“Australia is preparing to host a major international meeting of environment ministers to broaden global acceptance of forests as a source of carbon credits.
But the meeting comes at a time when the ability of forests to actually generate these credits is increasingly in scientific doubt.
The High Level Forum on Sinks will be held in Perth from April 17-20.”
Hordern, N. 2000. Australia pushes carbon sinks. The Australian Financial Review, March 3, p.16.
And
Australia is being accused of deliberately “stacking” a conference of international environment ministers in Perth next week in a bid to undermine the global goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The conference, starting on Monday, is about the use of “sinks” or the planting of trees to gain credits, a suggestion under the Kyoto Protocol which could be used to offset countries’ inability to reduce emissions from industry and motor vehicles.
Australia has invited ministers from around the world, but stands accused of inviting only countries sympathetic to its own position on sinks.
Germany and other European countries which are of the view that overuse of sinks could encourage countries not to reduce emissions have been left out.
An Australian Greenhouse Office paper on the conference reveals that only “key members of the European Union”, Finland, France, the UK and The Netherlands, were invited.
Greenpeace’s international policy director, Mr Bill Hare, yesterday accused the Federal Government of stacking the conference. Mr Hare said Tuvalu and other Pacific nations were also not invited, when small Pacific States were likely to be most in danger from sea level rises caused by the greenhouse effect.
Clennel, A. 2000. Greenhouse Gas Conference `stacked’. Sydney Morning Herald, April 15, p.15.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Australia’s political elites had been warned about carbon dioxide build up as a problem, repeatedly, by scientists, by spooks, by journalists, by politicians, and they had ignored it all. They had carved themselves a spectacular deal at the Kyoto conference, and there were a whole load of people who wanted to make money from selling carbon credits, plant a tree in Australia and get paid for doing so by some Japanese or Korean polluter who doesn’t want to cut their own emissions. Ker-ching!
The only fly in that ointment being that for you to be able to engage in carbon trading, your country’s government would have to have ratified Kyoto. Now at this point, it wasn’t clear what would happen, because if the Americans did ratify Kyoto, the pressure on the Australians to do so would be enormous.
And therefore it made sense, in 2000 to be holding these sorts of conferences and pushing these sorts of lines.
A year later, once the Bush administration had pulled out that particular balloon lost all its air. Though, it’s fair to say as well that the so-called Sydney’s Futures Exchange didn’t even last that long.
What I think we can learn from this is that some people dreamed of global carbon trading. Never happened.
What happened next: Bush pulled out of Kyoto. Australia pulled out of Kyoto. Kyoto looked dead. The whole carbon credits thing looked dead. And then in 2004 Russia Duma ratified the Kyoto Protocol, bringing it into force and the whole UNFCCC circus sprang/staggered back into life.
Around 150 people gathered outside the Adelaide Convention Centre to ‘welcome’ delegates to the Annual General Meeting of the oil and gas company Santos. Marc Hudson investigates.
The Adelaide Convention Centre sits on North Terrace. The only thing between it and the South Australian parliament is a railway station. I mention this because in September 1977 there was an election for the right to sit in that parliament. During that election questions of mining, and energy, were high on the agenda.
One party – we will come back to which – had the following as its policy statement on this.
Fast-forward 49 years and Santos, (an acronym for South Australia and Northern Territory Oil Search) the oil and gas company that some say has a disproportionate influence on South Australia’s politics, is holding its Annual General Meeting. Around 200 people gathered for a protest rally organised by a group of environmental and social justice organisations including the Australian Conservation Foundation, Action Aid and the Conservation Council of South Australia.
Under the watchful (and occasionally baleful) eye of plentiful South Australian police, delegates and protestors shared the same escalator up to the entrance of the convention centre.
Four protestors, in mock business suits, were on the pavement at the foot of the escalator.
All held signs and one, Ian, from Extinction Rebellion, chomped on a cigar. He explained the purpose of the protest –
“We’re here because Santos is the biggest company in South Australia. They’re having their AGM today. The shareholders will be here, and they are running programmes, projects around the country and overseas that are impacting the environment, that are impacting and overriding the rights of indigenous people. If anybody stands in front of them, they will take them to court. They’ve constantly taken indigenous people to court, and they keep appealing any decisions they lose. So we’re here to call them out. We’re here to support the First Nations people, but we’re also letting the public know that we believe Santos pays no tax. Hasn’t paid business tax for last 10 years. They pay very little money in donations to the government, and they always get what they want from government.”
(full interview transcript at the foot of this post]
Up the escalator, on the plaza outside the entrance the Convention Centre (the inevitable vast panes of glass – the banal calling card of global corporate architecture), thronged various people with placards and t-shirts bearing blunt messages (not all of them entirely safe for work). Various TV and print journalists scurried around, with police ‘liaison’ officers mingling too. (See InDaily’s report here).
There was a brief welcome to country, delivered first in a First Nations language and then in English – “Because we all family, right? Yeah, happy together. I’m strong like the ground, like the country, and we’re soft like water too. So I bring you all here in the spirit of humanity. That’s my mom’s words.”
The speeches at the rally were necessarily brief, (and there was a telling absence from the line-up, of which more later).
The MC (who did well!) was at pains to get all those present to be aware of – and repeat out loud, twice – the fact that the speakers from today’s rally would be at an event – No New Gas! Q&A with Frontline Traditional Owners and Adam Bandt – Conservation Council SA – tomorrow (Friday 17th April) at the Lion Arts Factory, 68 North Terrace, from 5.00pm, where more detail would be delivered, and more ways to be involved in the various campaigns.
Adam Bandt, formerly a member of parliament for the Australian Greens, and now CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, kept his remarks brief. Gas, he said, is as dirty as coal (this in response to the messaging – pushed by Santos and many others, that gas is somehow a ‘transition’ fuel). He said that gas was driving the climate crisis and pointed (as did a later speaker) to the algal bloom that is wreaking havoc on the wildlife in the oceans of South Australia (and on the livelihoods of those who rely on fishing, tourism etc). Bandt pointed to the hotter summers and ever more sever heatwaves, to waters sources being under threat. He concluded his remarks by saying that Australia has solar and wind sources that are the envy of other nations, that governments don’t go to war over solar and wind and that Australia should be aiming for energy independence. He also, – and this will not have endeared him to the delegates – proposed healthy taxation of Santos’s profits.
Adam Bandt
Next up was Uncle Jack Green, of the Northern Territory, where he and his kin have been confronting the Mcarthur River Mine. His comments were brief, but compelling. He reminded those present that the mines threaten the water, and that “we live on that water – doesn’t matter who you are, cattle, human, kangaroo.”
The next speaker was Kara Kinchella (sp?), whom I believe (will correct if wrong) of the Gomeroi traditional owners from New South Wales. A coalition of groups, made up of Gomeroi Traditional Owners, NSW Farmers, the Country Women’s Association of NSW, Unions NSW and the Lock the Gate Alliance, have created the Breeza Declaration. (can’t find online, but this is the closest I got)
Her takeaway message – “we need to get angry, before it’s too late.”
The penultimate speaker (it was clear that the event had started late, and the rally would therefore be somewhat truncated) was Joseph, from Papua New Guinea, where both Santos and the French company Total have operations. Total has managed to get permission – and here Jospeh quoted from a newspaper article ‘to discharge waste into the environment’. As he pointed out, the waste kills the fish, the prawns and poisons the land – this is a human rights abuse issue. He got a full-throated cheer from the crowd for his suggestion that “if it’s safe, take all the waste and dump it in Paris, at the Eiffel Tower.” He closed saying “Santos, you are responsible, don’t do this.”
There was a short break for a group photo, and to send the various delegates into the AGM to ask their questions. The final speaker was Kirsty Bevan, of the Conservation Council of South Australia.
She said she is often asked “why South Australia?” (with, I think, the implication in the question being that SA is a backwater and people here have the luxury of thinking that nothing they do matters) She said that she always replies that Santos has its HQ here, but also, beyond this, there problem is not one for the future but rather one of the
“crises that we’re seeing play out in front of us. It’s not a future problem, it’s a now problem, and we’re seeing extreme weather events. Our surface water temperatures in the ocean have risen by 2.5 degrees, well above the normal, which is what has resulted in the algal bloom, which we’re entering our second year.” (you can read the full transcript at the foot of this post.)
Earlier I alluded to a missing speaker. So, who was absent from the line-up? Well, this is NOT a criticism of the organisers, merely a reflection of the reality we live in – where were the union figures willing and able to speak out on the dangers of continued extraction of oil, coal and gas? There have always been tensions – sometimes managed well, sometimes not – between organised labour and environmental movements. There have been Green Bans, environmentally-inspired pushes for Full Employment, dreams of a “Green Gold Rush” around “green jobs” and climate jobs” (something Australian Conservation Foundation pushed in the early 1990s and late 2000s respectively – the second time with the peak body for Australian Trades Unions). But today, for whatever reason, no union rep was to be heard.
In 1977 Australia was in the midst of a debate about uranium mining and the export of uranium to countries with nuclear reactors. There was then (as there is now) talk of nuclear power for Australia. Which party had that manifesto commitment? It wasn’t the Greens – they would not exist until the early 1990s, brought into existence from one-betrayal-too-many from the Australian Labor Party. It wasn’t Labor. It wasn’t the Liberals (though there were Liberal figures pushing for renewables research and development.) Reader, it was the National Country Party, now known as the Nationals.
In 1977 the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at roughly 333 parts per million. Carbon dioxide traps heat on the earth’s surface. The more there is in the air, the more heat is trapped. Today, in 2026, the CO2 levels are at almost 100ppm above that – 430ppm. They are climbing faster and faster each year. More heat is trapped. More consequences for our past inaction – stretching back long before 1977 – pile up for present and future generations.
My two cents: There really is only so much you can do to innovate with the format of a rally like this, especially when time is tight. Tomorrow afternoon, at the Lion Arts Theatre, it will be easier to see if there is the kind of innovation in how activists hold events that is desperately required. Watch this space.
Transcript of interview with Extinction Rebellion person.
Marc – It’s 16th of April, 2026, I’m outside the Convention Centre. I’m talking to two men in business suits “representing” Santos. One of them has a cigar, as per photo. You’re from extinction rebellion. Why are you here today?
Ian – We’re here because Santos is the biggest company in South Australia. They’re having their AGM today. The shareholders will be here, and they are running programmes, projects around the country and overseas that are impacting the environment, that are impacting and overriding the rights of indigenous people. If anybody stands in front of them, they will take them to court. They’ve constantly taken indigenous people to court, and they keep appealing any decisions they lose. So we’re here to call them out. We’re here to support the First Nations people, but we’re also letting the public know that we believe Santos pays no tax. Hasn’t paid business tax for last 10 years. They pay very little money in donations to the government, and they always get what they want from government.
Marc – And what next for after today? How does the campaign against what Santos is doing continue?
Ian – Okay, in May, we have the Australian Energy Producers conference here in Adelaide that is the lobby group for the oil and gas industry in Australia. All the CEOs will be here, and government ministers will be here. They’ll be here for four days. So we’ll be here to disrupt them.
Marc – I seem to recall, at the last AEP meeting in Adelaide two or three years ago, there were protests that ended up with the Malinauskus government changing the laws. Any comment?
Ian -We’ll do whatever we have to do. We’ll keep doing it because they are not changing. The government is going down the path that Santos tells them to go down, and we’ll keep resisting.
Transcript of rest of Kirsty Bevan speech
It is so important that South Australians stand up and declare that we are not responsible for the climate crisis. As individuals, there are organisations and there are companies who are contributing every day to an accelerated changing climate, whether they’re digging that gas out of the ground which releases greenhouse gases, whether they’re burning it to turn it into liquid gas to export it overseas, they are releasing greenhouse gases which are all contributing to the climate crisis. This part is not under question.
So what do we do? We get them to pay, not the South Australian public. We get them to play for the crisis that’s resulting and our algal bloom, which the report we did at the Conservation Council, we submitted a report that showed that in the first 12 months conservatively, the economic impact of the bloom was around 250 million that’s a quarter of a billion dollars. And who bears the cost of that? We do.
Our role here in South Australia is so important, and we need two fronts at the federal level. We need to show that we are united and that they have a strong voice, that the federal government needs to stop any future expansions of gas and in South Australia, we need to make a firm stand to say that Santos is not a household name. We need to stop promoting Santos at our climate friendly events like the Tour Down Under. We need to stop promoting Santos in our universities and on public land, and we need to stand together to show that we won’t stand for it.
