02/01/2021

(AU) Cabinet Papers: How Howard Government Could Have Avoided Climate Wars

NEWS.com.au - Finn McHugh

The dogged opposition of a key minister helped block an emissions trading scheme throughout the 2000s, paving the way for two decades of climate wars. 

The 2000 cabinet papers show John Howard’s cabinet had an almost unanimous view of an ETS as effective and inevitable. Source: News Limited

Australia could have avoided two decades of climate wars had the Howard government pushed ahead with its majority view of an emissions trading scheme (ETS), newly released documents reveal.

The National Archives has released the 2000 cabinet papers, showing John Howard’s cabinet had an almost unanimous view of an ETS as effective and inevitable.

The scheme was ultimately scuppered by internal divisions.

Historian Chris Wallace said the lack of climate change scepticism in the 2000 cabinet was in stark contrast to the current Coalition, which has been mired by factionalism over the issue.

“The distinctive thing about these papers is that they don’t show any science versus politics binary,” she said.

The 2000 cabinet papers reveal John Howard’s cabinet viewed an ETS as effective and inevitable, but the scheme was ultimately sunk. Source: News Limited

“The picture the papers show is one where the science is not questioned, it’s not even mentioned.

“There’s just a broad expectation coming through cabinet submissions … that there was likely to be a neutral market solution to this issue, and that an ETS was only a matter of time.”

The documents reveal cabinet wanted to act decisively to end uncertainty for investors, a problem that continues to hinder the energy sector today.

The government conducted a feasibility study into an ETS in 2000, and then Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson said the debate “lined people up in unusual ways”.

“People you would not have thought of as economic rationalists around the table argued the economic rationalist position,” Mr Anderson said.

“Those who we might have thought of as being deeply committed to a free enterprise model were surprisingly interventionist.”

Industry Minister Nick Minchin staunchly opposed the ETS. Picture: Michael Jones

Chief among those was Industry Minister Nick Minchin, who attempted to derail an ETS by insisting cabinet should only approve it if there was an established international trading scheme.

“Minchin’s perspective was … that we not make ourselves cleaner but poorer and others dirtier but richer,” Mr Anderson said.

A tug of war between Mr Minchin and Environment Minister Robert Hill continued all year.

Mr Minchin ultimately prevailed, defining the Coalition’s climate policy for two decades.

Treasurer Peter Costello’s proposal for an ETS was rejected by cabinet in 2003 before Prime Minister John Howard lost the 2007 election after embracing the scheme.

In 2009, Mr Minchin was crucial in toppling Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership over his support for an ETS.

Dr Wallace said under Mr Turnbull’s successor, Tony Abbott, the Coalition “harked back to a less sophisticated, pre-Howard era of coalition government” on emissions.

Nick Minchin (right) helped topple Malcolm Turnbull over an emissions trading scheme. Picture: Mark Graham / AAP Image

Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s term was partly defined by her acrimonious rollout of a carbon tax, which Mr Abbott savaged as a “great big new tax”.

But Dr Wallace said the Coalition’s experience in rolling out the controversial goods and services tax (GST) showed an ETS would have become “an accepted, unremarked upon aspect of finance in Australia” had Mr Howard won in 2007.

Mr Anderson agreed that a 2007 win would have led to an ETS but denied the “devilishly difficult” issue would have been put to bed.

“Take Melbourne and central Queensland: Australians’ aspirations in this area are miles apart and remain so. As some people worry desperately about their jobs and industries, others want climate change action,” he said.

“I don’t think those arguments would have gone away. There would have been ongoing disputes about the need to intervene at certain times to save this industry, or those jobs, or whatever.

“Every intervention, as was pointed out at the time, would throw more weight on domestically focused industries and households.”

Climate change is already here and it's getting worse

Links

No comments :

Post a Comment

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative