Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 20, 1995 – ACF says a carbon tax would be really helpful

Thirty years ago, on this day, January 20th, 1995, ACFto get the ALP to be less crap.

The Federal Government should increase its spending on the environment by $3.3 billion in the May Budget to repair damage to the nation’s land, water and air, the Australian Conservation Foundation said yesterday. Government spending on the environment was paltry, the foundation’s 1995 Budget submission said. About $820 million was spent nationally last year, which amounted to 0.2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. A carbon tax would fund about one third of the foundation’s proposed $3.3 billion spending increase on energy efficiency, public transport, clean industry production and sustainable agriculture. The tax levied at $2.20 a tonne of carbon dioxide among fossil fuel suppliers would raise $850 million, the submission said. Other revenue-raising measures included the elimination of some diesel rebates, an agricultural water-use levy, increases to personal income taxes and wealth and capital gains taxes. Industry and farming groups are opposed to a carbon tax.

Milburn, C. 1995. ACF Calls For $3.3b On Environment. The Age, 21 January, p.7. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was ACF put out it’s all singing, all dancing “gee it would be great if we get a carbon tax” submission ahead of a couple of round tables to be held two weeks later, (the green performance at the pro-round table was not good, and this  would spell the death for the carbon tax. 

What we learn is that good ideas can very easily get shot down, and usually do, Thirty years, Thirty years. ACF did its best, but there wasn’t that engaged, enraged civil society willing to march into the policy spaces and bang on the table, because that never really happens. That’s not how our societies are currently built. 

That’s not inevitable. You can imagine a different way of governing ourselves, besides technocratic neoliberal capitalism. But we don’t have it at present, and we won’t, because as the disasters pile up, people will become more and more frustrated and disenchanted with messiness and complexity, and they will seek a Savior. And there are always narcissists out there willing to say that they will save the situation, if not the individuals. 

What happened next

Instead of a carbon tax there was a feeble voluntary “Greenhouse Challenge 21C”. And other laughable palaver. Once a carbon price finally came into existence, it was then quickly repealed.

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: 

January 20, 1992 – Gambling on climate… and losing #auspol

January 20, 2011 – Shell tries to change the subject from its own emissions   

January 20, 2014 – Gummer sledges “green extremists”

Categories
Australia Science Scientists

January 19, 2016 – Australian Chief Scientific Advisor advises…

Nine years ago, on this day, January 19th, 2016,

Taylor, L. 2016.Outgoing chief scientist Ian Chubb says tougher greenhouse gas targets inevitable. The Guardian, 19 January. 

Chubb also says hostility towards climate science may be easing but scientists still have a duty to offer unflinching advice

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had had chief scientific advisers since 1988 and they had all been saying, “you got to do more on climate,” Including, of course, the first female, and only female so far, Chief Scientific Adviser, Penny Sackett, who quit om 2011 once she realized that Julia Gillard was not going to try to do more than was legislatively on the table. 

What we learn is that scientists are definitely on tap, but they’re never on top, and that anyone who thinks they are is deluded. 

What happened next

Advice kept getting given. We’ve bucket loads of the stuff.

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: 

January 19, 1968 – Engineers are not ecologists…

January 19, 1976 – The carbon consequences of cement get an early discussion.

January 19, 1992 – they gambled, we lost

January 19, 2015 -Four utilities pull out of an EU CCS programme…

Categories
Australia

January 17, 2015 – David Pope’s brilliant “You are now leaving the Holocene” cartoon is published

Ten years ago, on this day, January 17th, 2015,the brilliant cartoonist David Pope delivered another brilliant cartoon.  You are now leaving the Holocene… Below please find an interview with him, conducted via email a couple of weeks ago.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

1. Who are you and how did you get into cartooning?

I drew cartoons for the peace movement and other activist causes when I was younger. Then I started drawing them for the Labour Studies Briefing in Adelaide, while I was a student there. Pre-internet, the Briefing used to produce short summaries of the latest articles and academic research on labour relations and the economy, for trade unions. The unions started to reproduce the cartoons in their own publications, and eventually I decided to devote more time to it.

2. When and how did you get switched on to environmental concerns?

Again, in Adelaide, I started drawing some cartoons for the national magazine of Friends of the Earth. I think I drew my first cartoon on “the greenhouse effect” in 1990, but in the 80s, the possibility of a nuclear winter was more pressing on my young consciousness, and connected to that, the campaign against uranium mining.

3. On the cartoon, do you remember any of the thought processes or the inspiration behind it? Were there any particular responses to it?

No, I have no memory of what prompted that cartoon at the time. Perhaps there was a climate report or interview that was trying to introduce the concept of the Anthropocene to a wider audience. It was reprinted in a few scientific papers and presentations, so I presume it did the job in conveying some sense of epochal transition.

4. Anything else you’d like to say – Chance to plug any books, exhibitions or anything else that you’ve got going on…

I make posters available through RedBubble

https://www.redbubble.com/people/hinze/explore?page=1&sortOrder=recent

Many of those focus on the environments of the high country and the coast near where I live, and are a foil to the daily and more didactic political cartoons I draw for The Canberra Times and ACM. I don’t publish collections of my political cartoons, but some of them make it into Scribe’s excellent annuals, “Best Australian Political Cartoons”, available at most bookshops.

<END OF INTERVIEW>

See also this blog post on my personal website.

Cartoons, catastrophe and the “long” view (even a generation seems as much as we can cope with)

Cartoons, catastrophe and the “long” view (even a generation seems as much as we can cope with)

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

January 17, 1970 – The Bulletin reprints crucial environment/climate article

January 17th – A religious perspective on climate action

January 17, 2001 – Enron engineers energy “blackouts” to gouge consumers

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

January 16, 1992 – ACT draft Greenhouse Strategy released

Thirty four  years ago, on this day, January 16th, 1992 the draft greenhouse strategy of the Australian Capital Territory government was  launched. 

Lamberton, 1992 Canberra Times  

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various state governments had promised that they would create and enact greenhouse strategies. The Australian Capital Territory, (not a state), was among them, It had  in fact, agreed to The Toronto target early on. And so this launch, is in the months leading up to the Rio Earth Summit in June,, the kind of thing that happens. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the wheels of bureaucracy necessarily grind slowly, but they do grind, if not scuppered by new political dispensations. 

What happened next

There has been fairly good progress (yes, yes, I know, not consumption based, no big industry blah blah).

Also on this day

January 16, 1919 – banning things that people like turns out not to work

January 16, 1995: There’s power in a (corporate) union #auspol

January 16, 2003 – Chicago Climate Exchange names founding members

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

January 14, 2003 – WWF Australia raises the alarm

Twenty two years ago, on this day, January 14th, 2003,

Human-induced global warming was a key factor in the severity of the 2002 drought in Australia, the worst in the country’s history, according to a report issued Tuesday [14 January] by WWF Australia. The report is part of an effort by Australian environmental organizations to convince the Liberal Government of John Howard to reverse its policy and sign the Kyoto climate protocol.

Human Actions Blamed for Worst Australian Drought. Jan 15. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2003/2003-01-15-02.html SYDNEY, Australia, January 15, 2003 (ENS) –

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush and then John Howard had both pulled out of negotiations around Kyoto Protocol, citing economic interests. (But it went deeper than that it was about culture and the way the world should be.) The Millennium drought was causing mayhem, and WWF was oh, sorry, trying to stitch together coalitions to put pressure on governments, especially the federal government.

What I think we can learn from this is that policy entrepreneurs even the centrists, (and you don’t get more centrist, or, in fact, neoliberal and elite etc, than WWF) will have to try multiple times to get any attention. This particular report gained no traction. WWF did further work with the Wentworth group and insurers. It wasn’t until another business friendly coalition back in 2006, that they began to get through. It’s a bit like trying to chop down a tree. You can’t do it in one blow, usually.

