Thirty five years ago, on this day, October 4th, 1990, the energy efficiency crew said the same thing again…
AUSTRALIA can reduce its contribution to global warming and improve its balance of payments with a major energy efficiency strategy, according to new research.
Three recent reports indicate that Australia is lagging behind other developed countries in energy efficiency and can improve performance dramatically to cut carbon dioxide output by up to 20 per cent by the year 2005.
Two of the reports say the target could be achieved with net energy savings of $6.2 billion a year by 2005, while the third says it could be done with no cost to the economy.
But a major national program would be required. This would see us use more public transport and switch to cars using only 4.5 to six litres of petrol per 100km (the average is now 12). All buildings would have to meet energy-efficient standards and higher road freight taxes would channel more freight to rail.
Our refrigerators could well have a 90-watts rating (as do the most fuel-efficient sold in the US) and not the 700-1,000 watts here.
The energy-efficiency plan is designed to save 42.6 per cent of energy in the residential sector, 54 per cent in the commercial sector, 38 per cent in transport and 23 per cent in manufacturing industry.
Two reports by Deni Greene, a Melbourne energy consultant – one for the Federal Environment Department, the other for all environment ministers – are at odds with the views of some that energy-saving measures cost too much.
Williams, G. 1990. Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 October, p.19.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 from 1988 onwards “the greenhouse effect” was big news. There were some who thought (rightly) that there were huge savings in emissions to be made from tightening up energy efficiency regulations. See for example March 3, 1990 – ” “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored
The specific context was that the Business Council of Australia was already brewing (had produced?) a report that said doing anything about energy efficiency would crash the economy.
What I think we can learn from this – we couldn’t even do the simple stuff. We couldn’t even pick the low-hanging fruit. What on EARTH makes anyone believe we can do the really tricky stuff? Srsly?
What happened next – by 1992 the “Ecologically Sustainable Development process” was dead in the water- killed by Keating.
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:
October 4, 1957 – see, see – SPUTNIK!! – All Our Yesterdays
October 4, 1978 – the Interdepartmental group on Climatology meets for the first time…
October 4, 1993 – Coal chief wringing his hands about “greenhouse,” promises new tech