Month: June 2025

Categories
Australia Business Responses Carbon Pricing

June 3, 1996 – Business Council of Australia versus even the idea of a carbon tax

On this day June 3, 1996, 29 years ago, the peak business body in the settler colony known as Australia wanted to nail yet another nail in the coffin of the carbon tax proposal that had been defeated in February 1995.

THE Business Council of Australia has asked the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics to update research conducted last year on the regional impact…

Strickland, K. 1996  Call for revision of carbon tax’s impact. The Australian, June 3, p.031

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 for this was that business was busy winning all the big policy battles, but still feared that climate action might impact their profits. Internationally, the Berlin COP had ended with a “Berlin Mandate” meaning rich nations (including Australia) were going to be expected to present plans for carbon dioxide reductions by the third COP.

The specific context was the new Liberal National Party government of John Howard was even more business-friendly and climate-action-blocking than that of the ALP’s Paul Keating. But you never know, issues can come back – especially with COP2 about to take place in Geneva – and the Business Council is here just laying down some suppressing fire.

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – business interests do not care about the actual future.

As “active citizens – business interests know how to keep governments on a leash, and they rarely get sloppy/complacent.

Academics might want to ponder – their role as handmaidens to this system.

What happened next: Howard came out swinging hard against both international and national commitments. He did not get punished by the Great Australian Electorate for these acts of bastardy until 2007.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Stuff on ABARE

Stuff on John Howard

(use the search function!)

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 3, 1970 – US Senator suggests World Ecology Unit – All Our Yesterdays

June 3, 1989 – Liberal Party to outflank Labor on #climate?!

June 3, 1994 – Greenpeace warns of climate time bomb

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published

Categories
Activism Australia Interviews

Parents for Climate: What they do, what they are looking for.

Parents for Climate, an Australian group, kindly answered some questions!

1. What is the “origin story” of Parents for Climate – when did you begin, why?
Parents for Climate began in 2019, sparked by a simple but powerful idea: parents are a force like no other when it comes to protecting the future. A group of six rural and regional mums got together online—frustrated by government inaction and alarmed by worsening climate impacts—to create a home for parent-led climate action. Our tiny organisation wants to empower everyday families to take meaningful steps, speak up, and shift the story about who climate action is for.

2. (How) has the work of Parents for Climate shifted since it began – for what reasons?
We’ve grown from a grassroots network into a national movement that’s deeply strategic. At first, we were a small mostly-online community focused on awareness raising and community-building—now, we’re focused on influencing decision-makers and policy, supporting local leadership, and amplifying the voices of parents in public debate. That shift reflects the urgency of the climate crisis, the growing political relevance of parents, and what we’ve learned about where we can make the most impact.

3. What are the things you’ve done that you’re proudest of?

We’re proud to have helped shape public policy—like federal investments in clean energy storage and better school infrastructure. We’ve mobilized thousands of parents in electorates across the country, built powerful coalitions, and held Australia’s biggest energy companies to account for greenwashing. But just as importantly, we’ve helped countless parents move from climate anxiety to climate agency—finding purpose, connection, and hope together.

4. What, besides more money and time, is the main constraint on you being able to do more things (skills gaps, access to other resources etc) and what help are you looking for?

Like many grassroots groups, we’re stretched. We could do more with support in digital campaigning, media and design, and easy to use tools that help us scale. We’d also love more support building bridges into multicultural communities and regional networks. We’re looking for people who want to offer skills, networks, or mentoring—or who can help unlock funding or strategic partnerships.

5. What resources need to be available to concerned parents for when they talk to their kids – of different ages – about what the future holds?
Parents need age-appropriate, emotionally intelligent tools that are honest but hopeful. That might be a storybook about nature and courage for young kids, a school project toolkit for tweens, or conversation guides for teens that acknowledge fear but focus on action. Most of all, parents need to feel they’re not alone—and that there’s a community of people out there who are acting for their kids too.

6. Anything else you want to say – shout outs about upcoming events, other groups etc.
We’ve just wrapped our biggest ever campaign, Vote Like a Parent. We just forced energy giant EnergyAustralia to admit to the truth behind its marketing claims  through legal action. And we’re gearing up for new work focused on clean energy and protecting kids from the impacts of extreme heat and air pollution. A huge shout out to the parent volunteers around the country making this movement what it is. If you’re reading this and want to be part of it—come join us at parentsforclimate.org!

Categories
United States of America

June 2, 2005 – Climate change will not, in fact, be Terminated

On this day June 2nd, 2005, 20 years ago California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced an initiative to curb greenhouse gas emissions in California as a step towards addressing global warming. 

In his speech, the governor declared, “The debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now.”

–Arnold Schwarzenegger

San Francisco, June 2, 2005

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm.  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 for this was the US had pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in early 2001, despite George W Bush’s campaign trail promise that he would regulate carbon dioxide (the real president, Dick Cheney, had other ideas).

The specific context was when the Federal government flubs an issue, various states, often including California, tries to lead – you see similar dynamics in other federal systems (Australia, Germany, whatever).

Historical context – check out the defeat of Proposition 128 – “Big Green” in November 1990.

CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS : PROPOSITION 128 : ‘Big Green’ Reached Too Far, Backers Say – Los Angeles Times

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – celebrity is not transferable power, necessarily.

As “active citizens” – talk is cheap

Academics might want to ponder – the way policy is, well, terminated.

What happened next: 

The emissions kept rising. The concentrations kept rising. People elected a climate denier as President. Twice. So, there’s that.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Too many to mention

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title

Categories
Australia

June 2, 1977 – Australian scientists SCOPE the climate problem

On this day June 2nd 1977, 48 years ago, Australian Scientist Graeme Pearman gathered fellow scientists to tell them what had been going on.

2-3 June 1977 The Australian National Committee of the UN Study Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) held a workshop on this subject at the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Physics, Aspendale on June 2 and 3. The objectives of the workshop were: 

A: To communicate to the interested Australian scientific community — i) The results of the recent SCOPE meeting in Ratzeburg and the ERDA meeting in Miami on the C02 – climate problem.  (Pearman, 1977 Clean Air)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 333ppm.  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 for this was the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide build-up was going to be a Real Problem, and probably Quite Soon was just forming – a series of international meetings had taken place, and Pearman was at a couple of them.
You have to remember, this was way before email and easy communications. You couldn’t just circulate pdfs…

The specific context was that Australian scientists had been measuring C02 amounts for a few years – first on planes, and about now, at Cape Grim in Tasmania.

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – we knew enough to be worried, half a century ago

As “active citizens” – we knew enough to be worried, half a century ago

Academics might want to ponder… we knew enough to be worried, half a century ago.

What happened next: xx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

The 1974 post about Australia and climate at RMets

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title

June 2, 2002 – Low carbon spaces, eh… SDC RIP – All Our Yesterdays