Twenty eight years ago, on this day, June 20th, 1997,
Australian diplomats in Washington were asked to seek evidence casting doubt on US forecasts of the cost of fighting climate change – because they present a much rosier picture than Australia’s own estimates. Canberra’s reaction to the American economic modelling is contained in confidential cablegrams between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and its embassy in Washington, which unveil Australia’s campaign against the greenhouse push by the US President, Mr Clinton.
Lobbying in the US has been intensifying ahead of the decisive climate change convention in Kyoto in December, where Australia fears that legally binding, uniform targets to cut greenhouse gas pollution will be set for developed nations.
The American “interagency modelling” estimates that Australia’s economic output would fall by only one-third of what Australia predicts if greenhouse gas emissions – which are causing global warming – are held to 1990 levels in 2010.
The interagency modelling says Australia would suffer less loss than West European nations and Canada, which is the reverse of the forecasts by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE).
“The US estimates understate the costs of climate change control to Australia both in absolute terms and relative to other countries,” says one cablegram dated June 20.
It asks the Washington embassy to investigate why all of the “peer reviewers” have not “signed off” on the modelling report. This is despite ABARE having declined to release peer reviews of its own modelling.
1997 Hogarth, M. 1997. Diplomats Told To Find Holes In Climate Figures. Sydney Morning Herald, 28 August, p.9.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365.7ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Australia had shifted from relatively enthusiastic and credible on environmental issues (whaling, the Antarctic, ozone and – initially – carbon dioxide) to near pariah state. The rot had begun under Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, and accelerated slightly (or more) under Liberal Prime Minster John Howard.
The specific context was that Australia had agreed to turn up at the third Conference of the Parties (COP) with a plan to reduce its emissions. That had been under Keating. Howard was in no mood to follow through, and came out swinging.
What I think we can learn from this is that Howard is a climate criminal and it is not too late to get him to the Hague. Also, economic modelling is mostly a sick joke.
What happened next is that Australia extorted a de jure “reduction” target of 108% of its 1990 emissions at Kyoto. De facto, thanks to an absurd “land-clearing clause” that negotiators were too exhausted to push back against, it was closer to 130%.
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:
June 20, 1977- “Alternative Three” – An early Climate Hoax – All Our Yesterdays
June 20, 1979 – Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House – All Our Yesterdays