Nineteen years ago, on this day, October 23rd, 2006,
Climate ads put heat on govt for action
A group of academics have taken out ads in major newspapers urging the government to press for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
A group of academics and professionals concerned about climate change has taken out ads in major newspapers urging the Australian government to press for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
The advertising, funded by the Climate Institute, comes as the government prepares to announce new measures to tackle man-made climate change.
The ads include messages such as “Gas Emissions From Our Politicians Are Now At A Critical Level” and “It’s Time The Government Broke The Drought”.
“An effective and credible response requires Australia’s national greenhouse gas emissions go down, not up,” the institute’s chief executive Corin Millais said in a statement.
“The Australian government’s current policy has already increased emissions by 10 per cent over the last decade and is set to increase them by a further 17 per cent by 2020.”
The institute, chaired by former NSW premier Bob Carr, has released a five-point plan to reduce emissions, which it says is Australia’s greatest challenge.
“This commonsense national five-point plan shows that there is a way forward for Australia to address climate change and help stop the most severe impacts,” Mr Millais said.
“Climate change can be tackled with a five-point plan that legislates to make emissions go down, not up, sets a carbon price, implements clean energy technologies, delivers on energy savings and places Australia in a leading role to cut emissions worldwide.
“Measures that turn around emissions will also promote opportunities for Australia to become a part of the booming global clean energy market – worth $74 billion last year.
“There are a wide range of solutions like wind, solar and bio-fuels that could be put into place right now.”
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions which Australia has refused to sign, Australia was given a target of a 108 per cent increase on 1990 emission levels.
The government has repeatedly said it is on track to meet that target.
The Climate Institute of Australia has taken out national newspaper advertisements calling on the Federal Government to seriously address global warming.
The advertisements are published in 13 newspapers in every state and territory, with a total readership of more than 6.5 million Australians.
They call on the Federal Government to ensure greenhouse emissions go down, not up.
The institute’s chief executive, Corin Millias, says the Federal Government’s existing policies are not working, and emissions have increased by 10 per cent over the last decade.
“We’ve got a major challenge in front of us and we will never solve the problem if our emissions profile keeps rising,” he said.
The advertisements follow a TV campaign that was broadcast in rural Australia.
The Federal Government says it is on track to meet its target by 2010.
23 October 2006 AAP Bulletins CANBERRA
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 after years in the “meh, who cares, really?” zone, climate change had become, a month previously, the hot issue (bunch of different reasons). The Climate Institute, the brainchild of Clive Hamilton (who had set up the Australia Institute in the mid-1990s).
The specific context was that there was enormous pressure on John Howard, Prime Minister for ten years at this point, and an extremely effective stopper of climate action, to do a u-turn. This was part of that.
What I think we can learn from this – adverts and open letters have a certain utility – they can be a “shot across the bows” of a minister or government, reminding them that there are costs for the action (or inaction) they are currently undertaking.
What happened next – Prime Minister Howard did a u-turn in December, announcing an emissions trading taskforce (“The Shergold Report”). This did not help him burnish his image, and at the same time, Kevin Rudd toppled Kim Beasely to become leader of the opposition. Rudd had two sticks with which he planned to beat Howard – the Iraq War and climate change…
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: