Thirty six years ago, on this day, September 5th, 1990,
Targets to reduce greenhouse gases would strengthen the Australian economy, not cripple it, according to the Minister for the Environment, Ms Kelly.
Speaking to a Metal Trades Industry Association seminar, Ms Kelly made a preliminary sortie in the battle she will fight with her Cabinet colleagues next Monday to try to persuade them to set targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Ms Kelly said a report for her department by Deni Greene Consulting Services showed that a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2005 “is not only possible, it is pretty easy to obtain”.
Industry groups have been lobbying the Government hard in recent days against setting a target to reduce emissions, which they argue could dramatically increase costs.
Garran, R. 1990. Kelly sees big savings in cutting greenhouse gases. Australian Financial Review, 6 September, p. 5.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2026, 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 greenhouse effect had burst onto the public scene around the world, but especially in Australia, in 1988. There were now fierce debates about what was to be done. In March of 1990 there had been a federal election, and the Liberal Party had had a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labor. Yes, that’s true.
The specific context was that here, just as the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy making process was about to kick off, we see a speech about how emissions reductions targets will not weaken the economy but strengthen it. This was a narrative that was hated and challenged repeatedly, usually by commissioning so-called independent reports, which could be thumped down on the table, “Our modelling shows that dot dot dot”.
What I think we can learn from this is that we could have had nicer things, we could have delayed a greenhouse warming, but the powers of darkness, the forces of well, evil, were stronger, and they won the day, and the week, and the month, and the year, and the decades.
But they will not win eternity. Well, they will, if their aim was to cause mayhem.
What happened next The following month the Australian Government agreed to a version of the Toronto Target, but with so many caveats that it was rendered useless. This agreement was simply so the Environment Minister could go to the second World Climate Conference in Geneva with something in her hand.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
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:
September 5, 1986 – a “Safe Energy” rally, in London
September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…
September 5, 1995 – Australian Aluminium Council joins “Greenhouse Challenge”
September 5, 2004 – John Howard gloats about cooking the planet
September 5, 2005 – protest about the brown coal in Melbourne