And the government needs to make a change. You can all join up to the Conservation Council’s programme. There’s some people around with their placards out, their hands up, come sign your name, be a part. Showing up to these events is what makes it really matter. But we will continue to hold the government to account. And I thank every single person here today for coming out. Thank you”
The mining industry appeared to have all it needed for a decent online campaign: a new website, chest-beating media statements and one of those fancy Twitter hashtags, #australiansforcoal. What it got in return was merciless mockery.
The Minerals Council of Australia, which is backed by mining companies including industry giants BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, launched Australians for Coal on Monday, as part of a PR campaign which will include TV advertisements and, naturally, political lobbying.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the mining industry had been trying to get people to love it for a very long time indeed, publicity campaigns, sponsorship of things like the TV programme Against The Wind with Jon English school textbooks, etc,
My personal favourite is 1991’s “Mining. It’s absolutely essential.”
They were going to launch one against the carbon tax in 1995 but in the end they didn’t need to. Then they had geared up in 2008-9 and again in 2010-11, to confuse people and to scare people against bringing in a carbon price.
The specific context was that this is the same year as Peabody, Advanced Energy for Life.
What I think we can learn from this is that mining companies and fossil fuel companies spend loads of money to get you to like them and to think of them as responsible corporate citizens. Perhaps the most clever and devious of these was the Mobil “advertorial” adverts.
What happened next: Well, as you’ll see, the MCA was relentlessly mocked, and I think realised that it was not so wise to present such an inviting target.
Meanwhile, any rational human being who understands the Keeling Curve and the history of resistance to anything to reduce the steepness of that curve, will feel despair and dread.
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.
Sixteen years ago, on this day, April 13th, Bob Brown announces he’s stepping down…
The leader of the third force in Australian politics announced his resignation from parliament on Friday, but said his party would maintain its support for prime minister Julia Gillard’s fragile minority government.
Bob Brown, 67, announced his resignation as leader of the Greens and said he would leave the Senate in June after 16 years to “make room for renewal” in the leftwing environmental party.
Brown, who has led the party since its inception in 1992, is Australia’s first openly gay federal parliamentarian. An opponent of the Iraq war, he came into the spotlight in 2003 after being banned from parliament for 24 hours for heckling the US president George W Bush.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Bob Brown had been fighting for peace and ecological sanity for a very long time, and in some of the most hostile places in Australia that you could do that – namely Tasmania and parliament.
The specific context was that after the 2010 election the Greens had held the balance of power, and Gillard’s minority government was forced to institute a carbon price, the so called Multi Party Committee on climate change, and with this done, Bob Brown could announce a very well-deserved retirement from formal politics.
What I think we can learn from this is that there are some people who are particularly well. They have wonderful qualities in terms of being able to rally others, serve as a focal point for other people’s projections and just to also do the work .
What happened next: Bob Brown has continued his activism, sometimes with more success, sometimes with less. I would say the 2019 effort in Queensland was fairly ill-judged, but I don’t think that the Shorten Labor lot would have gotten up anyway. There is a documentary about Bob Brown about which I have very mixed feelings, which are distinct from Brown himself, who, by all accounts and by all reckoning, is a very very admirable character.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, April 12th, 1991, an “Energy Guide” was released. Here’s the press release…
MINISTER FOR RESOURCES ALAN GRIFFITHS
PIE91/963 5 April 1991
ENERGY GUIDE TO BE LAUNCHED ON APRIL 12
The Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, will officially launch the consumer household hint booklet, the “Energy Guide” on April 12, the Minister for Resources, Mr Alan Griffiths announced today.
Mr Griffiths made the announcement during an opening speech to a workshop organised by Greenhouse Action Australia in Melbourne.
Throughout the speech, the Minister highlighted the need for both household and industry consumers to take responsibility for short term measures which would have an immediate effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
“The energy guide is an intensive educational exercise. It shows how to save energy, save money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions without any loss of quality of life,” Mr Griffiths said.
The Energy Guide will be distributed to every Australian household this month.
“If every Australian follows the hints contained in the book, we could reduce our annual output of carbon dioxide by a massive 36 million tonnes each year,” Mr Griffiths said,
“The book is a first for Australia, and recognises us as world leaders in educational campaigns to reduce greenhouse emissions.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Australian political elites had been repeatedly warned about carbon dioxide build up, from the late 70s. You had the CSIRO conference in Port Phillip and then the 1980 symposium. These had been reported in places like the Canberra Times, National Party senators had talked about carbon dioxide build up. It was not exactly a state secret.
The specific context was that in 1988 the issue had exploded into public awareness, thanks also to the CSIRO’s work as made possible by Barry Jones, Minister of Science, who had set up the Commission for the Future. Anyway, Labor Party had won elections in 1983, 1984 and 1987.The 1990 election had looked like a bridge too far, but Labor had squeaked home thanks to small g green voters, and here we see Bob Hawke having to engage with the issue, while also getting a photo op out of it.
What I think we can learn from this is that this is the sort of light-green, blame-shifting, responsibility-shifting, big-picture-avoiding stuff that politicians love.
What happened next: So what we learn is that blame shifting is the name of the game. What happened next? Hawk was toppled a few months later, and all the environmental initiatives were binned by his successor, Paul Keating.
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.
“Next Saturday it’s time for Queenslanders to let our politicians know that we support Queensland and Australia’s clean energy future – and the many new jobs and business opportunities it will create.
On Saturday 9th at 11am we’re uniting with our friends from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition , GetUp! , Greenpeace , Oxfam , Australian Conservation Foundation , World Wildlife Fund and Union Climate Connectors to support real action against climate change.
It’s time to make the big polluters pay their fair share and unlock Australia’s clean energy future. By acting now we can stay healthy, secure our environment, protect jobs and build new clean industries.
This is a family friendly gathering where we’ll hear speakers who understand the science and we’ll celebrate our positive message for change in Australia.
So come along on Saturday the 9th at 11am in King George Square, bring some mates and take a stand in support of fair and effective action on climate change.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Queensland has always been a brutal place for descent of any kind, for. If you’re the wrong skin colour, the wrong sexual orientation, the wrong class, etc..
The specific context was that in 2011 the climate issue was still front page news – was especially front page news in Australia. Since late 2006 Australia’s political elites had been wrangling and wrestling with the very idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide – ostensibly in order to reduce Australia’s domestic emissions (actually it was largely about finding ways to continue with business as usual). There was nothing, of course, in this about exports of coal, because that was on someone else’s books
What I think we can learn from this is that an educated populace understands what’s at stake, but does not have the power to force the elected and unelected leaders of society to behave intelligently.
What happened next: The carbon price was finally instituted. It began operation in July 22,012, but was abolished by Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in 2014
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
Twenty years ago today, governments make their usual big empty promises…
On 7 April, two days after the Bald Hills decision, Neil Mitchell of 3AW put the Prime Minister on the spot in relation to a housing project west of Melbourne at Melton, saying ‘there’s a $400 million development out there at risk’ because of the elusive and endangered grassland-dwelling Golden Sun Moth. The Prime Minister was unaware of the moth. Still he promised ‘I will investigate that’. Other stories queried whether the endangered red-tailed black cockatoo would ‘sink a $650 million pulpmill’ in SA, and whether the little known flatback turtle would continue to raise an issue for Chevron’s $11 billion Gorgon gas project off the northwest coast of Western Australia.
(Prest, 2007: 253)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the Liberal Party had gone to the 1990 election with a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labor, but this had not won them for the election. Small-g greens had come out for Labor, and the Liberals decided they had been “stabbed in the back” and that all of this was all climate change stuff was a socialist hokum. John Howard, who had become prime minister 10 years before the events described here, had done everything in his power to protect the fossil fuel industry and to quash the growth in renewables and to prevent international action.
The specific context was that Howard was beginning to look old, beginning to lose his grip. Kyoto had, in fact, finally been ratified by enough nations to come into force, and negotiations for a success and protocol were underway.
Also, the Australian Conservation Foundation had teamed up with various banks, for example, including Westpac, and released a study with the laughable title “early action on climate change” that was a couple of days before this. And Howard’s environment minister was maybe not quite as sharp as either of them thought and had managed to create opportunities for people to poke fun. This latest one was the apparent John Howard beginning to not quite be on top of things. We now know that late 2006 was the year that the dam broke and that Howard stopped being invincible and started to look very, very beatable for the 2007 election.
What I think we can learn from this is that there are usually cracks in the dam. Sometimes these cracks just stay there. Other times, with hindsight, you can see that floods about to begin.
What happened next: Howard not only lost the 2007 election, but he also lost his own seat.
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.
