Category: Australia

Categories
Activism Australia

July 31, 2014 Ark hits rocks with forestry tie-in

Ten years ago, on this day, July 31st, 2014, an Australian eco-group got its reputation burned.

2014 Planet Ark on the receiving end of criticism about its tie-in with forestry outfit –

The founders of environment group Planet Ark are speaking out about the charity they say has lost its way.

Environmentalist Jon Dee and tennis great Pat Cash founded Planet Ark 20 years ago.

It soon forged a high profile, thanks in part to the backing of celebrities like Olivia Newton John, Kylie Minogue and Pierce Brosnan.

But times have been tough for Planet Ark lately.

It has made substantial losses for three years running, sold some major assets and offered redundancies to staff.

After National Tree Day at the weekend, Mr Dee and Mr Cash have told 7.30 they are particularly upset about Planet Ark’s links with the timber industry.

Planet Ark has allowed its logo to be used on advertisements for timber, paid for by Forest and Wood Products Australia (FWPA).

It is part of a sponsorship deal in which Planet Ark gets $700,000 from the timber industry [continues]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-31/planet-ark-founders-cut-ties-with-lost-organisation/4167146

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian outfit Planet Ark had been going since 1992 (and set up its website in 1996). And they, like any NGO, needed money, and the people with the money said they didn’t want anything in return, but there’s always strings attached. 

What we learn. It suits the needs of organisations with environmental reputations that need a bit of polishing to partner with outfits that have some sort of credibility And so it comes to pass. This tension plays out again and again. Because it’s a market for reputation. There are buyers and sellers. 

What happened next? Planet Ark is still around.

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: 

July 31, 1981 – US politicians hold “carbon dioxide and climate” hearings.

July 31, 2008 – another day, another “Strategic Review”

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

July 25, 2001 – Australian Environment Minister says the quiet part out loud about Kyoto

Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2001, the truth is told about Australia’s climate change targets.,

2001 – Then-environment minister Robert Hill admitted on July 25, immediately after the Kyoto Protocol had been further weakened at the UN conference in Germany, that “it could well be possible to achieve our target with the measures we now have in place”.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/bush-threatens-worlds-climate

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC process was in deep shit. It has ended in acrimony without any closing statement or anything. In November/December, the previous year in The Hague(which is where the climate criminals belong, but, that’s another blog post).

 Bush had pulled out of Kyoto. And so, here, in Bonn, they were stitching the pieces back together again. And the Australian environment minister, Robert Hill, said the quiet part out loud when he admitted that Australia had basically carved out such an insanely generous deal in December 1997, that it was going to hit its targets without doing much of anything.

What we learn – if you listen closely, you can figure out what’s going on. It’s not rocket science.

What happened next? 

In June of 2002, finally, to nobody’s surprise, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said no to Kyoto, I think simply because he enjoyed “owning the libs.” There was no upside in it for him really. And it would mean that Australia was beholden to future stuff, and he could much more easily stay pals with George W. Bush. I guess ratifying Kyoto would have annoyed Bush since it would have isolated the US even further. So they didn’t do it. Kyoto was only finally ratified by Australia in December 2007 by Kevin Rudd.

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: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia

July 24, 2001 – Running from the Storm? Nah, we’re slouching towards it

Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 24th, 2001 the first book about Australia’s climate policy is published.

Broadcast: 24/7/2001 A small step for climate change

Tony Jones speaks with Cathy Zoi, a former environmental adviser to president Bill Clinton and Dr Clive Hamilton, executive director of the Australia Institute, a public policy research body, and author of a new book on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions called Running from the Storm. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Clive Hamilton had returned from Indonesia in 1993 or 1994. He’d set up The Australia Institute. And one of the topics of conversation was writing about climate policy. And he had written the first book about climate policy and Australia. There had been articles, there had been chapters in edited volumes – but this was the first book “Running from the Storm.” 

What we learn is that back in the 90s nobody was really paying a lot of attention to climate. It was one of many issues that hadn’t fully emerged for environmentalists aside from a few.

What happened next, Hamilton kept fighting the good fight, naming the tactics and the names. He basically cannibalised that book. And it formed the first few chapters of Scorcher six years later. Both of them are well worth your time.

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: 

July 24, 1977 – Climate change as red light? “No, but flashing yellow.”

July 24, 1980 – “Global 2000” report released.

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol United States of America

July 23, 1997 – US climate envoy wonders what Australian leaders are smoking…

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, July 23rd, 1997, Tim Wirth called out the Australians for being bonkers.

Asked about the economic modelling by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) on which the Howard Government’s stance is based, he said he had not seen it.

But he was generally sceptical of industry-funded models and said the US Administration believed modelling around the world showed green-house gases could be stabilised at either no economic cost or an economic benefit – a finding strongly at odds with ABARE’s work.

“I think there are some people who plug their own assumptions into models and then they flog those models as if they are the things that are going to define and predict the future of the world,” Mr Wirth said.

“Anybody who believes that an economic model is going to be able to predict to points of percentage of increase or decrease, I’d raise an eyebrow . . . or look at what those people have been smoking, because I don’t believe there’s any way in the world you are going to get that sort of accuracy.”

The ABARE modelling draws such conclusions and was partially funded by industry. “Industry groups . . . have points of view that they are paid to advocate,” he said.

Taylor, L. 1997. US rejects Aust `differentiated’ greenhouse goal. Australian Financial Review, 24 July, p3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at COP1 in Berlin in 1995, the rich nations had agreed that they would come to the third meeting with plans for their own emissions reductions. That meeting was to be held in Kyoto. International capital, especially oil and gas and coal, had mobilised ferociously against the science – see the attacks on the IPCC’s. second assessment report. And there were also campaigns in the US against Kyoto, Australia’s government, under that thug John Howard, trying to carve out the sweetest deal they could. And that’s what led Clinton’s climate envoy Senator Tim Wirth to say that he wanted to know what the Australians were smoking because he felt that the claims for special treatment were unjustified and demeaning.

What we learn – you can laugh at denialists and obstructors all you like. That doesn’t make them less formidable.

What happened next well, Australia wore down the other nations, it not only got the 108% so-called “reduction” target. But it also managed to insert a so-called “land clearing” clause, which meant in effect, their emissions reduction target was 130%. So, while Tim Wirth’s jibe was a good one, The Last Laugh belongs to Howard. 

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: 

July 23, 1979 – Charney Report people meet – will conclude “yep, global warming is ‘A Thing’.”

July 23, 1987 – Calvin (and Hobbes) versus climate change!

July 23, 1998 – denialists stopping climate action. Again.

Categories
Australia

July 20, 1989 – New “Ambassador for the Environment” role makes greenies happy

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 20th, 1989, a nice new job is announced…

Major conservation groups believe that the new post of Ambassador for the Environment will be only as effective as Federal Government policy allows.

The new position – to be filled by the former Governor-General and High Court judge Sir Ninian Stephen – was announced by the Prime Minister this week as part of his major environmental statement.

Mr Hawke said that “no-one could better discharge that role for Australia”.

Speaking from Melbourne, Sir Ninian said he was not sure why he had been chosen but was delighted to accept when it was offered by Mr Hawke by telephone last weekend.

Bailey, P. 1989. All praise for our green envoy. Sydney Morning Herald, July 22, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Australia gets its first ambassador for the environment. A nice job for a superannuated civil servant in this case, Ninian Steven.

The context was that Prime Minister Bob Hawke had an eye on the next federal election, and needed to keep small-g green tinged voters onside, and needed to therefore do some harmless appointing of meaningless jobs to fly the flag and to keep the greenies happy. 

What we learn is that the sorts of gestures get made, you always have to ask for “What responsibilities does the person have?” “What rights do they have?” “How will they be funded?” “Will they be able to take names and embarrass anyone?” And if there aren’t good answers to those questions, then what you’re looking at is just more bullshit. 

What happened next. He had the job for a while, I forget who was next. Think it was a woman. The post degenerated to its natural state when the head of the Australian Coal Association, Ralph Hilman, was appointed by John Howard.

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: 

July 20, 1989 – Bob Hawke fumbles the green football…

July 20, 2014- the “Green Blob” blamed

Categories
Australia International processes Sweden UNFCCC

: July 18, 1996 – Australian Prime Minister snubs #climate talks

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, July 18th, 1996, John Howard showed his priorities…

Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:

1. Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);

2. Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;

3. Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.

AND

“PRIME Minister John Howard yesterday [18th] snubbed the international community, claiming Australia would continue to oppose reductions in greenhouse gases.

“Australia has drawn international condemnation for its refusal to accept legally binding reductions in greenhouse gases now accepted as causing global warming.”

Benson, S. 1996. Howard snubs world / Greenhouse gas call `hurts Australia’. Daily Telegraph, July 19, p.14.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard had come to power in March of that year and took the Keating government’s antipathy to all things climate, and dialled it up from a solid eight or nine to an 11. “This one goes up to 11”. 

What we learn is that the Australian political elite was extremely hostile to anything that would get between them and profits. For coal companies, they could see no other way of being in the world. And they didn’t see the need for that other way, because they didn’t accept 19th century physics {LINK}

What we learn is that we’ve already learned that John Howard is a contemptible climate criminal.

What happened next, Howard dialled up the ante – the international agreement campaign against Australia having to cut emissions was not an 11 but a 12. The following year, he sent diplomats all around the world to try to carve out a special deal for Australia and was spectacularly successful in doing so. 

And here we are almost 30 years later; acts of cosmic vandalism. And you need a heart of stone not to despair. 

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: 

July 18, 1979 – US Senators ask for synthetic fuel implications for greenhouse warming. Told.

July 18, 2005 – inconvenient energy targets scrapped

July 18, 2012: Climate Justice poem – “Tell Them” by Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner – hits the internet

Categories
Australia

July 17, 2014 – Australian elected idiot is highly visibly idiotic

Ten years ago, on this day, July 17th, 2014, a not so cunning stunt in Parliament… with someone cosplaying a Worker to support the substance that will (checks notes) kill all the workers, the non-workers and pretty much everything else except some sulphur-based life-forms in deep oceanic vents.

“Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald wearing the vest to show his support for the repeal of the mining tax, which passed the Senate with amendments and is returning to the House of Representatives for another vote. The vest, emblazoned with “australiansforcoal.com.au” and Macdonald’s name, was kindly provided to Macdonald by the Minerals Council of Australia” (Mackinnon, 2014)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the opponents of climate action were feeling particularly pleased with themselves. They had managed to destroy the carbon pricing mechanism that Julia Gillard’s government had instituted. And here we have a parliamentarian cosplaying, being working class, wearing the high-vis jacket in Parliament. 

What we learn is that the high-vis jacket is a potent, easy symbol of manual labour masculinity. And therefore the “authenticity” that comes from that. And people like to cosplay that. It makes them feel good. It enables them to enlist “salt of the earth” memes, and by extension accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being in an effete latte sipping liberal. 

What happened next? The guy was censured for bringing props into parliament. That didn’t seem to stop Scotty from marketing. Three years later, with this lump of stupidity, that was what he carried between his ears. There was also a lump of coal in his hand that had been provided to him by the Minerals Council of Australia. They had lacquered it so it didn’t smudge.

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.

References

AAP. 2014. Senator asked to tone down high-vis effort. The Australian, July 17. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/senator-asked-to-tone-down-high-vis-effort/news-story/50968f280a9cd602a3e39813afbf069b

MacKinnon, A. 2014. This Idiot Senator Wore A Hi-Vis Mining Vest In Parliament And Got Torn To Bits By Everybody. Junkee.com, July 18

https://junkee.com/this-idiot-senator-wore-a-hi-vis-mining-vest-in-parliament-and-got-torn-to-bits-by-everybody/38235

Also on this day: 

July 17, 1912 – Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal on climate change

July 17, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister shits on renewables, blah blah “realistic”

Categories
Australia Energy

July 14, 2000 – Wind power providers want carbon labelling…

On this day 24 years ago, Wind Power Energy Association types tried to get some sensible stuff going.  Yeah, good luck with that.

CANBERRA, July 14, AAP – Labels telling consumers their electricity came from fossil fuel should be put on power bills, supporters of the wind energy industry said today. President of the Australian Wind Energy Association Grant Flynn said most consumers were unaware that most of their power was derived from the burning of fossil fuels.

