Tag: Australian Financial Review

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 14, 1994/1999 – Carbon tax shenanigans

Thirty two years ago, on this day, September 14th, 1994,

A carbon tax, which could have a significant impact on Australia’s resources sector, will be examined as part of the Federal Government’s business tax reforms.

While it is not one of the Ralph report recommendations, a paper has been prepared by Treasury that is expected to be used by the Government when it begins negotiations with the Australian Democrats on the business tax reform package.

In negotiations to secure approval for the Government’s landmark business tax reforms, the Democrats are expected to push for a more systematic approach to Australia’s commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions under the Kyoto targets. This might involve a tax on emissions or other measures, such as greenhouse credits for tree plantations.

Dodson, L. and Lewis, S. 1999. Government puts carbon tax on agenda. The Australian Financial Review, 14 September, p.1.

AND

Industry has reacted with horror to the prospect of a carbon tax being floated simultaneously with the release of the Federal Government’s business tax reform package.

WMC executive officer Mr Ray Evans described the Government’s decision to float a carbon tax proposal as “a unilateral act of self-mutilation”.

1999 Hordern, N. 1999. Industry greets plan for carbon tax with horror. The Australian Financial Review, 15 September, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359/368ppm. As of 2026, 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 … well, look,one of the obvious things you do when bad things are happening is you disincentivize them. You either make them illegal or you raise the economic /social price.

The idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide had been pushed by Barry Jones, the Science Minister, or at least mentioned by him in 1988/9 but the basic idea had gone back to 1965, if you look at the President’s Scientific Advisory Council report, Restoring the Quality of Our Natural Environment.

And the proposal for a carbon tax had been there in the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy papers, and it had been kiboshed, and it was now on the table in 1994 again as part of the budget discussions, and so that the Environment Minister John Faulkner would have something in his hand to go to the first COP in the way that Ros Kelly, the Environment Minister in 1990 needed something in her hand for the Second World Climate Conference. 

Five years later, the idea of an emissions carbon tax was dead. Long live an emissions trading scheme. 

What I think we can learn from this is that putting a price on carbon was a small but useful part of the policy solutions, it was not liked by the incumbents, and therefore it was attacked with ferocity and finesse. 

What happened next. An emissions trading scheme proposal was defeated in 2000 thanks to South Australian Senator Nick Minchin, and again in 2003 thanks to John Howard acting on his own. It was not until 2006/7 that an emissions trading scheme became “inevitable.” Kevin Rudd still managed to fuck it up as Prime Minister, and it was left to Julia Gillard to clean up the mess, but her scheme only lasted a couple of years before it was then abolished by Tony Abbott. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 14, 1991 – the Green Wave has receded….

September 14, 1993 – scientists suffer backlash (not outa thin air though)

September 14, 1994 – Business told to brace for climate regulation/tax (which it then handily defeats)

September 14, 2004 – Blair “shocked” by scientists warnings – “time is running out for tackling climate change”

Categories
Australia

July 26, 1988 –  Government officials start to feel the climate of change.

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, July  26, 1988,

CLIMATE

The greenhouse effect took priority when representatives of Australia’s Federal, State and Territory governments met yesterday at World Expo ’88 to discuss water resources.

Although the Australian Water Resources Council decided only to “maintain a watching brief”, the educative process among political and administrative leaders is nevertheless gathering pace.

The Queensland Premier, Mr Ahern, has now established a government departmental committee in an attempt to identify the issues of the global warm-up.

Massey, M. 1988. Government officials start to feel the climate of change.  Australian Financial Review,  July 27.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2026, 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 been warnings (ignored) all through the 1970s and 1980s about what was coming. Finally, after the Villach meeting in 1985, the pressure had built until, in 1988 the issue began to break through.  There had been a drought in the US, James Hansen’s testimony and then the Changing Atmosphere conference in Toronto.

The specific context was the Australian government was being kept informed, thanks in part to the work of Barry Jones, Science Minister.

What I think we can learn from this – this was the very small window of ‘we will take positive action’ before, from 1990 or so, the shutters came down.

What happened next  The Liberal Party went to the 1990 Federal election with a more ambitious emissions target than Labor, but lost the election and blamed the big green organisations (especially the Australian Conservation Foundation) for ‘betraying’ them.  Climate change became part of the culture wars, and Labor then completely bollocksed it all up from 2007 to 2010. The well has been poisoned ever since, not that they give a rat’s arse, clearly.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 26, 1967 – Allen Ginsberg tells Gary Snyder it’s “a general lemming situation” 

July 26, 1977 – Australians warned about cities being flooded #CanberraTimes 

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

July 26, 2006 – Costello versus wind farms 

July 26, 2008 – Reggae festival for climate protection in New York 

Categories
Australia

May 16, 1990 – the cost of the world’s green conscience

Thirty six years ago, on this day, May 16th, 1990,

“It is a country where the ambitious environment minister hopes to ride to higher office by promising to deliver the most rigorous environmental policies in the world.

The finance minister is aghast at the cost of the plan and has held it up in Cabinet for so long that his colleague has effectively gone to the people with a nation-wide series of public hearings.

But now the hearings have become a lightning rod for all sorts of discontent and the environment minister’s carefully nurtured public support is threatening to evaporate just when the Government sorely needs it.

It may sound like a familiar plot but this time the players are not Graham Richardson or Peter Walsh and the Federal Government concerned has a distinctly conservative hue – except when it comes to turning green.

Canada, with a resource dependent economy like Australia’s and a pro-growth conservative Government, is embroiled in a national debate over a government promise to introduce a comprehensive five-year environmental plan which is forecast to cost billions of dollars.” 

Earl, G. 1990. Price and pay-off for the world’s green conscience. Australian Financial Review, May 16.

 The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the late 1970s it was obvious that getting off fossil fuels to deal with climate change was going to cost a lot of money. This was one of the reasons that the politicians maybe hadn’t acted. 

The specific context was that in 1988 it became impossible to ignore the issue anymore, and so by May of 1990 as the First Assessment Report of the IPCC was released, and it’s obvious that there’s going to have to be some sort of climate treaty. You will then get people counting the cost. And this article is fairly typical of that the business press was full of this at the time. Understandably.   

What I think we can learn from this. all the cards were in the air because the Soviet Union was in the process of disintegrating. The Berlin Wall had come down. Elections were being held in former satellite countries and Germany was on the way to reunification. By this time, 1990 it was clear that there was going to be a negotiating process for climate treaty, and that there would be a Rio Earth Summit in 1992, 20 years on from the Stockholm conference. 

What happened next. The cost of acting became embedded via all sorts of pathetic, tendentious economic modelling produced by so called independent think tanks, and this helped the forces of the status quo stop action from happening 

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 16, 1972 – “Carbon and the Biosphere” symposium

May 16, 1973 Energy and how we live. UNESCO seminar at Flinders – All Our Yesterdays

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese says critical action on #climate being delayed by 20 years… #auspol

May 16, 2006 – UK Prime Minister Tony Blair goes nuclear…

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese, eco-warrior…

May 16 – Interview with Rosie, about zero population growth, zero climate progress, etc…

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