Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

March 22, 2007 – Fairfax tells its staff to Be Green, for an hour.

Eighteen years ago, on this day, March 22nd, 2007, Fairfax Media tells its employees to virtue-signal

From: Staff Notices To: All_Fairfax_Staff

Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2007 9:06 AM

Subject: EARTH HOUR – A MESSAGE TO ALL STAFF

When the lights of Sydney are turned off for one hour at 7:30pm on Saturday, March 31, we should take a moment to reflect, with pride, on the role Fairfax Media has played in Earth Hour.

For the past eight months, the Earth Hour working group has been meeting every Tuesday on Level 19 at Darling Park to plan this bold event.

Every strand of our business – management, editorial, online, commercial, marketing and production – has been involved in the planning process.

(From Ray Evans, 27 April 2007 rant…)

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 approximately six months previously, climate change had burst back into Australian public consciousness, via the Millennium Drought, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, things like the Stern Review and perhaps even the UK Camp for Climate Action. 

Kevin Rudd as first ALP shadow foreign secretary and then leader had by this time, already called climate change “the great moral challenge of our generation” (he was using the issue as a stick with which to beat the incumbent Prime Minister, John Howard). And everyone wants to feel they’re doing their bit without being at all really inconvenienced, or to turn that “inconvenience” into a display of virtue. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there might be a so-called Earth Hour, but the other 23 days of that day, and all the other days of the year where there isn’t an Earth Hour is what – Anti Earth Hour? or Kill the Earth Hour? Go figure. 

What happened next

Some people switched some lights off. And patted themselves heartily on the back. We’ll come back to this on the day itself, March 31.

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: 

March 22, 1960 – US Television warning of carbon dioxide build up, courtesy Athelstan Spilhaus…

March 22, 2007 – Unions talk good game on climate

March 22, 2012 – flash mobs and repertoire exhaustion

Categories
Australia

March 20, 2014 – Australian Senate votes against killing off ARENA, CEFC etc 

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.

Carbon tax repeal voted down by Senate | Australia news | The Guardian

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.

Also on this day: 

March 20, 1967 – Solar Energy advocate warns of carbon dioxide build-up

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

March 20, 2014 – industry groups monster reef defenders

Categories
Australia

March 19, 1970 – first warning in Australian parliament about carbon dioxide build-up

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.

March 18, 1958 – Military man spots carbon dioxide problem

March 18, 1968 – Bobby Kennedy vs Gross National Product

 March 18, 1971 – “Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn”

March 18, 2010 – “Solar” by Ian McEwan released.

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

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.

Also on this day: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Coal

March 13, 2007 – ACTU talks up “clean coal”

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.

Also on this day: 

March 13, 1989  – UK Energy Department shits all over everyone’s future by dissing Toronto Target

March 13, 1992 – Australian climate advocates try to get government to see sense… (fail, obvs).

March 13, 2001 – Bush breaks election promise to regulate C02 emissions…

March 13, 2010 – first UNEP Emissions Gap report

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

March 11, 2008 – Australia’s ratification of Kyoto Protocol comes into effect

Seventeen years ago, on this day, March 11th, 2008,

Australia’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol comes into effect:

ALSO – 

 The Government issues the Initial Report under the Kyoto Protocol detailing how Australia aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the question of emissions reductions for countries, especially for rich ones, had been the absolute core of the early international climate negotiations from 1988 onwards. Poor countries said, “Well, if there’s going to be a limit on who can emit what, we need to emit more so that we can bring our people up to a decent standard of living that you already have in the West. Therefore rich countries have to go first,“ And this was reluctantly, sort of accepted by rich countries. But targets and timetables had been kiboshed by the George HW Bush administration (1989-1993), Then by the time of the first COP in Berlin (1995), positions had hardened. But nonetheless, there was a Berlin Mandate for negotiations to happen among and for rich countries to come to the third COP with a plan for emissions reductions. 

Australia, led by John Howard,  had squealed and wailed and stamped its feet, and through that and sheer exhaustion, carved out an exceptionally generous deal at Kyoto, their “reduction” target was actually 108% and that’s before you even counted the Australia cause clause, the land clearing clause, which meant that ultimately, Australia’s target for “reduction”  was 130% emissions  higher than they had been

Still this wasn’t enough. So you had the Kabuki theater all through the 2000s about Kyoto ratification. And this is a some sort of indicator of virtue. 

