Thirty years ago, on this day, March 2nd, 1994, environmentalists were doing what they could to push for a carbon tax.
Canberra — The Australian Conservation Foundation has urged the Prime Minister, Mr Keating, to consider green-based Budget measures, including a radical tax on carbon.
The foundation’s president, Professor David Yencken, and its executive director, Ms Tricia Caswell, met Mr Keating yesterday. They sought support for a complex Budget submission and asked for a swift replacement for the former Environment Minister, Mrs Kelly.
Middleton, K. 1994. Conservationists Urge PM To Go For A Green Budget. The Age, 3 March p.7.
And
The Australian Conservation Foundation has proposed sweeping changes to the Federal Government’s taxation and spending practices to safeguard Australia’s future environmental and economic interests.
In its first detailed Budget submission, released yesterday, the ACF proposed measures it said would save the Government between $ 1.4 billion and $1.9 billion next financial year at the same time as promoting more environmentally responsible practices and creating jobs. The measures include a jobs levy, carbon tax, woodchip export levy, more money for public transport, and taxation incentives for nature conservation and the use of green technologies
AAP, 1994. Alter taxation, spending to aid environment: ACF. Canberra Times, 3 March, p.4.
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 was that people wanting to see action on what we then called “the greenhouse effect” had been suggesting a tax on carbon dioxide usage since the “Ecologically Sustainable Development process of 91-92. And there wasn’t really any coherent ideological or economic argument against this other than squeals of pain from the people who would have to pay it, who were doing the polluting.
Australia was a signatory to the UN Framework Convention, which was going to become law. And there was going to be the first “COP” meeting quite soon. And so in order to demonstrate credibility, so the argument went, the Australian Government could introduce a low tax, which would fund some energy efficiency, some renewables and the sky would not fall. And so that was the bid – entirely sensible, but unable to overcome, as we have seen, the power of the fossil fuel lobby in Australia.
What I think we can learn from this is that politics is a blood sport. And everybody knows the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost.
What happened next: The conservation lobby got their wish. There was a proposal for a carbon tax. And it was withdrawn because the opposition to, from within Paul Keating’s cabinet, egged on by the usual suspects beyond, was so successful that it was never going to get through cabinet. And 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: