Tag: Ros Kelly

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

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

January 22, 1992 – “Greenhouse action will send Australia to the poorhouse”

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 22nd 1992, the delayers and deniers deployed the dollar dilemma argument,

CANBERRA: Australia would be sent to the poorhouse by the Federal Government’s attitude towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it was claimed yesterday.

It would be “grossly wrong” for Australia to do this at the expense of living standards in a time of recession, said the chief executive of the Australian Institution of Engineers, Mr John Enfield.

He criticised the Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, for acting “prematurely” on the issue, before further research confirmed or disproved predictions on the greenhouse effect.

Chamberlin, P. 1992. Green govt warned of poorhouse effect. Sydney Morning Herald, January, 23 p3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that although the battle against the carbon tax had really already been won, not everyone had gotten the memo. And anyway, they want to lay down some suppressing fire and that’s what was happening here, in the immediate period before the Rio Earth Summit. Industry is determined to dampen down government ambition because – nightmare – scenario -rush of blood to the head might get the government promising things (unlikely under Keating!).

What we learn. Assholes gonna asshole. 

What happened next World leaders all went to Rio (except Paul Keating, the only OECD nation leader not to attend) and they signed the empty treaty. And you know, the emissions kept climbing and you know the rest.

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 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

January 22, 2002 – Exxon and on and on

Categories
Australia

October 13, 1990/97 – Ros Kelly defends the Interim Planning Target vs Australia does nothing

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 13, 1990, Australian Environment Minister Ros Kelly defended the decision taken to have loopholes in the climate change target…

Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 13, 1997, Australia was busy saying “yeah, nah” to the world…

The Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, defended the Government’s conditional greenhouse target, saying an unqualified one would have been “irresponsible”.

On Thursday, Cabinet agreed to a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent on 1988 levels within the next 15 years.

However, no action will be taken that might adversely affect Australian international competitiveness.

Lamberton, H. 1990. Kelly defends greenhouse ‘conditions’. Canberra Times, 13 October, p 3

Greenhouse countdown

The temperature is rising in the debate over greenhouse and Australia is coming under increasing pressure to declare its hand ahead of the Kyoto summit. A lot is at stake, writes Lenore Taylor.

Every world leader John Howard speaks to about greenhouse gas emissions wants him to answer one question. What can Australia do?

Bill Clinton asked him at the White House. Tony Blair asked him at 10 Downing Street. Neither got an answer.

Australia has invested enormous diplomatic and political energy explaining what it can’t do – and according to the Government it definitely can’t agree to any absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

But it has failed to say what it can do.

Taylor, L. 1997. The heat is on. Australian Financial Review, 13 October, p. 16. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354/363ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was in 1990 the Australia Federal Government had made a promise with tricksy caveats that had kept its domestic allies – or people that needed to pretend they agreed – on side and allowed for the international reputation not to be too much in the toilet. Seven years is a long time in politics. In 1997 John Howard was doing his level best to to minimize Australia’s commitments under the UNFCCC that Ros Kelly had signed. The State and corporate interests, as they saw them, had not really changed – Howard was simply being more honest about it all, because he was being forced to be honest with his back up against the wall.

What I think we can learn from this

That it is too easy in every sense to tell stories about government policy-based entirely around public utterances or perceived personalities of state functionaries leaders. I have been guilty of that of course, we all have. But we also need to remember that states are battlegrounds of and reflections of powerful interests, be they ideological such as churches but also private companies and multinationals etc. Within this mix you’ll also find the usual collection of unions and civil society busy-bodies and do-gooders and somewhere at the bottom the usual collection of, well, people who are trying to figure out if they can afford to stay alive next week and both heat and eat.

What happened next

Australia kept up the criminality.

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

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

September 4, 1990 – Industry whines about environment minister’s speech

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 4, 1990, Industry went all snowflake because a minister was a Mean Girl.

Anon, 1990. Industry upset about Minister’s Attack on Miners, Foresters. Green Week, September 4, p.8.

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 Hawke government was having to keep promises it had made to environmental groups in order to win the 1990 federal election. One promise was to set up an ecologically sustainable development process. The very existence of this offended industry, which was used to getting its own way via the usual means and did not feel it should ever have to justify its policies and proposals to anyone, least of all a bunch of smelly hippies. Relations with the then environment minister Ros Kelly were complicated, especially after she had made robust statements about what the miners meant with their definition of sustainability.

What I think we can learn from this is that industry was used to getting its own way and as per that old line “when privilege is removed it feels like oppression” industry always feels oppressed.

What happened next is that the ecologically sustainable development process continued but was then thrown in the circular file when new prime minister Paul Keating shat all over it and the federal bureaucracy buried it as this blog post about the events of August 6, 1992.

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

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 Denial

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

On this day, 8 September 1990 a climate denialist called John Daly was spouting his soothing nonsense.

The worsening of the greenhouse effect is not inevitable, according to the author of The Greenhouse Trap, John Daly. Sea levels may not be rising, the planet may not be warming and studies indicate that the real increase in carbon-dioxide emission world-wide since 1850 is not the commonly reported 80 per cent but about 25 per cent, he says.

Mr Daly, a marine electronics engineer, spoke in Canberra on Saturday night [8 September] on what he calls a program of misinformation.

His recent exposure of inaccuracies in a schools’ brochure issued by the Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, led to its withdrawal.

Mr Daly quotes several eminent Australian scientists and many American ones as having compiled

evidence casting doubt on the existence of the greenhouse effect.

“I just want people to realise that there is some doubt,” Mr Daly said.

He says that in 20 years’ study of weather and science, particularly during the greenhouse effect’s “fashionable” period, the ’80s, he has found little to prove its existence.

Anon. 1990. Author questions greenhouse effect. Canberra Times, 10 September, p. 5.

Idiot.

On this day the PPM was 351.38. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

There was a very successful campaign by over-confident and wilfully ignorant “contrarians” for decades. Daly was present at the creation.

What happened next?

The denial stuff kept on going. Old white men painted themselves into a corner and admit they were wrong. So it goes.

Categories
Australia

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

On this day, September 5 1990, the new-ish Australian Environment Minister, Ros Kelly, was trying to finish the work that a male colleague had started with endless self-promotion but not a lot of guile (this is a pattern that will recur, 20 years later). Here are two newspaper accounts

Targets to reduce greenhouse gases would strengthen the Australian economy, not cripple it, according to the Minister for the Environment, Ms Kelly.

Speaking to a Metal Trades Industry Association seminar, Ms Kelly made a preliminary sortie in the battle she will fight with her Cabinet colleagues next Monday to try to persuade them to set targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Ms Kelly said a report for her department by Deni Greene Consulting Services showed that a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2005 is not only possible, it is pretty easy to obtain”.

Industry groups have been lobbying the Government hard in recent days against setting a target to reduce emissions, which they argue could dramatically increase costs.

Garran, R. 1990. Kelly sees big savings in cutting greenhouse gases. Australian Financial Review, 6 September, p. 5.

and

“In a speech yesterday (5th), Mrs Kelly called again for immediate action. She stressed the IPCC findings and said that “the sensible course of action is to do what we can, as soon as we can”.

A 20 per cent cut had been proved “not only possible (but) easy to obtain,” she said. “

Seccombe, M. 1990. Polluters put on the back-burner. Sydney Morning Herald, 6 September, p.1

On this day the PPM was 351.38. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

There was a time when – if you were optimistic (and perhaps naive?) you could imagine Federal politicians in Australia actually taking action that would have added up to a semi-adequate response to climate change. It was a brief time, one easily romanticised, but it did exist.

What happened next?

None of this came to pass. The fight back from the fossil lobby was supremely effective. Companies in Australia dug up and burnt/sold insane (I mean that literally) quantities of fossil fuels, with active and very enthusiastic support of the political classes and the bureaucrats. And here we are.