Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

July 13, 1999 – Australia’s emissions climbing. Obvs.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, July 13th, 1999,

Opposition and Conservation groups attacked the Government’s greenhouse performance yesterday over revelations of a 16.9 per cent rise in greenhouse-gas emissions between 1990 and 1998. Labor environment spokesman Nick Bolkus said there was ‘no way’ Australia would meet its Kyoto greenhouse targets based on National Greenhouse Gas Inventory figures, which showed a record annual jump in emissions from 1997 to 1998. Australia has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to no more than 8 per cent above 1990 levels by 2010 under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Webb, H. 1999. Emission Levels Put Cabinet Under Fire. Canberra Times, July 14, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia’s political elites had made some of the right noises on climate change in the period 1988 to 1990, but then started backtracking and weaselling.

The specific context was that since 1996 the Liberal government of John Howard had been less apologetic, and in fact almost gleeful about not bothering on emissions reductions.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been knowing that we were heading in the wrong direction, at faster and faster speed, for a generation. But our political systems, and those in them, well, shoulder shrug…

What happened next Shoulder shrugs! Eventually (2006-7) Labor used the climate issue as a way of dislodging John Howard. Then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd played politics with the issue rather than getting something decent through. And then Julia Gillard (who toppled him) had to guide an emissions trading scheme through parliament. And then Tony Abbott came in and tore it up. Worst soap opera ever.

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 12, 2011 – Tony Abbott and the The Australia Institute

Fourteen years ago, on this day, July 12th, 2011, 

The whole purpose of the carbon tax is to phase out the coal industry…. Now, I think that the coal industry is the foundation of a modern economy. I think that affordable power is essential to Australia’s economic future. I don’t want to close down the coal industry… the Government’s own figures they say that coal will go from 80 percent of our power generation to 10 percent or 25 percent, if you include clean coal using various forms of sequestration. So, the Government’s own figures involve a radical downsizing and ultimate demise of the coal industry (emphasis added Abbott,2011a).

T.,Abbott, 2011a.Transcript of joint doorstop interview:Dandenong South, Victoria, 12 July:JuliaGillard’scarbontax. 〈http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/down load/media/pressrel/922506/upload_binary/922506.pdf〉.

And

12 July 2011: Australia Institute publishes a detailed analysis of direct action and building on past schemes suggests around $100 billion would be needed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the Liberal Party, after a brief flirtation with competing for small-g green votes in 1990, had decided to stick with their mining mates and the culture war (unlike Labor, which wants to stick with its mining mates while NOT having a culture war).

The specific context was that from late 2006 the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide became “mainstreamed” (after long long resistance). But in late 2009 Tony Abbott became Opposition Leader, and ended that fragile consensus. He used carbon pricing as a scare campaign about the “great big tax on everything” on his way to become Prime Minister.

What I think we can learn from this is that political parties are not meritocracies around intelligence, integrity or vision. They are bear pits, where the most vicious and determined rise to the top.

What happened next. Abbott became Prime Minister (god help us) and abolished the (inadequate) carbon pricing scheme that Julia Gillard had managed to push through. And the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide? Up and up and up of course.

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 12, 1953 – “The Weather is Really Changing” says New York Times

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

July 12, 2007 – #Australia gets swindled on #climate change…

Categories
Australia

July 11, 1972 – Gay rights vs ABC

Fifty-three years ago, on this day, July 11th, 1972,

At one peaceful protest, outside the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) headquarters on 11 July 1972, against the refusal by ABC management to show a segment on Gay Liberation (that featured Dennis Altman) on This Day Tonight, McDiarmid was arrested, the first such arrest at a gay rights protest in Australia.[6]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 327ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the Black Civil Rights struggle of the 1950s onwards had acted as an “initiator” movement with spin-offs for second wave feminism, Puerto Rican rights, “ecology” and … gay rights.

Also, homosexuality was still criminalised, with all the attendant fear, opportunities for police brutality, extortion, shakedowns, blackmail etc.

The specific context was that brave men and women decided they weren’t going to live like that any more, under those conditions.

What I think we can learn from this is that outfits like the ABC are not the friend of progressive organisations and ideas. They have to be pushed (hard) even to be relatively “neutral”. That’s not to say there aren’t brave and principled journos working within them, producing solid work.

What happened next – South Australia led the way in decriminalisation (it took the death of a nice middle-class man at the hands of the police – RIP George Duncan). Other states followed.

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 11, 1968 – The UN Secretary-General, U Thant, delivers report on Human Environment that mentions carbon dioxide and climate change

July 11, 1989 – Australia says “sure, we’ll take #climate refugees.” Yeah, nah.

July 11, 1994 – Australian Environment Minister admits not clear if Australia hitting targets (spoilers, it wasn’t) 

July 11, 1996 – Celebrity Death Match: Australian fossil fuels industry versus The World (Spoiler: world lost)

July 11, 2013- “don’t be evil” my fat arse….

Categories
Australia Religion

July 9, 1990- Green Christians’ 12 commandments

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 9th, 1990,

Is God a greenie? Such a question should make an infinite number of angels dance on their pin-heads later this week, as representatives from all Australian churches sit down to reach a consensus answer.

However, my ecclesiastical contacts tell me that the “Greener than Green” Christians have stitched up the numbers and that the conference will pronounce that He is at least medium green and that mining companies etc are the equivalent of Beezlebub.

Clark, D. 1990. Green Christians’ 12 commandments.   Australian Financial Review, 9 July

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was you can worship God or Mammon.  Many managed to convince themselves they could do both. To cover their sins (to themselves) they adopted a supercilious patronising tone, like the twuntish author here.

The specific context was that from 1988 to early 1991, rich people felt obliged to pretend to care.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can worship God/Gaia/the biosphere (pick your name) or you can worship Mammon.

What happened next. We worshipped Mammon. And now comes the bill (or “check” if you’re an American).

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 9, 1962 – rainbow bomb parties as hydrogen bomb explodes

July 9, 1965 – “Spaceship Earth” is launched, trying to get us to see our fragility (didn’t work)

July 9, 1987 – “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse” warns Broecker

July 9, 2004 – David Bellamy jumps the shark on climate change

 July 9, 2008 – President Bush operating at his peak intellectual capacity

Categories
Australia

July 8, 1996 – National Greenhouse Advisory Panel tells the truth…

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, July 9th, 1996,

FUEL and power subsidies, poor planning and political inaction have slowed Australia’s drive to cut its greenhouse emissions, a government advisory panel has warned.

The National Greenhouse Advisory Panel, representing industry, conservation, science and community sectors, has advised the Federal and State governments to consider imposing firm targets for greenhouse reductions in the manufacturing, agriculture, transport and household sectors.

It has urged governments to start planning for the effects of higher temperatures and rising sea levels caused by global warming next century.

NGAP’s chairman, Professor Paul Greenfield of the University of Queensland, yesterday said the panel’s two-year review of Australia’s official greenhouse policy had identified “shortfalls”. “There needs to be a bit of revitalisation in the response,” he told The Australian, on the eve of United Nations negotiations in Geneva for a new climate change treaty.

Bita, N. 1996. Subsidies slow greenhouse drive. The Australian, 9 July, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the international negotiations around climate change had been a problem for Australia’s political elites from the get go. The first major promise (full of caveats) had been made in 1990, just ahead of the second World Climate Conference. Then, in the 1994-5 a carbon tax campaign got as far as it did because the Australians needed SOMETHING in their hands at COP1 in Berlin.  Now, with the expectation that rich countries would sign on to emissions reductions at the Kyoto Conference in 1997, the pressure was on again.

The specific context was that the NGAP had been set up in 1994, just as the carbon tax campaign was gearing up.  It had held meetings, produced reports – you know the drill…

What I think we can learn from this – you should always be SUPER skeptical about important sounding advisory panels/committees etc, full of the Great And the Good – they’re often a stabvest for business as usual elites and a sandpit for well-meaning liberals to play in.

What happened next – the NGAP was killed off by Howard, without so much as a thank you to the participants. An “Australian Greenhouse Office” – more funding, but same dynamic, “replaced” 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: 

July 8, 1962 – New York Times  on ‘Glasshouse Effect”

July 8, 1970 – Environmental Protection Agency formed 

July 8, 1991 – UK Prime Minister chides US on #climate change

Categories
Australia

July 7, 1997 – Alexander Downer tells the truth.

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, July 8th, 1997 Australian Foreign Minister Alexander  Downer [who had been toppled as opposition leader at the peak of the carbon tax imbroglio of 94-5] explains the facts of life… 

The Government’s position was explained in a speech given by the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, in the lead up to the Kyoto Conference in 1997, in which he stated:

A significant proportion of the Australian economy is currently geared toward the production of emission intensive products. As a result, the abatement costs in Australia are likely to be larger than in other countries that have lower reliance on emission intensive outputs. 84

After discussing the importance of emission intensive industries in the Australian economy and Australia’s linkages with rapidly developing economies in Asia, the Minister said the “only target that Australia could agree to at Kyoto would be one that allowed reasonable growth in our greenhouse emissions”.

A.   Downer Australia and Climate Change, Address by The Hon Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the ‘Global Emissions Agreements and Australian Business Seminar’, Melbourne, 7 July 1997 (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra: 1997).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that – and this may be hard to believe for Australian readers – the Liberal Party had gone to the 1990 Federal election with an emissions reduction target that was MORE ambitious than that of the Australian Labor Party, then in government.  But then they decided they’d been “betrayed” by the green establishment (specifically the Australian Conservation Foundation) and anyway, their mining mates and manufacturing mates thought it was all another green hoax, so they flipped to soft and hard denialism.

The specific context was the Howard Government was trying to gain international support for the idea that Australia was a special case that deserved special treatment ahead of the Kyoto Conference, to be held in December of 1997.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Liberals are at least honest about not giving a rat’s arse about future generations. Labor feel compelled to lie.

What happened next – Australia got an exceptionally generous deal at Kyoto. And still refused to ratify.

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 7, 1970 – an Australian banker goes “Full Extinction Rebellion”, 50 years early…

July 7, 1988 – foolish “Jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial in Nature.

July 7, 2008 – Liberals start back-tracking on climate promises.

Categories
Australia

July 7, 1992 – Greenhouse Action Australia briefing

Thirty three years ago, on this day, July 7th, 1992,

Greenhouse Action Australia, in Sydney on Weds July 7, Dr Noel Brown, UNEP regional director.

Anon. 1992.Post Earth Summit Briefing. Greenweek, July 7,  p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia had looked like it was going to take climate change seriously (1988-1989). Or, if you squinted and chose to be optimistic, you could believe that, as the various conferences and jamborees of 1988-1990 took place.

The specific context was that from 1990 onwards there had been a very effective (though crude, and lucky) fight back by the usual suspects. Australia was also lucky in that the George HW Bush administration did most of the heavy lifting on reducing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to mostly empty but nice-sounding words…  By the time of this seminar, the UNFCCC had been agreed, the greenies were back from the “Earth Summit” hoping what they knew was going to happen wouldn’t in fact happen.

What I think we can learn from this is that the failure to act was baked in, 33 years ago. Oh well.

What happened next is that what the greenies hoped wouldn’t happen has happened.

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

Also on this day: 

July 7, 1969 – Newsweek writes about the “good earth,” mentions carbon dioxide build-up

July 7, 1970 – an Australian banker goes “Full Extinction Rebellion”, 50 years early…

July 7, 1988 – foolish “Jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial in Nature.

July 7, 2008 – Liberals start back-tracking on climate promises.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 6, 2008 – Southern Cross Coalition launches “towards an effective and fair response to climate change”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, July 6th, 2008 the grandly-named Southern Cross Coalition publishes ‘Towards an effective and fair response to climate change.”

(SMH Paywalled article)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 385ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was there had been various attempts to build civil society/social movement coalitions around environment (so called “red-green” coalitions) dating back to the 1970s (the somewhat mythologised ‘green bans’ etc).  One of the problems was that civil society is pretty thin and captured-by-parties in Australia (though I am not quite sure what my comparative metrics are, tbh).  By 2008 it was obvious that Labor could not be trusted (!) to deliver strong action. 

The specific context was that almost as soon as he took office in late November 2007, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd started massaging expectations of actual action down down down (e.g. refusing to budge on pitiful emissions reductions targets) and anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see there was trouble ahead…

And the SCCC? the Climate Institute, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Council of Social Service, and Australian Council of Trade Unions.

What I think we can learn from this – politicians – especially Australian politicians – have now got a full generation and a bit (37 years) of abject failure on climate change.  Back then, it was only 20 years…The only thing that might have saved us was sustained, non-co-optable social movement organisations that then brought broader civil society into the fray. But that was a fantasy then, and we don’t have a time machine now. We are sooooo screwed.

What happened next The so-called “Southern cross coalition” – dominated as it was by extremely timid reformist outfits, pissed off other groups within the “coalition” by doing a stitch up with Rudd the following year in April over a “better” target for the CPRS legislation.

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 6, 1972 – “Workers and the Environment” conference in London…

July 6, 1988 – Piper Alpha blows up 

July 6, 1993 – Australian bipartisanship on climate? Not really…

Categories
Australia

July 5, 1989 – Bob Hawke launches a book

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 5th, 1989,

“Following the Cabinet meeting, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, launched a book by the Commission for the Future on how individuals could take action to help save the planet from environmental disaster.”

 Dunn, R. 1989. Canberra set for Environment Pact. Australian Financial Review, July 6. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australian political elites had been warned about carbon dioxide build-up repeatedly. By 1986, Australian scientists, aided by Minister for Science Barry Jones, were upping their volume.

The specific context was that Bob Hawke had – with a nudge or three from his Environment Minister Graham Richardson – latched onto “the Greenhouse Effect.” There had already been, in May, a proposal, from Richardson, for the Hawke Government to agree to the “Toronto Target” of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2005. This had been shot down by Treasurer Paul Keating.

Meanwhile, Australia was being flooded …. With books about What You Could Do As An Individual.

What I think we can learn from this is that waves of concern come and go, but people can’t look into the abyss for very long…

What happened next was that this wave was mostly gone by late 1991, thanks to usual wave exhaustion, the first Gulf War and the successful fightback by business interests.

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 5, 1973 – The Predicament of Mankind discussed

July 5, 1989 – Nuclear tries to regain some credibility, latching on to greenhouse

July 5, 2013 – that turd Michael Gove …drops plans to drop climate from curriculum

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 4, 2008 – Garnaut’s draft report released

Seventeen years ago, on this day, July 4th, 2008, economist Ross Garnaut’s draft report about what to do about Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions is released.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 385ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australian political elites had made various noises about putting a price on carbon dioxide (a real no-brainer, while still being a drastically inadequate response to the problem) since 1989 (you could say earlier, if you were being particularly uncharitable).  Liberal Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007) had twice had proposals to Cabinet for an emissions trading scheme. One of his underlings had scuppered the first, in 2000, and he himself had vetoed the second in 2003.

The specific context was that in late 2006 public pressure had meant Howard needed to do a U-turn.  In 2007 new Labor leader Kevin Rudd had asked establishment economist Ross Garnaut to produce a report on carbon pricing…

What I think we can learn from this  is that elites – and perhaps especially the Australian political “elite”- have been failing for a very very long time.

What happened next

xxx

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

4 July, 1957 – popular UK magazine The  Listener mentions carbon dioxide build-up

July 4, 1989 – UK Energy Committee ponders greenhouse implications – All Our Yesterdays

July 4, 1996 – article in Nature saying ‘it’s partly us’

July 4, 2004 – @WWF_Australia try to shame John Howard into #climate action…