Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

April 9, 1991 – Peter Walsh goes nuts, urges BHP to sue Greenpeace

Thirty three years ago, on this day, April 9th, 1991, ex Federal Treasurer Peter Walsh shows he is basically a demented thug. 

The former Minister for Finance, Peter Walsh, attacked Australia’s major conservation groups yesterday saying he hoped Australia’s largest company, BHP, would use common law to bankrupt Greenpeace for interfering with seismic testing.

Senator Walsh said the major environmental groups were trying to subvert economic development — an objective they had pursued with some success.

Launching a book which emphasised market solutions to environmental problems, Senator Walsh said extreme elements of the conservation movement were more concerned with “destroying” industrial capitalism than protecting the environment.

“One wonders how long a country which is unquestionably some distance down the Argentinian road will continue to allow organisations like the Australian Conservation Foundation to subvert economic growth, and particularly the growth in the traded goods sector, to the extent that they do,” he said.

A long-time critic of the conservation movement, Senator Walsh fired a broadside at Greenpeace over its recent campaign to stop BHP’s oil exploration in Bass Strait. The organisation argued that the seismic tests would disturb whales which breed in the area.

He accused Greenpeace of hypocrisy in trying to stop oil exploration using petrol-powered rubber dinghies and a diesel-powered mother-ship.

“I hope that BHP sues Greenpeace under the common law and collects damages large enough to bankrupt the organisation.”

The book, Markets, Resources and theEnvironment, was produced by the Tasman Institute which Senator Walsh acknowledged many in the Labor Party considered “only marginally less obnoxious” than the League of Rights, or the Queensland National Party.

Lamberton, H. 1991. Walsh attacks greenies. Canberra Times, 10 April, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 


The context was that there were battles going on over the making of environmental policy. The Ecologically Sustainable Development process was unfolding. There were negotiations, that Australia was part of, for the UNFCCC at the Rio Earth Summit the following year.

Walsh was no longer in Parliament, and so was less constrained and was becoming the batshit crazy loon in public that he probably had been for a while. And he was hoping that mining giant BHP would beat up on Greenpeace. BHP was a bit more canny than that. Greenpeace was fat with new membership, (but it couldn’t keep them and would plummet. afterwards). 

What happened next? Well, Walsh went on to be one of the founding members of the Lavoisier Group. Bless it. 

What we can learn from this is that recently retired politicians have stood up resentments that they like to get off their chest, and it makes good newspaper copy. And they’re suffering from Relevance Deprivation Syndrome… So you get to see fireworks, at least for a while. 

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

Also on this day: 

 April 9, 1990 – Australian business launches “we’re green!” campaign

April 9, 2008 – US school student vs dodgy (lying) text books

April 9, 2019- brutal book review “a script for a West Wing episode about climate change, only with less repartee.”

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

April 7, 2010 – Ziggie tries to sprinkle Stardust – 50 nuclear reactors by 2050

Fourteen years ago, on this day, April 7th, 2010, the nuclear bullshit gets sprayed again, and not for the last time…

NUCLEAR advocate Ziggy Switkowski has said an Australia powered by up to 50 nuclear plants would pose little risk of an environmental disaster such as this week’s threatened oil spill on the Great Barrier Reef.

Dr Switkowski, chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, said Australia should build 50 nuclear power stations by 2050, doubling the number he suggested to the Howard government in a key report three and a half years ago.

Kelly, J. 2010. Ziggy Switkowski calls for 50 nuclear reactors in Australia by 2050. The Australian, 7 April.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Copenhagen had been a failure.. Australian Prime Minister Kevin “great moral challenge” Rudd was bailing on climate change action. 

It was clear that policy responses to climate change and carbon dioxide buildup were not progressing even at an arthritic snail’s pace. And therefore, if you believe that nuclear power is the answer, then trot it out again. Because it will get you a day’s headlines. And so it came to pass. 

See also Alvin Weinberg in January of 1979, btw. 

What we learn from this is that we are dogs returning to our vomit. And now, a handbrake turn in the metaphors: we keep playing the same games, the same losing cards, because it’s the only card we have in our hands. 

