Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 15, 2010 – BHP says carbon tax is essential

Sixteen years ago, on this day, September 15th, 2010, 

THE world’s biggest mining company, BHP Billiton, is urging the Gillard government to impose a tax on carbon before any international agreement.

This is in order to protect Australia’s long-term economic interests. BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers has also warned the government not to try to change the terms of the pre-election mining tax deal negotiated with the big three miners.

In a major address yesterday, Mr Kloppers made it clear the mining industry did not intend to be passive in the face of the political uncertainty created by minority government.

BP bod Marius Kloppers speech to Australian Business Chamber of Commerce http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2010/9/16/cleantech/their-words-marius-kloppers

Hewett, J. 2010. BHP boss Marius Kloppers: It’s time for carbon tax. The Australian, September 16

SEE FOR POLITICAL ANALYSIS OF THIS – (Effendi and Courvisanos, 2012: 251)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. 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 BP had been looking at the greenhouse effect in the late 1980s as a way of flogging more uranium. It had also been mildly perturbed by the resources tax proposal of former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and here we see them stirring the pot, talking about a carbon tax, global carbon tax, which is one of those delay techniques, because you know it will never happen. 

The specific context was that Julia Gillard had become Prime Minister. There was an election campaign happening. 

What I think we can learn from this is that incumbents like BHP, who’d also been involved in the so-called Greenhouse Challenge bullshit, are pretty astute when they want to be and can claim brownie points for advocating things that they know aren’t going to happen.

What happened next Gillard did not win the next election, but she was able to form a minority government, the price of which, though, was that she introduced carbon pricing, leading to real hilarity (ymmv).

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 15, 1830 – Manchester-Liverpool railway opened

September 15, 1948 – Biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentions carbon dioxide build-up at an AAAS symposium.

September 15, 1980 – Australian scientists hold “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” symposium in Canberra

September 15, 1982/1990 – “Environmental Justice” is born. And so is Captain Planet…

September 15,1990 – Captain Planet launches

September 15, 1996 – A CCS posterchild is born: Sleipner Field comes online.

September 15, 2005 – “A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Refugees launched by FOE Australia”

September 15, 2008- business splits over what to extort from Rudd…

Categories
Film Reviews

Film Review: “Pressure” – what we can learn from D-Day…

Dr Aaron Thierry reviews Pressure.

Anthony Maras’s Pressure, adapted from David Haig’s stage play, turns the weather forecast before D-Day into a story about how leaders handle risk, and it works as a pointed allegory for the climate crisis. On the surface the film follows the race to predict conditions over the Channel in June 1944. Underneath, the friction between British meteorologist James Stagg (Andrew Scott) and American forecaster Irving Krick (Chris Messina), with General Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser) caught between them, plays out the same fight we are having now over evidence and political will. The film all but says so. In one scene Stagg lays out why weather shapes everything people do, and it is hard to hear that in 2026 without thinking past 1944.

Stagg carries the weight of the film. Faced with unstable North Atlantic systems, he refuses to lean on historical averages and insists on tracking the raw, shifting facts. That makes him an  unwelcome presence in the command room, and the pressure on him to soften his forecast never lets up. The parallel with climate scientists working under public scrutiny is obvious. Stagg’s duty is to the weather as it actually is, whatever the generals want to hear, and his refusal to bend is the film’s clearest statement of what scientific integrity costs. The moment he tells the room that facts are facts is the film in miniature.

Krick is his opposite. He works from analogue charts, assuming that because past Junes were clear, this one will be too. His confidence is appealing because it tells authority exactly what it wants to hear, which is that the plan can go ahead as scheduled. The film sets Stagg’s method against Krick’s, and the difference is plain. Krick is choosing the years that suit him and calling it a forecast. The echo of modern climate denial is hard to miss. Using past stability as a guide to a system that has stopped behaving is a gamble, and Krick is gambling with hundreds of thousands of lives.

Eisenhower sits between them, and his handling of the decision is where the allegory bites hardest. He cannot delay. When he sets out what rides on the forecast, the scale of the decision lands, and so does the fact that nobody else can make it for him. He listens to the uncomfortable forecast, sets aside the convenient one, and makes an agonising call on the basis of what the data actually supports. The contrast with political leaders who defer climate action past the next election is unmistakable. Governing well means acting on a warning before the disaster arrives.

Pressure reaches past its wartime setting to make a case about the present. Stagg’s courage and Eisenhower’s accountability show what breaking the climate stalemate would require, and Krick shows how easy it is to choose the comforting story instead. The film’s message is plain. When the risk is systemic, picking illusion over evidence invites the disaster you were trying to avoid.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 14, 1994/1999 – Carbon tax shenanigans

Thirty two years ago, on this day, September 14th, 1994,

A carbon tax, which could have a significant impact on Australia’s resources sector, will be examined as part of the Federal Government’s business tax reforms.

While it is not one of the Ralph report recommendations, a paper has been prepared by Treasury that is expected to be used by the Government when it begins negotiations with the Australian Democrats on the business tax reform package.

In negotiations to secure approval for the Government’s landmark business tax reforms, the Democrats are expected to push for a more systematic approach to Australia’s commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions under the Kyoto targets. This might involve a tax on emissions or other measures, such as greenhouse credits for tree plantations.

Dodson, L. and Lewis, S. 1999. Government puts carbon tax on agenda. The Australian Financial Review, 14 September, p.1.

AND

Industry has reacted with horror to the prospect of a carbon tax being floated simultaneously with the release of the Federal Government’s business tax reform package.

WMC executive officer Mr Ray Evans described the Government’s decision to float a carbon tax proposal as “a unilateral act of self-mutilation”.

1999 Hordern, N. 1999. Industry greets plan for carbon tax with horror. The Australian Financial Review, 15 September, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359/368ppm. 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 … well, look,one of the obvious things you do when bad things are happening is you disincentivize them. You either make them illegal or you raise the economic /social price.

The idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide had been pushed by Barry Jones, the Science Minister, or at least mentioned by him in 1988/9 but the basic idea had gone back to 1965, if you look at the President’s Scientific Advisory Council report, Restoring the Quality of Our Natural Environment.

And the proposal for a carbon tax had been there in the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy papers, and it had been kiboshed, and it was now on the table in 1994 again as part of the budget discussions, and so that the Environment Minister John Faulkner would have something in his hand to go to the first COP in the way that Ros Kelly, the Environment Minister in 1990 needed something in her hand for the Second World Climate Conference. 

Five years later, the idea of an emissions carbon tax was dead. Long live an emissions trading scheme. 

What I think we can learn from this is that putting a price on carbon was a small but useful part of the policy solutions, it was not liked by the incumbents, and therefore it was attacked with ferocity and finesse. 

What happened next. An emissions trading scheme proposal was defeated in 2000 thanks to South Australian Senator Nick Minchin, and again in 2003 thanks to John Howard acting on his own. It was not until 2006/7 that an emissions trading scheme became “inevitable.” Kevin Rudd still managed to fuck it up as Prime Minister, and it was left to Julia Gillard to clean up the mess, but her scheme only lasted a couple of years before it was then abolished by Tony Abbott. 

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 14, 1991 – the Green Wave has receded….

September 14, 1993 – scientists suffer backlash (not outa thin air though)

September 14, 1994 – Business told to brace for climate regulation/tax (which it then handily defeats)

September 14, 2004 – Blair “shocked” by scientists warnings – “time is running out for tackling climate change”

Categories
Australia Coal

September 13, 1991 – Australians worry about coal exports…

Thirty five years ago, on this day, September 13th, 1991,

Export markets for Australian coal could start to disappear by the end of the decade because of advancing energy technology. Overseas research is concentrating on treatments to make coal burn more efficiently. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has made research into the field a priority to defend Australian markets.

Forman, D. 1991. CSIRO crusades for coal’s future. BRW, September 13

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. 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 negotiations for the climate treaty, which would become the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, were underway, and the Australians are beginning to realise that a strict treaty might actually have impacts on the amount of coal they can flog to developing nations. This is also the exact moment that it’s becoming clear that Bob Hawke will not be Prime Minister for much longer, and that Paul Keating, who hates environmentalism and environmentalists, will be grabbing the throne.

What I think we can learn from this is the old line, follow the money. It’s not much more complicated than that. It is somewhat more complicated, but not that much more. 

What happened next Australia became an opponent of climate action, and here we are completely fucked with emissions climbing, well plateauing at about 40 billion tonnes a year, concentrations climbing, and as the sinks fail, those concentrations will climb more quickly, regardless of emissions, unless emissions take a massive nosedive. No one’s explained to me how they think emissions are going to take a massive nose dive. 

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 13, 1661 – Fumifugium!

September 13, 1856 – the game’s a Foote

September 13, 1976 – US news broadcast on ozone and climate.

September 13, 1984 – unsettling Seattle workshop on sea level rise

September 13, 1992/1994- Scientists traduced, ignored

Categories
Activism

September 12, 2011 – Climate Defence Fund 

Fifteen years ago, on this day, September 12th, 2011, Climate Defence Fund inspired by blog

“On September 12, 2011, Scott Mandia posted a “Dear Colleagues” letter on his blog. It started, “Climate researchers are in need of immediate legal assistance to prevent their private correspondence from being exposed to Chris Horner and the American Tradition Institute who are using Freedom of Information (FOI) to harass researchers.” The outpouring of support was overwhelming. In less than 24 hours, Scott received $10,000 in small donations from scientists, students, and other concerned individuals. This went a long way toward helping solve immediate legal needs. Legal bills for scientists continued to mount, so it became apparent that a permanent organization was needed.” http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about-us/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. 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 opponents of climate action had been targeting individual scientists in what Michael Mann, one of the targets, called the “Serengeti Strategy” since the mid 1990s. The first prominent target was Ben Santer, though there were others. Targeting of individuals and of organisations continued, especially with the so-called “climategate” hacks.

And when there are attacks, there is defence, hopefully, and here we see the birth of the Climate Defence Fund.

What I think we can learn from this is that the war is never ending, and one side has the facts on its side, and the other side has money, access to media, etc. 

What happened next – the denialism, defunding and destruction have reached new highs (or lows) under Trump 2.

xxx

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 12, 1958 – Letter in The Times about … carbon dioxide build-up

September 12, 1994 – Greenpeace lays into Keating government over climate failure

 September 12, 2003 – Newcastle Herald thinks the future of coal looks ‘cleaner’…

September 12, 2023 – Gone with the wind

Categories
United States of America

September 11, 1912 – C.H. van Hise; “Earth is a Big Coal Stove”

One hundred and fourteen years ago, on this day, September 11th, 1912, an article based on a book by American geologist  Charles Richard Van Hise (May 29, 1857 – November 19, 1918) appears…

Lincoln Journal Star (Lincoln, Nebraska) · Wed, 11 Sept 1912 · Page 5

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 295ppm. 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 in 1895 Svante Arrhenius had given his lecture and written his article for the Philosophical Magazine. It had had some impact, but not necessarily that much. 

The specific context was that, well, see it acknowledged that C H. V. Van Hise had been writing about this and that it had appeared in geography textbooks without anyone raising an eyebrow.

What I think we can learn from this It was simple, straightforward 19th century physics. It wasn’t part of a culture war. It was just accepted. 

What happened next Van Hise died in 1918. In 1938 Guy Callendar gave the CO2 theory a big push, and in 1953 Gilbert Plass gave it an even biger one.

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 11, 1961 – New York Times reports “Air Found Gaining in Carbon Dioxide”

September 11, 1969 – George Brown proposes an omnibus environment bill

September 11, 1973 – CIA coup topples Chilean democracy

September 11, 1989 – Bill McKibben’s “The End of Nature” published

September 11, 2006 – Australian climate concern hits tipping point (maybe)

September 11, 2015 – Pacific Island leaders fail to shift Australia and New Zealand…

Categories
Australia United States of America

September 10, 2001 – Bush asks Howard “which side are you on, boy, which side are you on?”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 10th, 2001,

US President George “Dubya” Bush asks Australian Prime Minister John Howard “will you side with US or go with Europe on Kyoto”

Manne in ‘Liberals and Power: The Road Ahead’ (2008, P28). 

(says Guy Pearse was told by well-placed source)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. 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 in the late 1980s the Americans had decided to stake out a position on climate that was basically “fuck you” to the entire world except their bezzies, the petro-states of the Middle East. Australia had initially been alongside the middle powers advocating for more action, but then they took a look at the amount of money they were making from exporting coal and how climate goals would upset the domestic apple cart, and they said “yeah, nah.” The president from ‘88 to ‘92 was George H. W. Bush, who had won the ‘88 election fair and square (give or take a little light race-baiting), which is more than you can say about his son, President George W. Bush in 2000. 

The specific context was that Bush had already pulled out of the Kyoto protocol, and it was fairly clear that John Howard, Australian Prime Minister, was minded to do the same, but he had an election coming up and wasn’t going to make the announcement before that. Howard was on a trip to the United States, and this exchange happened according to one source at this time. 

What I think we can learn from this It’s not too late to get John Howard and George W. Bush to The Hague for crimes against humanity. 

What happened next Well, the next day was September 11th, 2001.

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 10, 1957 – The Times covers the International Geodesy Conference…

September 10, 1973- Ozone concerns on display in Kyoto…

September 10, 2007 – shiny #climate promises versus grim reality

September 10, 2008 – Greenpeace Kingsnorth protesters acquitted

September 10, 2015 – one of those “whither CCS?” articles

Categories
United Kingdom

September 9, 1971 – enthusiasm for modelling

Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 9th, 1971,

“Whereas Bray had been highly sceptical of the World model, [UK Chief Scientific Advisor Alan] Cottrell had been enthused by its demonstration. Returning to Britain, he proposed that the British government develop a similar model, stating his belief that ‘Forrester’s approach is the most important development of its kind since Keynes’ general theory’.(117)

Given the centrality of Keynesianism in post-war economic policy, this was a significant claim. Heath, as his early enthusiasm for management science had revealed, had some interest in forecasting and simulation, and gave his permission for a scoping study on the feasibility of a British world model. Cottrell held a meeting on the subject at the Cabinet Office in September 1971, in which he had told the assembled civil servants that developing a global model for British purposes would require £50,000 and four staff. In response, an unnamed civil servant argued that the Treasury had a more sophisticated econometric model that it used for forecasting. Despite this criticism, the general idea of a global environmental model was well received, and further work was proposed.118 

Thomas Turnbull, 2018 – Project MUSE – Histories of Technology, the Environment and Modern Britain

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. 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 it was obvious that there were significant environmental and economic challenges around not just energy provision, but well, everything.

The specific context was that the British state knew about the impending Limits to Growth report, and the chief scientist, Alan Cottrell, was interested. There had been a leak in the Observer already about the limits report, so this is in the context of mandarins and technocrats trying to figure out if these tools will be helpful to them. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the Limits to Growth report was influential before it was even published, and then derided as Malthus with a computer, because apparently human ingenuity will conquer all.

What happened next The chief scientific adviser after Cottrell, or the one after the one after Cottrell, was John Ashton, and he did raise the climate issue, but unfortunately the political leaders were simply not interested, and it waited until 1988 before the climate problem became an issue.

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 9, 1947 – The Daily Worker talks about melting the ice-caps

September 9, 1971 – Stephen Schneider’s letter, and a World Model

September 9, 1971 – of Australian Prime Ministers and American scientists…

September 9, 1990 – classic (?) film Mindwalk released

September 9, 1997 – “Global Climate Information Project”

Categories
Interviews

Mic Wright on his book “Breaking: How the Media Works, When it Doesn’t, and Why it Matters”

Mic Wright, who you should follow on Bluesky, answers some questions, mostly about his new book “Breaking: How the Media Works, When it Doesn’t, and Why it Matters.”

1. As per your Bluesky photo “Who the fuck is Mic Wright?” 

I’m a writer, journalist, and media critic. I was born in Norwich and now live there again but have spent time in Cambridge, London, Manchester, and Dublin. I started out in journalism on a trade magazine called Pensions World – the only place I could get a job that paid rather than a glamorous internship that didn’t – before going on to be on staff at the technology magazine Stuff and the music magazine Q. I’ve written for every national newspaper besides The Daily Mail and The Daily Sport at one time or another. Since 2020, I’ve been writing the media criticism newsletter, Conquest of the Useless (a title I shamelessly nicked from an excellent Werner Herzog book). I also write a monthly media column for Byline Times and regularly contribute to The New World. 

2. Why did you write the book? 

After years of writing the newsletter, it was apparent that lots of readers had questions about how the media works. I’d always wanted to write a book and this seemed like the topic I was destined to take on. There’s also a paucity of media criticism in the mainstream these days. There was a time in the 90s and 00s when newspapers themselves still had media critics on staff. There’s definitely a need to scrutinise what the industry gets up to but self-examination isn’t one of its strengths. There’s too much of a tendency for journalists to babble about ‘speaking truth to power’ when that’s very often far from what they do on a daily basis. A lot of the media is absolutely delighted by proximity to power. 

The actual writing of the book took about six months. It covers all aspects of how the media works from how you become a journalist to what the future of journalism looks like with stops along the way to find out who runs the show, how interviews work, why there’s such a problem with ethics, what happens if you become the story, and a lot of other things besides. It was a fun book to write and has been a hard one to promote. It turns out writing something that is critical of every national newspaper as well as most of the broadcasters puts a crimp in your marketing plan. 

3. Is the UK media particularly bad? 

Short answer: yes. Long answer: It’s particularly bad in print and online because we have a very toothless, industry-backed regulator, but it’s a little better in broadcast than in the US. That said, the idea that our tabloids are uniquely beastly is really the product of a weird kind of angolocentric ego. Go to Germany and you’ll find their red tops are equally as bad and have as grim a history. What great news then that the Daily Telegraph is now owned by Axel Springer, publisher of Bild, which is like The Sun and The Daily Mail whizzed up in a blender. 

4. What can be done to make things better? 

A more effective and independent press regulator would be a great thing but I don’t think we have the political will or bravery to see that happen any time soon. In the meantime, being willing as individuals to speak up when we encounter stories that are badly reported or simply false is important. We can change the minds of people around us. That’s definitely the case with things like climate stories. If we point out how framing often leans on things like pictures of people having a lovely time on the beach even while the country is practically boiling alive, others will start to notice it too. My 94 year old grandmother has started questioning what she sees from the Daily Mail a lot more since she read my book. We can always learn new tricks and get wise to the ones that are being deployed against us. 

5. What next? 

I don’t know. But I have a few ideas for another book. It depends on how this one does. 

6. Any shout outs? 

I highly recommend Barry Malone’s newsletter, Proximities, which collects three essential non-Western news stories every week day. It’s a really good corrective to how narrow our window of interest can be sometimes. 

Breaking: How the Media Works, When it Doesn’t, and Why it Matters is out now in paperback. It’s also 99p on Kindle for this month only. 

Categories
Australia

September 8, 1989 – Deputy PM John Kerin on environment and economics

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, September 8th, 1989,

John Kerin (Deputy PM, Industry) gives a speech to CEDA on environment and economics (he cites it in his Nov 1, 1989 speech) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 after almost two decades of warning about the greenhouse effect to Australian political elite, they were finally having to start talking about it very much in public.

In late 1988 and for the first few months of 1989, the opponents of action seemed quite flat footed, presumably simply waiting for it to burn itself out.

The specific context was And here we see Deputy Prime Minister John Kerin giving a speech on environment and economics, just as the penny is beginning to drop for the opponents of action that they’re gonna have to enter the fray that they can’t wait for this wave to die down.

What I think we can learn from this is that you should never take any event out of its context.

What happened next The Labor government decided to rat fuck environmentalism and environmentalists, and to side with the big end of town. By the mid 90s they were basically indistinguishable from the Liberals. The Liberals went off the deep end. Labor used the climate issue as a way to get back into power in 2007, then comprehensively fucked up the response, and has basically been running scared ever since, and under the thumb of big business, 

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 8, 1972 – Green activist vanishes off face of Earth…

September 8, 1990 – Australian #climate denialist spouting his nonsense…

September 8, 2000 – “Minchin’s Quiet Win”

September 8, 2014 – Lobster boat blockaders have charges dropped.