Putting a sticker on power bills telling consumers the source of their electricity would go a long way to making the public more aware of greenhouse gas issues. “A lot of people don’t really understand that a significant proportion of their electricity, about 90 per cent of it, comes from burning fossil fuels,” he said.

Mr Flynn’s group was one of several to make submissions to a review of the government’s renewable energy bill.

2000 Wright, S. 2000. Fed – Labels should tell consumers where their power comes from. AAP, 14 July.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Federal government of John Howard was doing everything it could to renege on its 1997 promise of more renewables (made as a pre-Kyoto distraction). Evil evil people

What we learn – the hope that the mythical Ethical Consumer will save the day is a powerful one.

What happened next. John Howard kept being a climate criminal. Renewables eventually took off, but later than they could have. Oh well, nice planet while it lasted.

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: 

July 14, 2000 – Miners versus the ALP/ and climate action

July 14, 2011 – “Four Degrees or More: Australia in a Hot World” conference closes

Categories
Australia

July 13, 1974 – Adelaide hears about carbon dioxide build-up

Fifty years ago, on this day, July 13th, 1974,

Btw, Hare had been present for Guy Callendar’s presentation at the Royal Meteorological Society in 1938

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that scientists had been doing further study about CO2. It was definitely building up. No one disputes that. What impact that might have on our species as a whole remains to be seen. That’s not entirely surprising. 50 years ago, Kenneth Hare would cover this.

What we learn is that if you were paying any attention, you could see the threat coming. But then we’ve been paying attention since 1988, which is only two thirds of that time 50 years and we’ve done nothing. Actually, that’s not strictly accurate. We’ve made things worse.

What happened next? Every so often carbon dioxide would pop up as an issue in Australia. Further context is that there had been the 1972 Friends of the Earth seminar, the 1973 UNESCO-sponsored conference at Flinders University, and Senator Don Jessup had made his statements in Parliament. You know, it wasn’t unheard of…

What happened next; more news articles, more awareness, no action, and the emissions kept climbing.

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.

Categories
Activism Australia

July 13, 2008 – Activists blockade coal port

Sixteen years ago, on this day, July 13th, 2008 some nice direct action (albeit symbolic) took place.

July 13 & 14, 2008: Newcastle, NSW, Australia Climate Camp stops coal trains at worlds’ largest coal export port

On July 13, 2008 approximately 1000 activists stopped three trains bound for export at the Carrington Coal Terminal for almost six hours. Dozens of protesters were able to board and chain themselves to the trains while others lay across the tracks. Hundreds were held back by mounted police. Police arrested 57.[19] Sunday 13th July 2008: 1000 people gathered at Islington Park in Newcastle for a rally and march to the Carrington Coal Terminal. It was a colourful and eclectic crowd of local residents, parents and children, percussionists, clowns, students, and concerned citizens from every state in Australia. Their message was simple and clear: let’s see renewables instead of more new coal.

http://www.greenpeace.org.au/blog/community-protest-stops-coal-trains-all-day 2008 Climate Camp Australia demo

Climate Camp Australia 2008

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that Newcastle is the biggest export terminal for Australian coal mined in the Hunter Valley. It had been growing and growing all through the 90s and noughties because Australia was selling more and more coal and screw the planet who cares. And I remember seeing just how long those cold frames were, filled to the brim. Anyway, this was the first Australian climate camp inspired by English Climate Camp in summer of 2006. Some people got arrested, some people got injured. The issue got flagged, some code was delayed. 

What we learn is that putting your bodies in the gears of the machine is very painful. And really fruit to work. You’d need a bigger boat load of people.As per Chief Brody, “we’re gonna need a bigger boat.”

What happened next? It’s a repertoire that the Australian coal protesters have returned to again, because it gets news coverage because it reminds them of their own power because it’s the right thing to do. But I refer you to yesterday’s rant about how doomed we are…

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

Also on this day: 

July 13, 1971 – Stephen Schneider “predicts” an ice age (so the myth goes)

July 13, 2013 – future Australian PM ridiculed for #climate idiocy