Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 31, 2010 – Rann says ETS delay a national failure

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 31st, 2010,

AUSTRALIA is failing to meet its international responsibilities by delaying the introduction of an emissions trading scheme, Mike Rann said yesterday.

After staying clear of ETS issues in the federal election campaign, the South Australian Premier told an Adelaide business lunch an ETS was urgently needed to spur international action on climate change.

“Only an emissions trading system allows the country to commit to a specific emissions performance and be assured of achieving it,” he said.

Akerman, P. 2010. ETS delay a national failure: Rann. The Australian, 1 September.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ets-delay-a-national-failure-rann/news-story/db709200b06792098c68b94e479eea30

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that, as per a couple of days ago, the first attempts to get a price on carbon were for a tax. After these were defeated, especially in 1995, attention had turned to an emissions trading scheme. In August 2003 the second attempt to get a trading scheme going under the Howard government was defeated.

The specific context was that Howard’s entire cabinet was united in the need for one. Howard blocked it for a month and came back, and then said “no”, and the spineless cretins all went along with it. Here we see South Australian Premier Mike Rann, who by this time had been taking a keen interest in renewables and the potential for South Australia to generate a lot of electricity from wind entering the fray; Rann had become premier of South Australia shortly before this. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the opportunities, the technologies, the policies were all there, and if they had been implemented, they would not have stopped climate change. They would have slowed down the staggering increase in our emissions. They would have slowly, perhaps, bent the concentration curve down a bit, which might have bought us more time. These catastrophes that we’re facing might have been delayed by as much as I don’t know a decade?

What happened next In 2006 Howard had to do a U-turn in the face of public and political pressure. It did not save him. Labor’s Kevin Rudd then managed to fuck up the emissions trading scheme legislation and was replaced by Julia Gillard, about whom you can say many things, but she was at least competent within her framework. You cannot say that of Rudd.

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

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 31, 1998 – Green dollar growing on trees?

August 31, 1992 – “Community Energy Audit” in Canberra

August 31, 2005 – “Stop Climate Chaos” launched

August 31, 2006 – activists try to “Reclaim Power”

August 31, 2011 – anti-carbon tax protesters call Anthony Albanese a “maggot”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 28, 2006 – “National Emissions Trading Taskforce” report released

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 28th, 2006,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that after two failed efforts to get a carbon tax up in the early 90s, advocates of economics-based action on emissions reductions had turned their attention to an emissions trading scheme. Two proposals had been defeated in John Howard’s cabinet in 2000 and 2003 and thereafter attention had turned to state-based schemes in Australia’s different states, with the possibility of trading between them. 

The specific context was that John Howard was the Prime Minister, was continuing to deride and, wherever possible, block such an effort, especially because it undercut his so-called authority.

What I think we can learn from this is that a policy that is popular, which is not to say would have been particularly effective, will persist, and its advocates will do their best to find other plausible venues, i.e. going through the states rather than the federal government.

What happened next A state-based scheme was supplanted, because in late 2006 it became obvious that Howard was going to have to do a U-turn on the question of an emissions trading scheme if he wanted to stay prime minister. And if he was in fact defeated at the upcoming election (spoiler, he was) then Labor was promising a federal scheme. That federal scheme finally happened from 2012 was then abolished by the next government of Liberal Tony Abbott, and the whole idea of explicit, explicit emissions trading schemes was then defeated.

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

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 28, 1971 – snarky opinion piece in New York Times. Stephen Schneider rebuts days later

August 28, 1977 – First Australian“Greenpeace” action, against whaling 

August 28, 2000 – Victorian power generators refuse to sign up to reduction plan, because it is sticks as well as carrots.

