Tag: BCA

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Denial

November 30, 1994 – Another denialist dolt – “Global warming a clouded issue”

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 30th, 1994,

ANDREW McINTYRE finds that the gap is just getting wider between the politicians and the scientists.

Greenpeace has just made a submission to Federal Cabinet claiming greenhouse gases should be subjected to the same stringent regulations as other damaging materials. Cabinet will make a decision early in December, and is likely to consider measures including the introduction of a carbon tax. But will it base its decisions on the facts or the fictions?

McIntyre, A. 1994. Global warming a clouded issue. Canberra Times, 30 November, p.16.

and

Meanwhile, the BCA has eschewed the denial angle, and sends a letter to Keating-

The brief introduction explains the purpose of the letter. The Business Council presents its argument in the next five paragraph and refutes [well, maybe] the view of pro-carbon tax lobbyists in the following seven paragraphs. (Worden, 1998, p133)

It concludes “Costly policies such as a unilateral carbon tax or an environmental levy are not necessary for Australia to make an equitable contribution to global emission abatement. On the other hand we believe that complementary industry and government action within a no regrets framework provide good scope for further emission abatement.” (cited Worden 1998, p130)

Letter to the MP from BCA 30 November 1994 (Wordern, 1998, ch 6)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the day before the IPA had had GB Tucker writing gibberish, and now the Canberra Times was running a denialist screed. It was the second time that year, at least, by an IPA hanger-on. 

What we learn is that even a fundamentally okay newspaper like the Canberra Times was still running denialist tripe out of a misplaced sense of “balance” (See also Boykoff and Boykoff article about bias as balance). 

What happened next? The carbon tax was defeated. The IPA is still with us. The Tasman Institute was abolished – surplus to requirements, job done, mission accomplished. And then Prime Minister John Howard delivered everything that the fossil fuel lobby could expect. 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: 

November 30, 1978 – House of Lords debate on Atmospheric Changes…

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

Categories
Australia Business Responses

May 5, 2000 – Business Council of Australia boss on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues”

Twenty four years ago, on this day, May 5th, 2000 former Federal public servant turned BCA Boss David Buckingham opined on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues for Australia.” Business Council of Australia

http://www.bca.com.au/media/strategic-greenhouse-issues-for-australia

Suggests a voluntary domestic emissions trading scheme might be a goer, as a “learning by doing” exercise.

See also Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill 2000. Warming to the Challenge; The Role of Australian Business in Combating Global warming. Address to the World Business Council on Sustainable Development and the Australian Business Council Forum, Melbourne, 5 May.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were various big conferences being held because there had been the Kyoto Protocol, at the end of ‘97. It looked like Al Gore would be the Democratic Party nominee for the president, and he might win, in which case the US would be taking more climate action, even if Kyoto itself weren’t necessarily on the cards. And therefore, everyone was making plans to be ready for that reality if it emerged in Australia. Yes, the Lavoisier group had been set up, but there were also tensions within the peak bodies, especially the Business Council of Australia about what the Australian response should be of interest in carbon trading, carbon farming and offsets and money to be made. 

And so it wasn’t a simple case of denial or bowing down before the great God of technology, at least not for the more thoughtful members of the business policy outfits. And here we have David Buckingham, who had been a Federal Environment civil servant, before being poached, first by the Minerals Council and then the Business Council. 

What we learn from this is that business was seriously scratching its head about what might be coming and how best to take advantage of what might be coming. 

What happened next? Well, Bush was selected president by his dad’s Supreme Court chums and then quickly pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. In 2003, the BCA had to move from opposition to Kyoto ratification to a “neutral” stance because of fierce fights within it. 

And of course, 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: 

May 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 6, 1995 –  Australian business interests battle a carbon tax with “nobody else is acting” argument

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, January 6, 1995, as part of a broad attack on a proposed carbon tax, business whined “yeah, but no other country is doing anything.”

”THE business push for a cautious approach by the Federal Government on greenhouse gas controls has been given a boost by a new study which shows only a handful of countries will meet their emission reduction targets.

The study, prepared by industry groups, shows only five of the 36 countries  which are key members of the International Panel on Climate Change appear likely to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2000.”

Dwyer, M. & Wilson, N. (1995). Study argues against $320m carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 6 January, p.5.  (See also the editorial – Anon. 1995. The trouble with a carbon tax. Australian Financial Review, 6 January, p.12)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360ppm. As of 2023 it is 419

.

The context was that Australian business interests had already defeated a carbon tax proposal in the lead up to the Rio Earth Summit, and were mobilising an even broader coalition of actors and ‘arguments’ (including our old friend ‘the sky will fall’ economic modelling) in this effort.

What I think we can learn from this

The fact that doing anything about climate change is a really hard collective actor problem is used to make climate change a really hard collective actor problem, and to ‘justify’ (excuse) doing nothing, and engaging in predatory delay.

What happened next

The business lobby effort was successful (for multiple reasons). The carbon tax was abandoned.  Attention switched to emissions trading schemes. No actual carbon price came into play until 2012. And was then swiftly killed off by the next Australian government. The emissions and the atmospheric concentrations? They climbed. Of course they did.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Dwyer, M. & Wilson, N. (1995). Study argues against $320m carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 6 January, p.5