Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

Richard Gun, South Australian politician, makes first #climate warning, March 1970

My friend Royce Kurmelovs (you should buy his book Slick: Australia’s toxic relationship with Big Oil, which has been lauded by critics and is short-listed for a Big Award) has a typically stonkingly good article on the Guardian Australia website.

The Australians who sounded the climate alarm 55 years ago: ‘I’m surprised others didn’t take it as seriously’

It’s based on two things. First, an interview he did recently with Richard Gun, who was the first Australian politician to say – in Federal Parliament at least — that carbon dioxide build-up was a very serious problem. Gun said this in his maiden speech, in March 1970. Full disclosure, as stated in the Guardian article, it was me who pointed Royce to this fact).

Second, it takes details from Royce’s book Slick (have you bought it yet? Have you?) about a chemistry professor called Harry Bloom who, a year before Gun’s speech, had told Australian senators pretty much the same thing. The article adds further context to the portion in Slick (which you should buy).

What do we learn?

a) People knew enough to be worried (and in some cases quite emphatically so) a very very long time ago.

b) (Therefore) the problem is only in part about ‘information deficit’.

c) Royce is a journo to watch, and to learn from.

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

November 10, 1994 – “profit or planet – choose one” (Victorian electricity)

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 10th, 1994,

Victorians should not rely on the state’s new competitive electricity companies to meet environmental aims, a senior power industry official has warned.

In a paper to be delivered in Sydney today, Dr Harry Schaap says the competitive system that Victoria and Australia are entering will no longer be able to devote so many resources to environmental challenges.

Dr Schaap is the manager of environmental affairs for Generation Victoria, owner of the state’s power stations, and one of two electricity industry representatives on the Council of Australian Governments’ National Greenhouse Advisory Panel. He will speak today at the annual conference of the Electricity Supply Association of Australia.

His comments may focus renewed attention on the possible environmental costs of Victoria’s electricity reforms and coming privatisation.

1994 Walker, D. 1994. Environment May Suffer In New Power Climate – Expert. The Age, 10 November, p.5.

[Faulkner too – see below]

The Federal Minister for the Environment, John Faulkner, has warned the electricity industry that its strides towards greater competitiveness may be working against a better environment, with cheaper prices encouraging consumers to use and waste more energy.

He also raised the threat of environmental levies — which could include a carbon tax — as a method of ensuring the industry cleans up its act.

Senator Faulkner’s speech to the Electricity Supply Association of Australia conference in Sydney on Thursday [10th November] came on the same day as a court challenge by Greenpeace over the construction of a new power station in the Hunter Valley was rejected.

Chamberlin, S. 1994. Danger in cheap power. Canberra Times, 13 November, p.6.

AND

1994 Redbank decision! Greenpeace Australia Limited v Redbank Power Company Pty Limited and Singleton Council, Decision on development application, [1994] NSWLEC 178, ILDC 985 (AU 1994), 10th November 1994, Land and Environment Court

Redbank gets waved through….

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australia had ratified the UNFCCC treaty, which was to have its first meeting in Berlin in March of the following year (1995). Federal Environment minister John Faulkner was hoping he could go and boast about a carbon tax. Meanwhile, the electricity system was being privatised, and environmental regulations and goals were being stripped out of the privatisation plans. Of course.

What I think we can learn from this Today’s failures are consequences of failures thirty years previous. Cheerful thought, eh?

What happened next We failed. The carbon tax failed. The electricity system was privatised and emissions from it stayed sky high. Policy did not drive a rapid decarbonisation, which is what was required.

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: 

November 10, 1988 – Activists demand even steeper emissions cuts than “Toronto.” Ignored, obvs. But were right…

November 10, 1995 – moronic “Leipzig Declaration” by moronic denialists

November 10, 1995 – Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni executed

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

November 9, 2009 – Senior Liberal says CCS won’t work

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 9th, 2009,

The Federal Government has defended carbon capture and storage technology as a viable option for Australia to cut its emissions.

The Opposition’s emissions trading spokesman, Ian Macfarlane, says clean coal technology has passed Australia by and will probably never work.

Kirk, A. 2009. Clean coal unviable, says Macfarlane. ABC, 9 November.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-11-10/clean-coal-unviable-says-macfarlane/1136082

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was about to be a vote on Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. And alongside that, there was also peak hype for Carbon Capture and Storage, which was being attacked by clued-up elements of the environment movement as an expensive distraction and boondoggle that wasn’t going to fix climate change. It was being attacked by the denialists as an expensive boondoggle that was not going to fix a non-existent problem. What’s a little bit interesting here is that a relatively senior Liberal, was willing to come out and say the same. Perhaps dog whistling to the denialists perhaps simply because it was the truth, that CCS is a pipe dream.

What we learn is that there’s lots of people criticising CCS, and CCS’s answer would have been to deliver the goods. But the technology is incredibly expensive. There’s not really a market for it. And it hasn’t worked. 

What happened next? Well, the CPRS fell over and then so did CCS. The Liberals got back into power in 2013 and abolished the carbon price. And the rest is history…

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: 

November 9, 1988 – Tolba gives “Warming Warning” speech at first IPCC meeting

November 9, 1991 – Australian TV station SBS shows demented ‘”Greenhouse Conspiracy” ‘documentary’

November 9, 2000 – Tyndall Centre launched

Categories
Australia

November 9, 1992 – Ark sails on, Downunder

Thirty-two years ago, on this day, November 9th, 1992,

Australian entertainment personalities joined forces last night (Monday) [9th] for the launch of Ark Australia, a local chapter of the English group launched in 1988- an international non-political, non-lobbying, positive action environmental organisation.

Anon, 1992. Celebrities join forces for environment . Greenweek, November 10, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this was the Australian version of the Ark. There had been a short-lived group in the United Kingdom called Ark from November of ‘88 to July really, of ‘89. And here was the same kind of business model; a bunch of celebrities smiling and gurning and telling people about how they can turn off the tap or pull the curtain.

What we learn is that, you know, these ideas or these tactics, techniques go around the world for all the good that they do. 

What happened next. Australian Ark staggered on. It joined the World Wide Web in 1996. And then got into trouble for its forestry tie-ins in 2014.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘soThe 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: 

November 9, 1988 – Tolba gives “Warming Warning” speech at first IPCC meeting

November 9, 1991 – Australian TV station SBS shows demented ‘”Greenhouse Conspiracy” ‘documentary’

November 9, 2000 – Tyndall Centre launched

Categories
Australia

 November 7, 1997 – Australian governments bang heads in pre-Kyoto bash

Twenty-seven years ago, on this day, November 7th, 1997,

Climate change requires federal leadership and action, as acknowledged in the [NOVEMBER] 1997 Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth and State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment, which states:

The Commonwealth has a responsibility and an interest in relation to meeting the obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in co-operation with the States, through specific programmes and the developments and implementation of national strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and to protect and enhance greenhouse sinks.

(Ruddock, 2007: 183) 2.30 The COAG meeting of 7 November 1997 resulted in an in-principle endorsement of the Agreement on Commonwealth/State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment from all Heads of Government and the President of the Australian Local Government Association.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Completed_inquiries/1999-02/bio/report/c02

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia’s federal government had been doing all that it could to resist having to make any consequential commitment at the impending COP3 negotiations in Kyoto. It had been spitting the dummy for a year sending diplomats around the world to demand that Australia get special treatment. Not all state governments were on board with this. So for example, Bob Carr was much keener on climate action. But of course, state governments have relatively limited power….

What we learn is that not everyone is on the same page. That especially in a federal system, there are public differences of opinions, and especially private ones. 

What happened next? John Howard was successful, in that Australia got not only a108% “reduction” target, but also managed to ram through a clause about land clearing that turned that into a de facto but not de jure 130% “reduction” target. Just naked greed and duplicity, and fuck these people. 

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: 

November 7, 1973 – Energy security avant la Ukraine: Nixon announces “Project Independence”

November 7, 2000 – Australian “The Heat is on” report released

November 7, 2022 – journalist covering JSO protest arrested

Categories
Australia

November 6, 2001 – Howard plays the jobs-card vs Kyoto in Hunter Valley

Twenty-three years ago, on this day, November 6th, 2001 days before the election,

CANBERRA, Nov 6 AAP – The government today chose an industrial heartland to warn that Labor’s promise to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change would cost jobs and harm the economy.

Prime Minister John Howard toured the industry-rich Hunter Valley area north of Sydney to sell his message that ratifying the agreement would cost jobs, pump up petrol and power prices and hurt industry.

The comments came on the eve of a high-level meeting in Morocco tomorrow night when officials from around the globe will debate the finer points of ratifying the protocol…. 

Modelling quoted widely by the coalition was based on inaccurate assumptions that unrealistically inflated the costs of meeting Australia’s targets, opposition environment spokesman Nick Bolkus said.

2001 McSweeny, L., Polglaze, K. and Hamilton, F. 2001. Fed – Govt warns of job losses under ALP Kyoto plan. Australian Associated Press, 7 November.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard was using the old line about jobs to defend his mates in the fossil fuel sector, even though as a whole mining did not provide that many jobs primarily or secondarily, especially when it comes to open cast. 

What we learn is that it’s all Jobsngrowth, Jobsngrowth. The reliable standbys when talking to the electorate, just as technology is the standby when talking to society more generally. 

What happened next, Howard had another six years of mayhem and the Hunter is still coal central despite what it’s doing to all the other sectors, whether it’s tourism or agriculture, or what, or horse-racing.

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: 

November 6, 1988 – Australian cartoonist nails response to #climate change

November 6, 1989 – Noordwijk conference – “alright, we will keep talking”

November 6, 1990 – Second World Climate Conference underway

November 6, 2009 – Kevin Rudd playing politics with the climate

Categories
Australia

November 4, 1999 – Australians have highest per capita emissions

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, November 4th, 1999,

a report by The Australia Institute on Australians having highest per capita emissions is front page news for the Melbourne.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australia was built as a settler colony, and was burning enormous quantities of shitty coal, especially in Victoria, where they had basically limitless brown coal, which is filthy on so many levels.

And it’s hardly a surprise that Australia had the highest per capita emissions given the shittiness of their houses, the sources of their energy. Btw transport is not really that big a factor, because, despite the myth, most Australians don’t cover long distances. They are mostly huddled in various cities on the coast. There’s the myths that we like to tell ourselves and then there’s the reality. 

What we learn is that you can tell Australians that they’re causing planetary mayhem as much as you like. It won’t change anything.

What happened next, Australia’s per capita emissions continued to be berserk and are down unto this day.

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: 

November 4, 1988 – no quick fix on climate, warns Australian Environment Minister

November 4, 1991 – UK Government launches first of many blame-shifting publicity campaigns on #climate

November 4, 2006 – Australians “Walk against Warming”

Categories
Activism Australia United Kingdom

November 2, 1994 – Greenpeace vs climate risk for corporates…

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 2nd, 1994,

 Greenpeace trying to attack market perceptions of energy companies

GREENPEACE has launched a strong campaign to show that market perceptions of energy companies are overblown and do not take into account the potential impact of climate change.

The environmental organisation said yesterday that climate change presented major long term risks to the carbon fuel industry which were not adequately discounted in financial analysis.

Quoting a report released in London, Greenpeace said global warming was a long term risk to investors in the carbon fuel industry.

Wilson, N. (1994) CARBON PAPER’S CLIMATE RISK WARNING The Australian Financial Review 3rd November [this while their Redbank case was still pending – decision came down a week later]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Greenpeace had been banging on about the Climate Time Bomb [LINK] . The first UNFCCC Conference of the Parties was due to take place in another four months in Berlin. And Greenpeace was trying to rally the “responsible” and responsive within the capitalist sector to show up in every sense, especially the reinsurance industry. This is an entirely sensible tactic. I think it didn’t work, but that’s hardly Greenpeace’s fault. 

What we learn is that capitalism is by no means a monolith. Intrasectoral and intersectoral battles are always going on. Groups like Greenpeace will try and enlist and mobilise, which you can call cowardly or you can call sensible – it depends how you’re feeling, I guess. None of it worked, many of us are gonna die messily and soon. 

What happened next? COP1 happened. Insurance and reinsurance groups turned up for day one and then went home. The oil executives stuck around. Guess who won. And you can read more about this in Jeremy Leggett’s the Carbon War. 

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: 

November 2, 1972 – “Eco-pornography … Advertising owns Ecology”…

November 2, 2006 – “RIP C02” says New Scientist

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock

Categories
Australia Denial Economics of mitigation

October 31, 2006 – Stern Review “pure speculation” according to John Howard

Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 31st, 2006, Australian Prime Minister John Howard dismisses the report on “The Economics of Climate Change” by former World Bank economist Nicholas Stern as “pure speculation”


,

Fraser, A. 2006. Greenhouse Report Pure Speculation, Says Howard. Canberra Times 1 November

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had just finally really woken up to climate change in September 2006. John Howard was beset on all sides and trying to fight back. At this point, he was probably still grumpy and resisting the idea of having to set up the Shergold Group Report. And so he took aim at the recently published Stern Review and called it pure speculation. 

What we learn is that a) people who are supposed to be responsible stewards of the future can be utter fools and that b) the species doesn’t know how to do concern about its own future. If it did, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Nothing in our cultural evolution in the West, at least the last 300 or 500 years or so has prepared us. And here we are. 

What happened next? Although Howard tried to do a pivot to save his skin it didn’t really convince anyone, probably not even himself. He got trolled by a senior ABC journalist on February 7. And he continued to sneer at Stern when Stern paid a flying visit in the first half of 2007. And of course, eventually, after leaving office, John Howard gave a talk to the Global Warming Policy Foundation or whatever it’s called that “one religion was enough.” 

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: 

October 31, 1994 – Four Corners reports on Greenhouse Mafia activity

October 31, 2018 – Extinction Rebellion makes its declaration of rebellion

Categories
Australia

October 24, 1991 – Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation launched

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 24th, 1991 AMEEF (Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation) was launched in Canberra by Martin W. Holdgate, then Director General of the IUCN,

(The Mining Review, Dec 1991 – p8-10.)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian mining industry had come in for a lot of flak, for environmental criminality, degradation, or whatever you want to call it. And this included the climate issue. 

They pushed back, calling their critics all the names under the sun, but they also needed some sort of positive front foot to put forward. And here we have the Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation, which is one of those outfits that you can set up to dish out awards to yourself, and press releases and the occasional book. And this is a soothing lullaby to middle class people who want to believe that everything’s okay. Alongside this, there’s also been AMIC’s “Mining: it’s absolutely essential” campaign. They had done adverts and all the rest of it trying to TV adverts, newspaper adverts, etc.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are these basically hollow organisations made up of well-meaning, but probably naive or desperate scientists and bureaucrats. They do some good work, you could say, at the margins. They’re trying to change the system from within. It’s maybe better than sitting on your ass and complaining or making websites I don’t know. But if social movements had to tackle the Juggernaut, they need to see this as another tactic. But they won’t, because we’re not smart enough to solve the problems that we are causing with our smarts without cutting. 

What happened next I think it’s defunct? Website looks, ah, interesting. https://ameef.com.au/

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: 

October 24, 1967 – editor of Science warns about C02 build-up

October 24, 1983 – EPA releases study on sea-level rise

October 24, 2003 – Last flight of the Concorde