Categories
Australia

 October 9, 2006 – “Australia Responds” report about climate aid and refugees released (Spoiler, Australia didn’t in fact respond).

On Monday October 9, 2006, a group of Australian charities and pressure groups, who’d been working with the CSIRO, released a report “Australia Responds: Helping Our Neighbours Fight Climate Change.” (download here if you like).

It called for lots of sensible things, including

  • Increase Australia’s overseas development assistance (ODA) in line with most other developed nations to 0.5% of GNI by 2009 10, and 0.7% by 2015.
  • Review Australia’s immigration program in light of the expected impacts of climate change. This review should consider mechanisms to support people displaced by climate change within the region. • Make a strong commitment to support disaster risk reduction, mitigation and preparedness measures within the ODA program.
  • Adopt a national framework for reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60% of 1990 levels by 2050, with an implementation timetable that will provide a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

By the way, something else really important happened on the same day – Anthony Albanese made a statement on how Australia needed to take climate refugees. 

You can also read my Open Letter to a Tuvaluan turning 18.

And here is a fourth post (no, nobody has ever told me to shut my damn mouth – why do you ask) tying it together and suggesting some answers to the only question that matters “What is to be done?” It also has links to various organisations trying to help.

The context was the Australian government under Bob Hawke had made noises about accepting climate refugees.  Keating ignored the whole issue, and under him the “fuck the world, we’re gonna sell soooo much coal bwahahahaha” strategy got moving. John Howard dialed it up to eleven. Then 12. John Howard belongs in one particular place close to sea-level. That place is The Hague.

From Labour’s “Our Drowning Neighbours” discussion paper

What we learn is that 

NGOs can get scientists on board, and work their guts out and it will be a one-day wonder. A political party (especially in Opposition) will piggyback on the work.  And the media will very very quickly lose interest, for a variety of structural reasons.

And so it came to pass.

What happened next

The report generated a certain amount of attention. 

The ABC ran a show on it, fronted by Joe Gelonesi

The low lying nation of Kiribati is just one of our Pacific neighbours facing the real day to day effects of climate change.

Rising sea levels, huge tides and unpredictable winds are already a part of life there. So what do you do when climate change is literally on your doorstep?

Crikey covered it, from a national security angle.

Some newspapers probably did, IDK.

It wasn’t necessarily easy to find online back then, or recently.

Anyway, then the caravan moved on.  Peter Garrett, the next climate spokesman after Anthony Albanese, name-checked it in February 2007 at Labor’s little shindig at Parliament House.

But the whole question of accepting climate refugees in the future became, well, somewhat awkward under Julia Gillard. Then along came Tony “Stop the Boats” Abbott and that’s all she wrote.

What happened next more generally.

The NGOs kept NGOing.

Meanwhile

  • The coal exports kept rising.
  • This had consequences.
  • The bank balances of Very Important People kept rising.
  • The donations – official and unofficial – to parties and individuals –  kept rising.

Which was all great, obviously , and far more important than the fact that

  • The emissions kept rising.
  • The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide kept rising.
  • The seas kept rising.

The whole language of “climate refugees” became a bit awks for the Gillard Government, so was shelved.  Everyone moved on.

But the issue did not go away, and then – in November 2023

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.

https://library.sprep.org/sites/default/files/349.pdf

Also on this day: 

October 9, 1979 – Hermann Flohn warns Irish of “possible consequences of a man-made warming”

October 9, 1991 – Greens get labeled religious fanatics, don’t like it.

Leave a Reply