Australian government is being applauded by corporate polluters and corporate front groups at home and abroad. The Global Climate Coalition, the major front group for US corporate polluters, features on its web site an article by Alan Wood in the April 3 Australian (<http://www.globalclimate.org>). Wood’s article, titled “Killing Kyoto in Australia’s best interests”, urges Australia to back the US in pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol.
Wood comments favourably on a paper written by climate sceptic Alan Oxley for the Lavoisier Group, an Australian “think tank” which argues that the Kyoto Protocol poses “the most serious challenge to our sovereignty since the Japanese fleet entered the Coral Sea on 3 May, 1942”.
The US has called Europe’s bluff, LISTEN to the Europeans and you could be forgiven for thinking George W. Bush has just sent the world to the gas chamber – the greenhouse gas chamber, that is. What Bush has really done by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol is shatter a European dream of running the international energy market, or at least a substantial bit of it.
This dream arose from a mix of Europe’s quasi-religious green fundamentalism and cynical calculation of commercial advantage. Jacques Chirac gave the game away at the failed COP6 talks at The Hague last November, when he described the protocol as “a genuine instrument of global governance”.
Wood, A. 2001. Killing Kyoto in Australia’s best interests. The Australian, 3 April, p13.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that, well, as discussed yesterday, link, the Kyoto Protocol was inadequate, but essential – necessary but wildly insufficient. What you see here is the bat shit, crazy, conspiratorial One World Government crap from someone with an academic background, but no grasp on reality. This language of sovereignty, of “taking back control” is immensely powerful and useful for the nutjobs, and they use pretty much every opportunity they can to deploy it.
So much for one fragile world. The Treaty of Westphalia is a treaty of failure, as was predicted by many observers in the late 1970s who knew that getting nations to agree to emissions cuts would be virtually impossible.
The specific context was that Bush Jnr had followed Dick Cheney’s instructions, and pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol.
What I think we can learn from this is that we are doomed.
What happened next: Howard pulled Australia out the following year, but this was a major factor in his eventual political demise.
The World’s (then) “largest CO2 storage demo plant” opens in Victoria.
THE launch of Australia’s first carbon dioxide storage demonstration project is a “key strategic initiative in the global challenge of addressing climate change”, according to Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitchell Hooke.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that carbon capture and storage had first been proposed as a solution – a partial solution – to carbon dioxide build up in the mid 1970s by an Italian physicist, Cesar Marchetti, as part of the whole IASSA attempt to offer solutions.
The specific context was that was10 years previously, in the late 1990s the GEODISC programme had gotten underway, and in 2001 the Prime Minister’s Science, Economics and Industry Council then chaired by Roy Batterham, (who was part time also the chief technology officer for Rio Tinto), had put forward CCS as a useful way of side-stepping climate policy and the need for behaviour change and societal transformation. There had been further insane promises about CCS during the 2000s and then in 2008 we see this pilot project begin.
What I think we can learn from this is that these fantasy technologies have a long history, and it’s not one of success.
What happened next: Otway kept storing trivial amounts of CO2 and it’s not clear to me that any meaningful lessons were learned. But I’m not a geologist. The big CCS project in Australia is Gorgon as per Chevron, and you can read about its stunning world changing successes here.
1st Australian Coal Conference, Surfers Paradise, Queensland. 2 – 6 April 1978.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that coal had always been a hugely important part of Australia’s economy and as a primary energy source. In the 1960s huge coal fields were discovered in Queensland and an export market to the rapidly developing Asia sprang up.
Then came the things like the Australian Mining Industry Council, and also the need for a place where everyone could schmooze each other, have a good time, get away from the wife and kids, sample the dubious delights of Queensland. And so the first Australian coal conference was held.
What I think we can learn from this is that industries need their gathering spots, and this can be profitable for the hosts and for the wider economy of gambling, drugs and prostitution.
What happened next: The coal conference has happened every two years. The 1988 one, in March, had absolutely nothing on climate change. The one two years later was absolutely dominated by the “so-called” greenhouse effect, as we called it then. But the interesting tale with the coal conferences is that they came to be dominated by people wanting to fight the culture wars around greenhouse and other people who were just interested in making money became bemused and frustrated, and eventually the coal conferences stopped being worth attending, stopped being profitable and stopped being held and replaced by other conferences that filled the ecological (!) niche.
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.
