Eleven years ago, on this day, March 20th, 2014, Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s first attempt at legislative climate thuggery is foiled.
The government’s carbon tax repeal laws have been voted down by the Senate, leaving the fate of Australia’s carbon pricing scheme up to the new Senate that sits from July.
It appears very likely the carbon price will then be repealed – and the government says its repeal laws will make the end date of the tax retrospective to 1 July, 2014 – even if they have not passed the parliament by then.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the previous five years had seen ferocious battles over a fairly basic and inadequate carbon pricing scheme.
In late 2009 the Liberal Party had tossed Malcolm Turnbull for being too pro-climate action and given Tony Abbott, the leader of the opposition gig. Abbott had then killed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Rudd basically imploded. Rudd’s henchman then gave a journalist a jibe about Julia Gillard that caused Gillard to uncharacteristically lose her cool. Gillard challenged for the leadership and Rudd was turfed by Labor. Gillard became prime minister, and during the snap election campaign that she just called, there would be no carbon tax under her government. The 2010 election resulted in a situation with neither the Coalition or Labor having enough MPs to form a government, and therefore relied on Gillard or Abbott doing enough deals with the independents and the Greens. Gillard succeeded, but the cost of their support was – you guessed it – a carbon pricing scheme. The optics were bad, and they were handled even worse (see February 24 2011 blogpost).
And so 2011 saw this astonishing, vitriolic, insane battle over a “carbon tax”, with most businesses ducking and covering and not wanting to be drawn into the fight. and even the consultancies, or maybe especially the consultancies, given that they are entirely dependent on the good graces of political parties were cutting their cloth accordingly (See Malto Maltenberger anecdote- the intellectual corruption and quiescence is astonishing.)
Anyway, Gillard, thanks to in part, the ferocious attacks of the Murdoch press, became very unpopular in the opinion polls. Kevin Rudd, who’d been lurking on the back benches, launched his challenge, toppled Gillard.
There was an election in 2013 which the wrecking ball, aka Tony Abbott, won handily, and Abbott had set about trying to repeal all the carbon pricing legislation and also to abolish things like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, but Abbott did not have control of the Senate, and this is an example of them pushing back.
What I think we can learn from this is that this period in Australian politics was an especially bewildering soap opera. Actually, not even a soap opera, more like a Jacobean tragedy.
What happened next, CEFC and ARENA survived, sort of. Abbott was turfed by Turnbull, who was then turfed by Morrison. A lot of this has to do with energy and also the culture wars going on. “Which kind of Australia do we want?” And it seems that enough people want an imagined 1950s Australia that never existed.
And these people can be mobilized. And the so-called progressive forces, which are mostly or at least partially blind to the arrived ecological debacle, have neither the language nor the skills to do much about it.
It may or may not be different when the Rupert bloody Murdoch finally dies. But just because the poisoner is dead doesn’t mean the poison stops working.
I suppose this is a contestable way of looking at it. You also have to look at the poison needing to be frequently updated, or else the so-called immune system of the so-called body politic might “cleanse itself” of insanity? Who knows? We’ll find out.
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.
Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 19th, 2001,
Spencer Abraham announcing new power plants each year etc.
“On the other side, Energy Secretary Abraham had stated in a public speech on March 19 that the United States must add ninety new power plants each year, mostly coal-fired, for the next twenty years to meet the need for a 45 percent increase in electricity demand by 2020. Vice President Cheney strongly supported efforts to increase fossil fuel supplies, including the opening of public lands, continental shelves, and the Arctic for increased coal mining and oil and gas drilling. Altogether it was unclear where the balance of opinion of the Task Force would fall. I thought it was realistic to think the scientific information we provided would aid their decision making.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
George Bush Junior had been handed the presidency thanks to the Supreme Court and some hanging chads in Florida, and Al Gore’s willingness to play along, (there’s that footage of the black Democrats knowing what’s coming, desperately trying to overturn it and Gore basically laughing at them… and them good old boys drinking whiskey and rye.
And President Cheney, being an oil man, everyone kind of knew it was coming..
Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, talking about hundreds of new coal plants, which puts one in mind of President Nixon’s Project Independence.
What I think we can learn from this is that every incoming administration wants to lay out morale-boosting for their side, eye-catching, Big Number targets. Mostly it does not come to pass.
What happened next
It did not come to pass. And then in 2011 Michael Bloomberg funded lots of local anti-coal initiatives, which meant that coal-fired power stations started to not get built/get retired. It didn’t happen by accident.
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.
On this day, March 19, fifty five years ago, Dr Richard Gun, a South Australian, made his maiden speech in the Federal Parliament.
He had this to say –
And what about smog? This matter has had some attention from the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution. The Senate Select Committee has recommended that some attention be given to controlling exhaust emissions from cars. But, even if the report of the Committee is acted upon, the effect of anti-pollution measures should be quite clear. The Committee looked at the possibility of an electric car being evolved, or a car powered by steam. After-burners were studied and carburettor modifications were considered also. These result in more complete fuel combustion. So too does the use of liquid propane for fuel. But, whatever these ingenious proposals can do in reducing smog, they still cannot prevent consumption of oxygen and production of carbon dioxide. It is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide which may be the most sinister of all effects. The only way that this can be controlled is by reducing the amount of combustion taking place. An enormous wasted combustion occurs in our cities with each individual motor vehicle bearing an average of only 1.2 persons per vehicle trip. Surely, the most logical way of overcoming this is by increasing use of public transport for commuters; in other words, to have more people per vehicle. So, let us commute by public transport and keep our motor cars for other purposes than driving to work.
You can read more about him (he was interviewed about this last year!) here.
Fifty years ago, on this day, March 18th 1970, the Ministry of (for) Transport told some other civil servants tasked with looking at pollution “nothing to see here”.
The National Archives – AB 48 dash 940
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there was a mad rush among the civil service to “support” the drafting and publication of the very first Environment White Paper
Feb 13 1970 the NonNuclear Committee had asked Roberts to talk to Ministry of Environment (see AB 48/940 jpg 67)
What I think we can learn from this is that civil servants go native, and are looking to support whatever industry they are supposed to be “regulating.”
What happened next
Car fumes as a problem for “the greenhouse effect” were getting attention within a couple of years (see Alistair Aird’s The Automotive Nightmare). They were in the frame in 1988. And here we are, the fat end of 40 years later, still in thrall to cars (oh, and EVs? They’re not the panacea some would have you believe…)
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.
Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2006,
Australia has the opportunity and responsibility to explore emissions-reduction technologies, writes Grant Thorne.
Thorne, G. (2006) Carbon capture the key to cutting greenhouse gases. The Australian Financial Review, March 17.
“Grant Thorne. Grant Thorne is managing director of Rio Tinto Coal Australia, a major Australian coal producer.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that over the previous couple of years, there had been increased talk about CCS in Australia – Coal 21 national plans and Zero Emissions conferences, especially in Queensland. And it was obvious – or it seemed obvious – that there would be international negotiations to create a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. And so everyone was banging on about CCS.
What I think we can learn from this is that it’s all just kayfabe. And also, even if they were serious and it worked perfectly, CCS would be a terrifyingly small proportion of overall emissions. And CCS is essentially a way of not talking about reducing energy throughputs in affluent/effluent societies.
What happened next
By 2009/2010 reality had caught up with CCS in Australia, at least on that occasion. Since then, people have tried to paint Gorgon (given its approval by Labor Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett in 2009) as a success. It isn’t, except insofar as it enables some people not to talk about the need for energy reductions.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the British state was having one of its periodic fiscal crises (though the crisis is now perhaps more permanent!), Anyway they put Value Added Tax (VAT) on domestic heating and called it a climate initiative. And this is brilliant, because it raises revenue and it smears the green cause as it were. It’s like the salting the earth. It’s very, very clever politics (terrible policy and governance, but clever politics).
What I think we can learn from this is that just because you’re evil doesn’t mean you’re stupid.
What happened next
There was resistance to this, but it also made life harder for talking about actual green taxes.
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.
Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2001,
First, Direct Observational Evidence Of A Change In The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Between 1970 And 1997
Date: March 15, 2001
Source: Imperial College Of Science, Technology And Medicine
Summary:
Scientists from Imperial College, London, have produced the first direct observational evidence that the earth’s greenhouse effect increased between 1970 and 1997. Writing in the journal Nature (1), researchers in the Department of Physics show that there has been a significant change in the Earth’s greenhouse effect over the last 30 years https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010315075858.htm
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the third IPCC report was about to be published, and everyone in the scientific world who studied this was pretty sure climate change was caused by carbon dioxide was A Thing, but it’s always nice to have the additional evidence.
What I think we can learn from this isthat you can compile evidence upon evidence and upon evidence, and it won’t be enough to convince some people. You can prove anything with facts.
What happened next
The third IPCC report came out. We’re toast. That’s almost 25 years ago.
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.
Thirty six years ago, on this day, March 14th, 1988,
In his message to the Congress of March 14, 1988 concerning international activities in science and technology, President Reagan said that “participation in international science and technology activities is vital to U.S. national security in the broadest sense.”
Dept. St. Bull., vol 88 at 53 (June 1988).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the ozone hole had been discovered. There had been a treaty and he protocol in rapid, rapid time. So rapid that the Department of State, etc, and Energy especially, were worried that they’d been bounced into something and decided were going to fight harder against the carbon dioxide treaty. Reagan, obviously, was a lame duck, and neck deep in Iran-Contra. Whoever put the words in his mouth, it’s all boilerplate, motherhood apple pie, who could be against scientific cooperation? (also, with the INF treaty, the Cold War winding down – Gorbachev, Perestroika and Glasnost blah blah blah).
What I think we can learn from this
so you could say these sorts of nonsense statements, no one would bat an eyelid. In fact, they’d bat an eyelid if you didn’t say them, or if you said the opposite. So it’s a communication, but one that’s empty of any meaning.
What happened next
Three months later with the drought in the American midwest, James Hansen’s testimony and “The Changing Atmosphere” conference in Toronto, the carbon dioxide issue burst onto the agenda.
See also “greenhouse glasnost.”
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, March 13th, 2007,
Australia’s coal and power generation industries must shoulder a large part of the cost of developing clean coal technologies, investing ”billions not millions” to mitigate climate change, ACTU secretary Greg Combet says. ”We are talking about companies that make multibillion-dollar profits from coal mining. It is only fair that a slice of those profits be directed to the research and development needed to substantially reduce greenhouse emissions,” he said. Speaking from the Hunter Valley, where he was launching a clean coal discussion paper with Opposition environment spokesman Peter Garrett, Mr Combet called for the Federal Government’s Minimum Renewable Energy Target for green electricity generation to be boosted.
Beeby, R. 2007. Put power profits into clean energy: Combet. Canberra Times, 13 March.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the ALP, in opposition federally, was using climate as a big stick to beat Prime Minister John Howard with. It had the added advantage of squaring the circle of their support for coal miners and coal mining; they needed something like geosequestration, CCS. So here we have Greg Combet, who would end up as Gillard’s Environment Minister, but that’s for the future, spouting guff about “the industry has to do X or Y,” and this is the classic triangulating position of seeming to be a friend of the worker and chiding industry bosses. It’s all nice theater.
What I think we can learn from this that CCS is an extremely useful way of squaring various circles.
But I think we’re now entering the world of nobody really bothering to pretend. We’re into the unmitigated disaster phase of it all.
What happened next Rudd bunged 100 million of Australian taxpayers dollars at a Global Carbon Capture and Storage Initiative. So, money well spent.
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.
Last Tuesday and Wednesday the Royal Courts of Justice heard an appeal in a case about whether the Government broke the law in approving a power-station-with-carbon-capture-and-storage project. The heart of the matter is the amount of emissions that will still be released. The appeal has been brought by environmental consultant Dr Andrew Boswell. Here he talks to AOY. The transcript has been very lightly edited for clarity. Next week, a detailed account of the numbers behind the appeal.
And so first question is, for people who are not familiar with yourself, your life in a couple of 100 words
Andrew Boswell 0:49
My life in a couple of hundred words? Well, currently, what I’ve been doing the last few years is challenging government decisions on projects which have an impact on the climate change, basically when they have a significant impact. Whether, basically whether the government is making a decision to approve these projects in a lawful way. So it’s largely looking at things like Environmental Impact Assessments and whether they are actually working out right, secondly, then whether they they [the government of the day] make a decision which is right with the law,
marc hudson 1:34
And why did you decide that this was a good use of your time and expertise, as opposed to other forms of environmental activism that in theory, you could be doing?
Andrew Boswell 1:47
Yeah, well, I saw a particular niche for myself, both as a scientist, so I could sort of review environmental impact assessments on the technical side, but also a realisation that the legal system wasn’t actually securing the Climate Change Act [of 2008] and our climate targets. I mean, I personally think we need much more radical carbon budgets and targets along the lines of Kevin Anderson might say; reductions of several percent a year, lots of percent a year, to meet the temperature targets. But we’re stuck with what we have under the Climate Change Act. And what we have is that not even those targets are being secured in planning decisions and by the planning system and by the legal system. So I set out to really sort of highlight that,
marc hudson 2:46
And we’ll talk briefly in general terms about the case that was being heard yesterday and today. But could you give us an example of a case where you forced the government to obey the laws, which, ironically, you know, it should be doing under the 2008 Climate Act.
Andrew Boswell 3:07
Well, the case today is a case in point. We don’t know the outcome of it, But my work is not just going into the courts, it’s actually going through the whole planning examination. And what did happen in that case is that initially the upstream emissions from the natural gas, which is largely methane emissions, were not initially put into the environmental impact assessment. So they [BP and Equinor] weren’t even trying to declare them. Then what happened was they did declare them, because I called that out in the planning examination. But then they actually went and miscalculated the whole thing. And what they did was they double-counted the carbon capture emissions. So effectively, they sort of said, “Oh, the carbon capture emissions, 180% of the carbon which would be going up the smoke stack” rather than 90% which is what they’re saying they capture. They effectively calculated 180% which then they were able to hide the methane emissions under.
So there’s a lot of deception going on. And over the course of six months, exchange of letters with the department and the government, eventually the government agreed with me that they had double counted. It’s notable to say that BP and Equinor when they had the facts laid out very simply before then, still denied that’s what they were doing.
Just to elaborate on that, do you understand that it actually took me three days to find the double-counting error because it was distributed around about half a dozen documents. And I actually had to create spreadsheets to understand what all the spreadsheets and the documents were doing; how the numbers interrelated. When I found the double-counting error, I thought, “no, they can’t really be doing that.” But eventually I convinced myself they were. And then I managed to lay it out in one half page spreadsheet, which actually went into the decision letter with the Secretary of State. And the Secretary of State, saying yes, they agreed with me that there was a double- counting error, but there was a long road to get to that simple explanation.
But even when I laid that out in front of BP and Equinor they still went on denying to the government that they ever made a double-counting error
marc hudson 5:51
On a recent Zoom call… I saw you lay out some of the details of this case. And you also said something that I think was very interesting and important that I would like you to expand on, which is that… you saw a case for CCS, for some purposes, eg, some industrial processes, cement, as opposed to what we’re getting, which is the energy production.
And I suppose my question is, how are we going to get or how could we get the CCS infrastructure and the CCS expertise and the CCS business models for the capture of emissions from, say, cement and ceramics and some chemical processes without the big oil companies having been able to develop it for power generation. Is that even possible, do you think that?
Andrew Boswell 7:12
Yeah, this is why I said that there is a case that it could be used for cement. But I didn’t say it was a proven case. And I think this is what needs to happen. And part of the problem in the UK is that they tried to do various what you might call stand-alone CCS projects, and those all failed. And one of the reasons they failed was we can’t get to all infrastructure to join up for one project – you can’t justify a storage site. And I get that, and that is a real issue. But then the response to that was, “well, okay, we’ll build this cluster model.” And each cluster basically starts off by having something driven by natural gas. It’s either blue hydrogen or it’s gas fired power, as in the Net Zero Teesside. So what you get is to start the thing up, and that’s the thing which is then going to sort of pump the CO2 down under the sea. You lock into natural gas.
But not only do you lock in, you front load all the emissions in this cluster model, because the big emissions come from the gas-fired power station, the natural gas supply and the methane in supply chain. You lock all those in; your cement plant might come along 10 years later, by which time you’ve done huge damage with the methane emissions in the first place.
So the question – and I think what your question is – is given that, can you now go back to actually a model where you could develop CCS for things like cement and lime, but you don’t rely on this cluster model, and you don’t rely on having a gas-fired power station to pump the stuff under the sea. And that’s why I think the case is not proven. We need to understand whether that can be done or not. And I don’t have a view on that, but I think what I think does need to be solved is the power to pump the stuff under the sea is one thing, and that could be done by renewables. The power for the Net Zero Teesside of it was about 50 megawatts to sort of power the pump pipeline.
But there’s also issues about whether you need a constant sea of supply to the storage site. And there’s a lot of issues about developing that particular storage site actually off Net Zero Teesside, where they’re sort of saying it needs to have a constant supply at a certain rate. I think that’s when you start to hit problems, which have tried to overcome with the cluster model. But by trying to do that, they then really hit the greenhouse gas problem. So,
marc hudson 10:06
Sorry, when you said the greenhouse gas problem, you mean the volume?,
Andrew Boswell 10:10
Well, the greenhouse gas volume meaning that the emissions, which they can’t capture. Because all the methane emissions in the supply chain are uncatchable. And also the diesel from the shipping, if it’s LNG, and all the rest of it emissions from all that stuff is uncatchable. So it’s not carbon capture at all. There’s lots of emissions going out in the process which are not capturable at all.
marc hudson 10:36
I’m conscious of you wanting to have your meal and so forth. So two more questions. One is, if someone’s listening to this, if the transcript is suitably audible, or they’re reading it, and they think “I want to support Andrew Boswell’s work,” what do they do?
Andrew Boswell 10:54
Well, my work is sort of pro bono as such. I work basically pro bono, a sort of retired person with an interest. There have been times where when the case is coming up, we’ve needed to have financial support or something for the case, through crowd funders. So basically, it’s sort of “look out for things like that” at the moment. But to support my work more widely, in some non-financial way, I would say, just look out for what I’m doing. Because, you know, the campaign against CCS has really taken off.
At this moment, because I just finished a big legal case, I’m not quite sure what happens next. But we’re continuing the campaign to try to stop the government investing in all this.
And on the back of the [February 2025] Public Accounts Committee report, which is worth talking about because it’s highlighted several things. It highlighted that CCS is a very high-risk in trying to achieve net zero. The government it’s saying it’s harder to transition to net zero [without CCS]. The Public Accounts Committee have said that it’s very high risk in doing that. And they’re also saying it’s very high cost. We know the subsidies are now up to 60 billion pounds, the subsidies they’ve allocated to this
marc hudson 12:28
Sorry six billion or sixty billion?
Andrew Boswell 12:32
Sixty, Six zero, yeah, yeah. I can send you over a web page.
It’s all on one page, the DESNZ subsidies. And if you add up the ones which have got CCS in them, they’re already 60 billion, and you haven’t got blue hydrogen in there yet.
So it’s very costly. And the third point was they said, basically, the science isn’t fully determined yet, and there’s new science on the methane and so on. And the government need to take note of that. So we’re sort of coming in on the back of that, whether you know, in the budget or whatever the CCS could be cut in the budget.
marc hudson 13:14
In the seventh carbon budget?
Andrew Boswell 13:16
No, the national Treasury budget – so Rachel Reeve’s spending review in June, and her statement on March 26th leading up to it. There’s talk that she may cut CCS. The talk is that she may put it into the defence budget. I personally think it should be redirected to insulation and genuine green energy, because climate change is our biggest security risk.
And that’s not to underrate what’s happening. We’re going through a sort of process of the whole world order is changing. America is switching sides, and all the rest of it. And I understand we, you know, we have to consider our defence very seriously as well. But I don’t think we should just simply take green budgets and cut them. But where they’re bad, green budgets going for CCS – which isn’t going to help all the reasons in the Public Accounts Committee – we should redirect them to the stuff which will help insulation and genuinely green energy… So renewables and storage solutions…
marc hudson 14:25
Large scale batteries, etc, etc. Final question, anything else you’d like to say? Anything you thought, “Oh, he’s going to ask me this, and here’s my answer,”
Andrew Boswell 14:33
No, I think that’s that’s probably really good. Thank you.