What happened next

The emissions kept climbing. The Age of consequences (for rich white people) has begun. 

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: 

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

January 12, 2006 – the nuclear option, yet again

Nineteen years ago, on this day, January 12th, 2006,

 “NUCLEAR power will be examined as part of the solution to global warming when ministers from six countries meet this morning in Sydney for talks on climate change…”  

Peatling, S. 2006. Nuclear question looms large at climate change talks. Sydney Morning Herald, 12 January. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that everyone knows there’s going to have to be a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, even though (because) t was far too weak. And so the proponents of action are talking about a stronger emissions trading scheme with fewer loopholes. And the opponents are, of course, talking about “technology.” The Bush and Howard governments had been banging on and creating these entirely fake and stupid bodies that would allow world leaders to stand at a podium in front of a new logo and declare “hydrogen” or “nuclear” or “CCS” or some other nonsense instead of any actual emissions cuts, And this is further examples of that. 

What I think we can learn from this

Technology is always invoked as the get out of jail free card. Enough people find it convenient to believe, or easy enough to pretend to believe.  And the emissions keep climbing.

What happened next

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.

Also on this day: 

Categories
Australia

January 13, 2009 – Medical Journal of Australia warns about climate impacts

Sixteen years ago, on this day, January 13th, 2009,

 Aborigines living in remote parts of Australia will feel the impact of climate warming more than other Australians, a report says. With temperatures in the tropical north and interior tipped to rise by three degrees Celsius by 2050, worsening already searing summer heat, the government needs to urgently improve Aboriginal health and housing, researchers wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia. 

….”Elevated temperatures and increases in hot spells are expected to be a major problem for Indigenous health in remote areas, where cardiovascular and respiratory disease are more prevalent and there are many elderly people with inadequate facilities to cope with the increased heat stress,” they wrote.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-13/aborigines-to-feel-climate-shift-most-report/265222Donna Green, Ursula King and Joe Morrison

Green, et al. 2009.Disproportionate burdens: the multidimensional impacts of climate change on the health of Indigenous Australians Med J Aust ; 190 (1): 4-5. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02250.x

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had gained power in part by saying that he would take action on climate change. Already by this time, however, it was pretty clear that that “action” would be utterly inadequate to the scale of the challenge at best. Meanwhile, the Millennium drought was still making life hell.

What I think we can learn from this  is that bodies such as the Medical Journal of Australia were wanting to raise the issue of the most vulnerable people getting it in the neck.

What happened next Rudd couldn’t get his piss-weak climate legislation through, and the next year was toppled by his deputy prime minister, Julia Gillard, and we finally got legislation in 2012 (repealed two years later)

The danger for vulnerable communities, poor, rural, isolated continues to climb, and there will be places that will have to be abandoned because of heat. And we Are A Stupid, Stupid species. 

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:

Categories
Australia United Kingdom

January 8, 2018 – Joe Root doesn’t come back to bat

Seven years ago, on this day, January 8 2018, English batsman Joe Root didn’t come out to play…

But on Monday morning he was taken to hospital suffering from severe dehydration and diarrhoea. It was assumed that this was a consequence of his being in the field for almost all of Sunday when temperatures in the middle soared as high as 57 degrees, initially trying to marshal England’s flagging attack, then defiantly batting for some pride and the draw.

Marks, 2018.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 408ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Australia has always had some hot days, but they’re getting hotter. And why could that be? Why this matters is we’re beginning to see cultural events and sporting events being affected by the extremes. but we dismissed them because “here always been heat waves” or whatever. 

And there are sports where it’s simply becoming too dangerous to play, or it will become too dangerous to play at certain times of day. 

But in response, these concerns will be derided as woke and people will point to one off days in 1930s when it was hotter.

NB  further on Marks writes “Later, it transpired that Root had a viral gastroenteritis bug and that his illness had noting to do with heat exhaustion, although the temperatures on Sunday could not helped his condition.”

What I think we can learn from this

Yeah, like we ever learn anything…

What happened next

Root is still playing and batting “quite well” shall we say?

He’s now the highest scoring English batsman and might reasonably expect to overtake at least Ricky Ponting quite soon and who knows, conceivably overtake Sachin Tendulkar to score the most runs in Tests. 

Sidebar, Just Stop Oil protesters tried to interfere with the 2023 Ashes and Johnny Bairstow picked one up and removed him from the field. Stewart Lee had something good to say about this…

Also on this day

Jan 8, 1958 – “The masters of infinity… could control the world’s weather”, says LBJ

January 8, 1968 – LaMont Cole to AAAS about running outta oxygen, build-up of C02 etc

January 8, 2003 – Energy firms plan to “bury carbon emissions”…

January 8, 2013 – Australian Prime Minister connects bush fires and #climate change

Categories
Australia

January 7, 2006 – Bureau of Meteorology with another climate warning

Nineteen years ago, on this day, January 7th, 2006,

RISING food prices, increased bushfire risk and diminishing water supplies are some of the challenges Australia will face as the pace of global warming accelerates. The Bureau of Meteorology delivered its annual climate summary this week, showing that 2005 was Australia’s hottest year on record. The nation’s annual mean temperature for 2005 was 1.09C above the average, well above the previous record of 0.84C in 1998.

Anon. 2006. Dire warming warning; Dearer food, more bushfires, less water on way. Canberra Times 7 January.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Millennium Drought was still going on, and the impacts were piling up, The policy blocking from the Liberals and Nationals continuing, was continuing.

What I think we can learn from this is that there hasn’t really been any scientific debate or doubt about climate since, wow, you can, you can vary it, but the early 90s, maybe (I personally would say late 1970s).

And the messages have been clear enough, but the politicians have been able to do the bidding of the incumbent fossil fuel interests in ignoring these warnings. How so? Because they are not forced to take action that would upset their donors and, frankly, string pullers,Why?  Because there is no engaged enraged civil society. Bcause people have it drilled into them from an early age that they are to “stay in their lane,” that they are to do what their lords and masters tell them to do.

Btw, we will prioritize obedience and sycophancy, because these are rewarded and anything else is punished by the passively or actively, until we’re all dead. What happened next The Bureau of Meteorology has been on the receiving end of various accusations from the nut job denialists, of course. How could they not be? The Millennium drought broke in sort of 2010. A  carbon price, which was basically the smallest part of what an adequate response would look like, became politically impossible in Australia after 2012

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 5, 1995 – Victorian premier comes out against carbon tax

Thirty years ago, on this day, January 5th, 1995,

“The Industry Greenhouse  sought support from the states for its campaign. Participant F says the network lobbied premiers, ministers, and the state bureaucracy, and forward copies of its carbon tax correspondence and reports.  ‘I think Kennett came out with a statement against carbon tax that I think was prompted by some of our lobbying of the Premier’s Office.’ The Victorian Premier sent out a news release on 5 January 1995 opposing carbon tax and using many of the points put forward by the Industry Greenhouse Network….”

(Worden, 1998: 111) 

(On the same day the greenhouse interdepartmental committee met for first time to plan Faulkner’s next submission… (see Henderson, 12 Jan 1995) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Faulkner, Federal Environment Minister, morning, was pushing for a small carbon tax that would help fund renewables research and development. The fossil fuel industries were up in arms about this, and were drawing in as many allies as they could. One of them was state premiers who were that way inclined, including Jeff Kennet, who of course, had famously privatized the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, and with that, destroyed any hope of a response to the greenhouse effect. 

What I think we can learn from this  is that, as well as “venue shopping,” policy entrepreneurs will go “ally shopping.” And in this case, they went for allies at the state level, as well as trades unions, the real two pronged approach. 

What happened next was that the carbon tax proposal was defeated because Faulkner realized he didn’t have the numbers in Keating’s cabinet.  Australia eventually got a carbon price, an emissions trading scheme in 2011/12, and it was then abolished by the next government, of Tony Abbott. The emissions have kept climbing, and we’re toast. 

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: