Category: Australia

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

May 25, 1992 Keating Cabinet discusses Rio

Thirty-two years ago, on this day, May 25th, 1992, the Cabinet of new Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating discussed the upcoming Earth Summit in Rio. Cabinet was (mostly) not in favour of making any big splash, and Keating himself would not attend the event (the only leader of an OECD country not to go…)

Check out the article about the 1992-3 Cabinet Papers I wrote for The Conversation. And the longer version here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that as early as 1987, there had been an agreement that there would be an Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio. The following year, climate change had exploded onto the public consciousness and the Earth Summit had become the place where the climate treaty would be agreed. Australia had been initially seen as a leader on this, one of its diplomats had helped the IPCC processes as a co-chair on working group one (WM Tegart), and there had been an extremely hedged promise in October of 1990 for a so-called interim planning target. 

However, since then, the champion of action Bob Hawke had been toppled. His replacement, Paul Keating was actively hostile to greenies. And Australia was in/emerging from a recession, “the recession we had to have.” And Keating wasn’t gonna go to Rio, (he was the only head of an OECD member who didn’t).

There had also been a successful campaign against introducing a carbon tax. This had been  a suggestion as part of the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. So all in all, the Cabinet meeting was just signing off on allowing the environment minister to go. But pretty much saying to her that she wasn’t allowed to be exuberant or make any promises. And so it came to pass. 

What we learn is that Australia had an opportunity to behave differently, but the leadership of the time had other plans and other priorities. And we are living with the consequences of that. And future generations will live and die with the consequences of that. And here we are. 

What happened next, RosKelly went to Rio, was the ninth person to sign up to some misogynist flak from the denialists, of course. And Australia had another bite at the carbon tax for domestic purposes. This also failed, and then Australia carved out an insanely generous steal at Kyoto, which it then didn’t ratify. Poisonous, horrible, horrible political, economic elite. But what do you expect of an extractive settler state, a quarry with a state attached to it. 

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: 

May 25, 1953 – “I read about them in Time Magazine” (Gilbert Plass’s greenhouse warning

May 25, 1990 – Thatcher opens Hadley Centre

May 25 – Interview with Ben King – of #climate, education and the need for tubas

May 25, 2011 – Aussie #climate scientist smeared rather than engaged. Plus ca change…

Categories
Australia

May 23, 2000 – Deputy Prime Minister versus Greenhouse Trigger

Twenty four years ago, on this day, May 23rd, 2000,

Prior to a Cabinet meeting on 22 May [2000] where the greenhouse trigger was to be discussed, the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson publicly criticised the proposal, describing it as ‘unnecessary and inappropriate’ and suggesting it would harm the economy, particularly in regional [page break] areas. In a press release issued on 22 May, Anderson said that ‘it was not necessary or appropriate for the Commonwealth to effectively take over the State’s role in the environmental assessment and approval of major developments.

(Macintosh, 2007: 49-50) 

And then this –

Senator Hill had been ambushed. It appears neither he nor his staff were aware the trigger proposal was likely to face such fierce opposition in Cabinet….

The anti-greenhouse, anti-trigger camp did not stop at this. The following day [23 May 2000] senator Minchin presented research he had commissioned from Dr Brian Fisher of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), a critic of the Kyoto Protocol, which found that meeting Australia’s Kyoto target could cost between 0.5 per cent and 1.4 per cent of Gross National Product at 2010. The fossil fuel lobby used this research as a springboard to back Anderson’s and Minchin’s position, suggesting the trigger would have significant adverse economic implications. Dick Wells, the executive director of the Minerals Council of Australia, was quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying, ‘[w]e agree with John Anderson that the trigger would harm employment and regional growth…..

(Macintosh, 2007: 50) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Howard Government had signed the environmental biodiversity protection and conservation act in 1998 and there was talk of a so-called greenhouse trigger which meant that any particularly carbon intensive scheme would have to go to a minister for approval. Yikes, because this would mean that there would be more lobbying and more political cost in waving through the latest worship of the great god Development. The opponents of greenhouse action hated this idea. And on this day, there was an ambush. 

