Nineteen years ago, on this day, June 5th, 2006, 70 brave people put their bodies on the line…
June 5, 2006, and Nov. 3, 2007: Rising Tide boat blockades of Newcastle port
On June 5, 2006, in a Rising Tide Australia action, 70 people used small boats to blockade the port of Newcastle, Australia, which exports 80 million tons of coal each year. The protest aimed to call attention to a planned expansion that would allow the port to export twice that amount.[1] The action was repeated by 100 people on Nov. 3, 2007: at this second action, participants attempted to block ships from entering the port for four hours, but police boats managed to escort three ships into the port. At one point, a police jetski rammed one woman’s kayak, resulting in her hospitalization.[2][3]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that all the petitions, marches and begging of politicians had not worked. Emissions climbed, fossil intensive infrastructure projects kept getting approved (and still get approved).
The specific context was that the Howard government (like the Keating and Hawke governments before it) had mouthed occasional platitudes about “the environment” but were hell-bent on saying yes to whatever fossil extraction and export was proposed.
What I think we can learn from this is that brave people have had the foresight and clarity – it hasn’t been enough. What was needed was broad-based movements. Oh well…
What happened next was that the exports and burning went on, the emissions and concentrations went up and up. The mainstream politicians have mostly given up pretending to give a shit.
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.
Australian signs the UNFCCC R Kelly (Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories), Australia signs UNCED climate change convention,
media release, 4 June 1992.
and
The opposition’s delegate to UNCED in 1992, for example, had criticized the Labor Government’s willingness to give away Australia’s sovereign rights and had emphasized the debilitative economic costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.48 CPD, Senate, 4 June 1992, p. 3350.
Matt McDonald, 2005 Fair Weather Friend
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm. 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 for this was that Australian political elites had been warned about climate change from the 1970s onwards, but it had only taken action when forced to and initially, for example, at The Hague in 1989 had made the right noises.
The specific context was that by the time Ros Kelly went to Rio, there had been fierce battles against doing anything substantive on climate change, and most of those battles, frankly, had already been won before December 1991, when Keating toppled Hawke. But the coup de grace was Paul Keating becoming Prime Minister and setting fire to any remaining proposals or hopes that Australia would respond adequately as part of the international effort. Keating just thought it was a load of green crap.
Keating should have been at Rio; e was the only OECD leader not to go, and he sent Kelly instead.
What I think we can learn is this: that other futures were possible, but they didn’t happen, and Paul Keating is as responsible for, frankly, the destruction of Australia, thanks to carbon dioxide build up as the more public villain, John Howard.
What happened next: Kelly continued in post for a couple more years, but was brought down by the so-called sports rorts scandal. She was married to, perhaps is married to, some guy who was at the head of Westpac and Westpac did that ridiculous case for early business action on climate change in April of 2006 the emissions climbed. The concentrations climbed, the impacts began to arrive.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
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).
Greene had done some of the early economic modelling (1990) about how Australia could cut emissions and better off. The work was ignored, and then swamped by corporate bullshit…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm. 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 for this was that Deni Greene had come to Australia at some point in the 70s or 80s as an economist and in the battles over the economic responses to the greenhouse effect, as it was then called, in 1989-91 did a lot of economic modelling, especially around energy efficiency, to show that it would be possible and in fact beneficial, to take strong action. The pro-coal ministries were not impressed, partly, I think, because of the argument, probably also because she was, in fact, only a woman.
And by 91 PricewaterhouseCoopers had been commissioned to release or to produce a whole bunch of other reports, and the modelling wars were underway.
What I think we can learn is this: it’s now almost 40 years of failure on climate change, and we seem to have learned nothing, and we seem to be incapable of learning anything, if at the micro, meso or macro level. But pretty soon, we will be learning – and the lesson today is how to die.
What happened next: I don’t know what Greene did with the rest of her life, after the early 90s, but it must have been pretty painful to watch all the shit unfold, but that is what happens to people, isn’t it,
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).
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).
FLINDERS MP Greg Hunt joined Australia’s oldest parachutist, Jim Brierley, in a parachute jump over Tooradin at the weekend to highlight the freefall of Australia’s solar industry.
83-year-old Mr Brierley lives at Phillip Island in the Flinders electorate and wrote to Mr Hunt earlier this year, inviting him to skydive with the Tooradin-based Commando Skydivers.
Mr Hunt accepted the invitation immediately.
“I leapt at the chance. I had done a static-line parachute jump – where the parachute opens automatically – when I was about 17 but had always wanted to experience a skydive,” he said.
Mr Hunt, who made the jump with tandem master Dave Boulter, described the experience as “sheer exhilaration”.
“We were lucky in that the day was pretty overcast but we managed to find a break in the clouds that lasted just long enough for me to make the jump.
“We jumped from 7000 feet, which was above the cloud level, and dived through the clouds for about 20 seconds before we activated the parachute. Twenty seconds doesn’t sound like a long time but it’s an eternity when you are hurtling towards the ground at something like 120 miles an hour. It is sheer exhilaration. I loved every second of it.
“Jim jumped out of the plane just before me and made an effortless landing, He is an amazing gentleman and an inspiration to us all.”
Mr Hunt used the jump to highlight the plight of the solar panel industry which he said has been sent into freefall since the Rudd Government imposed a means test on the popular solar panel rebate scheme.
BERNARD KEANE ON “PERPETUAL PRESENT” AND PETER GARRETT
Oddly, this is the Greg Hunt who throughout 2008 opportunistically joined the Greens in bagging Garrett for not rolling the solar panels program out quickly enough, after Garrett introduced a means test on the solar panel rebate to slow the remarkable demand for the program. In June 2008, Hunt went skydiving — anyone remember that? — to demonstrate that the solar industry was in “freefall — but unlike me it doesn’t have a soft landing ahead of it”.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 385ppm. 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 for this was that Australian political elites had been aware of the carbon dioxide problem since the 1970s but had not really done anything until forced to by a combination of scientific lobbying and especially public pressure, which exploded in 1988. And in 1990 a student, I think, at University of Melbourne, did his honours thesis on carbon pricing, and 18 years later, that student was the shadow Environment Minister Greg Hunt,
The specific context was that there had been fierce battles over Emissions Trading/ putting a price on carbon dioxide. And from the end of 2006 onwards, there had been running open battles. By mid 2008 the conservative Party, the Liberal party’s fragile consensus on the need to respond to carbon dioxide build up was beginning to fracture. They were still under the leadership, such as it was of Brendan Nelson, but Malcolm Turnbull was waiting in the wings as leader of the opposition.
What I think we can learn is this: these stupid stunts, they are not cupid stunts, but something else we learned that politicians will do pretty much anything for a headline.
Malcolm Turnbull became leader of the opposition and tried to forge some sort of deal with Kevin Rudd, the Labor Prime Minister. But Rudd was too much enjoying watching Turnbull twist in the wind, and so carbon pricing did not get passed, and Tony Abbott became leader of the opposition, and then, God help us, Prime Minister. And was a complete failure, but he can point to having abolished the carbon price as his signal achievement. Hunt was Minister for the Environment in this and brought about a shadow Emissions Trading Scheme. (See Leonore Taylor in the Guardian for more on this).
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
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).
Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 31st, 2007 the Australian ‘Shergold Report’ was released:
The Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading releases the ‘Shergold Report’ which recommends Australia develop an emissions trading scheme.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the Australian political elites had been warned repeatedly about climate change from the late 1970s onwards. The Howard government from 1996 had chosen to resist any and all domestic and international action on climate that would either inconvenience rich people and fossil fuel companies or even potentially lead to their inconvenience at some point in the future. So, for example, Howard resisted all calls to ratify the Kyoto Protocol even though it would mean nothing substantive, because the next deal might and once you’ve given in on one thing, you have to give in on the next, or it’s easier for you to be forced not to give.
The specific context was that in September, October of 2006 public awareness of concern about climate change spiked because of the Millennium drought, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, (he visited Australia) and a bunch of other factors. Howard’s resistance to climate change action or even the investigation of it became untenable, and so Howard did what any politician will do. He appointed a band, a panel led by a reliable civil servant, Peter Shergold. The panel was, of course, stacked with the usual suspects, fossil fuel hacks and CEOs and so forth, and didn’t have scientists or civil society people who would ask awkward questions. And Howard’s plan, I think, was for the Shergold report to be a fig leaf behind which he could hide ahead of the upcoming Federal election. He wanted to be able to use to wave the Shergold report around to show that he was willing to do something on climate change, or to countenance doing something on climate change, and so neutralise one of the rhetorical weapons that the Labour opposition leader Kevin Rudd had in his armoury,
What I think we can learn from this. that you can’t really understand the provenance and purpose of so-called “fact-finding” reports without understanding the politics and the motivations behind it.
What happened next. The Shergold report did not function as Howard hoped it would, and Howard was on a hiding to nothing, because people wanted actual action on climate change, and they thought that Kevin Rudd would deliver, or they hoped he would – poor deluded fools. See also. Chris Rootes, “first climate election” published in the journal Environmental Politics…
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.
Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 29th, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard plays the “he’s an Englishman” card versus economist Nick Stern…
However, in a Parliamentary debate in May 2007, the Prime Minister suggested the [Stern] review was Eurocentric propaganda. He stated that the report of the Government’s Task Group on Emissions Trading:
… will not be a grab bag of proposals taken holus-bolus from a report written by an Englishman for European conditions and designed to promote the political objectives of the British government. That is what the Stern report is all about. Stern is not the biblical scholar of climate change that is posited by those who sit opposite. Stern has written from the perspective of an Englishman, from the European circumstance and from the European point of view. 73
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 29 May 2007, 48 (John Howard, Prime Minister).
Macintosh, 2008 page 66-7
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that John Howard, as prime minister, had spent the 10 years from 1996 to 2006 amplifying and extending the previous Keating Labor government’s hostility to climate change action. Howard had painted himself into a corner, and it was understood that he wasn’t going to be able to paint himself out, or leap over the wet paint, or whatever the metaphor might be.
The specific context was that the UK Labour Tony Blair government had asked a World Bank economist called Nick Stern to produce a report on the “economics of climate change.” This was largely to overcome Treasury intransigence on the question of climate policy. The report, the Stern review, was released in late 2006.
It was at this point, not entirely unrelated, that John Howard had had to perform a U-turn and announce the creation of the ‘Shergold Taskforce’, which would look into the economics of emissions trading.
What I think we can learn from this is that even the best politicians – and Howard was a good politician. I do not mean that as a compliment – run out of steam and run out of road, and by this time, Howard had. Now, very rarely does a politician know when to leave the stage. If Howard had announced his retirement in 2006 his legacy, his “reputation”, would have been assured. But they all come to believe their own propaganda. They all come to believe that they are somehow indispensable. So… no one is indispensable.
What happened next.
Here we are 20 years later, at the beginning of the Fafocene. Economics has not saved us. What we needed was more, but we didn’t know how to get it. And the opposition to ‘it’ was extremely deep-seated and almost insurmountable.
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.
Twenty-five years ago, on this day, May 28th, 2001, the ABC reported on the Kyoto Protocol…
The World Today Archive – Monday, 28 May , 2001
Reporter: David Mark
JOHN HIGHFIELD: And now on The World Today let’s go to the third in our series of stories on the global warming crisis. It’s now been established of course that the greenhouse effect is more than just fanciful scientific theory.
In March, scientists in Britain published the first evidence that global warming is happening as a result of the greenhouse gas pollution of our planet. And the impact could be catastrophic unless remedial measures are taken urgently.
The United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted the world’s temperatures could rise by almost six degrees centigrade over the next century leading to the flooding of many island nations, particularly those in the south and western Pacific in our region, as well as climate chaos, including prolonged droughts and violent storms.
Well, two of the world’s worst offenders on a per capita basis when it comes to producing carbon dioxide (CO2) are the United States and Australia of course. And we seem to be stepping away from things and the International Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, which it was hoped to change the world’s attitude.
Well, in this third story, David Mark looks at the green record of our political parties in this federal election year.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that there had been a big wave of ‘act or we are doomed’ documentaries and programmes in the late 1980s and early 1990s. (And, to be fair, similar ones in the late 1960s.)
The specific context was that, as per the May 20 post, there are ABC documentaries about climate change, because there is a recent hook i.e. the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, which has just come out. And also it’s politically salient, because President George W. Bush has pulled out of Kyoto, and people were waiting to see what Australian Prime MinisterJohn Howard would say. Howard is at this point, playing for time, because there is going to be a federal election at some point in late 2001 and Howard can’t afford to piss off and galvanise small g and (large g) Green voters against him.
What I think we can learn from this is, again, the media, or bits of the media, were relatively responsible when they could be, but it didn’t help the wider picture, because the social movements aren’t there to harness the energy, anger, fear, of individuals (because that’s really hard to do).
Everyone understandably wants to vote for the right person and leave it in their hands because they’re busy, because politics is – as per Max Weber – “the slow, boring of hard boards”, and it can be boring and frustrating, and you just want to get on with your life. Unfortunately, while you’re getting on with your life, the emissions are climbing, the atmospheric concentrations are climbing, and then before you know it, the impacts are arriving. And by the time the impacts have arrived, it’s pretty late, too late, I would say, to do much about it. And this dilemma was understood in the late 70s, and it’s throughout William Barbat’s CO2 newsletter.
What happened next.
We didn’t do the work, and future generations are stuffed. Also, all the other species. Oh well…
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.
Twenty three years ago, on this day, May 27th, 2003 Labor MP Anthony Albanese seconds Kyoto Protocol legislation in Parliament,
MEDIA RELEASE: Anthony Albanese – 26 May 2003
Today, the Federal Member for Grayndler Anthony Albanese MP was pleased to second a Private Members Bill in Federal Parliament designed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.
Moved by the Shadow Minister for Sustainability & the Environment Kelvin Thomson MP, the Kyoto Protocol Ratification Bill 2003 will give legal effect to Australia’s Kyoto target and ensure Australian industry can take advantage of emerging new markets when the treaty comes into international force.
“Back at home, the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Kelvin Thomson, introduced a private member’s bill for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on 26 May 2003. As well as calling for the ratification of the Protocol, the Bill sets out requirements for the Commonwealth Environment Minister to prepare systems for involvement in international emissions trading schemes, a National Climate Change Action Plan, and imposes an obligation on the Government to ensure that Australia’s target of 108% of its 1990 emissions is not exceeded during the period 2008 to 2012.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 306ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the Prime Minister John Howard had resisted Kyoto ratification, despite an incredibly generous deal having been negotiated by his Environment minister. In June 2002 Howard had, on World Environment Day, said he wasn’t going to ratify because it wasn’t in Australia’s economic interest.
And you had a young MP called Anthony Albanese who was part of the Opposition front bench, and they were trying to “punch the bruise.” They were trying to say that Labour would be better on the environment and appeal to some of the green voters who were deserting them for the Green Party.
The specific context was that we were still deep in the pretending phase. Completely unlike now.
What I think we can learn from this is that politicians make all the right noises early on in their career. Once they finally get into power, if they do well, it’s a story. It’s the sort of thing you see with Tony Blair in the late 1980s – it’s amusing and dispiriting.
What happened next. Well, Albanese did eventually become Prime Minister. And guess what? We are not saved.
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 genuinely tell people that building a wind farm here will save the planet from climate change you are doing a massive disservice to the environment. It is an atrocious misleading of the Australian community.”
Ian Campbell, Senate Estimates ECITA Committee, 25 May 2006, p.116.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 3xxppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that by this time, the Howard Government was beginning to look clapped out and tired. The first couple of environment ministers who had been intelligent and slick had been replaced by someone who was maybe not in their league, and he was starting to look idiotic, as was the government.
The specific context was that by this time, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Westpac and other organisations had released their “business case for early (sic) action on climate change.” The Millennium drought was ongoing. There was going to be an UNFCCC negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia still hadn’t ratified. Mostly though, Prime Minister John Howard was just beginning to look like he wasn’t quite on top of things. There was a technology deal with the United States and Korea, the AP6, but it wasn’t really convincing people, and there was clearly going to be trouble ahead on climate and environment generally.
What I think we can learn from this. Governments get tired, and the good ministers burn out, or flame out, and they are replaced by second or third rate is and then you go into a death spiral.
What happened next. Howard lost the 2007 election, and incoming Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd deployed all of his considerable skill, humility and tact to usher Australia into a wonderful climate politics where sharp emissions reductions were combined with a realistic adaptation policy and… oh, come on. You know what happened.
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.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Evans, has thrown doubt over a long-standing Federal Government position on greenhouse gases in a move which will alarm the business sector.
The doubts on Australia’s response to the UN Climate Change Convention were compounded by Senator Evans’ admission that Australia had recently been “rolled” on its tough stand on the Basel convention on hazardous wastes.
At a Senate Estimates Committee hearing on Tuesday [24th May], Victorian Liberal Senator Judith Troeth asked: “Has Cabinet agreed that Australia will not implement measures under the climate change convention which would damage our competitiveness, unless other countries also do so?”
Gill, P. 1994. Minister signals change of policy on greenhouse gas. The Australian Financial Review, 26 May, p.6.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the Australian Government had, initially, in 1989 made the right noises about a climate treaty, but by 1992 opposition within the Labor government had hardened. Although Australia signed up and ratified the UNFCCC, it also started looking for loopholes to avoid any real commitments. The specific context was that this is before the treaty became international law. They knew that that was coming, and they knew that there would be a Conference of the Parties, and they wanted to start getting their retaliation in first.
What I think we can learn from this. This is not “the bad guys.” This is not the evil cloven hooves, tail with a triangle on the end, horns on head Howard Government (boo, hiss!). This is that nice, cuddly, social democratic government led by Paul Keating. It’s important to remember this.
What happened next. Most of the political elite and industry fought tooth and nail against a domestic carbon tax, which would have been the thing to keep the international climate negotiations sweet. And they sent the Environment Minister, John Faulkner, to the Berlin COP without much more than promises to maybe take action at some point. There was a National Greenhouse Response Strategy by this time, but it was farcical. No one took it seriously. Ultimately then, once the next government came in, they stopped even pretending to give a shit about the UNFCCC, and played hardball, which is why they got the incredibly generous deal at Kyoto (which they still didn’t ratify). I could go on for hours.
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.