Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

September 17, 1980 – Canberra Times reports “fossil fuels changing climate”

Forty five  years ago, on this day, September 17th, 1980, the Canberra Times ran a story on page 7 “Fossil fuels changing climate.”  Read it and weep.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 339ppm. 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 in various places (I can speak for the US, UK, Germany) research was underway and far-sighted politicians were beginning to worry. In 1977 the Canberra Times had a page 5 story “Cities “could be flooded”. While the First World Climate Conference hadn’t delivered a particularly strong statement, nonetheless, concern was there.

The specific context was that CSIRO scientists had been beavering away. One of them, Graeme Pearman, had been involved in 1977 in various studies in the US and Europe, and had returned and held a seminar. The Australian Academy of Science and others had sponsored a workshop on Phillip Island in November 1978.

What I think we can learn from this – don’t expect governments of societies built on extraction and export to be enthused when you tell them that there is trouble ahead if they don’t change their ways.

What happened next

They were not enthused. They did not, in fact, change their ways. The trouble is arriving.  But it’s early early days of the Fafocene.

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: 

September 17, 1954 – nuclear electricity will be too cheap to meter – All Our Yesterdays

September 17, 1969 – trying to spin Vietnam, Moynihan starts warning about #climate change

September 17, 1987 – report on “The Greenhouse Project” launch

September 17, 2002 – UK Government announces feasibility study into Carbon Capture and Storage

Categories
Australia South Paciific

September 15, 2005 – “A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Refugees launched by FOE Australia”

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 15th, 2005,

Friends of the Earth Australia: A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Refugees – “While the Earth has always endured natural climate change variability, we are now facing the possibility of irreversible climate change in the near future. The increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere from industrial processes has enhanced the natural greenhouse effect.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 the issue of climate refugees rocking up in Australia was not new – James Burke had talked about it in his 1989 documentary “After the Warming.”

The specific context was that Friends of the Earth battles on, trying to get people to think about the uncomfortable issues.  2005 was before the ‘great awakening of late 2006-2007’ and it must have seemed pretty futile, but they persisted.

What I think we can learn from this: You have to keep saying the truth.  Hardly anyone listens, but wasn’t it ever thus?

What happened next

Anthony Albanaese started wanging on about climate refugees in late 2006, as a way of cornering John Howard  (see my October last year stuff).

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: 

September 15, 1948 – Biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentions carbon dioxide build-up at an AAAS symposium.

September 15, 1980 – Australian scientists hold “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” symposium in Canberra

September 15, 1982/1990 – “Environmental Justice” is born. And so is Captain Planet…

September 15, 1996 – A CCS posterchild is born: Sleipner Field comes online. – All Our Yesterdays

September 15, 2008- business splits over what to extort from Rudd…

Categories
Australia

September 14, 1991 – the Green Wave has receded….

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 14th, 1991,

“In an article in the Good Weekend of September 14, Deirdre Macken produced much evidence from market research that public concern about the environment, and the public’s willingness to buy eco-friendly products, had subsided markedly since their surge in 1989.”

Ross Gittins

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 the first wave of global eco-concern (1969 to 1972 or so) had given us UNEP and also the “issue-attention cycle”.

The specific context was that we were near/at the end of the public interest in/concern about the greenhouse effect etc. The media was covering it less – no new angles to be had.  These things then enter a kind of death-spiral.   

What I think we can learn from this – creating organisations that can cope with this death-spiral, this “abeyance” is really tough. They become bureaucratic, soulless grant-grubbers, or they wink out of existence. There oughta be a third way…

What happened next

“The climate” did not burst back onto the scene in a big way until the end of 2006.  And then followed the pattern – by 2010 everyone was exhausted. But the 2010 election, and Prime Minister Gillard’s reliance on Independents and Greens, kept the policy window open…

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: 

September 14, 1993 – scientists suffer backlash (not outa thin air though)

September 14, 1994 – Business told to brace for climate regulation/tax (which it then handily defeats) – All Our Yesterdays

September 14, 2004 – Blair “shocked” by scientists warnings – “time is running out for tackling climate change”

Categories
Australia South Paciific

September 11, 2015 – Pacific Island leaders fail to shift Australia and New Zealand…

Ten years ago, on this day, September 11th, 2015,

AAP, 2015. Pacific island leaders fail to shift Australia and NZ on climate targets. The Guardian, 11 September

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/11/pacific-island-leaders-fail-to-shift-australia-and-nz-on-climate-target

Pacific islands nations failed to convince Australia and New Zealand to back stronger targets on limiting global warming as the showdown at the Pacific Islands Forum on Thursday ended in a stalemate.

The 16 leaders at the forum agreed to disagree on whether to take a two degree or 1.5 degree warming limit stance to UN talks in Paris in December.

Small island nations facing rising seas pushed hard for the 1.5 degree target, saying anything higher risked their survival.

Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Port Moresby ends with leaders agreeing to disagree over whether to take 1.5 or two degree target to Paris climate talks

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 401ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it was 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 UNFCCC was stuffed from the start. The George H.W. Bush administration resisted all efforts to get targets and timetables for rich nations to reduce their emissions into the text of the treaty.  Eventually, the French, who’d proposed it, raised the white flag.  So we got a meaningless but nice sounding treaty with “common but differentiated responsibilities.” Everything since then can be seen as an attempt to heal that early wound.  No success.

The specific context was that Paris was coming and Australia’s government was made up of climate deniers like Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. God help us.

What I think we can learn from this is that the governments of rich countries are perfectly happy with everyone else – and this is especially the case of brown people – basically dying. A few will be “let in”, for show, but the rest? They can burn or fry.

What happened next

Paris was a farce.

The 1.5 promise was made, but no action to meet it was ever taken. Now, well, 1.5 is toast and we are not going to avoid 2 or 2.5 or probably even 3.  This, people, is why I didn’t breed. I could see this sort of shit coming in the 1990s. 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: 

September 11, 1961 – New York Times reports “Air Found Gaining in Carbon Dioxide”

September 11, 1973 – CIA coup topples Chilean democracy

September 11, 1989 – Bill McKibben’s “The End of Nature” published – All Our Yesterdays

September 11, 2006 – Australian climate concern hits tipping point (maybe) –

Categories
Australia

 September 8, 2000 – “Minchin’s Quiet Win”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 8th, 2000, Lenore Taylor, then at the Fin, wrote an interesting piece.

Senator Nick Minchin had a big Cabinet win on greenhouse policy two weeks ago.

It was a win that had been preceded by months of bitter debate, by several inconclusive Cabinet discussions and by a frenzy of lobbying by business organisations all of which occurred with very little public fanfare.

What he won was a series of promises by Government to Industry to try to overcome their deep concerns about greenhouse-related investment uncertainty.

But it’s very hard to reassure someone about what’s down the track if you don’t know what’s down the track.

And given that no-one knows whether the Kyoto Protocol will ever be ratified, nor what its final form will be if it is, this is a very winding and difficult-to-predict track indeed.

Taylor. L. 2000. Minchin’s quiet win on greenhouse policies. The Australian Financial Review, 8 September, p.16

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. 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 both ALP and Coalition elites were deeply hostile to any action on climate change (because their current business mates would suffer, and because they just didn’t really buy what the scientists were saying).

The specific context was that a proposal for an Emissions Trading Scheme had been brought before the Cabinet in August. Minchin was the guy who killed it, while Honest John sat on smiling, like Emperor Palpatine.

What I think we can learn from this is that the governments of settler colonies are gonna do this. But so are other governments. It’s just what governments do….

What happened next

In 2003 it was John Howard’s turn to get his hands dirty – in response to a united Cabinet. He delayed for a month, then came back and said “nope.” There is still time to get him to the Hague, you know…

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: 

September 8, 1972 – Green activist vanishes off face of Earth… – All Our Yesterdays

September 8, 1990 – Australian #climate denialist spouting his nonsense…

September 8, 2014 – Lobster boat blockaders have charges dropped.

Categories
Australia Business Responses

September 7, 1993 – Business Council of Australia meets to get its resistance-to-climate-policy ducks in a row

Thirty two years ago, on this day, September 7th, 1993, Business meets to get ducks in a row…

From Business Council of Australia Bulletin 102, October 1993

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 357ppm. 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 business had made sure that the Australian government didn’t get carried away with the idea that Australia should pull its weight in the whole “saving the planet” thing that the commie-greenies were wanging on about. In this they’d been very successful, with help from senior ALP Federal ministers. 

The specific context was that the UNFCCC had been signed in June 1992. The ratification process was proceeding faster than might have been expected (usually these things drag on for years) so meeting in September 1993 was a good idea, from their perspective – make sure they had the ability to be ready with arguments, allies and actions when the greenie lunatics tried to push for action.

What I think we can learn from this is that – as per Adam Smith – “‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices’.” Or, if he were writing now “trash the future for present profit and convenience. And to own the libs.”

What happened next – a carbon tax was defeated in late 1994-early 1995, and that was really game over for any response to climate change in Australia. To be clear, the carbon tax on its own would NOT have been enough. But without a price signal, and more money for research and development of wind and solar, you can just kiss the planet goodbye. And we did. 

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: 

September 7, 1927 – television, the drug of a nation, first cultivated – All Our Yesterdays

September 7, 1936 – The Anthropocene does for the Thylacine…

September 7, 1977 – #climate scientist Stephen Schneider on Carson for the last time…

September 7, 1988 – media looking for more alarmist scientists… – All Our Yesterdays

September 7, 2005 – “rule out nuclear” say Aussie green outfits.

Categories
Activism Australia Coal

September 5, 2005 – protest about the brown coal in Melbourne

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 6th, 2005,

Stop Hazelwood expansion now!

Monday, 5 September 2005

The Bracks Government will put at stake its environmental credentials in the lead up to next year’s State election if it allows Hazelwood power station to expand, green groups have warned.

The call comes as groups rally – around a three-storey inflatable cooling tower – at the steps of Treasury Place, where Cabinet is meeting today to finalise the proposed expansion of Hazelwood.

According to reports, the Government has signed a deal with Hazelwood, the developed world’s most polluting power station, which would cap its climate change pollution at 445 million tonnes over 25 years. If these reports are correct this deal would:

* renege on the Government’s earlier assurances that it would require reductions in Hazelwood’s pollution;
* allow Hazelwood to continue operating at current emissions levels, which are the worst in Australia and among the worst in the world;
* effectively provide a $16.7 billion subsidy over 25 years from the public purse, based on current European Union figures, if this emissions cap is protected from a future emissions trading scheme; and
* give Hazelwood a licence to continue operating – and polluting – well beyond 2030 and provide no guarantee when the power station will shut down.

Environment Victoria’s Executive Director Marcus Godinho said if this report was correct it would be a dirty deal: “Hazelwood is the number one test for the Bracks Government. An expansion will mean failure, which will be felt at the ballot box. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of this decision for the future of the environment, as well as our economy and jobs. An expansion would annihilate the Government’s environmental credibility.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions, from truly filthy brown coal, were high. In 1989 the State Electricity Commission Victoria released a report about what to do about Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We will never know what might have happened (probably not much, tbf) because the SECV got privatised

The specific context was that green groups had been plugging away, without too much sniff of victory, for a very long time.

What I think we can learn from this – we should celebrate the tenacity of the resistance, I guess? While not letting it off the hook for lack of innovation, reflexivity etc.

What happened next

According to wikipedia:

“In 2005, the Bracks government approved an environmental effects statement (EES) that allowed Hazelwood to relocate a road and a section of the Morwell River to allow access to an additional 43 million tonnes of coal in addition to that allowed under the mining licence boundaries set at the time of privatisation. This was estimated to provide sufficient coal for the plant to operate to at least 2030 (prior to decommissioning plans)…. 

Hazelwood was jointly owned by Engie with a 72% share and Mitsui & Co with a 28% share.[4] In 2014, Hazelwood employed 495 staff directly and on average 300 contractors. On 3 November 2016, Engie announced that the entire Hazelwood plant would be closed at the end of March 2017 giving five months notice of the closure.[5][6] The power station closed in March 2017.[7]”

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: 

 September 5, 1986 – a “Safe Energy” rally, in London

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

September 5, 2004 – John Howard gloats about cooking the planet – All Our Yesterdays

September 5, 2005 – Anthony Albanese introduced “Avoiding Dangerous Climate #Change” private member’s bill

Categories
Australia

September 5, 1995 – Australian Aluminium Council joins “Greenhouse Challenge”

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 5th, 1995 , the Australian Aluminium Council announces it is joining the ‘Greenhouse Challenge.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 business interests had, from 1990, fought ferociously against any meaningful climate policy (not that the ALP, then in charge, was ever particularly serious about it).

The specific context was that the “Greenhouse Challenge” was a bullshit voluntary scheme dreamed up to cover up the defeat of a carbon tax. It was so harmless and useful to corporate reputations that even the Aluminium Council liked it.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is all kayfabe. No climate action that would affect the power and prerogatives of the rich would ever be tolerated. If you thought otherwise, well “tell them they’re dreaming”.

What happened next – the Greenhouse Challenge staggered on, with a further reboot when it was too obviously ridiculous. It was put out of its misery in the mid 2000s, having achieved no emissions reductions worthy of the name, but keeping some consultants happy and providing useful PR ammo. So it goes. 

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: 

 September 5, 1986 – a “Safe Energy” rally, in London

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

September 5, 2004 – John Howard gloats about cooking the planet – All Our Yesterdays

September 5, 2005 – Anthony Albanese introduced “Avoiding Dangerous Climate #Change” private member’s bill

Categories
Australia

September 4, 2007 – Climate Change Coalition launches

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 4th, 2007,  

“4Change, formerly known as the Climate Change Coalition (CCC), was an Australian political party, which was formed in 2007 with a view to accelerate action by politicians from all parties on global warming and climate change. Its position on working towards addressing climate change, stresses cooperation with big business in order to achieve significant progress on the issue. The party therefore advocates a close working relationship between environmentalists and the business community. The CCC was registered as a political party with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on 4 September 2007 and deregistered on 25 March 2010.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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 was a year into its Great Climate Awakening. Kevin Rudd was surfing to victory over John Howard’s LNP. But people knew, in their heart of hearts that Rudd wouldn’t deliver enough. (They were right – in the event, he delivered half of eff-all.)

What I think we can learn from this. The game is rigged, y’all…

What happened next. The party deregistered in 2010. What did it achieve? I don’t know.

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: 

September 4, 1969 – Ivory Tower types tell the truth at ANU – All Our Yesterdays
Categories
Academia Activism Australia

Version 1 of submission to Australian Senate Inquiry into Climate Disinfo/Misinfo – comments pls

Hi all, especially the Australians, and especially the Australians with experience of submitting documents to inquiries.

The Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy was appointed by resolution of the Senate on 30 July 2025 and I have am planning to make a submission.

I am putting Version 1.0 of my submission (word doc) up to

a) get people’s feedback and improve (shorten!) the submission

b) raise awareness of the Inquiry.

It’s waaay too long, and the academic bibliography will I think have to come out. But what else is wrong with it? What is missing?

The deadline is September 12th, so if you are reading this after September 8th (!), I won’t be able to integrate anything you say, but will still be interested.

The terms of reference of the inquiry

to inquire into and report on:

(a) the prevalence of, motivations behind and impacts of misinformation and disinformation related to climate change and energy;

(b) how misinformation and disinformation related to climate change and energy is financed, produced and disseminated, including, but not limited to, understanding its impact on:

(i) Australian politics,

(ii) domestic and international media narratives, and

(iii) Australian public policy debate and outcomes;

(c) the origins, growth and prevalence of ‘astroturfing’ and its impact on public policy and debate;

(d) connections between Australian organisations and international think tank and influence networks associated with the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation related to matters of public policy;

(e) the role of social media, including the coordinated use of bots and trolls, messaging apps and generative artificial intelligence in facilitating the spread of misinformation and disinformation;

(f) the efficacy of different parliamentary and regulatory approaches in combating misinformation and disinformation, what evidence exists and where further research is required, including through gathering global evidence;

(g) the role that could be played by media literacy education, including in the school curriculum, in combating misinformation and disinformation; and

(h) any other related matters.