Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 10th, 2000 – as part of the “we’re gonna do stuff, and the states aren’t doing their bit” strategy, Environment Minister Robert Hill is dishing out smears.
“State governments – including South Australia – have failed “abysmally” to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions satisfactorily, Environment Minister Robert Hill said yesterday. Senator Hill said most states would achieve only half the cuts they had promised two years ago on signing the National Greenhouse Strategy.”
Anon, 2000. States’ greenhouse gas failure. Adelaide Advertiser, August 11, p. 13.
The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Hill, yesterday threatened to withhold up to $400 million in State funding for greenhouse gas abatement, and said NSW was more interested in producing “glossy brochures” than in taking real action. [POTS AND KETTLES]
The threat came as he said he believed the United States would ratify the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions regardless of who won this year’s presidential election. In addition, he said the Government would announce in a few months an early-credit scheme to encourage businesses to keep reducing emissions even before the protocol was ratified.
Senator Hill’s statements follow BHP’s threat last week to opt out of the Federal Government’s Greenhouse Challenge program, saying there were inadequate incentives to reduce emissions.
Clennell, A. 2000. Style Put Ahead Of Substance On Greenhouse: Hill. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 August, p.7.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. 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 Federal Government was happy to blame state governments when it suited their interests – state-federal tensions are hardly new.
The specific context was that Howard and his colleagues were engaging in the usual blame-shifting.
What I think we can learn from this – Federal systems have more room for experimentation, but also blame-shifting.
What happened next Howard kept on blocking all action, including undermining the growth of renewables etc etc. Criminal.
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 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends
August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne