The
Age, 1
January 2019:
The Howard government
was urged more than 20 years ago to consider an emissions trading scheme, while
its signature plans to deal with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions were
considered by its own departments to be merely aimed at deflecting global
criticism.
As the Morrison government continues to fight a
debilitating internal battle over how to deal with climate change, previously
secret papers from the 1990s reveal a suite of major government
departments said the most effective and efficient way to deal with greenhouse
gases was to impose a carbon price.
Cabinet papers from 1996
and 1997 released on Tuesday by the National Archives reveal the beginnings of
the Howard government's drawn-out response to the threat posed by rising
greenhouse gas emissions and the way some of those issues are still playing out
in the Morrison government…….
Government departments
headed by Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury and Foreign Affairs fleshed out
the details of a series of proposals backed by the government in September 1997
in a bid to deal with Australia's emissions.
The co-ordinating
document produced by the departments, which were aiming to finalise a package
discussed at cabinet earlier in the month, made clear the bureaucracy did not
believe the government's plans would go nearly far enough in cutting emissions
but may be sufficient to deflect international criticism.
"None of the
packages presented here would achieve the stabilisation of emissions at 1990
levels," they said.
"Rather, they are
aimed at deflecting criticism that Australia is not fully committed to reducing
its emissions."
The departments costed a
series of proposals which would ultimately become part of the government's
official response to climate change.
These included a focus
on tree plantations, encouragement for businesses to slice their emissions, the
introduction of ethanol into petrol and subsidies to boost investment in
renewable energy.
They noted Australia had
a "poor international reputation for driving fuel efficient cars",
arguing significant gains could be made by improving the nation's car
fleet.
Building codes, reform
of the energy market and investment in climate research were all encouraged.
But the departments,
which acknowledged the government's opposition to a price signal, said these
would ultimately be expensive initiatives which would not deliver a real impact
on the nation's overall emissions profile.
"The most effective
way to reduce emissions would be to combine significant price signals (either
general or sectoral increases in taxes on greenhouse producing activities),
information so firms and individuals can reduce greenhouse production,
opportunities to invest in carbon sinks and some degree of compulsion to
address areas where markets cannot be made to work effectively," they
said.
"It is generally
agreed that reductions will not happen without significant persuasion,
incentives or leadership from government."
In late 2006, Mr Howard
announced a panel would investigate an emissions trading scheme. Both the
Howard government and the Kevin Rudd-led ALP would take a trading scheme policy
to the following year's election.
But in 1997, the
government's most esteemed departments told cabinet it should consider an ETS
even if the results of the study were kept hidden from the public.
"A study of
possible emissions trading mechanisms and regulations would help position
Australia in the event that emissions trading is introduced
internationally," they said.
"This study would
not be for public announcement since it may not help our international
negotiating position if it became public knowledge."....
The
Guardian, 1
January 2018:
In June 1996, cabinet
agreed that “Australia’s overall objective in climate change negotiations
should be to safeguard our national trade and economic interests while
advancing compatible outcomes that are environmentally and economically
effective”.
While Australia
recognised “the need for effective global action on climate change”, it vowed
to pursue an international agreement that “does not contain targets which are
legally binding” and argued for differentiated, rather than uniform, reduction
targets.
The then environment
minister, Robert Hill, reported to cabinet that for the first time the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific report had said that the
balance of scientific evidence supported the view that the changes in climate
and greenhouse gas concentrations were due to human activity.
Small island states were
proposing a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 2005.
While other time frames were being discussed, all were potentially problematic
for Australia because of its carbon-intensive economy.
Hill told the cabinet
that modelling showed Australia’s emissions from the energy sector – accounting
for half of national emissions – were projected to be 30% above 1990 levels by
2010…..
The consternation grew
further by mid-1997. A joint submission to cabinet warned of the prospect of an
“EU–US bilateral understanding for progressing climate change” at a forthcoming
G7 summit…..
The cabinet actively
considered walking away from Kyoto altogether.
It was facing publishing
its future emissions as part of the Kyoto process but modelling was now showing
that emissions from the energy sector would be 40% to 50% above 1990 levels by
2010…
The cabinet also agreed
in July to establish a climate change taskforce to advance Australia’s domestic
greenhouse gas strategies, to strengthen its bargaining stance. One option to
be explored was “domestic and international emissions trading”.
In the following months,
Treasury modelled various measures for reducing domestic emissions.
The memorandum warned
that none of its scenarios would cap carbon emissions at 1990 levels but would
achieve potential cuts of 22%.
And so began Australia’s
long and tortured debate over carbon trading schemes.
A proposal was put
forward by the Australian Greenhouse Office in 2000, but was scuttled in
cabinet; another came forward in 2003, but was vetoed by Howard.
Finally, in the dying
days of his government in December 2006, Howard announced an emissions trading
scheme, after bureaucrats convinced him it was the most efficient way to meet
Australia’s commitments.
BACKGROUND
National Archives of Australia, 1996 and 1997 – Keating
and Howard governments, Cabinet
Papers, released 1 January 2018.
The Howard Government fight against taking responsibility for Australia's own domestic greenhouse gas missions.....
See: https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/NAAMedia/ShowImage.aspx?B=32709070&T=PDF. My apologies for not posting this document but current slow upload times have meant that I cannot yet display this document here.
No comments:
Post a Comment