This is all very well covered in an academic article called The Veil of Kyoto. 

See also Stephen Gardiner 2004.

See also Rayner and Prins 2008 “The Wrong Trousers”

So Labor’s Kevin Rudd had used Kyoto ratification as a stick to beat John Howard with. And it worked. And Rudd’s first action as prime minister was to ratify Kyoto. And here we are, three months later, utterly meaningless, but in the context of the road to Copenhagen, it showed Australian alleged willingness to be less of an asshole, Rudd had got a big standing ovation when he attended the Bali COP in 2007. 

What I think we can learn from this

There are these sorts of synecdoche where signing this bit of paper, making this pledge, whatever is taken as an indicator, like a brown M&M, of seriousness.

What happened next

Rudd comprehensively flubbed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and gave away more and more to the fossil fuel interests, hoping that they would eventually be happy. Eventually it was so weak that the Greens, who Rudd had been ignoring, couldn’t stomach it.

Thanks to Julia Gillard’s minority government, Australia then did eventually get some really weak carbon pricing which maybe had some influence on emissions (or maybe it was Tasmanian hydroelectric power entering the grid. )

Anyhoo, here we are with the emissions climbing and the impacts hitting us. But hey, Australia ratified the Kyoto Protocol…

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

March 11, 1959 – Warmer Arctic Raising World’s Sea Level…

March 11, 1969 – NASA explains need to monitor C02 build-up to politicians

March 11, 1989 – warm words at The Hague, where the climate criminals should be sent…

Categories
Australia

March 9, 1998 – First head of Australian Greenhouse Office announced – (Or “Infamous long AGO”) 

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, March 9th, 1998,

Gwen Andrews was appointed as Chief Executive Officer of AGO (Taplin and Yu, 2000: 104) 

She never briefed Prime Minister John Howard!

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard had spent 1997 doing everything with his power to carve out the absolute sweetest deal possible for Australia at the Kyoto conference; up to and including the threat of not even signing. He had sent emissaries to other nations trying to build a coalition for Australia’s special position, without much success, it must be said. And he had also had to make some vague promises ahead of the Kyoto conference. So in October of ‘97 he had really released a stupid statement “Safeguarding Australia’s Future,” and had promised the creation of something called the Australian Greenhouse Office. Ooh, sounds like you’re taking action, doesn’t it, but no. So on this day, the AGO got its first director. 

What I think we can learn from this is that solid, important sounding initiatives can be paper-thin Potemkin outfits. And so it came to pass. 

What happened next

Gwen Andrews never gave Howard a briefing, I’m sure she was diligent and keen. Howard couldn’t have been less interested in engaging with the science, politics, economics of climate change. The AGO was there as a fig leaf alongside things like the Greenhouse Challenge. 

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: 

 March 9, 2005- Albanese says “ecological decline is accelerating and many of the world’s ecosystems are reaching dangerous thresholds.” #auspol

March 9, 2009 – Scientist tries to separate fact from denialist fiction

March 9, 2009 – Carbon price being weakened by lobbying…

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

March 8, 1978 – Minister for Science speaks proudly of Australia’s carbon dioxide monitoring…

Forty seven years ago, on this day, March 8th, 1978,

Senator WEBSTER (VICTORIA) (Minister for Science) – The baseline air pollution station at Cape Grim in Tasmania is viewed by the Government as being a particularly important installation. I have visited the base on one or two occasions and noted when I was there recently that there have been some results from the monitoring that has taken place. The honourable senator will know that monitoring has been in progress at Cape Grim since 1976 only. The tests which are currently being carried out there are particularly important so far as environmental conditions are concerned. Indeed, they might have much wider implications than just the effect of the environment. For instance, the surface ozone levels are being tested, as are the carbon dioxide levels, concentrations of carbon tetrachloride and fluoro carbons- that is, Freon-ll, which is discussed regularly as being an important constituent to monitor. 

The period of measurement has been very short and I understand that no firm conclusion can be drawn on any trends which might be occurring within these programs. The results which have been obtained at Cape Grim to date suggest that carbon dioxide and Freon-ll are increasing as constituents in the atmosphere coming to Cape Grim. That is fairly important. Further data is required before it can be established whether these increased concentrations are part of a cyclical variation over a longer period or whether they are in actual fact indicative of a very definite trend in the atmosphere. That is the reason for the establishment of this baseline air pollution station, which is one of a group of stations placed around the world to monitor the atmosphere and to attempt to establish a baseline. 

The Government intends in the future to establish the station permanently. Its management is under the control of the Department of Science, with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation playing an important role. We have put additional facilities and equipment down there within the last year. It is my wish that in the near future we shall see some move towards the establishment of a permanent station there. 

8 March 1978 – Wednesday, 8 March 1978

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22hansard80%2Fhansards80%2F1978-03-08%2F0054%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a few months earlier, the National Academy of Science in the US had released a report on energy and climate, and this had made front page news in the Canberra Times on sea level rise, etc. 

Cape Grim as a measuring facility had been open for a couple of years. The CSIRO had an interest in CO2 build up, and was involved in some of the early work, especially Barrie Pittock and Graham Pearman ,and some politicians were aware of what was going on.  

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been able to measure our doom for a long time, watching it unfold. The ultimate “press” disturbance. 

What happened next

CO2, build-up kept bubbling under, bubbling through, an issue finally, finally broke through into public awareness in 1988. 

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: 

March 8 – International Women’s Day – what is feminist archival practice? 

March 8, 1999 – Direct Air Capture of C02 mooted for the first time

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

March 7, 1991 – Australian Labor Party bragging about its green credentials…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, March 7th, 1991, Senator Graham Richardson was claiming

‘Australia’s commitment was “the most progressive policy, I might say, of any nation in combating the threat of greenhouse climate change.’”

Senate Hansard 1439 (source)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Graham Richardson had been the Federal Environment Minister between ‘87  and ‘90 and had pushed through various useful bits of legislation and tried to push others. But after the March 1990 election, he had expected to get and was promised, according to him – Defense, and then was given it, and then it was taken away. Hawke hadn’t done his numbers correctly, and Richardson was pissed and was secretly working for Keating, who, by this time, was glowering on the back benches. I don’t know the specifics of why Richardson was boasting about this, but presumably someone will have made a jibe about Labor’s position. 

What I think we can learn from this

Labor was still boasting its environmental credentials. This would change under Keating, who was kind of a proto camera, and got rid of all the green crap and stop talking about amorphous issues. 

What happened next

Richardson became Environment Minister again, very briefly in 1994, before being replaced by John Faulkner. Richardson then lurched further and further to the right, though he’d always been on the right of the Labor Party. 

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: 

March 7, 1988 – “We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate” 

 March 7, 1996 – Australia hauled over coals for its definition of “equity” #auspol

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy

March 7, 2012 – George Christensen and his culture war hijinks.

Categories
Australia Denial

February 28, 2007 – Australian denialists release idiotic regurgitated pamphlet, as part of attempted spoiler operation

Eighteen years ago, on this day, February 28th, 2007,

2007 Nine Facts about Climate Change Ray Evans [Originally published in November 2006 as a PDF (click here, 1.5 Mb). Launched in Canberra by Sir Arvi Parbo on 28 February 2007]

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans2007-4.php

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 Lavoisier Group had been banging on since 2000 to the partial embarrassment of would-be allies. Now that climate was so steadily back on the agenda, the old war horses like Ray Evans were saddling up for another battle, possibly one last battle. 

And the date, of course, is to coincide with a Labor Party summit in Parliament House where Kevin Rudd would talk about “the great moral challenge of our generation.”

What’s interesting about this one is that senior business figure Avi Parbo, by this time fairly ancient and a major figure in 15 years earlier in seducing Hawke’s Labor Party was lending his name to this tosh. RDS?

What I think we can learn from this is that for every action, there is an equal and spittle-flecked reaction, maybe not equal, but there’ll be one, because denialists want to provide sympathetic journalists with an opportunity to do a “yes, but” story.

What happened next

Evans kept pushing his nonsense faded and died in I think about 2014. But denialism did not die, and never will.

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: 

February 28, 1984 – Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect hearings

Feb 28, 2003- Australian business lobby switches from opposition to “no position” on Kyoto ratification #auspol

February 28, 2010 – Australian Prime Minister says won’t walk away from climate. (Then does, obvs.)