August 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Categories
Australia

August 28, 1996 – BCA still at it “International Energy and Environment Conference”

Thirty years ago, on this day, August 28th, 1996, “International Energy and Environment Conference”, Sydney, organised by Business Council of Australia.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the Business Council of Australia, which had been set up in 1983, had played a pivotal role in defeating proposals for effective and progressive ecologically sustainable development in the late 1980s early 1990s. Not through the force of its intellect, but by good old-fashioned lobbying. And BCA and people from the Minerals Council of Australia had also set up the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, which had been massively successful in coordinating opposition to the 1994-95 carbon tax. Here we see the BCA keeping the flame alive, because although there is a new government, you can never be too safe.

The specific context was there are federal elections every three years in Australia, and so new Liberal Prime Minister John Howard might crash and burn, and the whole question of carbon dioxide build up and what to do about it might – just might – return. So BCA needs to keep its hand in the game, it needs to keep its networks being constantly refreshed, and it needs to be able to fire warning shots across the bows when required.

What I think we can learn from this a good, as in effective, as in vicious and evil incumbent trade association will be doing stuff like this. It won’t look like much, it won’t scream “evil bastard” at you, but if you know how to read the signs, then you’ll see it for what it is, And you can tell me that words like evil are unacademic and unhelpful and analytic dead ends, and I can say yes, and I don’t give a fuck. Enjoy your career as an asshole. 

What happened next Howard served himself and his rich business mates for another 10 years until being kicked out by the voters both as Prime Minister and as MP. By that time the damage had been done. Would Labour have been particularly different? Well, thanks to Tampa in 2001 we will never know.

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

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 28, 1971 – snarky opinion piece in New York Times. Stephen Schneider rebuts days later

August 28, 1977 – First Australian“Greenpeace” action, against whaling 

August 28, 2000 – Victorian power generators refuse to sign up to reduction plan, because it is sticks as well as carrots.

August 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Categories
Australia

August 27, 1969 – The Australian tells the truth on pollution

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, August 27th, 1969,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that through the 60s there had been increasing concern about the costs of industrialization. This was especially visible in big cities around air pollution, most infamously Los Angeles. London, Tokyo, and Australian cities, especially Sydney and Melbourne, were concerned that they would end up in the same place. Clean Air Societies were formed, conferences were held, etc. 

The specific context was in 1968-69 “pollution” became the word of the day. This was especially thanks to the Santa Barbara oil shock following on from the Torrey Canyon a couple of years earlier, and then the river in Ohio catching fire, and so forth. So, really, 1969 is the year that pollution starts to take hold, and a cynic might argue that talking about pollution allowed people to talk about their distaste or concern about where America was going without talking about the Vietnam War. Also, in ‘69 the UN Secretary General had made various speeches, and there had been a report following on from the 1968 Biosphere Conference.

What I think we can learn from this is that The Australian used to be a newspaper as well as a propaganda rag. Now it’s just the latter. And propaganda that looks like propaganda is third rate propaganda, but then if you’ve created generations of third-rate educated people, you only need third rate propaganda.

What happened next Everybody started pretending to give a shit about pollution, up to and including John Gorton, the Australian Prime Minister. In May1971 Australia got an Environment Minister, Peter Howson, but the wave kind of fizzled out by 1973 though some people stuck with it, of course.

xxx

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

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 27, 1859 – The Oil Age begins. UPDATED TO BE a) accurate b) less Eurocentric

August 27, 1962 – Mariner 2 sets off for Venus

August 27, 1970 – Sydney Town Hall packed with greenies wanting action.

August 27, 1993 – international negotiations edge forward

August 27, 2013 – absurd claim of Nobel-prize winners’ support for Liberal non-policy is debunked

Categories
Australia

 August 26, 1997 – Germans versus Australians…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 26th, 1997,

The “holier-than-thou” Germans became “very angry” over Australia’s controversial proposals on how the world should fight climate change, according to confidential Federal Government “greenhouse papers” obtained by the Herald.

Hogarth, M. 1997. Germany ‘angry’ On Clean Air Target. Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia had slipped from being a responsible middle power 1988 to 1990 to an active, very active opponent of climate action.

The specific context was here we see in the run up to the Kyoto Climate Conference, at which rich nations were supposed to bring their plans for significant emissions reductions, as per the Berlin mandate, and the Germans pointing out the facts, which is that the Australians were behaving like utter assholes. Criminal stock indeed.

What I think we can learn from this is that Australian governments since the very early 90s have been criminal. They have disregarded the rights of future generations of humans and other species to anything approaching a habitable planet, and they have done this because they are basically the meat puppets for a bunch of extractivist goons. And you can dress it up however you like, and you can make good money and/or good career in dressing it up, but ultimately you’re dressing it up.

What happened next Australia extorted an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto conference, and then refused to ratify. By the time Australia did ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2008 it was a dead letter. The balance sheet kept breaking up the sky.

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

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 26, 1965 “Climatic Change appears to be underway, in fact.” – the 1965 commencement speech that should have rocked the world.

August 26, 1970 The Alkali Inspector’s report

August 26, 1973 – Sir Kingsley Dunham points out the C02 problem

August 26, 1991- We cannot delay says Brundtland

August 26, 2003 – Australian “plan” to save biodiversity

August 26, 2006 – First “Climate Camp” begins

Categories
Australia

August 25, 2006 – Vestas wind farm closes

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 25th, 2006,

By August [2006] Vestas closed Australia’s first wind turbine nacelle factory in Wynard, Tasmania, just two-and-a-half years after it had opened

(Prest, 2007: 253)

AND 

Prime Minister John Howard yesterday blamed market forces for the news.

He has indicated a rescue fund is not yet on the agenda.

“We are looking at that situation, and we continue to talk to the company,” he said. 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/tas-factory-closure-not-feds-fault-pm-20060826-gdo98c.html

Oh, and look, here’s Anthony Albanese making all the right noises.

https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/one-hundred-jobs-lost-because-howard-doesnt-support-clean-energy

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that despite Australia having enormous potential as a creator of renewable energy technologies (especially wind and solar), successive governments (Liberal and Labor, state and federal) had not been particularly interested, and sometimes actively hostile (as was the CSIRO) from the 1970s onwards.

The specific context was that John Howard had convened a meeting of his “Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group” to get its members to help him… slow the growth of renewables. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the actions and inactions of politicians matters for the pace at which a new technology enters the fray. And Howard belongs at the Hague.

What happened next – Howard lost the 2007 election, and some support for renewables was then introduced. Lost decades though, and entirely unnecessary carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere now, trapping heat.

References

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/news/australia/tas/northtas/200608/s1724891.htm

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-08-26/business-fears-for-future-after-vesta-shutdown/1248224

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 25, 1933 – South Coast Bulletin reports “Carbon dioxide: climatic influence”

August 25, 1969- “Global Circulation in the Atmosphere” Conference in London

August 25, 1970 – Margaret Mead and James Baldwin rap on race…

August 25, 2013 – The IPA loses support, for being stupid climate deniers.

Categories
Australia

August 23, 1997- Sydney Morning Herald does some Clintonian wish-casting…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 23rd, 1997,

United States officials expect Australia’s maverick greenhouse position to be blown away in a “big bang” at the climate change convention in Kyoto, according to confidential reports by Australian diplomats obtained by the Herald…. The documents are confidential internal communications between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra and Australian embassies.

They detail Australia’s desperate globe-trotting efforts to undermine the push for international agreement on binding, uniform targets to reduce greenhouse emissions, initially for developed nations.

In June, for example, one senior Canberra official went to Seoul and promoted the economic benefits of a “free ride” to South Korea – a key developing nation – rather than it having to face the high cost of any future emissions control regime. [Compare Exxon doing the same thing with China]

Hogarth, M. 1997. Why Our Stand On Climate Change Is Doomed. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the US under George H. W. Bush had succeeded in eliminating emissions reductions, targets and timetables for rich countries from the text of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Australia had gone along with that, probably quite happily. The administration under Democrat Bill Clinton had tried to take some energy efficiency conservation action with its BTU tax, and had been soundly defeated. Here we see Clinton at the beginning of his second term, after having given a speech in 1996 at the Great Barrier Reef, beginning to flex muscles ahead of COP 3, which was to be held in Kyoto.

The specific context was that the Australians were pursuing a particularly aggressive line against Australia having any discernible ambitious targets on emissions reductions. This was against the mood music that the Americans, especially under Senator Tim Wirth, as Clinton’s climate envoy were wanting to put forward, so the Clinton gang were talking about how Australia was isolated and would be more isolated and would suffer significant diplomatic consequences for its stance. And for whatever reason, the Sydney Morning Herald was going along with that wish casting. 

What I think we can learn from this – occasionally the mood-music out of Washington is a better form of kayfabe (see, for example, Obama in 2014).

What happened next – Australia got an insanely generous deal at Kyoto, through exasperation and exhaustion at its intransigence.

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

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

August 23, 1856 – Eunice Foote identifies carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum

August 23, 1989 – Space Mirrors proposed to combat global warming. I am not making this up.

August 23, 2000 – Nick Minchin in gloat mode

August 23, 2002 – Stafford Beer dies

Categories
Australia

August 22, 1991 – Industry Commission report does its job (scuppering climate action)

Thirty five years ago, on this day, August 22nd, 1991,

There would be little point in Australia’s taking unilateral action to reduce greenhouse gases, according to a government report.

International consensus and concerted international action were needed if the greenhouse effect were to be addressed effectively.

The Industry’ Commission report, published today, “Costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions”, examines the impact on Australian industry of an international stabilisation of greenhouse gases at 1988 levels by the year 2000 and a 20 per cent reduction in those emissions by the year 2005.

Uhlmann, C. 1991. Australia can’t work alone on greenhouse. Canberra Times, 22 August, p12

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australian political elites had been warned repeatedly about carbon dioxide build up from the late 60s onwards, and had adopted a wait and see strategy at various points.

The specific context was that in October 1990, in exchange for acceding to Australia, announcing a very hedged interim planning target around the Toronto proposal for a reduction in CO2 emissions of 20% by 2005 Treasurer, then-Treasurer Paul Keating had gotten the promise that the Industry Commission – a quasi-independent gang of growth-oriented intellectual thugs – would look at the greenhouse issue in the context of Australia’s economic performance.

By the time of the industry commission’s report coming out, Keating had quit government because Bob Hawke had reneged on a promise to step down in favour of Keating after the 1990 election, and was lurking on the back benches, biding his time. Graham Richardson, who had been Environment Minister, and then was butt hurt when he didn’t get the defence job he wanted was Keating’s leadership organiser (66 to 44 and “it’s enough”).

The Industry Commission report said the predictable things, and was a useful stick to beat advocates of action with because it was ostensibly independent and we were told that action was unnecessary and would be expensive blah blah blah – the usual. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there is always one of these “don’t panic, no one needs to upset the applecart” reports coming out. Some work, some don’t.

What happened next Keating succeeded in toppling. Hawke in December 1991 and then Keating basically set fire to everything environmental that Hawke had proposed, including climate actions and Keating, in order to cover his ass, allowed waste minimization and recycling to stand in for actual policy.

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

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 22, 1960 – JFK says “we must climb to the hilltop”

August 22, 1981 – New York Times front page story costs #climate scientists their jobs.

August 22, 1987 – “Civilisation and Rapid Climate Change” – a short book…

August 22, 1988 – scientists say “Australia, expect #climate refugees”

August 22, 2000 – Minchin kills an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

August 22, 2011 – anti-carbon pricing rally flops

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

August 21, 2000 – Renewables boast a hoax

Twenty six years ago, on this day, August 21st, 2000,

One of the Federal Government’s key boasts on greenhouse gases that it is legislating so electricity suppliers must increase their power from renewable sources by 2 per cent by 2010 has been called a hoax.

According to industry estimates, growth is occurring at that rate anyway.

And the Opposition has been criticised for signalling that it will pass the Government’s Renewable Energy Bill in its present form, which allows burning wood from native forests to create energy to be taken into account in determining whether the target has been met.

At present, 10.7 per cent of the country’s energy comes from renewable sources. The bill would lift that to 12.7 per cent by 2010. The bill, which also applies to major electricity buyers, such as the aluminium industry, will go to the Senate later this month.

The Australian Conservation Foundation yesterday accused Dr Sharman Stone, parliamentary secretary to the Environment Minister, Senator Hill, of issuing a misleading media release. It had said wind farms, solar-driven manufacturing, tidal power and energy from methane were “destined to become a growing part of Australia’s energy options” because of the legislation.

“This is the great renewable hoax,” the foundation’s campaign director, Mr John Connor, said. “It will be woodchip-driven stuff, and there’s basic problems … legislation which just won’t drive the kind of industries [we should] base the economy on.”

Clennell, A. 2000. Government Greenhouse Gases Boast A Hoax, Says Environmental Group. Sydney Morning Herald, August 22, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australian governments, state and federal, had intermittently made supportive noises in the general direction of renewables, but had usually not provided funding or significant financial incentives. My favourite example is how in 1994-95 a proposal for a carbon tax where some of the profits were hypothecated towards research and development of renewables was shot down by opponents within the Labor Party before it got to cabinet. 

The specific context was in 1997 ahead of the Kyoto conference, Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard had, with some fanfare, produced a Safeguarding the Future policy, which included a promise of a 2% renewables per target for Australian electricity provision. Howard then slow-walked the policy implementation, so that it became a much smaller amount, and here we see various environmental groups pointing this out for all the good it did. 

What I think we can learn from this is that at time of writing or narrating, John Howard is still alive, and there is still time to get him to The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity and other species, and he has very little defence, And standing next to him in the dock should be Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison, and most of all Anthony Albanese, Julia Gillard squeaks her way out by the skin of her teeth, but as well as these meat puppets, lots of industry figures whose names we barely know should also be in the dock as well and this will not happen.

What happened next LETAG. Vestas (LINKS)

xxx

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

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 21, 1961 – The UN holds a “new sources of energy” conference

August 21, 1972 – Nature editor John Maddox says C02-temperature fear “found wanting”

August 21, 1986 – Lake Nyos disaster

August 21, 2004 – The Australian reports on Howard cabinet split over ETS

Categories
Australia

August 20, 1987 – “we have a wait and see approach”

Thirty nine years ago, on this day, August 20th, 1987,

MJ Elliott in the Legislative Council of the South Australian parliament

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 349ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that South Australian Parliament had been hearing about carbon dioxide build up intermittently since 1971, usually from figures in the right-wing Liberal Party. 

The specific context was that by 1987 these statements were becoming more frequent, in the context of the 1985 Villach Scientific Conference and the CSIROs present at Division of Atmospheric Physics presentation to the Australian Environment Council in 1986 and the forthcoming greenhouse project of the CSIRO atmospheric physics people and the Commission for the Future.

What I think we can learn from this is that this politician was not at all lying. We had adopted a “wait and see” policy, even though from the mid 70s various scientists have been making point that a wait and see policy was not risk-free and in effect not acting in itself was an action, and it was an action in favour of increased risk.

What happened next is that in 1988 the issue exploded in the UK, the US, Australia and since then politicians have had to take a stance and most of them have chosen to pay lip service, though some especially on the right have delighted in “owning the libs” by saying they don’t actually care if there is indeed a problem, we will tough it out and technology will save the day. 

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

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 20, 1988 – Hansen’s model released

August 20, 1996 – Denialist wastes time, energy in stupid smear

August 20, 1997 – Australian Mining Industry operative misrepresents the #climate science. Obvs.

August 20, 2016 – Exxon’s gonna get sued?

August 20, 2018 – Greta Thunberg’s first protest