Tag: Nick Minchin

Categories
Australia

 September 8, 2000 – “Minchin’s Quiet Win”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 8th, 2000, Lenore Taylor, then at the Fin, wrote an interesting piece.

Senator Nick Minchin had a big Cabinet win on greenhouse policy two weeks ago.

It was a win that had been preceded by months of bitter debate, by several inconclusive Cabinet discussions and by a frenzy of lobbying by business organisations all of which occurred with very little public fanfare.

What he won was a series of promises by Government to Industry to try to overcome their deep concerns about greenhouse-related investment uncertainty.

But it’s very hard to reassure someone about what’s down the track if you don’t know what’s down the track.

And given that no-one knows whether the Kyoto Protocol will ever be ratified, nor what its final form will be if it is, this is a very winding and difficult-to-predict track indeed.

Taylor. L. 2000. Minchin’s quiet win on greenhouse policies. The Australian Financial Review, 8 September, p.16

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. 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 both ALP and Coalition elites were deeply hostile to any action on climate change (because their current business mates would suffer, and because they just didn’t really buy what the scientists were saying).

The specific context was that a proposal for an Emissions Trading Scheme had been brought before the Cabinet in August. Minchin was the guy who killed it, while Honest John sat on smiling, like Emperor Palpatine.

What I think we can learn from this is that the governments of settler colonies are gonna do this. But so are other governments. It’s just what governments do….

What happened next

In 2003 it was John Howard’s turn to get his hands dirty – in response to a united Cabinet. He delayed for a month, then came back and said “nope.” There is still time to get him to the Hague, you know…

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: 

September 8, 1972 – Green activist vanishes off face of Earth… – All Our Yesterdays

September 8, 1990 – Australian #climate denialist spouting his nonsense…

September 8, 2014 – Lobster boat blockaders have charges dropped.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Kyoto Protocol

August 23, 2000 – Nick Minchin in gloat mode

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, August 23rd 2000,

The Government will only implement a mandatory domestic emissions trading scheme if the Kyoto Protocol is ratified by Australia, has entered into force and there is an established international emissions trading regime. This decision does not rule out the subsequent introduction of such a scheme if further analysis demonstrates that this would be in the national interest. Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, Media Release, Government Provides Greater Greenhouse Certainty For Industry, 23 August 2000

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. 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 Australian policy elites had been confronted with the idea that you have to put a price on emitting carbon dioxide for over a decade. The first two goes were a carbon tax. These were defeated. Then the attention and “intellectual” energy switched to emissions trading schemes (which offer more scope for avoidance and enrichment by consultants and bankers etc)

The specific context was that the first proposal for a Federal emissions trading scheme had just been defeated in Howards’ Cabinet, with Nick Minchin leading the charge.

What I think we can learn from this is that even the simplest actions were too much for us to contemplate. We are stupid hairless murder apes who will take down pretty much all the other species with us. With luck the planet won’t go full Venus, and in a few (dozen?) million laws the biodiversity will return?

What happened next – in 2003 Howard’s Cabinet was united in favour of an Emissions Trading Scheme. Howard exercised a personal veto, having spoken to a couple of business mates.

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 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

August 23, 1856 – Eunice Foote identifies carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum

Categories
Australia Denial

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

Twenty five years ago, on this day, December 9, 1998, a Howard minister talked the usual nonsense so that enough concerned Liberal voters would stay asleep.

Media Release Statement by Senator Nick Minchin Minister for Industry, Science and Resources

 Wednesday, 9 December 1998 98/047

Canberra businesses commit to the Greenhouse Challenge 

Canberra has an important role to play in demonstrating the nation’s commitment to the environment, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, and Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill said today.

The Ministers were speaking at Greenhouse Challenge Day at Parliament House in Canberra. Greenhouse Challenge is a joint industry-Government program, designed to encourage business to take a voluntary and self-regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This most commonly involves improvements in energy and process efficiency.

“The Greenhouse Challenge has had a positive impact on the environment and energy management systems in place here at Parliament House.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media/pressrel/2R006%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Howard government, in the run up to the Kyoto meeting, had undertaken an intense diplomatic push against strong commitments being imposed on Australia. Domestically, in October 1997 Howard had made a speech with impressive sounding but actually empty nonsense about a Renewable Energy Target, and the creation of the “Australian Greenhouse Office” (see link). This announcement was part of the ongoing con.

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians say any old nonsense if it will get them what they want. There are enough confused/cynical liberals (small l) who choose not to see that they are being conned. If they did see they were being conned, they would either have to admit they were gullible/corrupt/complicit, or get off their arses. Neither option is attractive…

What happened next

Minchin was the guy who led the successful charge against an emissions training scheme in 2000. 

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

August 22, 2000 – Minchin kills an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

Twenty three years ago, on this day, August 22, 2000, the first effort at getting an emissions trading scheme for Australia died a death, killed off by climate denier Nick Minchin.

22 August 2000. Cabinet meeting at which Minchin beats Hill on a domestic emissions trading scheme. (See Crabbe, 23 Aug Advertiser etc)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been lots of talk about emissions trading in the previous two or 3 years both at a national and especially New South Wales level because it seemed Australia might ratify the Kyoto Protocol. And if it did it would want to have its own emission trading scheme and perhaps make lots of money from growing trees. The best laid plans had not really come to fruition, and this was the first body blow – the rejection of a national emissions trading scheme.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have spent a veeery long time coming up with all sorts of visions and schemes rather than reducing our emissions in a safe and fair way by changing behaviours and incentives for energy efficiency etc.

What happened next

John Howard, to no-one’s surprise ruled out Kyoto ratification in 2002. In 2003 the idea of emissions trading scheme came back to cabinet and this time Cabinet was united in favour but Howard vetoed it LINK.

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 Business Responses

June 20, 2000 – Australian business writes the rules.

Twenty three years ago, on this day, June 20, 2000, business was getting what it wanted…

It’s quite plain who has the Government’s ear on greenhouse issues, writes Andrew Clennell.

At 4pm on June 20 on a busy parliamentary sitting day in Senate committee room 1S3, the big players in industry put their views to Government on greenhouse. A single sheet of paper was placed on the table. Now, as the Government takes its place in talks on global warming in The Hague, we can appreciate the full significance of that piece of paper. Policy on greenhouse coincides with business’s June wish list. See also his piece – Clennell, A. 2000. Industrialists Urge Caution On Gases Plan. Sydney Morning Herald, 21 June, p.5.

A contingent of industry leaders asked the Federal Government last night to state clearly that it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases unless the United States did so first, and to pledge that Australian jobs would not be sacrificed.

Representatives from BP Amoco, Rio Tinto, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Alcoa Generation met the Industry Minister, Senator Minchin, the Environment Minister, Senator Hill, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, and ministerial advisers from three other offices to discuss Australia’s greenhouse policy.

On the red leather chairs at the rectangular table were three ministers Robert Hill (Environment), Nick Minchin (Industry) and John Anderson (Deputy PM) and advisers from their offices and from the offices of the Treasurer, the Finance Minister and the Forestry Minister.

Facing them were BP’s Australian head, Greg Bourne, miner Rio Tinto’s managing director, Barry Cusack, and heads of the major lobby groups the Business Council, the Minerals Council, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry among others.

Clennell, A. 2000. Taking Care Of Business. Sydney Morning Herald, 14 November, p.15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Xxx John Howard was now 4 years as prime minister and facing another election soon. He had displayed just how willing he was to stop environmental policy if it hurt the interests of the fossil fuel industry, and what the above Google shows is the detail of how lobbyists helped make that happen.

What I think we can learn from this

We can learn that even though business is structurally lucky and in a mutually supportive relationship with the state apparatus usually, it never really takes anything for granted and so, the lobbying and smoothing of the wheels continues non-stop.

What happened next

 Howard made sure that the Kyoto protocol was not brought forward for ratification and prevented an emissions trading scheme from being started. ronically this would have helped some forms of business but he also was unrelentingly unremittingly hostile to renewables.

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 Denial

February 16, 2007 – Liberals say climate is a “mass panic”

Sixteen  years ago, on this day, February 16, 2007, as the second big wave of climate awareness was kicking off in Australia, a senior Liberal politician was… being himself.

 It SHOULD not be seen as a sin to be cautious about the science of global warming, a senior Federal Government minister has warned.

Finance Minister Nick Minchin says “there remains an ongoing debate about the extent of climate change” and the extent of human activity’s role in global warming.

Murphy, K. 2007. Lib scorns mass ‘panic’ on climate. The Age, February 16 http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/lib-scorns-mass-panic-on-climate/2007/02/16/1171405441792.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Nick Minchin had been successful in defeating an emissions trading scheme in the year 2000. And he had remained one of John Howard’s staunch culture warriors on the question of climate. From late 2006 people in Australia started to become reawakened to the climate problem and Minchin was pushing back in the way that old white men so often do. By this I mean pointing the finger at people and calling them hysterical and accusing them of panicking without bothering to think that maybe there is something to panic about. 

What I think we can learn/remember from this

Just a reminder that just because someone is “successful” does not mean they cannot be a harmful dolt.

The sorts of things that Minchin accuses others of doing – cherry picking data, being unscientific – that’s all projection, that’s what he’s doing.

There are always old white men who will come out with this bullshit and of course now they’ve painted themselves into a corner and would have to admit that they had been wrong which would be psychologically devastating for them.

What happened next

Labor won the Federal election at the end of the year and fundamentally bollocksed up the politics and policy.  Well done, Kevin. You’re from Queensland and you’re here to really screw things up.

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

September 6, 2000 – Emission scheme defeated, it’s time for a gloating press release… #Climate #auspol

On this day, September 6, 2000, South Australian Senator Nick Minchin puts out a press release… I know, hold the front page, right…

But the context is that the first attempt to introduce a national level emissions trading scheme had just been defeated – with Nick Minchin largely responsible.  This was the semi-gloating declaration of victory…

Below is a quote from the ever-reliable Jim Green, writing in “Green Left Weekly”

The federal Coalition government has taken a number of decisions to reassure big business that measures adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact.

Federal minister for industry, science and resources Nick Minchin outlined “specific commitments” to industry in a September 6 press release. They were:

●        that a mandatory domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme will not be introduced “prematurely”;

●        that the government “will involve industry from the inception through to the implementation phase of greenhouse gas abatement policies and strategies that impact on the industry”;

●        that the government will work internationally “to get Australia the best possible greenhouse position”;

●        that the government will assist in “minimising the burden of greenhouse measures on business         through cost-effective actions”; and

●        that the government will not “discriminate against particular projects or regions in greenhouse policies and programs”.

“What we are saying to industry is that in any decisions we make on greenhouse, we will work to maintain their international competitiveness. This is a framework for the government’s greenhouse policy processes. These are all common sense measures that will allow Australian industry to grow and meet our Kyoto commitments. It’s good news for industry, which has warmly welcomed the government’s commitments”, Minchin said.

The government’s “specific commitments” are noticeably lacking in specifics. Canberra’s primary aim is simply to reassure business interests that measures to curb escalating greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact on their activities.

Green, J. 2000. Business warms to greenhouse ‘commitments’. Green Left Weekly, 13 September.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/business-warms-greenhouse-commitments

On this day the PPM was 367.15 Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

There is inertia in human systems, but that inertia is often helped on its way by intransigence.  And that intransigence is not “stupid”. Underestimate the opponents of action at your peril…

What happened next?

Prime Minister John Howard got away with it for two more elections. Only in 2006-7 did this unravel for him.

Categories
Australia Predatory delay

Feb 20, 2006 – Clive Hamilton names a “Dirty Dozen”

On this day in 2006 Australian academic Clive Hamilton gave a speech in an Australian country town called Adelaide. In it he named his “dirty dozen” of polluters who were preventing climate action. The list included South Australian Senator Nick Minchin, Prime Minister John Howard, journalists and business figures.

Hamilton was, at that time one of scandalously few academics trying to talk about we’re one of the few academics trying to talk about the capture of the Australian state by fossil interests. He had also co-edited a volume called “Silencing Dissent.” 

There was no comeback to his speech. Nobody sued.  

Why this matters

For a long time, from the early 90s through to the mid-2000s, climate change – and especially resistance to climate policy – was a very very niche area.  There really were not that many people trying to keep tabs on who was slowing down what, and how.

What happened next 

The Dirty Dozen continued to be dirty.  The moment of concern was hijacked and wasted. Australia has had an horrific time of it with climate policy, gridlock and mayhem. Carpe the diems.

Here’s an account

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/dirty-dozen-accused-over-fossil-fuels/2006/02/20/1140284009877.html