Forty eight years ago, on this day, April 26th, 1978 – Australian carbon dioxide measurements from a ground based station at Cape Grim begin.
Tanks were immersed in liquid nitrogen to condense the air (Fig. 7), under ‘baseline’ conditions (strong onshore winds) in these 35 L stainless steel tanks, commencing mid 1978. The first tank filled was CG260478, CG reflecting its Cape Grim origin, filled 26 April 1978, and remains intact in the Air Archive at Aspendale today
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that accurate measures of CO2 in the atmosphere had begun in 1958 with Charles Keeling as part of the International Geophysical Year, Roger Revelle had managed to carve out some money. (We now know that Keeling had done CO2 measurement for the oil companies in 1954 thanks to the work of Rebecca John,)
The specific context was that Australian measurements of CO2 had begun in the early 1970s – they were initially from equipment attached to aeroplanes, TAA, commercial flights. However, something more permanent was required. So we should remember as well that from September of ‘77 there was an increase in awareness of the CSIRO scientists around atmospheric pollution by carbon dioxide.
What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty.
What happened next: Cape Grim is still measuring CO2 to this day. There was a conference on Philip Island in December 1978. There was a CSIRO symposium in Canberra in 1986, which got coverage in the Canberra Times. In 1986 the greenhouse project stuff started kicking in.
So where will the files for the commission for the future be and the greenhouse project and so forth? That would be quite. A good National Archives of Australia, find
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.
Over thirty people gathered on Monday night to hear from four highly-engaged (1) and deeply knowledgeable speakers on the question of what is being done/can be done on biodiversity in Adelaide in the era of accelerating climate change.
The event was organized (very capably indeed) by Unley Voices for Climate Action.
After a brief welcome to country (2) and scene-setting, four speakers each had fifteen minutes to explain what is going on.
The first three were from Green Adelaide, a state government created and funded body which is “working towards a cooler, greener, wilder and climate-resilient Adelaide that celebrates our unique culture.”
They were
Sarah White, Regional Data Officer for Green Adelaide
They were followed by Di Salvi, the lead Climate and Sustainability officer from Unley Council, who gave an overview of what has been done/is planned locally.
(I took copious notes, but have doubtless got things wrong/mangled them, and will update accordingly).
Ms White kicked things off with a numbers-heavy (because numbers is what she does!) presentation that highlighted the work that has been undertaken to map – down to a house level, where the trees are, what they are, and what benefits accrue (especially in terms of their cooling effect).
In the brief Q&A for her talk she expanded on this – the Green Adelaide survey also captures the understory coverage (which is particularly important for biodiversity).
She was asked how frequently the surveys were done. The work is very resource intensive, and – if I got this right – it has been at four year intervals, with another survey just completed.
Dr Sheryn Pitman delved more into the overall strategies underlying the Green Adelaide effort, including the recently announced Urban Greening Strategy.
Tree coverage varies widely in the 17 (or 18, depending on how you count) areas covered by Green Adelaide (the Adelaide Hills is not included), from 1.7percent in Seaford to 52% in Waterfall Gully. There’s a target for 30% across the whole metropolitan area, but of course, they also have to look at species diversity for “future proofing” against disease etc (see my question at the end).
In the Q&A the thorny question of what actual powers Green Adelaide has at its disposal was raised, but deferred (see further down the blog post)…
The third presentation, from Nat Giffney, brought it to the nuts and bolts of what is being done and can be done by individuals and communities. Reflecting on the point that Adelaide was – before the settlers turned up – a particular biodiversity hotspot, with grassland, heathland, wetlands etc etc, Giffney said that “we need to use every little parcel of land. The starting (but not finishing) question was “what once grew where you live?” She explained that the Green Adelaide website allows you to find out, but typing in “native plants.”
She pointed out that tree hollows, useful for possums and birds, take a very very long time to form, and bigged up the work of volunteers who spend many hours removing agapanthus, which overtakes native species.
[Such is the history of introduced species – at this point I was put in mind of the wonderful concept of “biological cringe”, developed by environmental historian Tom Griffiths] See also here.
Biodiversity is, though we often fail to see it, is essential for the health of well, everything, and the ability to ‘bounce back’ (or to a different state) following floods, droughts etc. [see also though, ‘the great simplification’ and the Sixth Extinction].
So, we need plants at different heights and densities, lizard lounges, frog bogs and all the rest of it. The final plea was to make sure that bird baths are out of reach of predators, and cleaned regularly.
Right, before we continue with the rest of the report, a request. If you are reading this, there is a non-trivial chance you were living in Adelaide in the 1970s, and active on environmental matters. If so – and especially if you were involved in the campaign to get a deposit scheme going for beverage containers – I would like to interview you. ALSO, if anyone knows anything about M. Allen of Malvern, who wrote this letter to the Advertiser, published on December 14 1973, please get in touch.
Sir – One reads (“Advertiser,” 11/12/73) of the Australian Government’s interest in entering the car manufacturing industry of the Miners’ Federation move towards development of a national trade union policy to conserve energy resources, of the prediction of the British National Development Council that the energy crisis will probably halve the growth of world trade and the fear of the Member for Angas (Mr. Giles) that future petroleum shortages may affect all of us as private individuals and the business community.
What none of these individuals or groups gives any consideration to is the fact that our past rapacious use of fossil fuels, both in industry and in the motor car, may well bring about changes in climate far more catastrophic to our way of life than shortage of fuel.
While conservation of energy resources is commendable, what is urgently needed is a complete reappraisal of our values and priorities and a thorough investigation of the long-term consequences of our actions in both the private and industrial sectors.
M. Allen
Malvern
Now, back to the report!!
Speaking last, Di Salvi of Unley Council had the hardest job – keeping the attention of the audience after a solid 50 minutes of very dense information. She managed it with aplomb, telling a compelling story about the Council’s efforts in creating more tree cover and wildlife cover (full disclosure, my late father, Mike Hudson, was a Councillor for many years, with an interest in ‘pocket parks’ before they were sexy).
Thermal sensors are available via the Unley Library catalogue, so you can take an inventory of your house and garden.
The Council did a “tree voucher lottery” skewed towards areas in Unley with less foliage, and this appears to have been a success, with fruit trees being particularly popular, and most of those planted still alive.
There are, of course, challenges
A micro-break to stretch legs and recombobulate from the large amount of information received was followed by a short and sweet Q and A.
The first question was “more of a comment” but – gasp, a short and pertinent one (it didn’t come from a man) – it was about the importance of night lighting and not making life hell for nocturnal creatures. The happy news is that not only is there a webinar on this (the webinar series “will beat Netflix”) but when Unley Council was replacing some lighting recently, they made sure the new stuff was wildlife friendly.
The second question was from me – I asked if thought had been given to the speed of climate change and what trees etc will survive the temperatures we are likely to be seeing in the year 2050 (which is only just around the corner). Pleasingly, the answer was an emphatic yes.
“Are there priority species?” asked someone. Well, that’s complicated, because of course there is no one size fits all plan for such a wide variety of habitats.
The question of what actual power Green Adelaide had to enforce, rather than cajole, came up, and was fairly deftly dealt with (no legislative or budgetary power, but the kind of ‘soft power’ – data dependent – that can make some meaningful changes.) Until we institute the green eco-utopian government, that’s probably the best we can get? (as distinct from hope and plan for).
“What is being done about fake lawns?” asked someone. It turns out that some councils have banned them, and Sarah White pointed out that the data that Green Adelaide is able to provide about the cooling function of real lawns helps policymakers see the light.
An expert on climate extremes suggested that Green Adelaide run an educational campaign to inform people that the time to water their gardens is BEFORE the heatwave starts (once it has started your efforts will be pretty futile) and this was received with great enthusiasm by the Green Adelaide representatives.
And then, very shortly after 9pm, the event was brought to a close. Nicely done!
Dates for your diary
Btw – You can email the Unley folks on – uvforca@gmail.com
May 3rd GreyBox Day
May 18 – next meeting of the Unley for Climate Action crew.
Possibly June 1st for “virtual powerplants” meeting (about batteries alongside solar panels, and feeding back into the grid).
Random reflections
The event was urgently needed, for me at least. I needed something to restore my faith in “activism” – in the idea that people could put on an event that started on time, did what it said it would do and was generally efficiently and effectively run. (I won’t link to my rant about last Friday, but you can find it if you look)
What would I change? Very very little. Perhaps a ‘turn to a person you don’t know’ at the outset, and a ‘clap clinic’ style device for keeping people to time. If the speeches could have been recorded, that would be great for people who couldn’t attend (but this is labour intensive and the game may not be worth the candle!). These are quibbles. It was a fine event, and lovely to see an all-female panel for once (fanel as opposed to manel?)
Footnotes
(1) I would encourage everyone – but especially men writing about women – to avoid the word “passionate”. It is far too often code for “emotional/over-invested/unreliable” with shades of “hysterical.” See also Malcolm X and the use of the word “articulate.” (And Chris Rock, for that matter).
(2) It was a nice touch to flag that first nations people are reclaiming their language and fire practices and that “for 190 years they’ve put up with colonization.”
Update April 22.
Here are some links kindly sent through by the Green Adelaide folks
Green Adelaide Webinar recordings: Webinar – YouTube (this is where people can access ‘The colour of the night: wildlife sensitive lighting’, along with a lot of other topics).
It comes down to what your definition of “movement” is.
If you believe, as Adam Bandt and his colleagues seem to, that a movement is a bunch of people from a Big Organisation, jetting in from their HQ and standing on a stage, offering “hope,” authenticity and validation to ranks of people who are sat mutely in rows, wanting their (begging) bowls filled up, then Friday was another success in a long line of successes.
If you believe, as I and a few (many?) other people do, that a movement is made up of individuals, small groups, large groups, pulling mostly in the same direction, as frenemies, helping each other out, learning from each other, sharing ideas and resources, then Friday night was another catastrophic shit-show/missed opportunity in a world that can’t afford any more missed opportunities.
That’s it. That’s the post.
Read on at your peril.
First let”s say the good stuff (because one of the standard response-but-not-replies is that I “never say anything positive” (1)
The event, at the Jam Factory on North Terrace, had a fair number (150? 175?) of people present (certainly slightly more than at Thursday’s rally).
Most of those people (but not all) seemed to enjoy themselves, and get what they wanted (or at least expected?)
They heard from some voices that are too rarely platformed (i.e. First Nations people)
Er…
That’s it
Not much, is it? And absolutely not enough. It wasn’t enough forty years ago and it most definitely is not enough now.
Here’s what happened, from my perspective. On Thursday, there’d been a rally. It was held under time and place constraints. Here, on Friday, the organisers had more space and time to show what they could do.
There were people at the door to check that everyone had RSVPed, that their name was On The List. This felt a little bit “off”, and I almost decided to test the idea that I wouldn’t be able to get in without giving a name and email. But then they found me on one of their sheets of paper (we will come back to this).
The event was billed to start at 5pm but it was quarter past when we were called to order (we will come back to this). People were mostly sat on the chairs, talking to people they knew. There were empty seats, but also people standing at the back and the side. Perhaps 150 people?
The event started with a lovely coming-onto-the-stage led by Uncle Jack and his fellow panellists, and a welcome to country. After that, I gotta write, it was mostly downhill.
Kirsty Bevan of the Conservation Council of South Australia got things under way. The transcript could be submitted to the “I” column of UK satirical publication Private Eye. She also said that us gathering there in the evening was an “action”? Really? Are we emptying the term “action” so far as to include these sorts of meetings? A rally outside an AGM would, in some people’s minds, be a borderline example of an ‘action’, but a meeting counts as an action now? If the rest of the event had been good, I wouldn’t be “nit-picking” (2), but it wasn’t.
The standard line appears to be that the Santos business model is causing climate change. This is indisputable, but the question is then, how do we stop it? (3)
Next up, Adam Bandt, formerly a Greens MP. – “together we are going to build a movement.” Again, it comes down to what you think a movement is. In my view there was basically no “movement-building” going on.
Bandt also flipped through the stump speech memes he had deployed at the rally. “Governments don’t go to war over the sun and wind…”) “There’s more of us than there are of them.” And then, cringe, “Remember the Franklin Dam campaign.” Well, about half the audience were 60 or more, and CAN remember it (it culminated in a 1983 High Court decision saying that the Hawke Federal government DID in fact have the power to over-rule the Tasmanian government on the question of a hydro-electric dam). But maybe the example of a ‘victory’ you are pointing to is … (checks notes) … FORTY-THREE YEARS AGO then maybe – just maybe – you’re doing something wrong?
Bandt then held out the promise of the audience being able to “take a couple of actions” and that he would tell people what they were (we will come back to this).
Then, the bombshell.
Bandt quickly and casually announced that the event – which had been advertised as a Q&A would not, in fact, have q and a, because there wasn’t enough time
This was astonishing, and absolutely – in my opinion – deadly for the credibility of ACF and CCSA as campaigning organisations.
They had advertised it as such. They had the venue for two hours. They started fifteen minutes late for no apparent reason. Nothing was stopping them holding the advertised Q&A.
This was a brazen bait-and-switch
Either they never intended to do a Q&A, or they did but some OTHER reason stopped them and they were too scared/embarrassed to say what that was. So they came out with the “lack of time” excuse instead and relied on everyone being too polite to make a big deal of this.
Why am I making a big deal of this?
Because “we” are supposed to be better than the lying conniving exploitative extractive assholes who are trashing the planet
“We” are supposed to be honest, competent etc
Either they never intended to do it, or “something came up.” I am not sure which is worse. It simply cannot have been a lack of time. That is a brazen lie and it is shameful that Bandt had such a low opinion of the audience that he thought it would fly. The only thing more shameful is that the audience went along with this. So much for their self-respect.
Then followed the speeches from the First Nations representatives, which almost redeemed the whole sorry show. Almost, but not quite.
For me, the key call was from Kara Kinchella. “We have to do better than we’re doing.”
Quite.
But on the evidence of this awful event, which was pure ego-fodder, we are NOT doing better, and we seem not to know or care.
Bandt then did a “conversation” style thing with the three speakers, making sure to interject favoured campaign factoids (Santos has had sales of $47bn over the last ten years, and paid zero company tax.”
At just after six pm (with the venue available for another hour!) Krsty Bevan drew the formal event to a close. Almost. There was still time for Bandt to claim that there were “a few hundred of us here tonight” (nope). And that we should all sign a petition and saying “I look forward to seeing you at the next rally.”
It was (to me) fascinating that the impending (mid-May) Australian Energy Providers annual conference was NOT mentioned. Could it be that ACF and the CCSA are afraid of bad publicity because of those “bomb-throwers” of Extinction Rebellion?
The final, inevitable, invocation was to stay, listen to some music and buy a beer “talk to each other” – having done precisely nothing to design the meeting around making it easier for people who came not knowing anyone to talk to strangers.
Some people did stick around, but I was not the only one heading for the door. And at the tram stop I met someone who’d been at the same event and we compared notes, agreeing that it had been intensely top-down, designed it seemed to us mostly about gratifying the egos of the comperes (this is distinct from the panellists) and harvesting contact data for future use.
I will write again about all this, but I have a couple of (well, four) closing thoughts to share.
First, there was a kind of ‘love-bombing’ going on (so much so that it gave me flashbacks to a late 1980s ‘Festival of Light’ meeting I went to(4). Repeated effusive (fulsome, in the original sense) thanks for attending, but without any attempt to say thank you in a meaningful way (i.e. by enabling people to form or strengthen the kind of weak ties (as per Granovetter) that make a movement.
Second – some of those people present – especially ones who are already plugged into networks – DID have a good time, did have a kind of bonding/re-charging of their batteries. But so what? that’s not enough, and certainly not enough compared to what could have been done. It all has a vibe of the animals singing Beasts of England to soothe themselves after the latest evidence of their defeat at the hands of the pigs and the dogs. (That’s an Animal Farm reference)
Third – if people who attended are turned into ego-fodder, if they leave without new connections, new ideas, then whatever hopium the organisers have ‘inserted’ into them fades and they have to come back for more, or they just to give up.
Fourth – there is an irony in all this. We (the good people) are opposed to Evil Organisations who disregard the skills and lived experiences of local people, who see those people only as in the way or simply usable as resources. But when the same dynamic – top down, extractive, is used by nominally different campaigning organisations, we are so colonised, so desperate to believe in a Brighter Future, that we don’t even see the dynamic.
So what happened and why does it keep happening?
So why did I write this?
For the shiggles. Because a couple of people said they were curious. Because I am not writing enough.
What response do I expect?
For the most part, absolute silence.
For the next part, indifference, derision and ad hominems.
For the next smallest part, willful incomprehension and counter-“attacks” that set up various strawmen and knock them down.
There is a limit to how much ‘defensive writing’ you can do, in order to try to maintain a conversation with people who are – in my experience – absolutely determined NOT to have a conversation about these issues (namely the ongoing failures of ‘big’ green organisations). The more you try to anticipate their responses (again, not replies) and neutralise them, the more time and energy you waste, the more reader(s?)-bandwidth you take up, the more you allow low-rent people to live rent-free in your head. And for what? So, foregrounding the ‘good’ stuff (which ain’t that good) is my only conscious attempt to frame this in ways ‘acceptable’ to the ‘right’ people. They’re not reading, and if they’re reading they’re not taking it in, and if they’re taking it in then they’ve not been doing anything, and will continue not to. What was that about ‘rent-free”? Sigh.
Words matter. And they reveal how we conceptualise the world, and our actions. Gathering for a meeting as “action” my very fat arse.
Also, if you’re doing housekeeping, perhaps actually ask someone from the venue where the toilets are?
Thirty three years ago, on this day, April 17th, 1993,
The Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Simon Crean, have denied knowledge of alleged Treasury proposals for a $1.9 billion energy tax.
Mr Crean rejected reports in The Weekend Australian and The Age on Saturday [17 April] which suggested that a tax on the energy content or fuels and possibly carbon emissions, being discussed by Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, had drawn on studies by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2026 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the anti-greenhouse action forces had won famous victories in 1991 and 1992, watering down the National Greenhouse Response Strategy and the Ecologically Sustainable Development process to derisory levels. However, they knew that, because of international ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the battle would not be going away…
The Business Council of Australia and others were paying very close attention to what was happening in the United States under Bill Clinton and the BTU tax, and also what was happening and Europe, where carbon tax had been defeated there.
I don’t know who leaked what to force Keating and Crean into this public statement, but the obvious question is cui bono? And a leak like this, feeding a story to tame journalists (there is rarely another kind sadly) means that you get to fire a shot across the bows of the pro-tax crowd. But of course, suppressing fire, as anyone who’s been in a proper fire fight will tell you, doesn’t really work.
What I think we can learn from this is that there are always games, wheels within wheels, you name it. This is one of them. We learn that 33 years ago, the straightforward, surely uncontroversial proposition that you tax things that are harmful in order to discourage their use and to encourage the creation of alternatives, was beyond the pale (Keating really hated the greenies).
What happened next
Well, there was an environment minister called Ros Kelly. She had to resign. Her replacement was another guy who knew all about the issues, the late Graham Richardson, he had to resign, quit, I forget which. And then Senator John Faulkner came along… And in early 1994 was saying, “Yeah, we might be looking at a carbon tax.”
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.
“Australia is preparing to host a major international meeting of environment ministers to broaden global acceptance of forests as a source of carbon credits.
But the meeting comes at a time when the ability of forests to actually generate these credits is increasingly in scientific doubt.
The High Level Forum on Sinks will be held in Perth from April 17-20.”
Hordern, N. 2000. Australia pushes carbon sinks. The Australian Financial Review, March 3, p.16.
And
Australia is being accused of deliberately “stacking” a conference of international environment ministers in Perth next week in a bid to undermine the global goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The conference, starting on Monday, is about the use of “sinks” or the planting of trees to gain credits, a suggestion under the Kyoto Protocol which could be used to offset countries’ inability to reduce emissions from industry and motor vehicles.
Australia has invited ministers from around the world, but stands accused of inviting only countries sympathetic to its own position on sinks.
Germany and other European countries which are of the view that overuse of sinks could encourage countries not to reduce emissions have been left out.
An Australian Greenhouse Office paper on the conference reveals that only “key members of the European Union”, Finland, France, the UK and The Netherlands, were invited.
Greenpeace’s international policy director, Mr Bill Hare, yesterday accused the Federal Government of stacking the conference. Mr Hare said Tuvalu and other Pacific nations were also not invited, when small Pacific States were likely to be most in danger from sea level rises caused by the greenhouse effect.
Clennel, A. 2000. Greenhouse Gas Conference `stacked’. Sydney Morning Herald, April 15, p.15.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Australia’s political elites had been warned about carbon dioxide build up as a problem, repeatedly, by scientists, by spooks, by journalists, by politicians, and they had ignored it all. They had carved themselves a spectacular deal at the Kyoto conference, and there were a whole load of people who wanted to make money from selling carbon credits, plant a tree in Australia and get paid for doing so by some Japanese or Korean polluter who doesn’t want to cut their own emissions. Ker-ching!
The only fly in that ointment being that for you to be able to engage in carbon trading, your country’s government would have to have ratified Kyoto. Now at this point, it wasn’t clear what would happen, because if the Americans did ratify Kyoto, the pressure on the Australians to do so would be enormous.
And therefore it made sense, in 2000 to be holding these sorts of conferences and pushing these sorts of lines.
A year later, once the Bush administration had pulled out that particular balloon lost all its air. Though, it’s fair to say as well that the so-called Sydney’s Futures Exchange didn’t even last that long.
What I think we can learn from this is that some people dreamed of global carbon trading. Never happened.
What happened next: Bush pulled out of Kyoto. Australia pulled out of Kyoto. Kyoto looked dead. The whole carbon credits thing looked dead. And then in 2004 Russia Duma ratified the Kyoto Protocol, bringing it into force and the whole UNFCCC circus sprang/staggered back into life.
Around 150 people gathered outside the Adelaide Convention Centre to ‘welcome’ delegates to the Annual General Meeting of the oil and gas company Santos. Marc Hudson investigates.
The Adelaide Convention Centre sits on North Terrace. The only thing between it and the South Australian parliament is a railway station. I mention this because in September 1977 there was an election for the right to sit in that parliament. During that election questions of mining, and energy, were high on the agenda.
One party – we will come back to which – had the following as its policy statement on this.
Fast-forward 49 years and Santos, (an acronym for South Australia and Northern Territory Oil Search) the oil and gas company that some say has a disproportionate influence on South Australia’s politics, is holding its Annual General Meeting. Around 200 people gathered for a protest rally organised by a group of environmental and social justice organisations including the Australian Conservation Foundation, Action Aid and the Conservation Council of South Australia.
Under the watchful (and occasionally baleful) eye of plentiful South Australian police, delegates and protestors shared the same escalator up to the entrance of the convention centre.
Four protestors, in mock business suits, were on the pavement at the foot of the escalator.
All held signs and one, Ian, from Extinction Rebellion, chomped on a cigar. He explained the purpose of the protest –
“We’re here because Santos is the biggest company in South Australia. They’re having their AGM today. The shareholders will be here, and they are running programmes, projects around the country and overseas that are impacting the environment, that are impacting and overriding the rights of indigenous people. If anybody stands in front of them, they will take them to court. They’ve constantly taken indigenous people to court, and they keep appealing any decisions they lose. So we’re here to call them out. We’re here to support the First Nations people, but we’re also letting the public know that we believe Santos pays no tax. Hasn’t paid business tax for last 10 years. They pay very little money in donations to the government, and they always get what they want from government.”
(full interview transcript at the foot of this post]
Up the escalator, on the plaza outside the entrance the Convention Centre (the inevitable vast panes of glass – the banal calling card of global corporate architecture), thronged various people with placards and t-shirts bearing blunt messages (not all of them entirely safe for work). Various TV and print journalists scurried around, with police ‘liaison’ officers mingling too. (See InDaily’s report here).
There was a brief welcome to country, delivered first in a First Nations language and then in English – “Because we all family, right? Yeah, happy together. I’m strong like the ground, like the country, and we’re soft like water too. So I bring you all here in the spirit of humanity. That’s my mom’s words.”
The speeches at the rally were necessarily brief, (and there was a telling absence from the line-up, of which more later).
The MC (who did well!) was at pains to get all those present to be aware of – and repeat out loud, twice – the fact that the speakers from today’s rally would be at an event – No New Gas! Q&A with Frontline Traditional Owners and Adam Bandt – Conservation Council SA – tomorrow (Friday 17th April) at the Lion Arts Factory, 68 North Terrace, from 5.00pm, where more detail would be delivered, and more ways to be involved in the various campaigns.
Adam Bandt, formerly a member of parliament for the Australian Greens, and now CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, kept his remarks brief. Gas, he said, is as dirty as coal (this in response to the messaging – pushed by Santos and many others, that gas is somehow a ‘transition’ fuel). He said that gas was driving the climate crisis and pointed (as did a later speaker) to the algal bloom that is wreaking havoc on the wildlife in the oceans of South Australia (and on the livelihoods of those who rely on fishing, tourism etc). Bandt pointed to the hotter summers and ever more sever heatwaves, to waters sources being under threat. He concluded his remarks by saying that Australia has solar and wind sources that are the envy of other nations, that governments don’t go to war over solar and wind and that Australia should be aiming for energy independence. He also, – and this will not have endeared him to the delegates – proposed healthy taxation of Santos’s profits.
Adam Bandt
Next up was Uncle Jack Green, of the Northern Territory, where he and his kin have been confronting the Mcarthur River Mine. His comments were brief, but compelling. He reminded those present that the mines threaten the water, and that “we live on that water – doesn’t matter who you are, cattle, human, kangaroo.”
The next speaker was Kara Kinchella (sp?), whom I believe (will correct if wrong) of the Gomeroi traditional owners from New South Wales. A coalition of groups, made up of Gomeroi Traditional Owners, NSW Farmers, the Country Women’s Association of NSW, Unions NSW and the Lock the Gate Alliance, have created the Breeza Declaration. (can’t find online, but this is the closest I got)
Her takeaway message – “we need to get angry, before it’s too late.”
The penultimate speaker (it was clear that the event had started late, and the rally would therefore be somewhat truncated) was Joseph, from Papua New Guinea, where both Santos and the French company Total have operations. Total has managed to get permission – and here Jospeh quoted from a newspaper article ‘to discharge waste into the environment’. As he pointed out, the waste kills the fish, the prawns and poisons the land – this is a human rights abuse issue. He got a full-throated cheer from the crowd for his suggestion that “if it’s safe, take all the waste and dump it in Paris, at the Eiffel Tower.” He closed saying “Santos, you are responsible, don’t do this.”
There was a short break for a group photo, and to send the various delegates into the AGM to ask their questions. The final speaker was Kirsty Bevan, of the Conservation Council of South Australia.
She said she is often asked “why South Australia?” (with, I think, the implication in the question being that SA is a backwater and people here have the luxury of thinking that nothing they do matters) She said that she always replies that Santos has its HQ here, but also, beyond this, there problem is not one for the future but rather one of the
“crises that we’re seeing play out in front of us. It’s not a future problem, it’s a now problem, and we’re seeing extreme weather events. Our surface water temperatures in the ocean have risen by 2.5 degrees, well above the normal, which is what has resulted in the algal bloom, which we’re entering our second year.” (you can read the full transcript at the foot of this post.)
Earlier I alluded to a missing speaker. So, who was absent from the line-up? Well, this is NOT a criticism of the organisers, merely a reflection of the reality we live in – where were the union figures willing and able to speak out on the dangers of continued extraction of oil, coal and gas? There have always been tensions – sometimes managed well, sometimes not – between organised labour and environmental movements. There have been Green Bans, environmentally-inspired pushes for Full Employment, dreams of a “Green Gold Rush” around “green jobs” and climate jobs” (something Australian Conservation Foundation pushed in the early 1990s and late 2000s respectively – the second time with the peak body for Australian Trades Unions). But today, for whatever reason, no union rep was to be heard.
In 1977 Australia was in the midst of a debate about uranium mining and the export of uranium to countries with nuclear reactors. There was then (as there is now) talk of nuclear power for Australia. Which party had that manifesto commitment? It wasn’t the Greens – they would not exist until the early 1990s, brought into existence from one-betrayal-too-many from the Australian Labor Party. It wasn’t Labor. It wasn’t the Liberals (though there were Liberal figures pushing for renewables research and development.) Reader, it was the National Country Party, now known as the Nationals.