What we learn is that political parties have different factions representing different interests. And there is always going to be a headbanger element, whether it’s Warwick Parer, Nick Minchin, John Anderson, whatever.

What happened next? Well, the greenhouse trigger did not get up and three months later, there was another defeat when the emissions trading scheme also bit the dust. 

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: 

May 23, 1977 – President Carter announces Global 2000 report… or “Let’s all meet up in the Global2000”

May 23, 1980 – Aussie senator alerts colleagues to #climate threat. Shoulder shrugs all round. #auspol

May 23, 2012 – wicked problems and super-wicked problems all around…

Categories
Australia

May 16, 1973 Energy and how we live. UNESCO seminar at Flinders

Fifty-one years ago, on this day, May 16th, 1973, there was a UNESCO-sponsored conference on Energy and how we live at Flinders University of South Australia, 

16-18 May 1973 / Australian Unesco Seminar ; Australian-Unesco Committee for Man and the Biosphere. –

You can see a clip with John Bokris here https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-12/professor-john-bockris-on-his-warning-of-impending/13837976

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.6ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that UNESCO had been holding conferences about the environment and man’s impact pollution, blah, blah, blah for a while, the most notable of these was in Paris in ‘68. And that had been attended by some Australians. 

There was the Man in the Biosphere programme. Meanwhile, Adelaide had been alerted to climate issues, in newspapers and so forth. And watching the television, for example, the Monday programme and there had been the “Is Technology a blueprint for destruction?” seminar at Adelaide University in September of 1972. 

What we learn is that people who cared about that sort of stuff, were well aware of the dangers ahead, but basically were unable to convince everyone else that the danger was real and that something meaningful could and must be done. 

 What happened next. In November 1973 South Australian politician, Don Jessop gave a speech in Parliament about the buildup of CO2, possibly influenced by this event. 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.

Also on this day: 

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese says critical action on #climate being delayed by 20 years… #auspol

May 16, 2006 – UK Prime Minister Tony Blair goes nuclear…

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese, eco-warrior…

May 16 – Interview with Rosie, about zero population growth, zero climate progress, etc…

Categories
Australia

May 15, 1972 – Clean Air Conference in Melbourne

Fifty-two years ago, on this day, May 15th, 1972, a Clean Air Conference in Melbourne is told about carbon dioxide build up by CSIRO scientists, including Graeme Pearman,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been clean air conferences in states and now national or even international in Australia.

There had been the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution started in 1968 delivering its findings in ‘69. And what’s particularly significant about this conference is the first time there was an explicit specific session on carbon dioxide build up, with Graham Pearman.

What we learn – oh, the usual – we knew, we knew, we knew.

What happened next – more reports, more warnings, paths not taken. And now we are on a path that leads nowhere nice. It didn’t have to be like this, but it does have to be like it’s going to be – laws of physics are like that.

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: 

May 15, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard spouting “nuclear to fix climate” nonsense

May 15, 2010 – another pointless overnight vigil.

Categories
Australia

May 7 1991 & 1992: From Hawke to Hewson, or “the year Australia’s political elite stopped bothering about #climate change”

 

Thirty three/two years ago, on this day, May 7th, 1991 and 1992, the Australian leader of the opposition’s trajectory shows an early (and permanent) retreat by “conservative” parties on the biggest question of the twenty-first century. Such leadership!!

For those coming late to the party: through the 1970s and 1980s a few politicians, from Liberals, Nationals and Labor, had warned of climate problems. The issue “blew up” in 1988 and 1989. The Liberals went to the federal election of March 1990 with a more ambitious carbon dioxide reduction target than the ALP. Yes, you read that right, more ambitious.

But then, as we see below, the new Liberal Leader, John Hewson, changed his tune (meanwhile, Prime Minister Bob Hawke was toppled by Paul Keating, who had no love for environmentalists or environmental issues. Whatsoever). So, with that said, check out the two quotes, a year apart.

The environment could be a victim of the move to reform Federal-state relations, Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Phillip Toyne said in Canberra last week.

He said environment groups see the special Premiers’ conference on federalism as posing a threat to a national ecologically sustainable development strategy.

“We think that substantial erosion of progress in the regulation and control of environmental management could be taking place,” he said.

“Much of the work is at departmental level, with the chairs of all of the various working groups coming from state bureaucracies.”

On Tuesday [7th], Prime Minister Bob Hawke met with the ESD roundtable, the umbrella body that has a general oversight of the work of the ESD working groups. About 30 people were there, including representatives from the greens, industry, the states, welfare agencies and some federal ministers.

Toyne said later: “I thought that there were some rather glib comments on the progress of the exercise.”

“it is absolutely extraordinary that there has been almost no scrutiny of the process by the media, very little information has reached us, and yet it could be profoundly affecting not only the outcomes for ecologically sustainable development but also many other aspects of national policy.”

Anon, 1991. Environment “A Victim of Reform”. Green Week, May 14, p.5.

And exactly a year later…

And in 1992, Dr Hewson captured the full flavour of the initiative in a speech to the Australian Mining Industry Council annual dinner on May 7, 1992, when he described it as sustainable development with a capital D. This move is really an exercise in fast-tracking, with an absolute limit of 12 months on government processes of evaluation, failing which the project gets automatic go-ahead.

This is dangerous, based as it is on the assumption that red, black or green tape is simply frustrating developments, rather than complex issues being carefully evaluated. There is also a quite dishonest attempt to list a long list of stalled projects without acknowledging that many had not proceeded for commercial reasons.

[Toyne, P. 1993. Environment forgotten in the race to the Lodge. Canberra Times, 8 March p. 11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

This is another one of those “What a difference a year makes” Pivotal, blah blah blahs.

The context is that in 1991 the ecologically sustainable development process was underway. Yes, the greenhouse issue wasn’t as sexy as it had been because people have gotten bored. And there’s also been the small matter of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iraq, Kuwait, and the military response. But it was still a “hot” issue. And there were concerns about things possibly being watered down. Fast forward to exactly a year later and the Liberals have given up on trying to get green votes. They are still feeling the “betrayal” of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

John Hewson, who had seen off Bob Hawke, and looked like he was going to defeat Paul Keating (because it was before the wedding cake gate), felt that he didn’t have to make the same green noises that people did a couple of years previously. 

What we learn is that the mood music changes and that you can track it. And this was the time when, if there had been real leadership, we would have stuck to issues, but there wasn’t. So we didn’t. And here we are,

What happened next. The Liberals came to power in 1996, under John Howard, and dialled the indifference/hostility of the Keating gang up to 11. Or 12. And here 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: 

May 7, 1966 – scientist warns public about carbon dioxide build-up…

May 7, 2001 – The American way of life is non-negotiable. Again.

Categories
Australia Business Responses

May 5, 2000 – Business Council of Australia boss on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues”

Twenty four years ago, on this day, May 5th, 2000 former Federal public servant turned BCA Boss David Buckingham opined on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues for Australia.” Business Council of Australia

http://www.bca.com.au/media/strategic-greenhouse-issues-for-australia

Suggests a voluntary domestic emissions trading scheme might be a goer, as a “learning by doing” exercise.

See also Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill 2000. Warming to the Challenge; The Role of Australian Business in Combating Global warming. Address to the World Business Council on Sustainable Development and the Australian Business Council Forum, Melbourne, 5 May.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were various big conferences being held because there had been the Kyoto Protocol, at the end of ‘97. It looked like Al Gore would be the Democratic Party nominee for the president, and he might win, in which case the US would be taking more climate action, even if Kyoto itself weren’t necessarily on the cards. And therefore, everyone was making plans to be ready for that reality if it emerged in Australia. Yes, the Lavoisier group had been set up, but there were also tensions within the peak bodies, especially the Business Council of Australia about what the Australian response should be of interest in carbon trading, carbon farming and offsets and money to be made. 

And so it wasn’t a simple case of denial or bowing down before the great God of technology, at least not for the more thoughtful members of the business policy outfits. And here we have David Buckingham, who had been a Federal Environment civil servant, before being poached, first by the Minerals Council and then the Business Council. 

What we learn from this is that business was seriously scratching its head about what might be coming and how best to take advantage of what might be coming. 

What happened next? Well, Bush was selected president by his dad’s Supreme Court chums and then quickly pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. In 2003, the BCA had to move from opposition to Kyoto ratification to a “neutral” stance because of fierce fights within it. 

And of course, 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.

Also on this day: 

May 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

Categories
Australia

May 4, 2016 – South Australian Premier preening at Emissions Reduction Summit

Eight years ago, on this day, May 4th, 2016 then premier of South Australia Jay Weatherill said the nice things.

source – https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/industry/modern-energy/hydrogen-in-south-australia/hydrogen-files/hydrogen-roadmap-11-sept-2017.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Jay Weatherill had been South Australian premier since October 2011, and had inherited a very clever policy set up from Mike Rann, where the South Australian government would look at the amount of new wind being installed, because there were federal incentives and set a target for years to come, which was completely in line with the current trajectory. They would win plaudits from desperate, environmentally-minded people who didn’t know the fine details, and then be able to take credit for stuff that was already happening. The name of the game is expectation management. So here was where we were able to say how wonderful South Australia was.

What we learn is there are games people play, and I don’t mean in the Eric Berne/transactional analysis sense.

What happened next? Well, South Australia had a blackout which set the culture war going. Weatherill, overall, played a blinder, and South Australia has continued to be a laboratory for more and more battery batteries, rooftop solar, you name it. 

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: 

May 4, 1990 – coal industry sweats over greenie influence

May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face…

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Business Responses

May 3, 1989 “Exploration Access and Political Power” speech by Hugh Morgan

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 3rd, 1989, Australian businessman and all round lovely guy Hugh Morgan makes a speech at the Australian Mining Industry Council’s “Minerals Outlook Seminar” at ANU

Its title was “Exploration Access and Political Power” and some representative quotes are here –

‘The true environmentalist, the revolutionary who sees man as vile and nature as sacred, is indifferent, if not hostile to economic benefits’ (Morgan 1989, 31).
‘If the politics of nature worship and economic decline … take hold and become institutionalised, then Australia will be seen as a place to leave, not as a place to come’. (Morgan 1989). (cited in McEachern)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at this stage there were probably still a lot of concerned conservatives and businessmen saying “just keep a low profile and it will all blow over; the greenies will find something else to be hysterical about. And if we are a small target, then we stop it from continuing longer than it otherwise would”. Hugh Morgan was not one of those people. And Hugh Morgan was determined to take the fight to the enemy, i.e. people who gave a damn about future generations and ecological survival. 

What we learn is that there are always ideologically committed people within any faction whether it’s the environs of the business lobby, who think that they see the deep underlying pattern. And they may well be right. Just because they’re in a small minority. doesn’t mean they’re wrong. 

What happened next, Morgan kept giving these sorts of speeches about the defence of Western civilization and democracy, by which he meant capitalism and shareholder value and the right to screw other people over. Morgan’s henchman, Ray Evans, then started fighting on climate stuff too, and made links with American outfits. 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.

