Thirty years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1994, the Australian political elites lived up to their convict heritage.
“Cabinet is understood to have agreed in January 1991, before talks on the UN convention, that Australia would not proceed with measures which had “net adverse economic impacts nationally or on Australia’s trade competitiveness in the absence of similar action by major greenhouse gas-producing countries”.
Former environment minister and former senator, Mr Graham Richardson, used exactly the same words when he described the joint Commonwealth-State position on climate change to Parliament on March 16.”
Gill, P. 1994. Minister signals change of policy on greenhouse gas. The Australian Financial Review, 26 May, p.6. [On Evans using exactly the same words on 24 May]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context is that Australia had made a very weak eye-catching commitment in October of 1990, saying that it would reduce emissions if other large emitters did so, on the proviso that there were no economic consequences to speak of. Australia had not introduced any carbon tax and only had a pissweak “national greenhouse response strategy” which was utterly toothless. The UNFCCC treaty had been ratified by enough nations quite quickly, and was going to become law imminently. And therefore the problem for Australia was they’d signed it. What might they have to do? And this was Graham Richardson, who only five years earlier had been a tub thumping “we must save the world” activist who can be credited with having won the 1990 election for Hawke. He was backtracking, or in his eyes, reading aloud the fine print.
What we learn from this Is that a politician will be a fire breathing tub thumper when it suits him or her. But as soon as implementation of firebrand tub thumping policies might impinge on donors and elite allies, they suddenly change their tune.
What happened next. A carbon tax was defeated again. The next Environment Minister went to Berlin and was forced to agree with the idea of Australia joining other rich nations in negotiating emission cuts under the so-called Berlin mandate. And Australia then shat all over that, 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:
March 16, 1973 – North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)
March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports