an emissions trading scheme. This makes bankers and consultants happy, and offers enormous opportunities for loophole finding and patronage which turns into post-election-defeat jobs.  Even that was resisted, successfully, for ages.

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 18, 1964 – Nature mentions atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up

January 18, 1993 – Australian unions and greenies launch first “Green Jobs” campaign

January 18, 1993 – Job’s not a good un. “Green Jobs in Industry Plan” achieves … nothing. #auspol

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

January 8, 1991 – Peter Walsh versus a habitable planet (Walsh wins)

Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 8th, 1991, former Federal Treasurer Peter Walsh lets rip,

BACK in 1989 a proposal to spend $6 million on an Australian response to the greenhouse effect and climatic change was being considered. The 1990 Budget Papers identify another $17 million for climate change core research and “multifaceted programme initiatives” – which presumably includes funding various national and international greenhouse conferences so beloved by greenhouse activists.

Walsh, P. 1991. Credibility Gap in Greenhouse Gabfests. Australian Financial Review, 8 January, p.7.

BASED ON DALY GREENHOUSE TRAP

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that the Hawke government’s Cabinet had, in October 1990 created the interim planning target of a 20% reduction in the CO2 emissions by 2005 with the notable caveats that it didn’t hurt the economy and that other nations took similar action, i.e., “we’re not going to do it.” And even these caveats were not enough for people like Walsh, who regarded environmentalism as akin to paganism, astrology, whatever. 

What’s interesting about this is that the column is based largely on a then-new book called The Greenhouse Trap by a guy called John Daly. So you see here the mechanics of how a book, even if basically self published, can get picked up and used in speeches and opinion columns and reverberate and become part of the actual or possible “common sense”, or certainly part of the acceptable range of opinions. Blah, blah, Overton Window, blah, blah – there’s a kind of conveyor belt going on.

What I think we can learn from this  is that Old White Men have a lot of cultural power, or at least influence.

What happened next

Walsh kept ranting –  February 23, 1993 – Peter Walsh spouting his tosh again – All Our Yesterdays

Walsh was involved in the dimbulb denialist outfit the Lavoisier Group, and Daly kept on being daily until he died in January 2004.

And the gab fests, as Walsh called them, became meaningless, principally because the United States insisted that targets and timetables not be included in the treaty text of the UN Convention.

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: 

January 8, 1968 – LaMont Cole to AAAS about running outta oxygen, build-up of C02 etc

January 8, 2003 –  Energy firms plan to “bury carbon emissions”…

January 8, 2013 –  Australian Prime Minister connects bush fires and #climate change

January 8, 2018 – Joe Root doesn’t come back to bat

Categories
Australia

November 9, 1994 – interdepartmental bunfight in Australia

Thirty one years ago, on this day, November 9th, 1994,

A DOCUMENT leaked from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has revealed the department’s strongly critical view of business and farm lobby concerns over international environment treaties now being negotiated by the Government.

The document, a minute written by First Assistant Secretary, Mr W.N. Fisher, to the department head, Mr Michael Costello, reveals a DFAT institutional view that is highly critical and dismissive of business and farm lobbies.

The minute will gravely embarrass the Federal Government, which has undertaken to improve consultation with business and farm groups over treaty negotiations. The minute reveals DFAT’s conviction that consultations are a waste of time because, ultimately, the Government knows what is best for business.

In it, he calls DFAT contacts with business “despairing” and “pretty appalling”. He says Mt Isa Mines Ltd salesmen are “incompetently briefed” by the company on a climate change convention now being negotiated.

“You would think that MIM, with a multi-million dollar export contract at stake, would at least have the wit to brief its salesmen on the contents of the framework convention so that if they have to confront these arguments they would know what they are talking about.”

“Too much to hope for, apparently. MIM salesmen must be a pushover for the Germans and the Japanese to deal with,” the minute says.

Barker, G. 1994. Govt leak scorns business lobby. The Australian Financial Review, 9 November.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there had already been fierce fights within the federal policymaking machinery about climate change.  Problem was, the bad guys were winning.

See this great piece by Royce Kurmelovs on ABARE…

The specific context was – the first COP was coming up (Berlin, March-April 1995) and Australia wanted to get its position straight. Meanwhile, there was a fierce campaign for (and a fiercer campaign against) a carbon tax.

What I think we can learn from this – states are not monoliths. There are all sorts of fights going on about turf, but also direction of travel. And industry has its meatpuppets within the official bureaucracy, as well as lots of zombie think tanks etc.

What happened next – the Department of Climate Criminality and Assholeness continued to win all the important fights.

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: 

November 9, 1988 – Tolba gives “Warming Warning” speech at first IPCC meeting

November 9, 1991 – Australian TV station SBS shows demented ‘”Greenhouse Conspiracy” ‘documentary’

November 9, 1992 – Ark sails on, Downunder – All Our Yesterdays

November 9, 2000 – Tyndall Centre launched

November 9, 2009 – Senior Liberal says CCS won’t work – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation Incumbent strategies

September 22, 1994 – another “sky will fall” report

Thirty one years ago, on this day, September 22nd, 1994, 

The Federal Government’s response to the greenhouse gas problem will inevitably cut billions of dollars from Australia’s economic growth but a carbon tax would devastate the economy, according to a major new report.

The study, by the Melbourne-based National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, says that current government ambitions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are “unrealistic” and cannot be achieved without major economic costs.

It confirms there are no easy choices facing the Government in dealing with the greenhouse problem, particularly in the short term.

Commissioned by the Electricity Supply Association of Australia, the two-year, $400,000 research project, suggests that a longer-term greenhouse response would mitigate the impact on the national economy. The new analysis will be publicly released today. … coal industry closed down by 2000.

Gill, P. 1994. Carbon tax to ruin economy says new study. The Australian Financial Review, 22 September, p.6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that business had been running scare campaigns against any government action on any given issue for ages – that’s what they do.  Starting in 1989 or so, they did the same for “the Greenhouse Effect.”

The specific context was that the Federal Environment Minister, John Faulkner, had spent the last few months trying to get people on board for a carbon tax.  This was part of the pushback.

What I think we can learn from this is that they always do “sky will fall” economic reports. Why change a winning game?

What happened next: The carbon tax was defeated in early February 1995.

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: 

September 22, 1971 – Australian communist talks about climate change

September 22, 1991 – ESD RIP. Australia’s chance of a different future… squashed flat.

September 22, 2014 – “We Mean Business” coalition formed

Categories
Australia Religion

July 9, 1990- Green Christians’ 12 commandments

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 9th, 1990,

Is God a greenie? Such a question should make an infinite number of angels dance on their pin-heads later this week, as representatives from all Australian churches sit down to reach a consensus answer.

However, my ecclesiastical contacts tell me that the “Greener than Green” Christians have stitched up the numbers and that the conference will pronounce that He is at least medium green and that mining companies etc are the equivalent of Beezlebub.

Clark, D. 1990. Green Christians’ 12 commandments.   Australian Financial Review, 9 July

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was you can worship God or Mammon.  Many managed to convince themselves they could do both. To cover their sins (to themselves) they adopted a supercilious patronising tone, like the twuntish author here.

The specific context was that from 1988 to early 1991, rich people felt obliged to pretend to care.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can worship God/Gaia/the biosphere (pick your name) or you can worship Mammon.

What happened next. We worshipped Mammon. And now comes the bill (or “check” if you’re an American).

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: 

July 9, 1962 – rainbow bomb parties as hydrogen bomb explodes

July 9, 1965 – “Spaceship Earth” is launched, trying to get us to see our fragility (didn’t work)

July 9, 1987 – “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse” warns Broecker

July 9, 2004 – David Bellamy jumps the shark on climate change

 July 9, 2008 – President Bush operating at his peak intellectual capacity

Categories
Australia

May 22, 2000 – Industry versus the greenhouse trigger…

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, May 22nd, 2000,

Industry started a strong campaign against the Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill’s, proposed greenhouse trigger yesterday. This follows a fiery Cabinet discussion on Tuesday [23rd] over new greenhouse measures proposed by the Senator.

The Federal Cabinet is understood to have reached a clear understanding on Tuesday that no extra greenhouse requirements should be imposed on the proposed $1billion Kogan Creek power station in Queensland.

It rejected a memo from Senator Hill that the project be forced to invest in greenhouse-abatement projects to offset its own emissions. However, a spokesman for the Environment Minister said the Cabinet had not made a final decision.

2000 Taylor, L. 2000. Industry adds its weight to oppose greenhouse move. Australian Financial Review, 25 May 25, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in the lead up to the Kyoto COP in late 1997 Prime Minister John Howard had been forced to make some public promises about climate action.  He’d then done everything he could to drag his heels/slow things down.  But the pressure was still there, and there was another election coming.

What I think we can learn from this is that Australian politicians have been trying to do as little as they can get away with for a very long time.

What happened next. The greenhouse trigger was defeated – god forbid that Ministers would have to take a credibility hit to wave through dodgy projects every time a dodgy project came along… Soon, they’d have no credibility left…

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: 

May 22, 1972 – Horizon doco “Do you Dig National Parks?” – All Our Yesterdays

May 22, 2007 – “Clean coal” power station by 2014, honest…

May 22 – Build Back Biodiversity: International Biodiversity Day

Categories
Australia

May 22, 1989 – Greenhouse plebiscite mooted

On this day 36 years ago, it was reported that the Federal Environment Minister Graham Richardson said there might need to be a referendum….

The Federal Minister for the Environment, Senator Richardson, has floated the idea of holding a referendum to increase the Commonwealth’s powers to override the States on environmental issues such as the greenhouse effect.

He raised the idea at an environmental conference at the weekend.

Dunn, R. 1989. Plebiscite mooted. Australian Financial Review, May 22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in early 1989 everyone was running around talking about climate change. The denialists hadn’t got their act together properly yet (that would come) and neither had business (which traditionally waits anyway, to see if these things burn themselves out).

What I think we can learn from this is that it was obvious to people then that there would be opposition from state governments and that log-jams would be the norm.

What happened next. There was no referendum (and probably a good thing, because they usually fail in Australia). And there was opposition from state governments and that log-jams were the norm.

xxx

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: 

May 22, 1972 – Horizon doco “Do you Dig National Parks?” – All Our Yesterdays

May 22, 2007 – “Clean coal” power station by 2014, honest…

May 22 – Build Back Biodiversity: International Biodiversity Day

Categories
Australia

May 11, 1990 – Money or the Planet. You decide (except you don’t).

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 11th, 1990, the Australian Financial Review ran the following, based on an early example of “the sky will fall if we give the greenies an inch” economic ‘modelling’. There’d be much more of this nonsense over the coming years – it’s a favoured tactic, because, well, it works.

Sustainable development is catching up with Australia fast. The economy is going through an investment boom which could provide the export revenue in the 1990s that would make our current account and foreign debt positions “sustainable”….

The accompanying table lists 26 major investment projects under consideration which Access Economics says appear to be in danger of environmental veto, including the Cape York spaceport (worth $350 million), the Very Fast Train project ($4.5 billion) and 24 resource and manufacturing projects valued at $11 billion.

Stutchbury, M. 1990. Environmental threat to investment boom. Australian Financial Review , 11 May.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that capital was having one of its periodic bouts of panic that the meatpuppets it owned in the nominal independent “State” (aka “politicians” and “senior civil servants”) might not respond to string-pulling quickly enough, and might end up – under popular pressure – passing laws that hindered the rights of the filthy rich to get filthier richer quicker. When that happens there’s hand-wringing and pearl-clutching and then reports produced about how the sky will fall if Intemperate Action is taken. There’s a sideline in issue denial (usually done with plausible deniability). There’s quiet words with key people about where they see themselves in five years (non-executive directorships etc or out on their ear) and the point is made that nobody is indispensable and that opposing political parties will be happy to receive donations etc.

What I think we can learn from this.It is about capital accumulation. Don’t get in their way unless you’re happy to be roadkill. This is the lesson all junior apparatchiks are taught. Those that learn it may last a while. Those who don’t learn it won’t, by definition.

What happened next No serious impediments have ever been placed on the ability of capital to “invest”/extract/whatever they want. Australia is becoming an uninhabitable slagheap, full of miserable angry people. The figures behind the Harvester Settlement will be squirming in their graves… Oh well.

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: 

May 11, 1971 – U Thant gets The Message

May 11, 1988 – “Greenhouse Glasnost” USA and USSR to co-operate on climate

May 11, 1990 – the Financial Times on good intentions not cutting it – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

April 4, 1978 – the Australian Financial Review boosts the neoliberal nonsense.

47 years ago today, The Fin published an article, by economics commentator Paddy McGuinness which helped the Center for Independent Studies gain popularity. 

“Where Friedman is a pinko.”

Further, there is this myth that shucks, grassroots battlers built the Centre for Independent Studies by the sweat of their brows. Er, no

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the post-war Keynesian consensus was crumbling thanks to oil shocks, stagflation, worker militancy, etc, and the goons who had been keeping their powder dry and forming networks – especially The Atlas network – were hoping to get a serious toe hold in Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs was not really fit for purpose, as far as they were concerned back then. So the Center for Independent Studies looked like a potential prospect, And so it came to pass with Anthony Fisher visiting twice etc etc (see above). 

What we learn is that neoliberal ideas of selfishness, stupidity, short-sightedness, disdain for any talk of limits need to be nurtured. Because they’re so batshit crazy that turning them into “common sense” requires a hell of a lot of effort. This effort was being undertaken in the United States, especially, it had never gone away. 

There is the recent book The Big Myth by Oreskes and Conway, and there are many others, including by Wendy Brown, Philip Mirkowski.

And Australia became “neoliberal” in 1983 with the arrival of the Hawke-Keating government and the intellectual capture of Paul Keating. We called it at that time, economic rationalism, Australia became a vastly more unequal, fearful and desperate society over the following 45 years. 

Also on this day

April 4, 1964 – Revelle’s PSAC Working Group Five

April 4, 1957 – New Scientist runs story on carbon dioxide build-up

April 4, 1964 – President Johnson’s Domestic Council on climate…

April 4, 1978 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about atmospheric C02 build-up

April 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2006,

Australia has the opportunity and responsibility to explore emissions-reduction technologies, writes Grant Thorne.

Thorne, G. (2006) Carbon capture the key to cutting greenhouse gases. The Australian Financial Review, March 17.

“Grant Thorne. Grant Thorne is managing director of Rio Tinto Coal Australia, a major Australian coal producer.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that over the previous couple of years, there had been increased talk about CCS in Australia – Coal 21 national plans and Zero Emissions conferences, especially in Queensland. And it was obvious –  or it seemed obvious – that there would be international negotiations to create a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. And so everyone was banging on about CCS. 

What I think we can learn from this is that it’s all just kayfabe. And also, even if they were serious and it worked perfectly, CCS would be a terrifyingly small proportion of overall emissions. And CCS is essentially a way of not talking about reducing energy throughputs in affluent/effluent societies. 

What happened next

By 2009/2010 reality had caught up with CCS in Australia, at least on that occasion. Since then, people have tried to paint Gorgon (given its approval by Labor Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett in 2009) as a success. It isn’t, except insofar as it enables some people not to talk about the need for energy reductions.

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 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North