Tag: The Australia institute

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 9, 1999 – The Australia Institute calls for emissions trading

Twenty-six years ago, on this day, August 9, 1999, the Australian Financial Review deigned to cover climate change…

The introduction of a domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme could generate $7 billion in annual revenue, enabling government to cut the company tax rate to 30 per cent, abolish accelerated depreciation and reduce payroll tax by 60 per cent, according to a paper by the Australia Institute.

“Emissions trading has the potential to become an important tool in environmental protection and economic and fiscal management,” the institute’s Mr Clive Hamilton and Mr Hal Turton say in their paper Business Tax and the Environment Emissions trading as a tax reform option, released last week.

1999 Hordern, N. 1999. Emissions trading call `half-baked’. The Australian Financial Review, 9 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. 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 putting a price on things you don’t like, to encourage decreased use (cigarettes, anyone?) is hardly controversial, especially if you’re going to use money raised to explore alternatives.
Or rather, it is VERY controversial to those people currently making money and wanting that to continue. Two carbon tax proposals had been defeated already, and attention therefore switched to “emissions trading schemes.”

The specific context was that Australia had signed (but not ratified) the Kyoto Protocol, and so ways and means to ‘reduce’ Australia’s emissions (it had a 108% target!) were being investigated, not just by The Australia Institute but also other outfits.

What I think we can learn from this – the simplest and in some ways least significant actions turned out to be, well, impossible.

What happened next – Prime Minister John Howard killed off two proposals for Emissions Trading Schemes, in 2000 and 2003. States got interested in doing a “ground-up” scheme among various states. This never really got off the ground, before action turned back to the Federal level in 2006-7.

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 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Categories
Academia Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

August 5, 1997 – “Climate Change Policies in Australia” briefing

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, August 5th, 1997 – Clive Hamilton, founder of the Australia Institute,

“Climate Change Policies in Australia: A briefing to a meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate”, Bonn, Germany, 5th August 1997

The Government’s position has been bolstered by economic modelling analysis that purports to show that Australia would be especially hard hit. It is projected that wages in Australia will be 19% lower by 2020 under a scenario that reduces emissions by 10% below 1990 levels in 2020. It is also claimed that the economic cost for each Australian would be 22 times higher than for each European. These extraordinary claims have been challenged by many experts including 131 Australian academic economists who signed a statement declaring that policies are available to slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia.
It is also apparent that the modelling results have been presented in ways that are highly misleading. Despite the fact that the model is constructed in a way that exaggerates the impact of emissions reductions on the Australian economy, the results actually show that the impact would be extremely small.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 the UNFCCC had been agreed in 1992, but the text did NOT include targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. Why not? Because UNCLE SAM SAID SO THAT’S WHY NOT YOU PINKO TREE-HUGGER.

(i.e. the people around George Bush Snr defeated the “pro-action” forces). So in 1995, the “Berlin Mandate” had been agreed – rich countries would have to come to the 3rd meeting in 1997, with plans/commitments to cut their emissions.

The specific context was that the Australian government of Paul Keating had been deeply reluctant, and once there was a switch to John Howard, the anti-action work had turbocharged. This briefing came during a “charm” (sic) offensive by Howard’s people, trying to get a special deal for Australia. Clive Hamilton, who had set up the Australia Institute three years earlier, was not amused.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Australian political and economic elite are, of course, criminally incompetent when it comes to a host of issues. But especially climate…

What happened next – Howard succeeded in getting that extremely generous deal at Kyoto. Then STILL didn’t ratify it, on general (lack of) principle.

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 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens – All Our Yesterdays

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 12, 2011 – Tony Abbott and the The Australia Institute

Fourteen years ago, on this day, July 12th, 2011, 

The whole purpose of the carbon tax is to phase out the coal industry…. Now, I think that the coal industry is the foundation of a modern economy. I think that affordable power is essential to Australia’s economic future. I don’t want to close down the coal industry… the Government’s own figures they say that coal will go from 80 percent of our power generation to 10 percent or 25 percent, if you include clean coal using various forms of sequestration. So, the Government’s own figures involve a radical downsizing and ultimate demise of the coal industry (emphasis added Abbott,2011a).

T.,Abbott, 2011a.Transcript of joint doorstop interview:Dandenong South, Victoria, 12 July:JuliaGillard’scarbontax. 〈http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/down load/media/pressrel/922506/upload_binary/922506.pdf〉.

And

12 July 2011: Australia Institute publishes a detailed analysis of direct action and building on past schemes suggests around $100 billion would be needed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. 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 the Liberal Party, after a brief flirtation with competing for small-g green votes in 1990, had decided to stick with their mining mates and the culture war (unlike Labor, which wants to stick with its mining mates while NOT having a culture war).

The specific context was that from late 2006 the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide became “mainstreamed” (after long long resistance). But in late 2009 Tony Abbott became Opposition Leader, and ended that fragile consensus. He used carbon pricing as a scare campaign about the “great big tax on everything” on his way to become Prime Minister.

What I think we can learn from this is that political parties are not meritocracies around intelligence, integrity or vision. They are bear pits, where the most vicious and determined rise to the top.

What happened next. Abbott became Prime Minister (god help us) and abolished the (inadequate) carbon pricing scheme that Julia Gillard had managed to push through. And the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide? Up and up and up of course.

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: 

July 12, 1953 – “The Weather is Really Changing” says New York Times

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

July 12, 2007 – #Australia gets swindled on #climate change…

Categories
Australia

November 4, 1999 – Australians have highest per capita emissions

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, November 4th, 1999,

a report by The Australia Institute on Australians having highest per capita emissions is front page news for the Melbourne.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australia was built as a settler colony, and was burning enormous quantities of shitty coal, especially in Victoria, where they had basically limitless brown coal, which is filthy on so many levels.

And it’s hardly a surprise that Australia had the highest per capita emissions given the shittiness of their houses, the sources of their energy. Btw transport is not really that big a factor, because, despite the myth, most Australians don’t cover long distances. They are mostly huddled in various cities on the coast. There’s the myths that we like to tell ourselves and then there’s the reality. 

What we learn is that you can tell Australians that they’re causing planetary mayhem as much as you like. It won’t change anything.

What happened next, Australia’s per capita emissions continued to be berserk and are down unto this day.

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: 

November 4, 1988 – no quick fix on climate, warns Australian Environment Minister

November 4, 1991 – UK Government launches first of many blame-shifting publicity campaigns on #climate

November 4, 2006 – Australians “Walk against Warming”

Categories
Australia Energy Industry Associations

 August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty.

On this day, 1st August 2015, the World Coal Association tried once again to distract people from coal’s civilisation and eco-system destroying nature. That’s (part of) its job, that’s what member companies expect in return for their subscription.

The World Coal Association (WCA) called on the World Bank to recognize the vital role of coal in bringing electricity to people in developing and emerging economies

Anon, 2015. WCA Calls on World Bank to Recognize Coal’s Critical Role. Engineering & Mining Journal, Volume 216; Issue 8, 26 1 August.

This has been going on for decades, of course. Smear competing technologies (nuclear, renewables), say you’re indispensable etc.

My personal favourite of the genre is Peabody’s brazen “Advanced Energy for Life” effort from the previous year. They must have been delighted when Australian wrecking ball turned Prime Minister Tony Abbott had parrotted that line (saying “coal is good for humanity”)  when opening a (what else) coal mine later that year.

This, from the Australia Institute in 2014, is useful

Energy Poverty and Coal “All Talk No Action” Australia Institute Report

“Ahead of the G-20 meeting in Australia later this week, a new report by an Australian think-tank convincingly punctures coal industry claims that coal is an essential part of the solution to lack of access to electricity in the developing world.

Zeroing in on Peabody Energy’s “Advanced Energy for Life” global public relations campaign, which contends coal-fired power is a cheap, effective way to provide power to the large impoverished areas of India, Pakistan and elsewhere that now have none, the new study by the Australia Institute states that, “Peabody’s only contribution to energy poverty is maintaining a website and social media page which promotes coal as the solution to the problem…. Despite extensive searches and contact with companies and mining lobby groups, we could not find a single example where coal companies have supported coal-powered energy poverty alleviation projects.” 

Meanwhile, billions of people need reliable cheap electricity, and if we had got on with developing decent sources of renewables, with storage, instead of allowing our “best minds” to make missiles, surveillance and marketing algorithms and assorted nonsense, we’d probably be a lot closer to that. Oh well.

As per this website, on this day the atmospheric CO2 ppm was 399.11

Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

We need remember that threatened technologies rarely go down without a fight, and that for coal, playing the “we’re indispensable” card.

What happened next?

They keep at it. Personal favourite is the recent claim that coal is a “transition” fuel in light of the war in the Ukraine sending gas prices through the roof.