Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Activism Denial

June 5, 2006 – IPA sets up astroturf outfit

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 5th, the “think” tank the IPA set up a spoiler outfit, called the Australian Environment Foundation (geddit?)

2005 Australian Environment Foundation set up by IPA (see Fyfe on 8th)

 Australia’s newest environment group is ruffling feathers – but not where you would expect.

The green movement is decidedly downbeat about the weekend launch of the Australian Environment Foundation, a group whose registered place of business is the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank.

Indeed, lawyers for the Australian Conservation Foundation, the nation’s leading green group, have requested the new body stop using the title of Australian Environment Foundation as it is “deceptively similar” to its own. The public could be easily confused, executive director Don Henry said.

The group’s chairwoman is Jennifer Marohasy, director of the IPA’s environment unit. Other listed directors include mining and timber industry lobbyists and a dairy farmer. The group says it has 150 members.

Fyfe, M. 2005. Cool reception for new green group. The Age, 8 June.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Cool-reception-for-new-green-group/2005/06/07/1118123837470.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the IPA had been pushing hard against environmentalist activity for decades. It had published its first “greenhouse hoax/scare” articles in 1989, and been a key player in the denial campaigns.

The specific context was that by 2006, with increased activity in the UK, the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, private members’ bills by ALP figures (including Anthony Albanese), it was a fair bet that some sort of astroturf outfit/offshoot was going to be a good investment. The IPA was also teaming up with various American outfits to try and delegitimise NGOs, which makes its setting up of a fake one all the more entertaining.

What I think we can learn from this is that the job of the IPA and other junktanks like it is to defend the capital accumulation activities of the already rich, and they are relatively competent at that. Or at least keen.

What happened next  The AEF staggers on, not that anyone gives it any attention.

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

June 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 5, 2001 – NSW Premier Bob Carr promises a climate advertising blitz

Twenty four years ago, on this day, June 5th, 2001, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr (ALP) promises an advertising blitz

The Carr Government has promised a $17.5million advertising campaign on environmental education, provoking conservationists to demand that the Premier should lead with actions – not words.

The campaign, to run over 3 1/2 years, began on television last night, featuring the theme song It’s a Living Thing, sung by Christine Anu.

The launch follows Labor criticism of Federal Coalition advertising campaigns, most recently attacks on the $6 million Agriculture Advancing Australia campaign, a $3.6 million promotion of the Natural Heritage Trust, and a $3.9 million greenhouse campaign featuring Don Burke.

The NSW campaign will focus on electricity, water and paper.

2001 Woodford, J. 2001. Carr Promises $17.5m TV Blitz For Green Ads. Sydney Morning Herald, June 6, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australians had been warned about “the greenhouse effect” very effectively between 1988 and 1991.  And had then, largely, chosen to forget/ignore the issue.  From 1996 the Federal Government was overtly hostile to all actual climate action, and the states were beginning to pick up some of the slack.

The specific context was that Bob Carr had been switched on to the climate issue in 1971, thanks to a visit by biologist Paul Ehrlich.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can have all the publicity you like, but if you don’t have sustained and sustaining social movement organisations, all the knowledge and concern will just leak away, like tears in the rain.

What happened next – it would be another five years – late 2006 – before Australian civil society would begin to say it cared about 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

June 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

June 5, 2000 – Liberals pushback against Kyoto, a UN conspiracy…

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 5th, 2000, an, ah “interesting” MP wanted an investigation into the Kyoto Protocol

MP calls for treaty inquiry.  Andrew Thomson getting Treaties Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade to investigate Kyoto. 

and

“The crackpot conspiracy theories of the Lavoisier Group have been transformed into government policy, albeit in modified form (see Green Left Weekly, October 11). The Lavoisier Group’s ranting about the risk of invasion by Kyoto eco-fascists is echoed in comments from the Liberal MP and treaties committee chairperson, Andrew Thomson. During public hearings of the committee last year, Thomson wondered aloud whether Australia would find itself at the mercy of international greenhouse inspection committees dominated by “hostile” developing countries. Speaking on ABC radio on September 28, Thomson questioned the “strange notion of inspections like having Richard Butler go into Iraq”.

Corporate greed behind US dumping of greenhouse treaty | Green Left

See also

The economic impact of the Kyoto Protocol, the UN treaty limiting developed countries’ emission of greenhouse gases, should be further investigated by Federal Parliament, says the chairman of a key committee.

“We’re going to hear a long list of witnesses talking about how dangerous the protocol can be,” said Liberal MP Mr Andrew Thomson, chairman of the Treaties Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Hordern, N. 2000. MP calls for treaty inquiry. The Australian Financial Review, 5 June, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that until 1991 Australia had been a semi-enthusiastic supporter of the basic idea that rich countries would have to cut their emissions first, with poor countries having space to grow. It had even, reluctantly, agreed to the Berlin Mandate in 1995, which had led to the Kyoto Protocol.  But under Keating, and especially Howard, the position hardened and in 1997 Howard had launched a ferocious campaign to try to get Australia special treatment. This had been a success – Australia got an emissions “reduction” target that was an increase.

The specific context was that a 1998 Cabinet leak LINK   had shown that Howard intended only to ratify the Kyoto Protocol if the US did. At this point the US had not pulled out (that would come months later, when President Cheney stuck his hand up the Bush meat-puppet’s ass and had him say some words.)  So, the “right wingers” (it’s all relative) in Howard’s party were muttering about Kyoto, since climate change was a hoax and the whole thing was clearly some global control scam.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can be a Senator and be thick as mince. I know – who knew?

What happened next  Bush pulled out of Kyoto in March 2001, Howard followed in June 2002. Thompson had a little local difficulty. “Thomson retired from the seat of Wentworth in 2001 after losing preselection to Peter King. “ And the emissions kept climbing.

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.

References

Canberra covers for Bush on greenhouse | Green Left

Also on this day: 

June 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Swtizerland

June 5, 1967 –  Working Group on Atmospheric Pollution and Atmospheric Chemistry

Fifty eight years ago, on this day, June 5th, 1967, some scientists met in Geneva. I know, fascinating eh…

REPORT OF MEETING – METEOROLOGICAL ASPECTS OF ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION AND ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY

(Received 23 January 1968)

IN THE week of 5 June 1967 the Working Group on Atmospheric Pollution and Atmospheric Chemistry, established by the Commission for Atmospheric Sciences (formerly Commission for Aerology) of the World Meteorological Organization met for the first time in Geneva.

The following persons act as members of the W.G.:

F. H. Schmidt (Chairman), Netherlands

E. Eriksson, Sweden

A. G. Forsdyke, England

R. E. Munn, Canada

Mrs. E. S. Selezneva, U.S.S.R.

Atmospheric Environment, Pergamon Press 1968. Vol. 2, pp. 423-426.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the early 1950s questions around atmospheric pollution – first sulphur dioxide, but then latterly carbon dioxide and others – worked their way through the science-policy system.

The specific context was that the President’s Scientific Advisory Council had released a report in late 1965 that did more than name-check carbon dioxide.  Shell and others were beginning to pay attention… 

What I think we can learn from this is that the wheels of the WMO and WHO and so on grind slow, but grind they do. (Given time, I’d like to trace this process more.)

What happened next – by the late 1960s, word was getting through, thanks not so much to these sorts of meetings (that was not their purpose!) but thanks to various popularisers, e.g. Peter Ritchie-Calder.

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 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

June 5, 1963  – JFK says yes to SST

62 years ago, on this day, June 5th, 1963, the administration of US President John F Kennedy,

“ announced a large-scale cooperative program between industry and government to build a commercial passenger aircraft that would travel faster than the speed of sound…. Over the course of the 1960s, however, Kennedy-era military-industrial aerospace projects fell out of favor with an increasingly skeptical public, and support for the SST waned.”

(Howe, 2014:45)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2025 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the Cold War had almost gotten rather hot in October the previous year, and the generals wanted as many toys as they could get their hands on.

The specific context was the dreams of limitless power were still so very powerful – it would take defeat in Vietnam and a lot of “impact science” (not yet named so) for that to change – and really, it still hasn’t (Mars colonies, anyone?).

What I think we can learn from this is that while Kennedy was at the same time doing a certain amount of hand-wringing about “Conservation” things like SST, a Boeing dream in part, had a lot of weight. Politicians and their testeria eh?

What happened next  The SST – with its sonic boom and ozone implications became a VERY hot potato.  Eventually Congress imposed a moratorium (this was after Boeing had realised their blueprints were non-starters, and Concorde was having test flights). The Congress moratorium so enraged right-wingers that the Heritage Foundation (Project 2025 guys) got set up…

xxx

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 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 5, 1994 – that referendum idea is back again…

Thirty one  years ago, on this day, June 5th, 1994, the referendum idea that has been around since early 1989 is still being mooted…

Any national referendum to decide the republican issue should also include a proposal to give the Federal Government increased powers and responsibility to protect the environment, Democrat Leader Senator Cheryl Kernot said yesterday.

“The debate on constitutional reform must be broadened to include concerns about the environment,” Senator Kernot said, marking World Environment Day.

Senator Kernot said the Democrats supported a proposal by a former executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Phillip Toyne, which would confer on the Commonwealth the power to make laws about:

• Land, air and water conservation affecting more than one state or territory.

• Nuclear energy and ionising radiation.

• Protection of areas of national and international significance.

• Protection of flora and fauna from extinction.

• Regulation of genetically or biologically manipulated life forms.

A spokesman for Senator Kernot said later there was no present consideration for such a referendum to be held in tandem with the next federal election, but it should happen and “the sooner and the better.”

Grose, S. 1994. Ecology should go to vote: Kernot. Canberra Times, 6 June p 2.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/118168960

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2025 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the heady days of 1988-9 were long gone. It was in early 1989 that the ALP’s Federal Environment Minister, Graham Richardson, had mooted the referendum at a fundraising dinner in Adelaide (LINK).  Since then the business pushback had been very determined and pretty successful.

The specific context was that Environment Minister John Faulkner was making noises about a carbon tax, because he knew Australia had to have SOMETHING to take to COP1 in Berlin if it wasn’t to get hammered in the negotiations. Meanwhile, the moves for a referendum on dumping the monarchy was on its way…

What I think we can learn from this is that ideas persist for a certain period, but there is only so many times they can be pulled out of Cohen’s “garbage can” and dusted off…

What happened next – there was no eco-referendum. The Republic referendum was held, and failed.

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 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Science United Kingdom

June 4, 1984 – John Houghton of the Met Office wants research

On this day June 4, 1984, 41 years ago, the new boss of the Met Office, John Houghton, wanted to get cracking on the climate issue,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 345ppm.  As of 2025, 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.

Here’s a photo of Houghton in 1985

Source – the Guardian’s obituary

The broader context for this was that the previous Met Office boss, John Mason, was pretty opposed to the idea that carbon dioxide was a problem (that is not to say he actively blocked the excellent scientists working on the issue at the Met Office). Houghton had very different views, thank goodness.

The specific context was by late 1983 various reports and meetings had taken place. It was clear carbon dioxide was going to be a serious topic of research and – sooner or later – policy attention.

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – we are smart enough to cause problems for ourselves, and smart enough to see the underlying causes. But actually fixing them? Harder…

As “active” citizens – see above.

Academics might want to ponder – their role in continuing the mystification, either by studying the wrong things, or “communicating” to the wrong people, or to the right people in terrible ways.

What happened next: Houghton kept going, as did his Met Office colleagues. Houghton had to retire as Met Office boss in 1990, and then became first head of Working Group 1 of the IPCC.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Heaps of stuff about the Met Office etc

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

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: 

June 4, 1979 – Daily Mail reports on climate change without losing its mind – All Our Yesterdays

June 4 , 1989, 1992, 1996 – from frantic concern to contempt for everyone’s future…

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

Categories
Australia

 June 4, 2001 – Australians ‘get’ climate change (??)

On this day June 4, 2001, 24 years ago –  bureaucrat for the “Australian Greenhouse Office” (unlamented, frankly) told senators what public opinion appeared to be….

In the next fortnight just as Parliament has risen for winter a $23 million climate change campaign will be broadcast, mailed, and plastered in newspapers. It’s not the first. In May 2001, the viewing public enjoyed a six-week ”burst” of ads on the greenhouse effect featuring gardening guru Don Burke. It cost almost $5 million. On June 4, 2001, in the hush of Senate committee room 3, floor 2, in Parliament House, Canberra, a Greenhouse Office bureaucrat revealed, ”In a six-week period, we had 425 60-second advertisements, 375 30-second advertisements, 660 15-second advertisements and a further dozen advertisements, and my figures seem to have some problem qualifying whether those were 60 or 30 seconds.” The same officer revealed that post-campaign research of 1000 respondents showed that 88 per cent of respondents considered the greenhouse effect to be a real problem and only 9 per cent considered it a myth.

Campbell, C. 2007. Back to the future with ad blitz. Canberra Times. 25 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm.  As of 2025, 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 for this was Australians had – thanks to the efforts of the “Greenhouse Project” – a combined effort of the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO Atmospheric Physics folks, been very well informed about climate change (at that time known as “the Greenhouse Effect”) in 1987-89.  There was an effort to continue this work (Greenhouse Action Australia), but it ran into the sand.  

The specific context was John Howard was trying to give the APPEARANCE of taking action, while avoiding any real commitment. By the time the bureaucrat spoke, President Bush had pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, and it was obvious that Howard would do the same, sooner or later (he finally did on World Environment Day, June 5, 2002).

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings –  we can all agree that x is a problem. And it is caused by THEM over THERE.

As “active citizens” – public opinion/attention/concern rises and falls. It means very little unless it is harnessed, nurtured etc. But that’s hard – much harder than organising a march…

Academics might want to ponder… how they might communicate these cycles….

What happened next: Howard went on to win two more elections. Australians voted for climate action in 2007 and Kevin Rudd ratfucked everyone. The emissions kept climbing. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xxx 

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

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: 

June 4, 1979 – Daily Mail reports on climate change without losing its mind – All Our Yesterdays

June 4 , 1989, 1992, 1996 – from frantic concern to contempt for everyone’s future…

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

Categories
Australia Business Responses Carbon Pricing

June 3, 1996 – Business Council of Australia versus even the idea of a carbon tax

On this day June 3, 1996, 29 years ago, the peak business body in the settler colony known as Australia wanted to nail yet another nail in the coffin of the carbon tax proposal that had been defeated in February 1995.

THE Business Council of Australia has asked the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics to update research conducted last year on the regional impact…

Strickland, K. 1996  Call for revision of carbon tax’s impact. The Australian, June 3, p.031

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm.  As of 2025, 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 for this was that business was busy winning all the big policy battles, but still feared that climate action might impact their profits. Internationally, the Berlin COP had ended with a “Berlin Mandate” meaning rich nations (including Australia) were going to be expected to present plans for carbon dioxide reductions by the third COP.

The specific context was the new Liberal National Party government of John Howard was even more business-friendly and climate-action-blocking than that of the ALP’s Paul Keating. But you never know, issues can come back – especially with COP2 about to take place in Geneva – and the Business Council is here just laying down some suppressing fire.

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – business interests do not care about the actual future.

As “active citizens – business interests know how to keep governments on a leash, and they rarely get sloppy/complacent.

Academics might want to ponder – their role as handmaidens to this system.

What happened next: Howard came out swinging hard against both international and national commitments. He did not get punished by the Great Australian Electorate for these acts of bastardy until 2007.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Stuff on ABARE

Stuff on John Howard

(use the search function!)

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

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: 

June 3, 1970 – US Senator suggests World Ecology Unit – All Our Yesterdays

June 3, 1989 – Liberal Party to outflank Labor on #climate?!

June 3, 1994 – Greenpeace warns of climate time bomb

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published

Categories
Activism Australia Interviews

Parents for Climate: What they do, what they are looking for.

Parents for Climate, an Australian group, kindly answered some questions!

1. What is the “origin story” of Parents for Climate – when did you begin, why?
Parents for Climate began in 2019, sparked by a simple but powerful idea: parents are a force like no other when it comes to protecting the future. A group of six rural and regional mums got together online—frustrated by government inaction and alarmed by worsening climate impacts—to create a home for parent-led climate action. Our tiny organisation wants to empower everyday families to take meaningful steps, speak up, and shift the story about who climate action is for.

2. (How) has the work of Parents for Climate shifted since it began – for what reasons?
We’ve grown from a grassroots network into a national movement that’s deeply strategic. At first, we were a small mostly-online community focused on awareness raising and community-building—now, we’re focused on influencing decision-makers and policy, supporting local leadership, and amplifying the voices of parents in public debate. That shift reflects the urgency of the climate crisis, the growing political relevance of parents, and what we’ve learned about where we can make the most impact.

3. What are the things you’ve done that you’re proudest of?

We’re proud to have helped shape public policy—like federal investments in clean energy storage and better school infrastructure. We’ve mobilized thousands of parents in electorates across the country, built powerful coalitions, and held Australia’s biggest energy companies to account for greenwashing. But just as importantly, we’ve helped countless parents move from climate anxiety to climate agency—finding purpose, connection, and hope together.

4. What, besides more money and time, is the main constraint on you being able to do more things (skills gaps, access to other resources etc) and what help are you looking for?

Like many grassroots groups, we’re stretched. We could do more with support in digital campaigning, media and design, and easy to use tools that help us scale. We’d also love more support building bridges into multicultural communities and regional networks. We’re looking for people who want to offer skills, networks, or mentoring—or who can help unlock funding or strategic partnerships.

5. What resources need to be available to concerned parents for when they talk to their kids – of different ages – about what the future holds?
Parents need age-appropriate, emotionally intelligent tools that are honest but hopeful. That might be a storybook about nature and courage for young kids, a school project toolkit for tweens, or conversation guides for teens that acknowledge fear but focus on action. Most of all, parents need to feel they’re not alone—and that there’s a community of people out there who are acting for their kids too.

6. Anything else you want to say – shout outs about upcoming events, other groups etc.
We’ve just wrapped our biggest ever campaign, Vote Like a Parent. We just forced energy giant EnergyAustralia to admit to the truth behind its marketing claims  through legal action. And we’re gearing up for new work focused on clean energy and protecting kids from the impacts of extreme heat and air pollution. A huge shout out to the parent volunteers around the country making this movement what it is. If you’re reading this and want to be part of it—come join us at parentsforclimate.org!