Month: October 2025

Categories
Australia Energy

October 5, 2016 – “Energy ministers urged…” again

On this day nine years ago…

Policy uncertainty could cause essential investments to be deferred or distorted at a huge cost to consumers, business groups warn.

Major business organisations and energy users have urged federal and state governments to work cooperatively to map out a “strategic response to Australia’s energy transition and challenges” ahead of a meeting of energy ministers scheduled for Friday – warning that investment is at risk.

Murphy, K. 2016. Energy ministers urged to map out strategic response to renewables. The Guardian, 5 October.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/06/energy-groups-and-businesses-plead-for-strategic-response-before-ministers-meet

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 404ppm. 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 well, look at the previous day’s post. There’s all sorts of promises about getting hold of energy production, consumption, efficiency. You feel so powerful when you convene meetings. And then… what happens?

The specific context was that the Turnbull government was trying to pretend it would do something about climate change, to placate “green” Liberal voters.

What I think we can learn from this – “co-ordination problems” exist. So does incumbent power.

What happened next – The energy ministers all took that onboard, and Australia is now leading the way on emissions reductions. Oh yes.

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 5, 1988 – Vice Presidential Debate and ‘the Greenhouse Effect’

October 5, 1989 – Enviro minister “Richo” warns Hawkie to save “Kakadu”

October 5, 1992 – Ignoreland hits the airwaves. #Neoliberalism

October 5, 2006 – Greenpeace sues Blair Government over shonky energy “consultation”

Categories
Podcasts

Podcast review: Ro Randall and the coming Overshoot…

Ro Randall is one of the greats. You have probably never heard of her, but she is one of the greats. She is a retired psychoanalyst who has had super-useful things to say about the psycho-dynamics of community groups, climate change (see a review of her great novel about climate activism, hope, despair etc Transgression here and interviews with her at the foot of this post.

I just listened to a 2022 interview she did on the podcast “Bridging the Carbon Gap” a series I have already raved about here and here.

What makes this one interesting (to me), beyond her clarity and deployment of terms like “finite pool of worry [see here about contrary evidence for instead a finite pool of attention”] and bringing of her decades of knowledge and experience to the questions posed her, is that she is really trying to find out what her interviewers think and feel, and even being willing to suggest that they are seeing-but-not-seeing what is going on.

Randall’s comments on climate and the curriculum (a question the interviewers ask all guests, with varying degrees of success) are also very much worth your time.

Meanwhile, I listened to the “teaser” trailer for a new 4 part podcast series called Overshoot: Navigating a world beyond 1.5 degrees, which launches on Monday 6th October.

Overshoot is one of those words that you’re hearing more of.  My first real encounter was in about 2000, when I read, (and was convinced by, tbh) the fairly Malthusian 1980 book by WIlliam R. Catton Jr. More recently it is a Malm and Carton book.  The gist of the podcast series is “Well, Paris has failed [Paris was always going to fail – see what I wrote in 2015 about the institutional reasons it was hyped”] so, you know,  ‘now what?”


It will be interesting to see if they tackle the reasons for the failure – not of states and corporations: that is kind of obvious/inevitable – but the more difficult and distressing (because not inevitable) failures of social movements.  We shall see (well, hear).

2013 interview

Interview with Rosemary Randall on psycho-analysis and climate change

2020 interview

Interview with Rosemary Randall, psychoanalyst and author of brilliant #climate novel “Transgression”

2021

Rosemary Randall interviewed about her 6 videos on #climate grief and psychoanalysis
Categories
Australia Energy

October 4, 1990 – “Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder”

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, 1969 – “If we melt the Antarctic, our problems are solved because all of the ports of the world would vanish and the ocean will rise 200 feet.”

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

Categories
Australia

October 3, 2011 – “The End of Australia”

Fourteen years ago, on this day, October 3rd, 2011, Rolling Stone published the following by Jeff Goodell.

Climate Change and the end of Australia by Jeff Goodell

It’s near midnight, and I’m holed up in a rickety hotel in Proserpine, a whistle-stop town on the northeast coast of Australia. Yasi, a Category 5 hurricane with 200-mile-per-hour winds that’s already been dubbed “The Mother of All Catastrophes” by excitable Aussie tabloids, is just a few hundred miles offshore. When the eye of the storm hits, forecasters predict, it will be the worst ever to batter the east coast of Australia.

I have come to Australia to see what a global-warming future holds for this most vulnerable of nations, and Mother Nature has been happy to oblige: Over the course of just a few weeks, the continent has been hit by a record heat wave, a crippling drought, bush fires, floods that swamped an area the size of France and Germany combined, even a plague of locusts. “In many ways, it is a disaster of biblical proportions,” Andrew Fraser, the Queensland state treasurer, told reporters. He was talking about the floods in his region, but the sense that Australia – which maintains one of the highest per-capita carbon footprints on the planet – has summoned up the wrath of the climate gods is everywhere. “Australia is the canary in the coal mine,” says David Karoly, a top climate researcher at the University of Melbourne. “What is happening in Australia now is similar to what we can expect to see in other places in the future.” (continues)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 391ppm. 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 Australia’s population was well-informed about climate change “then called “the greenhouse effect” in 1987-1990. But that awareness and concern did not translate into strong action. 

The specific context was that Goodell had written a very good book called Big Coal – climate change is his beat. Meanwhile, the Australian policy elite had been tearing itself to pieces over a simple small measure – a price on carbon. Gillard’s minority government had just gotten it through when this issue of Rolling Stone hit the newsstands (are their newsstands anymore?)

What I think we can learn from this – we fucking knew.

What happened next. Gillard’s brave but utterly inadequate carbon pricing scheme was repealed in 2014. The emissions keep climbing, as does the kayfabe.

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.

References

Goodell, J. 2011. The End of Australia. Rolling Stone, October 3.

Also on this day: 

October 3, 1970 & 2008: Nixon creates EPA, Brown creates DECC 

October 3, 1975 – Three members of Congress introduce first bill for a national #climate program.

October 3, 1997 – CNN pretends to grow a spine (Spoiler, stays jellyfish) – All Our Yesterdays

October 3, 2004 – John Howard revealed to have asked for fossil fuel CEOs to kill renewables. #auspol

Categories
Italy United Nations

October 2, 1961- UNESCO conference on “climatic variations” begins

Sixty four years ago, on this day, October 2nd, 1961,

beginning of UNESCO conference – “Rome (October 2-7 1961), arranged by UNESCO and the World Meteorological Organization, to restrict the interest to climatic variations which have occurred since the latest glaciation, with particular attention to the period of the meteorological record. The reason behind this decision was no doubt the wish to talk about something which might conceivably have relevance to the nature and trends of the arid lands of to-day–relevance on the scale of economic planning, say, for a hundred years. (Sutcliffe, Nature No. 4808 December 23, 1139-40.”

And there was discussion of carbon dioxide build-up, as per this published in the Derry Standard.

“These warm years, with their economic implications, have led to a number of theories, notably one that man is changing the weather by burning fossil fuels and releasing millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Unfortunately for the theoreticians, this rising temperature curve levelled off around 1940 and has now dipped.”

Behrman, D. 1961. Science Notes. The Derry Standard, November 21, p7

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 317ppm. 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 the International Geophysical year had got everyone thinking about the planet (its purpose) and what humans might be doing/might be able to do (make the deserts bloom etc). There had even been a UN resolution on weather modification and space.

The specific context was that some were beginning to talk about Carbon Dioxide – there had been the New York Academy of Science meeting in January 1961. 

What I think we can learn from this is that we used to believe we could make a better world…

What happened next – Ritchie-Calder got more and more interested in carbon dioxide. He tried to alert people in 1963, and then seems to have put it on the backburner for a few years, before launching a second campaign in 1968…

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 2, 1927/64 – Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar die.

October 2, 1942 – Spaceflight!!

October 2, 1994 – twenty years of boredom, for trying to change the system from within (Phillip Toyne becomes civil servant) 

October 2, 2014 – Low emission technologies on their way, says Minerals Council of Australia