Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

April 27, 1999 – 2% increase in use of renewables report received

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, April 27th, 1999, another government-appointed group delivered another ‘worthy’ report.

The high-level Greenhouse Energy Group will today receive the final report of the task force set up by the Federal Government to devise ways to meet its target of a 2 per cent increase in the use of renewable energy over the next decade.

Hordern, N. 1999. Greenhouse targets study ready. Australian Financial Review, 27 April, p. 11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that as part of his pre Kyoto spoiler efforts, John Howard had promised a 2% renewable energy target. That was in 1997. The whole process had been extremely painfully drawn out by it since then, meaning that it was in effect, a 1% target. And this was another small link in a long chain of events. So let’s have another report. Let’s have another Working Group. Let’s just draaaag the process out for as long as possible to demoralise and confuse everyone, so that we don’t have to do what we promised we would do. Politics business as usual. 

What we learn is they’ll make a promise but then getting them to implement it requires more energy, tenacity, and smarts than social movements and civil society tend to have. 

What happened next, A pipsqueak Mandatory Renewable Energy Target was finally introduced in April of 2002. And despite everything Howard had done, was already too successful, working too well, so by May of 2004, he was asking his business buddies for help in undermining it. 

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: 

April 27, 1979 – Ecology Party first TV broadcast ahead 

April 27, 1987 – “Our Common Future” released.

April 27, 2007 – Coal-bashing campaign by gas company ends

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

April 26, 1992 – Ros Kelly abjures a carbon tax

Thirty two years ago, on this day, April 26th, 1992 the entirely sensible idea of a carbon tax was killed off (for now), with the Australian Federal Environment Minister running up the white flag again.

A spokesman for Environment Minister Ros Kelly said the Government was not considering a “carbon tax”, which would hit fossil fuels such as petrol and coal. Instead – at least as a first step – it favoured “no-regret” options. These were measures to increase energy efficiency, which will have overall economic benefits even if dire greenhouse scenarios don’t eventuate. The spokesman said: “This Government would be delinquent if it did not take a precautionary rather than a cavalier approach to the greenhouse effect. The worst-case scenarios are terrifying.”

BCA spokesman Mark Emerson said Australia should not support the EC proposal for a commitment by developed countries to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000. “Business is concerned that, against the background of the enormous scientific uncertainties, inappropriate policy responses might be applied which would have devastating economic and social effects without any discernible environmental benefits,” he said. “None of Australia’s regional trading partners or competitors – except New Zealand – will agree to the EC option.”

Skinner, S. 1992. Greenhouse: Aust yet to set its policy. Sun Herald, 26 April, p. 13.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the idea of a carbon tax had been raised within the Ecologically Sustainable Development groups. Entirely sensible idea. And it had sent business or elements of business into a total meltdown. And now, under the new Keating government, it was off the table. But of course, Kelly would be going to the Rio Earth Summit in a couple of months. And the headbangers didn’t want her trying to sneak things in via the back door. 

What we learn is that simple straightforward ideas that would have helped were defeated by powerful greedy actors who had only their own short-term power and comfort in mind. And politicians went along for the ride. 

What happened next, Rio happened. There was another attempt to get a carbon tax through in 94/95, after Ross Kelly was forced to resign over sports routes. And it failed. And we as a species 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: 

April 26, 1998 – New York Times front page expose on anti-climate action by industry

April 26, 1998 – “Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty”

Categories
Australia

April 25, 1989 – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying? (Why yes, yes it is)

Thirty five years ago, on this day, April 25th, 1989, it was all put in stark terms at the University of Wollongong. (Spoiler, the answer is “no, not ‘dying’, being murdered – there’s a difference.),

25 April 1989 University of Wollongong Campus News – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying?

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was losing their mind about “the greenhouse effect.” Or alternatively, you can say, understanding the implications and the likelihood that no one would do anything meaningful. This was happening around the world. 

What we learn is, we knew what was at stake we really did. Alternatively, you could say the world is not dying, it’s being killed and the people who are killing it have names and addresses, as per Utah Phillips. 

What happened next, everyone pledged their devotion to the cause of climate change or the greenhouse effect. For about five minutes. Then most of us went back to sleep, failing to understand what was at stake or understanding it but feeling powerless, lonely, et cetera. Because it is just unimaginably big as an issue. 

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: 

April 25, 1969 – Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

April 25th, 1974 – Swedish prime minister briefed on carbon dioxide build-up

April 25, 1996 – Greenpeace slams Australian government on #climate obstructionism

Categories
Australia

April 23, 2013 – Power Companies want Abbott to rethink Direct Action

Eleven years ago, on this day, April 23rd, 2013, power companies tried to influence the “mind” of Tony Abbott, who was a dead-cert to become Prime Minister at the forthcoming Federal Election.

Power companies have urged the Coalition to rethink its ‘direct action’ carbon plan, saying that it may cause them more difficulty than the Government’s emissions trading scheme.

The Australian Financial Review reports that the Energy Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) has urged the Coalition to change its plan to immediately scrap the carbon tax if it wins the federal election on September 14.

ESSA represents big power companies such as Origin, TRUenergy and International Power. It has supported an emissions trading scheme for a long time and the recent….

https://www.manmonthly.com.au/power-companies-urge-coalition-to-change-carbon-plan/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Abbott was clearly going to become prime minister, Labor’s opinion poll ratings were in the toilet. His idiotic “direct action” policy was going to become law of the land. And the power companies would be adversely affected because it was opaque and stupid. And so you know, “be careful what you wish for you might get it.” They had either resisted Gillard’s carbon tax or played dead. And now there were going to be consequences for those actions. 

What we learn is that businesses are fantastically short-sighted despite their claim to do long term planning or being responsible, farsighted, on behalf of investors, etc. And here we are. 

What happened next? Abbott became prime minister. He abolished Gillard’s Emissions Trading Scheme, instituted his moronic direct action. Emissions didn’t go down the way they needed to. And here we are. 

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: 

April 23, 1954 – Irish Times runs carbon dioxide/climate story. Yes, 1954.

April 23, 1998 – Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick paper published.

April 23, 1970 – book review nails coming #climate problems…

April 23, 2009 – denialists caught denying their own scientists…

Categories
Australia

April 21, 1977 – Australian Parliament debate on Uranium – C02 build up mentioned

Forty-seven years ago, on this day, April 21st, 1977, Australian parliamentarians are told about carbon dioxide build-up, John Francis Cotter (Liberal) MP for Kalgoorlie had this to say 

They are forced to this situation by the desperate shortage of fossil fuels throughout the world and the immense dangers which are inherent in burning fossil fuels, particularly coal. Almost daily people are dying from the pollution effects of coal fired power stations. Yet no one is getting emotional over mining and burning of coal. It’s a bit like the terrible carnage on our roads. Because it happens every day no one seems to care any more. Nonetheless the hazards of coal fired power stations have not diminished. In fact there is every reason to believe that the CO2 catastrophe is possibly the most portentious aspect of our entire long range energy policy. It is my belief that once the CO2 problem becomes widely understood, even given all the uncertainties, it will become the single strongest argument for turning to the nuclear alternative. Most scientists viewing the accelerated burning of fossil fuels now agree that CO2 will warm the earth’s surface temperature significantly.

[source]

 Peter Baume (also a Liberal MP), later in the same debate, said this – 

I then proceed to outline some of the major problems with which I believe conservationists have not adequately coped. I stress the points made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie about carbon dioxide. He certainly stated the position very clearly; there is a real risk to our existence on this planet from carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. I would like to hear the same kind of analysis of the risks applied to our existing fuel usage as has been applied with extraordinary enthusiasm to the projected fuel usage of a material which is available in Australia and whose development would be to our national advantage. When I hear a comparable analysis from the conservationists group, I will believe that they have a far sounder basis on which to approach the people of Australia with a rational argument.

As has been pointed out by Dr Weinberg in the paper to which the honourable member for Kalgoorlie referred, the CO2 catastrophe-the carbon dioxide catastrophe- is possibly the most portentious aspect in our entire long range energy policy. If the carbon dioxide concentrations increase, more radiation from the sun is directed back towards earth and the earth’s temperature increases. It is, of course, the green house effect. Since the mid-nineteenth century there has been an estimated 10 per cent rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. About 50 per cent of the carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels goes into the atmosphere and stays there. If the world continues to increase its usage of fossil fuels at a rate of 4 per cent, atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide will double by the middle of the twenty-first century, according to Dr Weinberg.

http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19770421_reps_30_hor104/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australia was wanting to export uranium to nuclear powers around the world. And not everyone was on board with that, for reasons of proliferation and just being against nuclear energy. And so therefore there was a debate in Parliament. What’s interesting is that carbon dioxide buildup was already being spoken of. In such fora. This is perhaps unsurprising given that CSIRO had made some movies and that the Australian Academy of Science had released a report – it came out in 76. So it’s not altogether surprising. 

What we learn is that carbon dioxide build-up was a topic of conversation by the mid-1970s.

What happened next? We exported uranium. Nuclear power did not make a dent in the upward trajectory of our emissions, and of atmospheric concentrations.

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: 

April 21, 1992 – President Bush again threatens to boycott Earth Summit

April 21, 1993 – Bill Clinton says US will tackle carbon emissions.

Categories
Australia

April 19 1996 – Ark hits the world wide web..

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, April 19th, 1996, climate campaigners took to the web…,

Australian environmental education has been launched onto an international stage, with local group ARK Australia yesterday going live on the Internet with a World Wide Web site called Planet Ark.

The product of a significant cooperative effort involving the Seven Network , Austereo, Reuters and Sanitarium, the site will provide on-demand 24-hour environmental radio news on the Net, along with environmental software and celebrity campaigns that can be downloaded free of charge, including the “Save the Planet” videos featuring stars such as Pierce Brosnan, Dustin Hoffman, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman.

Helen Meredith. 1996. Planet Ark’s world-first on the Net. The Australian Financial Review, 19 April 1996 p48

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the World Wide Web and cyberspace were just arriving. And therefore it was newsworthy when someone set up a website. The deeper context is that the Australian outpost of Ark seemed to have taken some sort of hold, though it had sunk in the UK.

What we learn is that celebrities have always been yammering about environmental issues, but are also often celebrities that are spectacularly badly placed. Because pretty much by definition, their lifestyles are high carbon, and they can be accused of being hypocrites, so out of touch, e.g. “Carbon Cate” in 2011… 

What happened next? The World Wide Web gave us a highly intelligent fact based public sphere. Now I’m just playing with you: look around you for a minute… 

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: 

April 19, 1973 – first film to mention global warming released (Soylent Green)

April 19, 1943 – the Warsaw Ghetto uprising began.

April 19, 2002 – Exxon got a top #climate scientist sacked.

Categories
Australia

April 16 2006 – Ian Macfarlane says renewable support schemes are “Mickey Mouse”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, April 16th, 2006, The Federal Industry Minister is his inimitable self…

In an Interview with the ABC’s Four Corners in April 2006, the Industry Minister, Senator Ian Macfarlane described State incentive schemes such as VRET as ‘Mickey Mouse schemes.’ (Prest, 2007: 254)

Four Corners 16 April 2007 Earth Wind and Fire

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that that Howard and his pals had been trying to strangle renewables – almost ten years previously they’d been forced to promise a renewables target in the lead up to the Kyoto meeting of the UNFCCC.

What we learn is that opponents of an action can toggle effortlessly between “it’s too much” and “it’s not enough”.  So for example, at various points the Howard regime said, “well, Kyoto wouldn’t make a difference, therefore, we’re not doing it.” And here we see an environment minister Ian MacFarlane calling the renewable energy schemes Mickey Mouse.

It’s the classic somebody accused of killing their parents is convicted and before sentencing says to the judge,”well, in mitigation, I’d like the fact taken into account that I’m an orphan.” 

What happened next? MacFarlane was dumped as environment minister and replaced by young thrusting or young-ish thrusting Malcolm Turnbull the following year. In November 2007, the Australian Labour Party formed the government did some things to improve renewables (while epically failing on the big picture).

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: 

 April 16, 1980 – “a risk averse society might prefer nuclear power generation to fossil fuel burning”

April 16, 1980 – Melbourne Age reports “world ecology endangered”

April 16, 2008 – Aussie trades unions, greenies, companies tried to get CCS ‘moving.’

Categories
Australia

April 13, 2011 – GE and others say Gillard is on right track

Thirteen years ago, on this day, April 13th, 2011

On 13 April 2011 the company [GE] was joined by a number of others, including AGL, Linfox, Fujitsu, BP and IKEA, in issuing a statement backing the government.

(Chubb, 2014:173)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was this was the middle of a ferocious battle over the Emissions Trading Scheme that the Multi Party Committee on Climate Change had developed and advocated. And the Coalition, then in opposition, was trying to say that all business was opposed because it would mean extra costs, as per their brilliant attack line “a great big tax on everything.” 

So the fact that GE and other companies said, “nah, it’ll be fine” should have been far more newsworthy. But it didn’t fit the frame. And also, the companies probably weren’t terribly keen on being dragged into a culture war. And so it never really gained a lot of traction. 

What we learn is that “business” is invoked by political parties as if it’s a monolith. And it’s always, almost always far more nuanced than that. But in the words of that sociologist “fuck nuance “.

What happened next, despite the sturm und drang, and the sound and fury emanating from Abbott and the climate denialists, and anti carbon tax people, the legislation passed, became law. And, according to its advocates, it actually started to reduce emissions. (Others say that this was an artefact of extra hydro electricity from Tasmania in the mix.)

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: 

April 13, 1968 – the New Yorker glosses air pollution, mentions carbon dioxide

April 13, 1992 – Denialist tosh – “The origins of the alleged scientific consensus”

Categories
Australia Business Responses

April 10, 2006 – “Business warms to change” (Westpac, Immelt)

Eighteen years ago, on this day, April 10th, 2006, business groups split on climate action.

New research on global warming has caused a split at the top end of town, writes Deborah Snow.

WESTPAC chief executive David Morgan had an interesting story to tell at an invitation-only breakfast for a handful of journalists in Sydney last week.

The anecdote concerned a recent private conversation with the head of the giant General Electric Company in the US, Jeff Immelt.

“He said to me he was virtually certain that the first action of the next president of the United States, be it Republican or Democrat, would be to initiate urgent action on climate change. And he wasn’t saying that as a casual political comment … he is [allocating] billions of dollars worth of investment in the confidence of that development.”

Snow, D. (2006) Business warms to change The Sydney Morning Herald 10th April , page 10.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified and become international lore, sorry, law. The European Emissions Trading Scheme had come into effect. And the big banks were looking at all the money that might be made from carbon trading, and thinking “we’d like a piece of that.” There was already a failed history of getting a Futures Exchange going or getting Australian Prime Minister John Howard to listen to insurers and banks from like 2003. But it’s always worth another roll of the dice, another go. And that’s what happened here. 

What we learn is that a lot of what’s driving their alleged philanthropic efforts is actually about sniffing out new markets, especially if the international environment, for want of a better phrase, is changing. 

What happened next, the Westpac thing went nowhere. But it added to the load and in September of the same year, the issue broke through and in November 2006, Howard was forced to create this Shergold Report process to look at emissions trading. 

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: 

April 10th, 2010 – activists hold “party at the pumps”

April 10, 2013 – US companies pretend they care, make “Climate Declaration”

Categories
Australia

April 9, 1991 – Peter Walsh goes nuts, urges BHP to sue Greenpeace

Thirty three years ago, on this day, April 9th, 1991, ex Federal Treasurer Peter Walsh shows he is basically a demented thug. 

The former Minister for Finance, Peter Walsh, attacked Australia’s major conservation groups yesterday saying he hoped Australia’s largest company, BHP, would use common law to bankrupt Greenpeace for interfering with seismic testing.

Senator Walsh said the major environmental groups were trying to subvert economic development — an objective they had pursued with some success.

Launching a book which emphasised market solutions to environmental problems, Senator Walsh said extreme elements of the conservation movement were more concerned with “destroying” industrial capitalism than protecting the environment.

“One wonders how long a country which is unquestionably some distance down the Argentinian road will continue to allow organisations like the Australian Conservation Foundation to subvert economic growth, and particularly the growth in the traded goods sector, to the extent that they do,” he said.

A long-time critic of the conservation movement, Senator Walsh fired a broadside at Greenpeace over its recent campaign to stop BHP’s oil exploration in Bass Strait. The organisation argued that the seismic tests would disturb whales which breed in the area.

He accused Greenpeace of hypocrisy in trying to stop oil exploration using petrol-powered rubber dinghies and a diesel-powered mother-ship.

“I hope that BHP sues Greenpeace under the common law and collects damages large enough to bankrupt the organisation.”

The book, Markets, Resources and theEnvironment, was produced by the Tasman Institute which Senator Walsh acknowledged many in the Labor Party considered “only marginally less obnoxious” than the League of Rights, or the Queensland National Party.

Lamberton, H. 1991. Walsh attacks greenies. Canberra Times, 10 April, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 


The context was that there were battles going on over the making of environmental policy. The Ecologically Sustainable Development process was unfolding. There were negotiations, that Australia was part of, for the UNFCCC at the Rio Earth Summit the following year.

Walsh was no longer in Parliament, and so was less constrained and was becoming the batshit crazy loon in public that he probably had been for a while. And he was hoping that mining giant BHP would beat up on Greenpeace. BHP was a bit more canny than that. Greenpeace was fat with new membership, (but it couldn’t keep them and would plummet. afterwards). 

What happened next? Well, Walsh went on to be one of the founding members of the Lavoisier Group. Bless it. 

What we can learn from this is that recently retired politicians have stood up resentments that they like to get off their chest, and it makes good newspaper copy. And they’re suffering from Relevance Deprivation Syndrome… So you get to see fireworks, at least for a while. 

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: 

 April 9, 1990 – Australian business launches “we’re green!” campaign

April 9, 2008 – US school student vs dodgy (lying) text books

April 9, 2019- brutal book review “a script for a West Wing episode about climate change, only with less repartee.”