Tag: Business Council of Australia

Categories
Australia Business Responses Energy

August 18, 1991- Business Council of Australia says “fuck you, future generations,” rejects energy efficiency measures

Thirty three years ago, on this day, August 18th, 1991 the rich people told future generations (especially of poor people) to go fuck themselves.

The Business Council of Australia yesterday rejected proposals to make industry more energy-efficient.

The council criticised recommendations by the Federal Government’s taskforce on ecologically sustainable development to increase energy prices and impose new taxes, such as a tax on fuel with high carbon levels.

The council said the country’s future lay in continuing to develop its natural resources. Its executive director, Mr Peter McLaughlin, said the sustainable development process could significantly damage industry unless it adopted a “much more realistic tone”.

Peake, R. 1991. Business Rejects Lower Energy Use. The Age, 19 August, p.14.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Business Council of Australia, the main club for big business, was shouting no at everything, a bit like Ian Paisley did. And even stuff that made absolute sense on any level of economic thinking was shouted down. I think there are two things going on there, around fear of a slippery slope, and also that regulation might be shown – gasp – to be beneficial.

What we learn; two things. First, in the midst of a culture war, the red mist or the green mist descends. And the other thing we need to remember is that all of the economic modelling that outfits like the BCA were relying on and commissioning, assumed perfect efficiency already. And no matter how many empirical examples were given to them, by Alan Pears and other energy efficiency advocates, if it didn’t fit the theory, it was discarded. It was ignored. And so if you believe that things are already perfectly energy efficient, agreeing to further energy efficiency measures is actually merely agreeing to wasteful government regulation in and of itself, which will then encourage more bureaucrats to breed in dark corners. 

What happened next, the BCA won, and the Australian housing industry is still miserably inefficient, of course. But the economic models that say it’s impossible for business to be inefficient, persist and have their death grip on the minds – if you can call them “minds” – of business elites. 

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: 

August 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

August 18, 1996, Ex-CSIRO #climate boss shows he has lost the plot

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

April 26, 1992 – Ros Kelly abjures a carbon tax

Thirty two years ago, on this day, April 26th, 1992 the entirely sensible idea of a carbon tax was killed off (for now), with the Australian Federal Environment Minister running up the white flag again.

A spokesman for Environment Minister Ros Kelly said the Government was not considering a “carbon tax”, which would hit fossil fuels such as petrol and coal. Instead – at least as a first step – it favoured “no-regret” options. These were measures to increase energy efficiency, which will have overall economic benefits even if dire greenhouse scenarios don’t eventuate. The spokesman said: “This Government would be delinquent if it did not take a precautionary rather than a cavalier approach to the greenhouse effect. The worst-case scenarios are terrifying.”

BCA spokesman Mark Emerson said Australia should not support the EC proposal for a commitment by developed countries to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000. “Business is concerned that, against the background of the enormous scientific uncertainties, inappropriate policy responses might be applied which would have devastating economic and social effects without any discernible environmental benefits,” he said. “None of Australia’s regional trading partners or competitors – except New Zealand – will agree to the EC option.”

Skinner, S. 1992. Greenhouse: Aust yet to set its policy. Sun Herald, 26 April, p. 13.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the idea of a carbon tax had been raised within the Ecologically Sustainable Development groups. Entirely sensible idea. And it had sent business or elements of business into a total meltdown. And now, under the new Keating government, it was off the table. But of course, Kelly would be going to the Rio Earth Summit in a couple of months. And the headbangers didn’t want her trying to sneak things in via the back door. 

What we learn is that simple straightforward ideas that would have helped were defeated by powerful greedy actors who had only their own short-term power and comfort in mind. And politicians went along for the ride. 

What happened next, Rio happened. There was another attempt to get a carbon tax through in 94/95, after Ross Kelly was forced to resign over sports routes. And it failed. And we as a species failed 

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: 

April 26, 1998 – New York Times front page expose on anti-climate action by industry

April 26, 1998 – “Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 7, 1995 – Business Council of Australia vs a carbon tax. Of course

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, February 7th, 1995, the lobby group for big business successfully fought off a carbon tax.

Canberra — The Business Council of Australia yesterday attacked the Federal Government’s proposed carbon tax, saying that it could jeopardise more than 47,000 jobs and $43 billion in production in the nation’s export energy industries.

Drawing on a report released by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics yesterday, the council said a carbon tax, at any level, would result in lost jobs, production and exports.

The executive director of the council, Mr Paul Barratt, said any carbon tax would have a serious impact on Australia’s oil and gas, coal, metal products, petrochemicals, pulp and paper and cement industries.

Thomas, C. 1995. Business Council Hits Plan For Carbon Tax. The Age, 7 February, p.50.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a fierce battle going on over a proposal for a carbon tax at federal level in Australia, and the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Mining Industry Council, (who made the tie-in official as the AIGN later) were at the forefront of a campaign to stop it. And one of the ways – not the only one,  but one of the ways – was to say that the “sky would fall” economically speaking.  

And what you do is you get some economic modelling by so-called independent experts who set their parameters in such a way that the sky will fall, you then turn that into a report, write a press release. You give it to some tame journalists, who then get it put up on the front page of a newspaper. Then get questions asked in Parliament. It gets picked up on television and the “common sense” that action on climate change will cost a fortune is just that little bit further embedded. 

And they have been playing this game for a very long time. They’re very good at it and the reason they keep playing it is it’s usually a winning tactic for them. 

What happened next. The carbon tax was defeated in February of 1995 before the BCA and its chums had to pull up the really big guns. Policy advocate interest shifted to emissions trading schemes. One was finally introduced in 2012, only to be abolished two years later. Australia deserves everything it gets.

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: 

 Feb 7, 1861- 161 years ago, a scientist identifies carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas

February 7, 1979 – Met Office boss bullshits about his carbon dioxide stance

Categories
Australia

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, November 1, 1989, the deputy Prime Minister of Australia gives a speech with the usual words of “balance” at an Industry and Environment conference.

Australian companies must actively negotiate with the environmental lobby to achieve a balance between economic growth and conservation of the environment, according to speakers at a conference on industry and the environment in Sydney yesterday.

Although this one principle dominated the conference, the three main speakers at the conference – the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin; the managing director of the paper manufacturer Amcor Ltd and chairman of the Business Council of Australia’s environmental taskforce, Mr Stan Wallis; and the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Mr Peter Garrett – found little other common ground.

Abbott, M. 1989. Business and Greenies ‘Must seek a balance’. Australian Financial Review, 2 November. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia was now officially drunk on climate greenhouse, the environment “protecting our fragile world.” It had had the shit scared out of it, frankly, by ozone and the idea of lots of white people dropping dead in the streets because of skin cancer. But business’s response was still, at this point, muted. And they perhaps were just assuming that the whole thing would blow over the way it had 20 years previously. Don’t forget the people making the decisions in 1989 were the ones who had been youngsters in 1969 and then it seemed what had happened to the issue was quick forgetting. Meanwhile, the Labour government of Bob Hawke had been wrestling with ecological problems since day one, Franklin dam, the wet Tropics logging unit, you name it. And the activist Environment Minister Graham Richardson had in May 1989 tried to get the Federal Government to sign up to the Toronto target. He’d been slapped down by Paul Keating, then Treasurer. And meanwhile, the Liberal Party was looking to greenhouse and environment as a way of winning votes ahead of the next federal election, which had to happen by March of 1990. At this point, the Green Party did not exist, federally. So Kerin’s speech, where he extolled the virtues of “balance” is just your good old fashioned. pluralist “government will hold the ring” can.

What I think we can learn from this

Business keeps its powder dry and doesn’t spend money unnecessarily. 

What happened next

Labor clung on to power in 1990 by the skin of its teeth, thanks in part to the green vote. This meant that there was an Ecologically Sustainable Development policy making process, which was then chopped off at the knees by the next prime minister Paul Keating, and federal bureaucrats. It was an interesting three years in Australian environmental policy making and the aftereffects are with us still. Internationally we’ve got the pissweak UNFCCC, thanks to the intransigence of the Bush administration and its allies. In Australia, the Liberal suspicion of (and resentment of) green issues continues.

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 Carbon Pricing Uncategorized

February 6, 1995 – Australian business versus a carbon tax

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, February 6 1995, co-ordinated action to defeat a carbon tax was on display

 “As part of its media strategy, the network sent out a series of five news releases on 6 February 1995 under the banner Carbon Tax Threatens Regional Jobs. The releases focused on the regions that would be most affected by the introduction of carbon tax.”

(Worden, 1998: 87)

The Business Council of Australia press release is a corker. A carbon tax  “could jeopardise more than 47,000 jobs and $43 billion in production in the nation’s export energy industries” and have “a serious impact on Australia’s oil and gas, coal, metal products, petrochemicals, pulp and paper and cement industries” (Thomas 1995)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was

John Faulkner, the Federal Environment Minister, had a proposal for a carbon tax that would fund research and development of renewable energy. Business organisations hated this so they dusted off their 1990-2 playbook and improved it. Press releases from various actors were coordinated, to influence the minds of those people (especially ministers) who were attending two round tables on consecutive days.

What I think we can learn from this

When threatened (or merely feeling threatened), business is very good at putting aside their individual differences and presenting a united front. They have the resources, and Secretariat usually, to do that. Whereas those advocating for a better world tend to be running on the sniff of an oily rag.

What happened next

Faulkner’s plan was defeated. Australia didn’t get a price on carbon until 2012.

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

References

Thomas, C. 1995. Business Council Hits Plan For Carbon Tax. The Age, 7 February, p.50.

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

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

On this day, August 7 1995 journalist Gavin Gilchrist reports – front page of the Sydney Morning Herald – on the dodgy AF “MEGABARE” model

“The Keating Government is secretly developing a major diplomatic offensive that will undermine efforts to protect the world’s climate.

Confidential documents from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade show that the strategy relies heavily on a major government study that ignores the environmental benefits of tough action on global warming and instead highlights short-term economic costs.

It is a strategy that threatens to scuttle coming international negotiations on global emissions of harmful greenhouse gases.

The study, MEGABARE, was produced by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) in Canberra and has been funded heavily by the coal industry, which is fighting controls on greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas, is produced by burning coal, oil or gas.

The Australian Coal Association has confirmed that it contributed $100,000 to MEGABARE. The Business Council of Australia and the coal producers BHP and CRA also contributed.

Gilchrist, G. 1995. Secret Strategy Undermines Greenhouse fight. Sydney Morning Herald, 7 August. P.1

This was months after a carbon tax proposal had been defeated. Ho hum.

On this day the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 359.33 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

The economic models were a joke, but that was not an accident. That was a feature, not a bug. Politicians could stand up and say any move from fossil fuels towards renewables would lead to imminent and unutterable chaos, cannibalism and despair.

What happened next?

MEGABARE was eventually killed off, but the use of joke economic models has continued. Too useful not to continue to be used.

Categories
Australia

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

On this day, May 13, 1992, Australian business groups did what they have done in the intervening 30 years – predicted imminent economic apocalypse, via “independent” studies, if even one lump of coal remained unburned.

The context was the impending Rio Earth Summit (though the text below makes it clear that threat was already receding).

The Australian business lobby had already fought a successful campaign against a carbon tax, and got lucky when Paul Keating took over from Bob Hawke as Prime Minister of Australia – Keating loathed the “Ecologically Sustainable Development” process Hawke had been forced to initiate in 1990. Keating’s loathing of greenies would escalate in the coming years.

1992 Brown, B. 1992. Pressure builds on Aust over greenhouse emissions. Australian Financial Review, 14 May, p.11. Australia may come under pressure to sign a declaration to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions, although a convention adopted at a United Nations meeting in New York last weekend set no target. Developing and European nations that could achieve stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 are expected to push for this target at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June. A United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Control agreed last weekend on a text to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but without a specific target. The target will be considered by member governments before the Rio meeting.

But to reach the stabilisation target, Australia would need “excessively stringent government intervention”, according to one of two industry-commissioned studies released yesterday. The studies, prepared by the Canberra-based economic consultants ACIL Australia and Swan Consultants for the Business Council of Australia, said advice to the Government had seriously underestimated the economic costs of stabilising greenhouse emissions

Why this matters

Personally, I think it’s worth seeing the techniques used. Not because we can turn back time, not because the same exact tactics are still being used (though, well, basically they are). But because…? Dunno. Bearing witness?

What happened next

Australia signed and ratified the UNFCCC. It even introduced a worthless “National Greenhouse Response Strategy.” State and federal governments kept building coal-fired power plants, expanding and giving permission for more coal mines, as if there was no tomorrow.

And there isn’t much of one now, is there?