References

Cahill, D. 2004. The radical neo-liber radical neo-liberal movement as a hegemonic force in Ace in Australia, 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36978766.pdf

Doug McEachern (1995) Mining Meaning from the Rhetoric of Nature—Australian Mining Companies and their attitudes to the environment at home and abroad, Policy, Organisation and Society, 10:1, 48-69, DOI: 10.1080/10349952.1995.11876636

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10349952.1995.11876636

Also on this day: 

May 3, 1978 – First and last “Sun Day”

May 3, 1990 – From Washington to Canberra, the “greenhouse effect” has elites promising…

Categories
Australia

April 30, 2007 – Rudd hires Garnaut

Seventeen years ago, on this day, April 30th, 2007, new Leader of the Opposition Kevin Rudd hires an economist…

On 30 April 2007, the leader of the federal opposition Australian Labor Party, Kevin Rudd,(along with the state and territory governments) engaged world renowned economist Professor Ross Garnaut to conduct a wide ranging review into the effects of climate change on Australia and its economy (Garnaut 2008).

(Rice and Martin, 2016:48)

and

BRISBANE, April 30 AAP – The federal opposition has commissioned an economics professor to head a Stern-type review into the impact of climate change on Australia’s future.

Labor leader Kevin Rudd announced the Garnaut Climate Change Review in Brisbane today, saying it would outline the threat to the country’s economic prosperity and investigate mitigation strategies.

It will be headed by Australian National University economics Professor Ross Garnaut, who will hand down interim findings mid next year, and a completed report by October 2008.

Marszalek, J. 2007 Fed: Opposition commissions Australia’s own climate report. Australian Associated Press General News, April 30

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that new opposition leader Kevin Rudd was using climate as a stick to beat John Howard with, in much the same way that the UK Conservative leader David Cameron was using climate issue as a way to detoxify the Tory brand at more or less the same time. 

The broader context was that there had been multiple efforts to get emissions trading schemes going. Two had happened at the federal level in 200- and 2003, defeated by Tim Nick Minchin and John Howard, respectively. And also state led States led Emissions Trading had been on the agenda. So for example, especially the Victorian and New South Wales Premiers Bob Carr, leading the charge. And Garnautr who had been involved in some of that was a well respected economist who’d worked for Hawke on opening up the Australian economy, ie, reducing tariff barriers. 

What we learn is that policy might be good or bad, but it gets used as a blunt instrument in political wars to its cost. Because once it becomes part of political war, implementation is fragile and reversal is possible. That’s what happened in this case. (this is not an argument for pas devant les enfants technocracy, btw). 

What happened next Garnaut produced his final report rather in the middle of the following year, but by that time, Rudd as prime minister had set up a parallel process and Garnaut was kind of on the outer. The parallel process gave us the CPRS bless it and you know, the rest. 

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: 

April 30, 1985 – New York Times reports C02 not the only greenhouse problem

April 30, 2001 – Dick Cheney predicts 1000 new power plants

Categories
Australia

April 29, 1967 – Canberra Times reviews Science and Survival

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, April 29th, 1997, there was a book review in the Canberra Times which gave those who wanted to know enough to worry about. The book in question was Barry Commoner’s “Science and Survival”.

“Our factories, our cars, pour smoke and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and the consequences? Smog, of course; city-dwellers have come to take that for granted, though the time is coming when we must ask ourselves how much smog we are prepared to tolerate. But, worse than this, the “glasshouse effect” of atmospheric carbon dioxide must be increasing the temperature of the earth; and a report by the US President’s Science Advisory Committee has seriously considered the possibility of the Antarctic ice cap melting within the next few centuries, and raising sea level by some 400 feet — and engulfing many of the world’s major cities in the process.”

Aitchson, G. 1967 -A menace ot mankind?” Canberra Times, April 29, p.10

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Barry Commoner’s Science and Survival had come out the previous September and had been favourably reviewed by the Guardian and The Telegraph. And now, the Canberra Times.

What we learn is that this book was a crucial node in increased awareness of the climate issue. Not just because it was reviewed well, but because it inspired documentary makers such as Richard Broad and Roy Battersby. 

What happened next, The Canberra Times kept reporting on pollution issues. A Senate Select Committee inquiry started the next year. Were they inspired by reading Science and Survival? who knows…

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: 

April 29, 1970 – Washington DC symposium talks about carbon dioxide

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol