Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

August 24, 1992 – Bureaucrats kill greenie-business consensus on climate action

Thirty two years ago, on this day, August 24th, 1992, the last chance to do something differently is killed off.

The Canberra Times has a front page story that begins thus:

Federal and state bureaucrats have watered down and fatally weakened recommendations agreed to by industry, conservationists and scientists to lessen the greenhouse effect, according to the Institution of Engineers, Australia.

The IEA’s claims are similar to those made by Australia’s green groups, who have pulled out of the final stages of the Ecologically Sustainable Development process in protest at what they see as undermining by the Federal Government.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/137175203

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the greenies (small g because the Green Party didn’t exist,) had forced then Prime Minister Bob Hawke to launch an Ecologically Sustainable Development policy-making process in 1990. This had come up with some good ideas, which were then watered down. And the whole thing was then being vigorously killed off by 1992. Not so much by Paul Keating, but by federal bureaucracy henchmen, who were determined that Australia’s future was about digging up more and selling it, chopping down more and selling it. And then for them, development meant growth, industrial growth, GDP growth at any cost, and they didn’t see why they should have to pretend to listen to a bunch of Luddite hippies. Now that the media was bored of listening to the “Luddite hippies”, and there was this ridiculous summit had been agreed. 

What we learn is that when we only pay attention to politicians, and business, we miss an important aspect of the resistance to sanity. Namely, the permanent bureaucracy that thinks it runs the show and often does run the show. But activists are very loathe to talk about this – some activists anyway – perhaps because it seems like a conspiracy theory. And also you’re beating up on people who can’t talk back to you but can sabotage you. Assholes, in other words. 

What happened next: A carbon tax, which would have been one small part of an overall intelligent response, was defeated in 1995. The emissions kept climbing. And the consequences are beginning to pile up…

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

Also on this day: 

August 24, 1989 – a Sydney council takes greenhouse suggestions on-board (or says it will).

August 24, 1994 – first signs of a split in the anti-climate action business coalition…

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

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

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 21st, 2004, a newspaper tells the tale… (I know this because the ALP’s Anthony Albanese was using the article to attack Prime Minister John Howard in March 2005.)

Albanese speech in parliament 9 March 2005

“Even Treasurer Peter Costello and the former environment minister, David Kemp, supported a national trading scheme. As reported by the Australian on 21 August 2004:

Federal cabinet rejected such a scheme— an emissions trading scheme in 2003— … even though Environment Minister David Kemp and Treasurer Peter Costello promoted it, after industry lobbied John Howard

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had polished off the emissions trading scheme for the second time, even though his Cabinet had been united against him. He’d hit a pause button, gone and talked to his business mates, came back and said “nah.”

And here we were a year later. I think in the run up to the 2004. Federal election (which happened in October. Mark Latham. Remember him?). A good old fashioned scoop that the Australian ran, presumably because they knew that if they didn’t, it would get given to someone else. It also made them look like journalists, which is always difficult when you’re The Australian. [Interesting question would be who leaked it and why? I don’t know that they ever necessarily got to the bottom of that. But it would be fun to find out.]

What we learn is that when somebody would leak something, you’d have to ask, what were they trying to achieve? What’s the timing? And have they protected themselves enough? Sarah Tisdall and all that.

What happened next, Howard won the 2004 election. Latham went way off the deep end. And Howard got another three years of being a complete fuck knuckle on climate.

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

Also on this day: 

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”

Categories
Australia Business Responses Energy

August 18, 1991- Business Council of Australia says “fuck you, future generations,” rejects energy efficiency measures

Thirty three years ago, on this day, August 18th, 1991 the rich people told future generations (especially of poor people) to go fuck themselves.

The Business Council of Australia yesterday rejected proposals to make industry more energy-efficient.

The council criticised recommendations by the Federal Government’s taskforce on ecologically sustainable development to increase energy prices and impose new taxes, such as a tax on fuel with high carbon levels.

The council said the country’s future lay in continuing to develop its natural resources. Its executive director, Mr Peter McLaughlin, said the sustainable development process could significantly damage industry unless it adopted a “much more realistic tone”.

Peake, R. 1991. Business Rejects Lower Energy Use. The Age, 19 August, p.14.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Business Council of Australia, the main club for big business, was shouting no at everything, a bit like Ian Paisley did. And even stuff that made absolute sense on any level of economic thinking was shouted down. I think there are two things going on there, around fear of a slippery slope, and also that regulation might be shown – gasp – to be beneficial.

What we learn; two things. First, in the midst of a culture war, the red mist or the green mist descends. And the other thing we need to remember is that all of the economic modelling that outfits like the BCA were relying on and commissioning, assumed perfect efficiency already. And no matter how many empirical examples were given to them, by Alan Pears and other energy efficiency advocates, if it didn’t fit the theory, it was discarded. It was ignored. And so if you believe that things are already perfectly energy efficient, agreeing to further energy efficiency measures is actually merely agreeing to wasteful government regulation in and of itself, which will then encourage more bureaucrats to breed in dark corners. 

What happened next, the BCA won, and the Australian housing industry is still miserably inefficient, of course. But the economic models that say it’s impossible for business to be inefficient, persist and have their death grip on the minds – if you can call them “minds” – of business elites. 

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

Also on this day: 

August 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

August 18, 1996, Ex-CSIRO #climate boss shows he has lost the plot

Categories
Australia

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister”

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, August 17th, 1997,

The Australian energy, mining and paper industries have united to call on the Government to appoint a Cabinet-ranked sustainable development minister to combat “piecemeal management” and to take a national approach to greenhouse gas abatement.

Yesterday, industry peak bodies issued a joint statement saying the lack of coherent management was “one of the greatest threats to a robust, coherent and consistent industry policy and certainly to resources and energy policy”.

1997 Taylor, L. (1997) Industry wants minister for `greenhouse’ The Australian Financial Review 18th August

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that it was clear some sort of “Greenhouse Office” or greenhouse minister was going to be required, if only to keep the Libs quiet. And so this call from industries like Paper happening as it was, at the same time as the Countdown to Kyoto conference is a classic spoiler move, demand a ministerial post is created: that helps give small L-libs that something is being done (see also Macmillan Manoeuvre). And then you make damn sure that your guy is in charge. And if your guy isn’t in charge, you have fallback plans about withholding information, not inviting them to meetings, all the rest of it. And this is one of those good tactics that the dickheads have at their disposal. 

What we learn is that in isolation, a bold statement of fact can seem confusing, but once you put the pieces together of the puzzle, you see what else was happening. You see what else their motivations might have been. Then it becomes a little bit clearer. 

What happened next, there was no greenhouse minister that there was the Australian Greenhouse Office with pitiful funding that Howard appointed and then ignored. It was a total waste of money as the Australian National Audit Office pointed out in 2004.

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

Also on this day: 

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

August 14, 2007 – CCS report in Australia “between a rock and a hard place”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, August 14th, 2007, a CCS report comes out

2007 Between a rock and a hard place report of House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation (Australia)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the year before the Senate had called for a report about CCS and Australia. This was in the broader context of CCS being pushed by Howard since about 2004 (earlier if you count the PMSEIC stuff). 

What we learn is that these sorts of investigations throw up reports of varying quality and usefulness. 

What happened next? The CCS bandwagon kept going for a couple of years before it finally the wheels came off in late 2010. 

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

Also on this day: 

August 14, 1989 – South Australia creates “interdepartmental committee on #climate change”…

August 14, 1971 – Stanford Prison Study begins…

August 14, 2002 – Australian economists urge Kyoto Protocol ratification

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 12, 2009 – Deutsche bank enters modelling war in Australia

Fifteen years ago, on this day, August 12th, 2009, the climate wars continue…

A leading global authority on carbon trading has questioned the claimed cost savings of the hybrid emissions trading model being considered by the federal opposition.

Deutsche Bank’s global head of carbon markets, Mark Lewis, said international experience suggested Frontier Economics was wrong to say its model would result in much smaller electricity price increases than would occur under the Rudd government’s proposed ETS.

Breusch, J. 2009. Doubts over emission cost savings. The Australian Financial Review, 12 August, p. 6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberals, then led by Malcolm Turnbull, were trying to offer an alternative to Kevin Rudd CPRS. But of course, it had to be distinct enough and therefore far enough from accepted economic practice norms. Which meant that outfits like Deutsche Bank would be compelled to say it’s crap. 

What we learn is that when there is a consensus around what is “economically efficient,” then bucking that will open you up to all sorts of attacks. And so it came to pass. 

What happened next? I don’t know if the Libs put Deutsche Bank on a blacklist or anything. But what’s interesting is that during the white heat of the climate wars (2010 to ‘13). various consultancies played as dead as they could for fear of missing out on future government contracts.

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

Also on this day: 

August 12, 1970 – US Senate warned about climate change

August 12, 1990 – Channel 4 shows crackpot documentary “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”

August 12, 2010 – BZE launches energy plan for Australia

Categories
Australia

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut)

Fifteen years ago, on this day, August 11th, 2009, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, famously fond of the sound of his own voice, is actually shut up…

“Giant metaphor strikes Parliament,” is how The Onion might have rendered the power outage that, thankfully, cut Kevin Rudd off mid-sentence on climate change in Question Time yesterday. It was the only interesting moment in a Question Time so boring as to be almost physically unendurable.

The Liberals are making a concerted effort to push the Frontier Economics modelling, and good on them. It’s very brave, because the instant response, not merely from Kevin Rudd but from assembled journalists, is why isn’t it policy, and if it isn’t, what is their policy. That’s a question that remains unresolved.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was in Parliament, preening and bleating. This was after his first attempt at legislating his wretched CPRS had failed, and before it was reintroduced in November. This is one of the few examples of Kevin Rudd actually being shut up. 

What we learn is we learn nothing, because we’re human. 

What happened next Rudd reintroduced the CPRS legislation, and it failed. Thanks to Tony Abbott. Kevin Rudd, the Greens possibly in that order? 

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

Also on this day: 

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe”

Categories
Australia

August 8, 1990 – ANZEC says “adopt Toronto target” of sharp carbon cuts.

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 8th, 1990, there’s another push for the Target to be adopted.

“One was launched by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council on August 8, and supports the Toronto target as an interim goal for planning purposes. This has been accepted by the Governments of NSW, Victoria and the ACT.” (Begbe, 1990, 10 Sept)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the climate negotiations were coming. Australia’s government was committed to Ecologically Sustainable Development because the green groups had extracted that as a promise for their sort of support in the recent federal election. Various state governments and the ACT, for example, had committed to the Toronto target (and in May 1989 Hawke’s Environment Secretary had floated it in Cabinet, to be shot down by Paul Keating, then Treasurer.). The Toronto Target proposed that industrialised nations should cut their emissions by 20% by the year 2005. The denialists were getting up on their hind legs too. 

And here was the Australian New Zealand Environment Council suggesting that Australia and presumably New Zealand, both say yes to Toronto.

What we learn is that invocations to targets have been with us for a very long time. You get such pleasure of announcing/campaigning for a target, but actually getting the people who say yes to do anything about hitting that target, well, that is somewhat more difficult. 

What happened next, in October 1990 the Hawke government did indeed make a promise for an “Interim Planning Target,” hedged with all sorts with caveats about economic costs and other developed nations taking similar action. So it was a non-promise promise, but it allowed Kelly to go off to the Second World Climate Conference with Australia’s reputation in sort of good standing.

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

Also on this day: 

August 8, 1975 – first academic paper to use term “global warming” published

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

Categories
Agriculture Australia

August 4, 2004 – Australian farmers nervous about climate change. Ignored

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 4th, 2004,

THE greatest risk facing farmers is climate change and global warming, National Farmers Federation president Peter Corish has warned.

Calling for a national blueprint on the long-term problems facing the bush, Mr Corish said the NFF had changed its position in the past 12 months and was now convinced of the threat of global warming.

“Twelve or 18 months ago, we would have said very strongly the jury is still out on climate change because we believed there had been a lack of research into assessment of how real climate change is and how far it is likely to go,” he told the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday.

Karvelas, P. 2004. Farmers chief warns on climate. The Australian, 5 August, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a drought going on. Australian farmers are always worrying about the weather, because the weather in the land is quite marginal a lot of the time. And of course, at this point, climate change had been an issue of public debate for 15 years. The broader context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard was doing everything in his power to avoid taking any substantive action on climate change, either domestically or internationally. And he was banging on about coal. The other context is that the National Farmers Association or whatever it’s called, had basically been captured and silenced. And you can read about it in Guy Pearse’s wonderful PhD thesis that was published two years later 2006 where he talks about the different sectoral trade associations, whether it’s agriculture, insurance, banking, tourism, whatever, as the missing inactions. 

What happened next. The Millennium Drought broke in 2008/9. The farmers are still screwed by climate change because one-off events are temporary anomalies, like droughts, pulse disturbances in the system. The thing you really have to watch for are the press disturbances, like the CO2 build-up…

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

Also on this day: 

August 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

August 4, 2008 – Police pepper spray #climate campers

Categories
Australia

August 1, 2016 – Anti-wind idiots step on their own rake

Eight years ago, on this day, August 1st, 2016,

New minister Josh Frydenberg backs transition to renewables, despite campaign blaming them for price spikes

Slezak, M. 2016. How the campaign against South Australian wind farms backfired. Guardian Australia, 1 August.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that South Australia had been edging ahead in the amount of renewable energy in its electricity system because Premier Mike Rann had found a way whereby he made it extremely easy for already profitable (thanks to federal schemes) wind farms to get planning approval in the north of the state.

And this success was making the culture warriors agitated (though to be fair, Australian culture warriors are always finding something to be agitated about). But sometimes their agitation gets a bit much and they start scoring own goals; and so it came to pass.

What we learned is that culture warriors going to warrior.

What happened next is that the South Australian energy transition continued at pace. There was Elon Musk’s big battery and all the rest of it. It’s still unfolding, and you can read about it at places like reneweconomy.

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

Also on this day: 

August 1, 1980 – Wall Street Journal does excellent #climate reporting

August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty.