Tag: Paul Keating

Categories
Australia

December 12, 1990 – Paul Keating refers greenhouse issue to Industry Commission

Thirty four years ago, on this day, December 12th, 1990,

The Federal Government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2005 will be investigated by its main advisory body of micro-economic reform.

Treasurer Paul Keating announced on Wednesday[12th] he has referred the plan to the Industry Commission, which must report by September 30 next year.

The inquiry will cover “the costs and benefits for Australian industry of an international consensus in favour of a stabilisation of emissions of greenhouse gases and a reduction in those emissions by 20 percent by the year 2005.”

It will also look at what new opportunities may arise for Australian industry as a result of the reduction, and how Australia could best prepare to respond to the costs and benefits of the plan.

Some scientists believe Australia could become a world leader in environmentally-friendly technology as a result of added research flowing from the government decision.

Anon,1990. Paul Keating refers greenhouse to Industry Commission. Green Week, December 18,p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that as part of the quid pro quo for accepting the Interim Planning Target through Cabinet in October 1990, Keating had managed to extract permission to send the greenhouse issue to one of the pet neo-liberal outposts, the Industry Commission. 

What we learn is that if you want to get anything through a group, there’s always going to be compromises. Some of them consequential, some of them not. It can be hard to tell beforehand. 

What happened next. In September of 1991, the Industry Commission released its report, but basically gave loads of ammunition to the denialists and the delayers saying “nothing to see here shouldn’t take action cheaper not to do anything,” etc, etc. And this was another nail in the climate issue’s coffin. By this time, it was getting harder and harder to sustain interest. There was the Ecologically Sustainable Development process coming to an end, the backwash of the Gulf War, people preparing for Rio. 

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: 

December 12, 1977 – UK Government launches energy efficiency scheme, because Jimmy Carter had visited…

December 12, 2007 – Canada leaves Kyoto Protocol as Australia joins

December 12, 2007 – RIP William Kellogg

Categories
Australia Economics of mitigation

December 1, 1995 – bullshit modelling put out by Keating Government

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, December 1st, 1995, bullshit “ABARE” climate modelling put out by Australian government, as part of its push for special treatment internationally.

1995 Release of “Global Climate Change” report by Keating Government, based on ABARE AND DFAT “modelling”.

This was hardly a surprise. At the beginning of the year a front page story on The Australian (back when it was still almost a newspaper) had said as much. From January 18, 1995.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first Conference of the Parties (COP1) had happened in Berlin in March. Australia was one of the nations that, thanks to the Berlin Mandate, was expected to turn up a couple of years later, with a plan for emissions reductions. But Australia had already comprehensively failed to take any action towards its first proposed target, the Interim Planning Target of October 1990. And so it was going to need other ways of responding to the challenge, as in denying the challenge and trying to push it on to other people. ABARE had already done some idiotic plant modelling and now the Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade were happy to take ABARE’s modelling and create an argument that said Australia shouldn’t have to x. In essence, this was not under that wicked, wicked man, Liberal John Howard. It was under St. Paul Keating. 

What we learn is that the Australian political elites’ mendacious and rapacious hostility towards climate ambition is essentially bi-partisan and has been going on for 30 however many years and here we are, 

What happened next? Keating lost office in March of 1996. Howard simply turbo-charged the hostility to all things environmental and especially climate. 

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: 

December 1, 1976 – Met Office boss still saying carbon dioxide build-up a non-issue

December 1, 2005 – David Cameron says “low carbon living should not be a weird or worthy obligation”

December 1, 2008 – Climate Change Committee fanboys carbon capture

Categories
Australia

September 27, 1995 – Greenhouse progress in Australia? None. Zip. Zero. 

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, September 27th, 1995, the government has to admit that there has been no progress on reducing emissions.

The Keating Government’s action plan to curb emissions of harmful greenhouse gases has failed to produce any significant benefits in the almost three years since it was endorsed by the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments.

Despite the plan, and a further commitment for action in this year’s Greenhouse 21C, independent analysts can find no evidence that any measure is working.

Six months after the launch of Greenhouse 21C, no director has been appointed to run its key initiative. Interviews were held only last week.

The director’s position carries only a middle-management grade in the Public Service, even though that person’s task will be to hammer out voluntary agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions with the heads of some of Australia’s biggest companies.

Gilchrist, G. 1995. Greenhouse Project Fails To Curb Gases. Sydney Morning Herald, 27 September, p11.

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 Australian governments had been making big promises about climate action, for some years. The most notable had been the “Interim Planning Target” in October 1990. And here we were five years later, with the carbon tax defeated in February, with new coal-fired power stations, new freeways. It was totally clear that the Australian Government was not pressing industry, and that the upward trajectory and emissions would continue. 

What we learn is that getting governments to make promises is not actually that difficult. Getting them to keep those promises is. 

What happened next? Well, two months after this story in December of 1995, the Keating government started promulgating ridiculous ABARE modelling on the global level to try and be more aggressive against the Berlin Mandate. In March of 1996, John Howard took office. And then the fun and games on climate delay and denial really kicked in. 

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 27, 1962 – “Silent Spring” published as a book

September 27, 1988 – Margaret Thatcher comes out as a lentil-eating greenie…

September 27, 1988 – UNEP should become world eco-regime

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

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

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

CANBERRA NOTEBOOK

Industry can expect tougher government action as a result of publication in the past week of Australia’s first inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. The Environment Minister, Senator John Faulkner, says he is working on a range of measures to take to Cabinet by December to help cut Australia’s gas emissions in line with international obligations.

Hooper, N. 1994. Greenhouse Action. BRW, 19 September, p.14.

and

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.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Businesses told that they can expect regulation, that they should brace for it. 

The context was that the carbon tax idea that had been promulgated, put forward in the late 80s, early 90s And then defeated was on its way back. It seemed John Faulkner who was the Environment Minister for Keating was proposing attacks that would raise some funds, needed funds for Treasury and also pay for a little bit of research and development of solar power. Business knew that business groups would fight very hard; but they were realistic that things could go wrong and that they might end up with regulation or taxation. This of course might also have been a warning in order to whip up more interest and finance from potentially affected groups, so the troops were energised; who can say. 

What we can learn is that business fights dirty and hard, obvs.

What happened next Business won that round, and almost all of the rounds to follow. 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: 

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

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

Categories
Australia

September 12, 1994 – Greenpeace lays into Keating government over climate failure

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 12th, 1994, a nice article by a Greenpeace policy guy explains what is at stake. Is ignored, of course.

The Federal Government this week conceded that its current policies will not meet our international commitments to cut greenhouse gases by 20 per cent by 2005. The practical solutions needed to meet these targets are available, in the form of energy efficiency, solar power and public transport. What is missing is the political will to implement them.

Tarlo, K. 1994. Time to grasp greenhouse nettle. Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September, p15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Greenpeace had been banging on about climate change for a while. They had had a severe bust in their finance because people didn’t renew their membership in 1991-92 because the whole green issue seemed to have gone away after the Gulf War. They’d done a nice advert about Bush senior during his 1992 Australia visit and had also been doing legal challenges to new coal fired power stations without much success. 

And here was Keating shitting on climate policy, calling greenhouse an “amorphous issue”.

Anyway, the specific context was that Keating’s Environment Minister John Faulkner was proposing a carbon tax with the money to be spent on things like energy efficiency and solar energy r&d. 

What we learn is that you just have to stay in the game when the good times pass, but you just have to stay in the game. Keep your capacity to act going. Greenpeace managed it. Grassroots groups, not so much…

What happened next? Greenpeace kept going. Faulkner’s Carbon Tax died in February 1995. Keating was toast in ‘96. 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: 

September 12, 1958 – Letter in The Times about … carbon dioxide build-up

 September 12, 2003 – Newcastle Herald thinks the future of coal looks ‘cleaner’…

Categories
Australia

August 8, 1990 – ANZEC says “adopt Toronto target” of sharp carbon cuts.

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 8th, 1990, there’s another push for the Target to be adopted.

“One was launched by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council on August 8, and supports the Toronto target as an interim goal for planning purposes. This has been accepted by the Governments of NSW, Victoria and the ACT.” (Begbe, 1990, 10 Sept)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the climate negotiations were coming. Australia’s government was committed to Ecologically Sustainable Development because the green groups had extracted that as a promise for their sort of support in the recent federal election. Various state governments and the ACT, for example, had committed to the Toronto target (and in May 1989 Hawke’s Environment Secretary had floated it in Cabinet, to be shot down by Paul Keating, then Treasurer.). The Toronto Target proposed that industrialised nations should cut their emissions by 20% by the year 2005. The denialists were getting up on their hind legs too. 

And here was the Australian New Zealand Environment Council suggesting that Australia and presumably New Zealand, both say yes to Toronto.

What we learn is that invocations to targets have been with us for a very long time. You get such pleasure of announcing/campaigning for a target, but actually getting the people who say yes to do anything about hitting that target, well, that is somewhat more difficult. 

What happened next, in October 1990 the Hawke government did indeed make a promise for an “Interim Planning Target,” hedged with all sorts with caveats about economic costs and other developed nations taking similar action. So it was a non-promise promise, but it allowed Kelly to go off to the Second World Climate Conference with Australia’s reputation in sort of good standing.

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 8, 1975 – first academic paper to use term “global warming” published

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

Categories
Australia UNFCCC

June 28, 1994 – Australian Foreign Minister says “then again, maybe we won’t” on carbon cuts

Thirty years ago, on this day, June 28th, 1994, Gareth Evans mutters about leaving the UNFCCC

 AUSTRALIA may refuse to take on greenhouse gas reduction commitments if the economic impact on Australia was too high, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Evans, has warned.

Senator Evans told The Australian Financial Review that the option of Australia not accepting climate change commitments had been endorsed by Cabinet.

Gill, P. 1994. Australia may refuse to cut greenhouse gas levels: Evans. Australian Financial Review, 29 June, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that the headbangers and idiots could talk a good game where it mattered. But ultimately when push came to shove, they were all about fossil fuel extraction, selling, burning, getting rich. And Gareth Evans, the day after John Coulter gave Faulkner advice, was telling the Senate that Australia might well not honour the spirit of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, because it had perceived loopholes for itself. 

What we learn is that any political party will have at least two factions. These change membership and focus over time and they can be traced if you can be bothered to make the effort, though it’s really not worth the effort. Depends if you’re being paid to do it I guess. 

What happened next – the Keating government pushed the “we’re a special case” line quietly. When the Howard gang came in, in March 1996, that got dialled up to 11.

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: 

June 28, 1982 – Secretary of State for Energy justifies flogging off public assets

June 28, 1988 – Greenies want deep emissions cuts. Doesn’t happen. #TorontoTarget

Categories
Australia

May 31, 1995 – newly-minted MCA meets with Keating…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, May 31st, 1995, the rebranded peak mining body meets with Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating.

Leaders of AMIC, now the Minerals Council of Australia, met with the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, for three hours on Wednesday [31 May] to discuss regional relations, trade liberalisation and relations with Japan and Indonesia. 

In line with the recommendations of a report by the Allen Consulting Group, the MCA is putting increased emphasis on lobbying rather than public campaigning.

Mr Buckingham said the way the industry had helped persuade the Government to drop the proposed carbon tax and increase the  diesel excise showed the benefits of its approach. “Where access [to senior levels of Government] is required there is confidence that that access will be given.”

Davis, I. 1995. New name, image for industry group. Canberra Times, 2 June, p.12

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Mining Industry Council had been vehemently opposed to climate action. But more significantly for this particular blog post even more vehemently opposed to Aboriginal land rights. And the crucial dilemma for any trade association is how hard to fight, how publicly: because if you lose and you’ve punched some politicians in the face, they tend to remember it. So AMIC had hired Geoff Allen, who was a venerable business fixer, abd who had set up the BCA in 1983. Allen had suggested a change of leadership. So out with Lachlan McIntosh, and a name change, to complete the rebranding and maybe toning down all the anti Mabo bullshit. And they managed to engineer a meeting with Paul Keating that apparently was three hours. Keating, whatever he thought, had to be in a mood of reconciliation, and if not all is forgiven and forgotten. Let’s move forward. Because if you want to be a successful leader, you can’t really hold those sorts of grudges. 

What we learn, these trade associations have to be careful. There are limits to what they can do. And if they overstep those limits, there are consequences just because they’re made up of powerful individual companies or sectors. Doesn’t mean they have total carte blanche.

What happened next? Well, the Australian Mining Industry Council/MCA and the BCA had been beavering away and they created a really effective group called the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, which was massively successful for over a decade in combating both domestic policy, e.g., the 1994/5  carbon tax battle, but also the international stuff keeping Australia from making any sane commitments for Kyoto, and for ratifying it once they’ve extracted that victory. And you’ve got to hand it to them, they’re really really good at what they did. 

And, you know Guy Pearse and Clive Hamilton chart that success in their books High and Dry and Scorcher respectively. And see also the Carbon Club by Marian Wilkinson. 

But never forget that the picture of Labor as sweet and innocent is complete bullshit. Because if you look at the period especially from 1990 to 1996 they were making sure that no serious action on climate change happened. 

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 31, 1977 – “4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise by 2027” predicts #climate scientist Wally Broecker

May 31 1996 – Rocket Scientist Charlie Sheen uncovers warmist alien conspiracy!!

May 31, 2012, an Australian climate minister makes a song and dance

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

May 25, 1992 Keating Cabinet discusses Rio

Thirty-two years ago, on this day, May 25th, 1992, the Cabinet of new Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating discussed the upcoming Earth Summit in Rio. Cabinet was (mostly) not in favour of making any big splash, and Keating himself would not attend the event (the only leader of an OECD country not to go…)

Check out the article about the 1992-3 Cabinet Papers I wrote for The Conversation. And the longer version here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that as early as 1987, there had been an agreement that there would be an Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio. The following year, climate change had exploded onto the public consciousness and the Earth Summit had become the place where the climate treaty would be agreed. Australia had been initially seen as a leader on this, one of its diplomats had helped the IPCC processes as a co-chair on working group one (WM Tegart), and there had been an extremely hedged promise in October of 1990 for a so-called interim planning target. 

However, since then, the champion of action Bob Hawke had been toppled. His replacement, Paul Keating was actively hostile to greenies. And Australia was in/emerging from a recession, “the recession we had to have.” And Keating wasn’t gonna go to Rio, (he was the only head of an OECD member who didn’t).

There had also been a successful campaign against introducing a carbon tax. This had been  a suggestion as part of the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. So all in all, the Cabinet meeting was just signing off on allowing the environment minister to go. But pretty much saying to her that she wasn’t allowed to be exuberant or make any promises. And so it came to pass. 

What we learn is that Australia had an opportunity to behave differently, but the leadership of the time had other plans and other priorities. And we are living with the consequences of that. And future generations will live and die with the consequences of that. And here we are. 

What happened next, RosKelly went to Rio, was the ninth person to sign up to some misogynist flak from the denialists, of course. And Australia had another bite at the carbon tax for domestic purposes. This also failed, and then Australia carved out an insanely generous steal at Kyoto, which it then didn’t ratify. Poisonous, horrible, horrible political, economic elite. But what do you expect of an extractive settler state, a quarry with a state attached to it. 

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 25, 1953 – “I read about them in Time Magazine” (Gilbert Plass’s greenhouse warning

May 25, 1990 – Thatcher opens Hadley Centre

May 25 – Interview with Ben King – of #climate, education and the need for tubas

May 25, 2011 – Aussie #climate scientist smeared rather than engaged. Plus ca change…

Categories
Australia

January 28, 1992 – Ros Kelly versus Industry commission on greenhouse plans

Thirty-two years ago, on this day, January 28th, 1992, the Australian Environment Minister was trying to keep her options open…

The Federal Government will press ahead with plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2005 despite an Industry Commission report that says such reductions would cut Australian production by about 1.5 per cent, or $6 billion a year. The Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, said yesterday that the report, released yesterday, had a “very narrow focus” and failed to capitalise on the opportunities available for industries….

1992 Glascott, K. 1992. Kelly dismisses attack on greenhouse plan. The Australian, January 29, p.4.

And

 The Federal Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, conceded yesterday it would be “very difficult” to achieve global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent – a target endorsed by the Federal Government.

Garran R. and Lawson, M. 1992. Kelly concedes greenhouse difficulties. Australian Financial Review, 29 January, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a fierce battle within the Hawke and then Keating governments about greenhouse. And everybody knows the good guys lost. As part of the quid pro quo for declaring an interim planning target of a 20% reduction by 2005 (so that Kelly could go to the Second World Climate Conference with something in her hand) the then-Treasurer Paul Keating had managed to extract the concession or agreement that the Industry Commission (later renamed the Productivity Commission) would study the costs. Once the costs document was released, it was predictably used as a stick to beat advocates of energy efficiency and sanity over the head. 

What we can learn is that always these battles within governments and allegedly “independent” “scientific”/economic reports are a key weapon. 

What happened next? The Kelly gang lost and we’ve been losing ever since. 

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 28, 2013 – Doomed “Green Deal” home insulation scheme launched in the UK

January 28, 1993 – Parliament protest – “Wake Up, the World is Dying” – Guest Post by Hugh Warwick