In 1977 the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at roughly 333 parts per million. Carbon dioxide traps heat on the earth’s surface. The more there is in the air, the more heat is trapped. Today, in 2026, the CO2 levels are at almost 100ppm above that – 430ppm. They are climbing faster and faster each year. More heat is trapped. More consequences for our past inaction – stretching back long before 1977 – pile up for present and future generations.
My two cents: There really is only so much you can do to innovate with the format of a rally like this, especially when time is tight. Tomorrow afternoon, at the Lion Arts Theatre, it will be easier to see if there is the kind of innovation in how activists hold events that is desperately required. Watch this space.
Transcript of interview with Extinction Rebellion person.
Marc – It’s 16th of April, 2026, I’m outside the Convention Centre. I’m talking to two men in business suits “representing” Santos. One of them has a cigar, as per photo. You’re from extinction rebellion. Why are you here today?
Ian – We’re here because Santos is the biggest company in South Australia. They’re having their AGM today. The shareholders will be here, and they are running programmes, projects around the country and overseas that are impacting the environment, that are impacting and overriding the rights of indigenous people. If anybody stands in front of them, they will take them to court. They’ve constantly taken indigenous people to court, and they keep appealing any decisions they lose. So we’re here to call them out. We’re here to support the First Nations people, but we’re also letting the public know that we believe Santos pays no tax. Hasn’t paid business tax for last 10 years. They pay very little money in donations to the government, and they always get what they want from government.
Marc – And what next for after today? How does the campaign against what Santos is doing continue?
Ian – Okay, in May, we have the Australian Energy Producers conference here in Adelaide that is the lobby group for the oil and gas industry in Australia. All the CEOs will be here, and government ministers will be here. They’ll be here for four days. So we’ll be here to disrupt them.
Marc – I seem to recall, at the last AEP meeting in Adelaide two or three years ago, there were protests that ended up with the Malinauskus government changing the laws. Any comment?
Ian -We’ll do whatever we have to do. We’ll keep doing it because they are not changing. The government is going down the path that Santos tells them to go down, and we’ll keep resisting.
Transcript of rest of Kirsty Bevan speech
It is so important that South Australians stand up and declare that we are not responsible for the climate crisis. As individuals, there are organisations and there are companies who are contributing every day to an accelerated changing climate, whether they’re digging that gas out of the ground which releases greenhouse gases, whether they’re burning it to turn it into liquid gas to export it overseas, they are releasing greenhouse gases which are all contributing to the climate crisis. This part is not under question.
So what do we do? We get them to pay, not the South Australian public. We get them to play for the crisis that’s resulting and our algal bloom, which the report we did at the Conservation Council, we submitted a report that showed that in the first 12 months conservatively, the economic impact of the bloom was around 250 million that’s a quarter of a billion dollars. And who bears the cost of that? We do.
Our role here in South Australia is so important, and we need two fronts at the federal level. We need to show that we are united and that they have a strong voice, that the federal government needs to stop any future expansions of gas and in South Australia, we need to make a firm stand to say that Santos is not a household name. We need to stop promoting Santos at our climate friendly events like the Tour Down Under. We need to stop promoting Santos in our universities and on public land, and we need to stand together to show that we won’t stand for it.
And the government needs to make a change. You can all join up to the Conservation Council’s programme. There’s some people around with their placards out, their hands up, come sign your name, be a part. Showing up to these events is what makes it really matter. But we will continue to hold the government to account. And I thank every single person here today for coming out. Thank you”
The mining industry appeared to have all it needed for a decent online campaign: a new website, chest-beating media statements and one of those fancy Twitter hashtags, #australiansforcoal. What it got in return was merciless mockery.
The Minerals Council of Australia, which is backed by mining companies including industry giants BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, launched Australians for Coal on Monday, as part of a PR campaign which will include TV advertisements and, naturally, political lobbying.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the mining industry had been trying to get people to love it for a very long time indeed, publicity campaigns, sponsorship of things like the TV programme Against The Wind with Jon English school textbooks, etc,
My personal favourite is 1991’s “Mining. It’s absolutely essential.”
They were going to launch one against the carbon tax in 1995 but in the end they didn’t need to. Then they had geared up in 2008-9 and again in 2010-11, to confuse people and to scare people against bringing in a carbon price.
The specific context was that this is the same year as Peabody, Advanced Energy for Life.
What I think we can learn from this is that mining companies and fossil fuel companies spend loads of money to get you to like them and to think of them as responsible corporate citizens. Perhaps the most clever and devious of these was the Mobil “advertorial” adverts.
What happened next: Well, as you’ll see, the MCA was relentlessly mocked, and I think realised that it was not so wise to present such an inviting target.
Meanwhile, any rational human being who understands the Keeling Curve and the history of resistance to anything to reduce the steepness of that curve, will feel despair and dread.
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.
Sixteen years ago, on this day, April 13th, Bob Brown announces he’s stepping down…
The leader of the third force in Australian politics announced his resignation from parliament on Friday, but said his party would maintain its support for prime minister Julia Gillard’s fragile minority government.
Bob Brown, 67, announced his resignation as leader of the Greens and said he would leave the Senate in June after 16 years to “make room for renewal” in the leftwing environmental party.
Brown, who has led the party since its inception in 1992, is Australia’s first openly gay federal parliamentarian. An opponent of the Iraq war, he came into the spotlight in 2003 after being banned from parliament for 24 hours for heckling the US president George W Bush.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Bob Brown had been fighting for peace and ecological sanity for a very long time, and in some of the most hostile places in Australia that you could do that – namely Tasmania and parliament.
The specific context was that after the 2010 election the Greens had held the balance of power, and Gillard’s minority government was forced to institute a carbon price, the so called Multi Party Committee on climate change, and with this done, Bob Brown could announce a very well-deserved retirement from formal politics.
What I think we can learn from this is that there are some people who are particularly well. They have wonderful qualities in terms of being able to rally others, serve as a focal point for other people’s projections and just to also do the work .
What happened next: Bob Brown has continued his activism, sometimes with more success, sometimes with less. I would say the 2019 effort in Queensland was fairly ill-judged, but I don’t think that the Shorten Labor lot would have gotten up anyway. There is a documentary about Bob Brown about which I have very mixed feelings, which are distinct from Brown himself, who, by all accounts and by all reckoning, is a very very admirable character.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, April 12th, 1991, an “Energy Guide” was released. Here’s the press release…
MINISTER FOR RESOURCES ALAN GRIFFITHS
PIE91/963 5 April 1991
ENERGY GUIDE TO BE LAUNCHED ON APRIL 12
The Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, will officially launch the consumer household hint booklet, the “Energy Guide” on April 12, the Minister for Resources, Mr Alan Griffiths announced today.
Mr Griffiths made the announcement during an opening speech to a workshop organised by Greenhouse Action Australia in Melbourne.
Throughout the speech, the Minister highlighted the need for both household and industry consumers to take responsibility for short term measures which would have an immediate effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
“The energy guide is an intensive educational exercise. It shows how to save energy, save money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions without any loss of quality of life,” Mr Griffiths said.
The Energy Guide will be distributed to every Australian household this month.
“If every Australian follows the hints contained in the book, we could reduce our annual output of carbon dioxide by a massive 36 million tonnes each year,” Mr Griffiths said,
“The book is a first for Australia, and recognises us as world leaders in educational campaigns to reduce greenhouse emissions.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Australian political elites had been repeatedly warned about carbon dioxide build up, from the late 70s. You had the CSIRO conference in Port Phillip and then the 1980 symposium. These had been reported in places like the Canberra Times, National Party senators had talked about carbon dioxide build up. It was not exactly a state secret.
The specific context was that in 1988 the issue had exploded into public awareness, thanks also to the CSIRO’s work as made possible by Barry Jones, Minister of Science, who had set up the Commission for the Future. Anyway, Labor Party had won elections in 1983, 1984 and 1987.The 1990 election had looked like a bridge too far, but Labor had squeaked home thanks to small g green voters, and here we see Bob Hawke having to engage with the issue, while also getting a photo op out of it.
What I think we can learn from this is that this is the sort of light-green, blame-shifting, responsibility-shifting, big-picture-avoiding stuff that politicians love.
What happened next: So what we learn is that blame shifting is the name of the game. What happened next? Hawk was toppled a few months later, and all the environmental initiatives were binned by his successor, Paul Keating.
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.
“Next Saturday it’s time for Queenslanders to let our politicians know that we support Queensland and Australia’s clean energy future – and the many new jobs and business opportunities it will create.
On Saturday 9th at 11am we’re uniting with our friends from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition , GetUp! , Greenpeace , Oxfam , Australian Conservation Foundation , World Wildlife Fund and Union Climate Connectors to support real action against climate change.
It’s time to make the big polluters pay their fair share and unlock Australia’s clean energy future. By acting now we can stay healthy, secure our environment, protect jobs and build new clean industries.
This is a family friendly gathering where we’ll hear speakers who understand the science and we’ll celebrate our positive message for change in Australia.
So come along on Saturday the 9th at 11am in King George Square, bring some mates and take a stand in support of fair and effective action on climate change.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Queensland has always been a brutal place for descent of any kind, for. If you’re the wrong skin colour, the wrong sexual orientation, the wrong class, etc..
The specific context was that in 2011 the climate issue was still front page news – was especially front page news in Australia. Since late 2006 Australia’s political elites had been wrangling and wrestling with the very idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide – ostensibly in order to reduce Australia’s domestic emissions (actually it was largely about finding ways to continue with business as usual). There was nothing, of course, in this about exports of coal, because that was on someone else’s books
What I think we can learn from this is that an educated populace understands what’s at stake, but does not have the power to force the elected and unelected leaders of society to behave intelligently.
What happened next: The carbon price was finally instituted. It began operation in July 22,012, but was abolished by Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in 2014
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
