Tag: Paul Keating

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

Categories
Australia

October 11, 1990 – Australian Federal Government makes climate promise, with fingers crossed

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 11, 1990, the Federal Government of Australia, under Prime Minister Bob Hawke, made its first “commitment” to reduce emissions.

The Commonwealth Government followed the states and also adopted the Toronto Target of a 20 per cent reduction, a target that in retrospect appears hopelessly optimistic. (Scorcher, p. 47)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Second World Climate Conference was coming up. October 10th was the last cabinet meeting before Ros Kelly would be flying off to Geneva and she couldn’t go empty-handed. Meanwhile the environmental lobby wanted a strong target.

Previous Environment Minister Graham Richardson had tried to get the Toronto target agreed in May 1989, and had been shot down by Paul Keating.

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians like targets – it makes them feel and look responsible and responsive. As long as there are caveats and loopholes, they’re happy enough. Other people are willing to sign on with that, more or less. The target is usually so far in advance that the politician will have at least left public office or if it’s a 30 or 40 year in the future target then they’ll be dead and they don’t care. Legacy games, that’s what these are, that’s all they are. But the other effect of the existence of a target is it allows middle-class people to snooze rather than get up on their hind legs.

What happened next

 Kelly went to the second World climate conference shortly after. The international negotiations began properly.

The Industry Commission also did a report about the economics of climate change this was one of the quid pro quo that Paul Keating, still at this stage Treasurer, had extracted for going along with the the Interim Planning Target Australia never took the steps it would have needed to meet the interim Planning Target and by 1995 it was a dead duck. As will our species be in another 20 or 30 years. You could almost say in fact that we are already functionally extinct. We just don’t know it yet but I digress…

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

Hudson, M. 2015 – https://theconversation.com/25-years-ago-the-australian-government-promised-deep-emissions-cuts-and-yet-here-we-still-are-46805

Categories
Australia

May 26, 1993 – more “green jobs” mush

Thirty years ago, on this day, May 26, 1993, there was more hold-hands-and-sing kumbaya stuff about green jobs.

This report arises from the growing recognition by governments, industry and the community that ecologically sustainable development offers many opportunities for profitable investment and therefore for employment growth, as well as being essential for ecological survival. The community is also faced with the pressing task of finding opportunities to create more jobs and the environment industry is an obvious place to look.

The inquiry was proposed to the then Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories [Ros Kelly] by the Committee and the Minister then formally referred the matter for inquiry to the Committee on 26 May 1993.

 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Labor government of Paul Keating was extremely hostile to environmentalists, and environmentalism. One way of kind of sort of squaring the circle and giving the least radical greenies something to do, and keep them from making common cause with the radicals, was to set up things like Green Jobs Inits and have Parliamentary processes and investigations. This gets people busy giving evidence and it gives them the frisson of addressing a politician. And basically just keeps them out of mischief. 

The report when it comes out, if it’s one that you can live with, you do a press release, and the speech and the “grip and grin” with the author. If it’s not, you release it on a Friday afternoon, ahead of a bank holiday or a big sporting event. And you play a dead bat in the media. More generally, it’s a win win.

What I think we can learn from this

The game is the game and the system (“man”) has ways of coping with potential upsets.

What happened next

The Green Jobs unit went nowhere. Keating had two big significant events on the environment in 1994/5. One was the loggers’ blockade of Canberra and the other was the carbon tax being defeated and the economic modelling of ABARE being used to block ambition for Australia at the international negotiations. 

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

 April 28, 1993 – Australia to monitor carbon tax experience

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 28, 1993, after returning from Washington, Australia’s environment minister changed her tune.

 Australia would watch closely the international trend towards an energy tax and the effect such a tax would have on curbing greenhouse gases, the Minister for Environment, Ros Kelly, said yesterday.

AAP, 1993. Aust to monitor energy-tax experience: Kelly. Canberra Times, 29 April, p. 15 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ros Kelly had just come back from a visit to the United States where President Clinton had given her a shout out at a press conference where he talked about his BTU tax proposal, which he had launched in February of that year.  Kelly had in 1992, been explicit in saying a carbon tax was off the table for Australia (see here). 

So this represented a bit of a turnaround, and will have alerted anti-climate people in the BCA and AMIC  to the need to get their ducks in a row ahead of another battle.  It will have been another reason to set up the “Industry Greenhouse Network”…. 

What I think we can learn from this is that issues or solutions that get dumped can be brought back because of the variety of political and personal factors. And this will be noticed because anti climate action activists remain vigilant, of course; that’s their job.

What happened next

Kelly didn’t last much longer as Environment Minister because of a scandal. Her replacement, Graham Richardson didn’t last. Because well, Graham Richardson. But then the next one, John Faulkner expressed interest in bringing in a carbon price or at least a basic carbon tax. And then the battle was on again 

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

April 17, 1993 –  Paul Keating versus the idea of a carbon tax…

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 17, 1993, newly-re-elected Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating made another mental note to hate environmentalists….

The Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Simon Crean, have denied knowledge of alleged Treasury proposals for a $1.9 billion energy tax.

Mr Crean rejected reports in The Weekend Australian and The Age on Saturday [17 April] which suggested that a tax on the energy content or fuels and possibly carbon emissions, being discussed by Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, had drawn on studies by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy

Brough, J. 1993. Keating, Crean deny energy-tax proposal. Canberra Times, Monday 19 April, p.3. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/126983159

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The carbon tax idea had been around for quite a while, and in 1990-91 a combination of industry figures managed to defeat it.  Environment Minister Ros Kelly had said, at the Rio Earth Summit, that it wasn’t something that would be done, but the proposed “solution” did not, of course, go away. If Australia were to meet its “stabilisation target”, let alone its 20 per cent reduction by 2005 target, economic measures like a tax were going to be needed…

What I think we can learn from this

People inside bureaucracies leak, either to put pressure on politicians, or to kill an idea by prematurely releasing it. In this case, who knows?

What happened next

The push for a carbon tax came up again, in 1994, and was defeated by early 1995. There wouldn’t be a price on carbon dioxide until 2012, and that only lasted a couple of years. And the emissions climbed….

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

January 18, 1993 – Australian unions and greenies launch first “Green Jobs” campaign

Thirty years ago, on this day, January 18, 1993

“A major new effort to develop jobs which protect the environment”, was how the January 18 joint statement by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Conservation Foundation described their joint Green Jobs in Industry Plan. The scheme was launched at the Visyboard Paper and Cardboard Recycling Plant in Melbourne by Peter Baldwin, minister for higher education and employment services.

Noakes,  F. (1993) ACTU and ACF launch green jobs program. Green Left Weekly January 27th

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

.

The context was this. The ACF had been at the forefront of “greenhouse effect” efforts, trying to shape policy in the period 1989 to 1992. By mid-1992 it was clear they’d been defeated in their intense and praiseworthy efforts to get anything meaningful. ‘Green Jobs’ was a kind of consolation prize, and a way of continuing dialogue with the union movement (relations were intermittently fraught, for the usual reasons). 

What I think we can learn from this

“Green jobs” are a kind of boundary object, or a Rorschach Test, or a floating signifier, or whatever cool academic term is being used to mean “something various groups can emphatically agree on as a principle, and so defer awkward conversations about winners and losers.”

What happened next

It went nowhere – the Keating Government was not interested. The Howard government even less so.  The ACF and ACTU released another report (yes, there may have been others in between) in 2008, spruiking a Green Jobs Bonanza.

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

References

Noakes,  F. (1993) ACTU and ACF launch green jobs program. Green Left Weekly January 27th

See also

David Annandale,Angus Morrison‐saunders &Louise Duxbury (2004) Regional sustainability initiatives: the growth of green jobs in Australia.
Local Environment, Pages 81-87 https://doi.org/10.1080/1354983042000176610

Goods, C. 2020 Labour Unions, the Environment and Green Jobs.

https://www.ppesydney.net/content/uploads/2020/05/Labour-unions-the-environment-and-green-jobs.pdf

Categories
Australia

November 5, 1992 – Jeremy Leggett calls Australian petrol price cuts “insane”

On this day, November 5 in visiting British geologist and Greenpeace climate adviser gave a speech at the National Press Club. With a Federal Election imminent in March 1993) he weighed in on Australian domestic policy, days before the so-called “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” is launched., 

A visiting environmental scientist — an expert on the greenhouse effect — has branded as “insane” the federal Coalition’s promise to cut petrol prices if it is elected.

Dr Jeremy Leggett, who works for the environmental group Greenpeace in Britain, told a National Press Club lunch yesterday that the Coalition’s plan to cut petrol prices flew in the face of world concern about global warming.

“You reduce petrol prices at the direct peril of generations of Australians to come,” he said.  And – In Canberra yesterday the World Wide Fund for Nature launched what it called a “green print” for Australia’s future over the next three years.

The document called for endangered species protection legislation to be enacted this year, for the Federal Government to act on the recommendations of its ecologically sustainable development process and for ratification of conventions on climate change and biodiversity.

Leggett’s speech – “Accounting for Global Warming, Financial Institutions Wake Up To the Impacts”

Mussared, D. 1992. Pledge to cut petrol prices ‘insane‘. Canberra Times, Friday 6 November, page 5

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was xxxppm. At time of writing it was 416ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Australian ambition to do anything about climate change had been wilting for a year, and in 1992 new Prime Minister Paul Keating had basically binned all the ‘green crap’ (to use a term David Cameron later used).

All that was left was the names and jargon to throw around, disconnected from any reality, any ambition, any responsibility.

Why this matters. 

We know who did this.

What happened next?

Decades of denial – hard or soft,  predatory delay, “triangulation” etc.

Categories
Australia

September 22, 1991 – ESD RIP. Australia’s chance of a different future… squashed flat.

On this day in September 22, 1991, the hold-hands and sing Kumbaya phase of “ecologically sustainable development” came to an end. After 18 months, the “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process got (knee)capped.

“Damaging splits are emerging over the plan by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to put resource-based industries on a sustainable footing.

Business groups yesterday strongly criticised lack of consultation, and said they might withdraw from the process. They could then claim not to be bound by the recommendations of the taskforce. They said the plan to write ecologically sustainable development policies was badly flawed and could damage the national interest.”

Peake, R. 1991. Sustainable Growth Plan At Risk. The Age, 23 September, p.3.

and

Industry groups attacked the Federal Government yesterday for the lack of consultation in its ecologically sustainable development working groups.

However, in a separate move [and quite possibly co-ordinated, MH], the Minister for Resources, Mr Griffiths, criticised environmental groups over their role in the development debate.

The Business Council argues that the main engine driving the ESD process is the concern about the “potential augmented greenhouse effect”. But the groups had failed to recognise the point made by the Industry Commission in its report on greenhouse, that “there are major uncertainties in each of the many facets of the greenhouse effect”. 

The carbon tax favoured by the ESD working groups would have negligible effect on global greenhouse emissions if it were imposed unilaterally, the council said.

1991 Garran, R. 1991. Industry berates government on Sustainable Development. The Australian Financial Review, 23 September, p.4.

On this day the PPM was 352.34 PPM.

Now it is 420ish – but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

Oh, we can have pretty much the same kind of economic growth we always have had. Bit of technofix here, bit of nip-and-tuck there, it will be fiiiine…

Even the relatively mild and reformist ideas of a carbon tax got kicked into the long grass… So it goes.

What happened next?

Hawke was on his way out. The next (Labor) Prime Minister, Paul Keating and his neoliberal hate-greenies officers kicked all things ecological, climate into the very long grass. John Howard took that and dialled it up to 11. And here we are…