What happened next? Nuclear continues to go nowhere and will go nowhere, because in Australia where would you build them? There are no population centres big enough to meet the effective demand. And in any case, the price of solar and wind is plummeting so that the numbers simply don’t add up. 

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

Also on this day: 

April 7, 1980 – C02 problem is most important issue…”another decade will slip by” warns Wally Broecker to Senator Tsongas

April 7, 1995 – First “COP” meeting ends with industrialised nations making promises…

Categories
Australia

April 6, 2012 – Genetically-modified humans?

Twelve years ago, on this day, April 6th, 2012 the Sydney Morning Herald runs a piece on genetically modified humans. In it S. Matthew Liao talks about ‘a radical suggestion for fighting climate change’

S. Matthew Liao talks to the Sydney Morning Herald about changing ourselves biologically in order to fight climate change.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/final-frontier-of-climate-policy–remake-humans-20120405-1wfo6.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Copenhagen had ended in failure. The pieces of the Ming-ing International negotiation vase that had been dropped that day, were still being glued back together. It wasn’t at all clear that there would be any societal economic, political, technological response to carbon dioxide buildup worthy of the name. And so of course, attention turns to the science fiction ideas of simply adapting to a much warmer world shipped with genetically modifying corn. Why not do the same for humans? Replicants ”I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe”, etc, etc. 

What we learn is that everyone’s hungry for publicity and so outlandish shit will get printed. And somewhere in a lab in Switzerland or Boston or Tel Aviv or London, or Sydney Shanghai or Rio de Janeiro this sort of shit has probably been attempted. At least it would make a good sci fi novel. And indeed, there is that very mediocre film, The Bourne Legacy. 

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

Also on this day: 

 April 6, 2006 – Canadian “experts” (not) keep culture wars going.

April 6, 2006 – the anti-climate dam of John Howard begins to crack…

Categories
Australia Coal

April 5, 2005 – Coal21 holds first conference

Nineteen years ago, on this day, April 5th, 2005, the coal lobby got moving on spouting idiotic guff about carbon capture and storage.

5th April 2005 COAL21 first conference

https://fossil.energy.gov/archives/cslf/sites/default/files/documents/Taskforce_PublicCommunicationandOutreach.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was still banging on about technology as the solution, not that messy UNFCCC process with all those poor nations with their hands out. 

And of course, Kyoto had been ratified. So Australia was going to have to engage with whatever came after Kyoto if it wanted to be a player. The Coal21 process was shambling along, it had been launched just over a year earlier. And everyone still believed (or pretended to do so) that technology would save the day.

What we learn is that there’s no necessary connection between reality and technology advocacy.

What happened next? The CCS bandwagon rolled on, especially thanks to huge injections of cash from Kevin Rudd. But then, regardless, the wheels fell off in 2009-10, in Australia at least. 

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

Also on this day: 

April 5, 1971- a UK scientist explains “pollution in context”

April 5, 2008 – Charlton Heston dies, star of first movie to mention the greenhouse effect

Categories
Australia

April 3, 1995 and 2001 – Australia’s international trajectory – from bullshit to batshit delusion (but honest)

Twenty nine and twenty three years ago, on this day, April 3rd, 1995 and 2001, the Australian position on international negotiations went from mildly hypocritical to unashamedly evil.

Australian environment minister John Faulkner meets with German Environment Minister Angela Merkel at COP1 and says “Australia is not obstructionist”

McCathie, 1995, 5 April. Australia’s change of heart hits the spot.

AND THEN 

The 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”.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/canberra-covers-bush-greenhouse

and

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 361 to 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this six year period is really where the “failing to deal with climate change” accelerates. Before April 1995 two serious battles had already been lost. The Ecologically Sustainable Development process, which came up with some workable if not transformative in-and-of-themselves ideas, had been watered down and then killed off by Keating and federal bureaucrats. 

A second bite at the “carbon tax” cherry had just been defeated by early February 1995. John Faulkner had had to run up the white flag. The COP1 meeting was underway when this first bullshit was being spouted. 

But then if you look at the next six years, it’s an astonishing period of abject policy failure on climate, if, of course, by failure you mean protecting current and future generations. If your metric is “keeping rich people rich and the fossil fuel interests happy” that it was a stunning success. You have Australia’s adoption of ABARE modelling for international purposes by late 1995 under Keating.

You have the hostility to international negotiations breaking out in public in Geneva in July 1996. 

You have the year long campaign in 1997 for Australia to have some sort of special exemption, which sadly was successful.

You have the play acting of the Australian Greenhouse Office.

You have the defeat of the first Emissions Trading Scheme in 2000.

You have the introduction of an incredibly watered down Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. 

And you have the protection of state sanctioned credibility for a fantasy technology known as “carbon capture and storage.” 

By here we are on  April 3 2001, just after Bush had pulled out of Kyoto. That Bush decision meant that Australia was going to do the same, as per the leak in 1998. The batshit denialists could have just rested on their laurels. But theirs is a fire that continues to burn, regardless of whether they’re winning big or winning medium; and they were winning big. 

What we learn – the failure was public. There were no secrets, really.

What happened next. The failure has continued. And unless people behave differently, will continue to do so.

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

Also on this day: 

April 3, 1980 – US news anchorman Walter Cronkite on the greenhouse effect

April 3, 1991- Does coal have a future?

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Categories
Australia

April 2, 1968 – Oz Senate debates Air Pollution Select Committee

Fifty six years ago, on this day, April 2nd, 1968 some Australian politicians decide to create an investigative committee into Air Pollution.

See link here

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that, for any debate to get as far as a Senate hearing, and for the suggestion of setting up a select committee on air pollution, then some people must have been pushing hard, lobbying behind the scenes, making sure they had the numbers. And it’d be fascinating to try and figure out who initiated the debate and why.

It was most certainly not about climate change, per se. It will have been about the air quality in especially Sydney and Melbourne, but also the other population centres of Australia. The climate issue came along in the midst of the hearings. 

What we learn is that issues or a body that is set up to investigate one thing can stumble across something else, and be consequential for that reason. This is surely quite unsurprising. 

 What happened next? By 1969 the committee was hearing from experts warning about carbon dioxide buildup…including a certain Professor in Tasmania…

The final report released in September of 1969 explicitly flags carbon dioxide buildup as something to watch. People knew. We knew. 

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

Also on this day: 

April 2, 1979 – AAAS workshop in Anaheim begins…

April 2, 2008 – Senator Barack Obama blathers about coal

Categories
Australia

April 1, 1970 – “And on the Eighth Day” shown in Melbourne – including climate warning

Fifty four years ago, on this day, April 1st, 1970, a super documentary made in the UK is shown in the colonies…

Australian TV (Melbourne at least) showing And On the Eighth Day 1st April 1970 – see preview by TV critic at The Age From The Melbourne Age, 1st April 1970…

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=59QnAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vJADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5181%2C8183

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia, like the rest of the world, in the late 1960s, and especially in 1969, had really become aware of the environment problems. So a British (therefore prestigious) documentary about the issues was an obvious thing to buy, and to show.

What we learn is that there are these international networks of information. Of course there are. And people, good documentary filmmakers like Richard Broad. Their work got a big audience. 

What happened next? Australia kept being informed by local scientists and filmmakers as well as international ones. And the climate issue was in the mix. In 1970-1972 – it was already there being spoken of as a serious potential problem. But we just couldn’t hold onto it as an issue. It’s too big, it’s too daunting, too all-encompassing for our species. And here we are, having failed to solve it for 50 years, by which time it becomes functionally insoluble. 

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.

Categories
Australia

March 27, 2008 – James Hansen writes a letter to Kevin Rudd

Sixteen years ago, on this day, March 27th, 2008, climate scientist James Hansen tried to get through to new Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf

Probably as much impact as Monckton’s Jan 3 2010 letter!!

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Hansen was pretty desperate by this stage – getting arrested, calling coal power plants death machines. And he was writing to Kevin Rudd because Rudd was newly elected Prime Minister making a song and dance about climate change. And in the process of producing various green papers and so forth about an emissions trading scheme he would introduce, and so Hansen was trying to stiffen Rudd’s spine which, and I say this is no disrespect to James Hansen, who is an intellectual and moral giant was, in fact, a fool’s errand. 

What we learn is that scientists can science all they like, and they can train politicians, be of use to politicians, but politicians are going to politician. And yes, you have to dance with the one that brung you. But oh my goodness, dancing with two left feet and dancing with fears in your eyes…

What happened next? Hansen’s intervention had no discernible impact on Rudd. There was a green paper, a shaky white paper, shitty legislation that was defeated once and then twice. Then Rudd refused to call a “double dissolution” election. And Rudd then tested the loyalty of Julia Gillard one time too often. And that’s all she wrote, except, of course, Rudd clawed and knifed his way  back to the prime ministership… And oh my God, what an ungodly mess it was. Meanwhile, the emissions continued, and the atmospheric concentrations increased. 

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: 

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Coal

March 26, 2007 – Lavoisier Group lay into CCS

Seventeen years ago, on this day, March 26th, 2007, the broken clocks at the Lavoisier Group (a denialist outfit) were right about CCS, with an article in the Brisbane Courier Mail denouncing it as a boondoggle that would not ‘work’ but would waste a lot of money.

Last month Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd announced Labor’s National Clean Coal Initiative.

Roughly speaking, the term clean coal refers to various technologies for removing carbon dioxide from coal when it is used to generate electricity, both before and after combustion occurs. The term encompasses carbon capture and storage technologies.

Rudd’s policy commits $500 million of taxpayer funds on the development of these technologies, with the proviso that each taxpayer dollar must be matched by two private sector dollars.

Rudd also proclaimed that Labor would establish an emissions trading scheme, set renewable energy targets, develop plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, convene a summit on climate change and ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Apart from ratifying an obsolete international treaty and organising yet another Canberra talkfest, Labor’s policy of subsidising corporations, making grandiose plans and setting impressive-sounding targets is eerily similar to existing Government policy.

The Howard Government happily boasts about Australia meeting its Kyoto targets and has already set up a taskforce to examine emissions trading schemes.

Its Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund has committed taxpayer funds of $500 million for research, with the proviso that each taxpayer dollar must be matched by—you guessed it—two private sector dollars. Additional funding is planned for future years.

Robson, A. 2007. Clean coal is all hot air. Courier Mail, March 26

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

The context was that a few days before the ACTU had been in the news, promoting CCS. And everyone was talking about CCS; the Lavoisier Group were keen to try to debunk it. 

What we learn from this is that just because they’re climate denialists and idiots, doesn’t mean they’re wrong about the plausibility of a technology, even if it is being pushed as a solution for a problem that they don’t believe exists. Stopped clocks right twice a day and all that. 

What happened next The Lavoisier Group, which was essentially Ray Evans and his mates funded by Hugh Morgan, kept going and were pretty effective at what they did. This was also in the lead up to Labor Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd‘s conference in Parliament as opposition leader on March 31 2007 when he said that “climate change is the great moral challenge of our time.” 

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: 

March 26, 1979 – Exxon meets a climate scientist

March 26, 1993 – UK government to ratify climate treaty

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Coal

March 24, 2004 – Launch of Coal21 National Plan

Twenty years ago, on this day, March 24th, 2004, all that nonsense about “clean coal” got a boost.

LAST Wednesday Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane launched COAL21, a plan of action aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions arising from the use of coal in electricity generation.

O’Neill, M. (2004) Coal industry’s plans to clean up its act should not be lightly dismissed .Canberra Times, March 30.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Liberal Prime Minister John Howard had pulled Australia out of the Kyoto negotiations in 2002. And therefore, technology-centric so-called solutions, such as CCS were flavour of the month. There was an Energy White Paper on the way. And it was a battle between fossil fuels and renewables. Things like Coal21 provide nice talking points, and sources of sound bites and images for supporters of the status quo to pretend matters are in hand.

What we learn is that much of what seems to be the official government policy aimed at making everyone’s lives better, especially Vorsprung durch Technik, is in fact, short-term PR stunts, where it really doesn’t matter if it comes off or not. It only has to last until slightly beyond the next election. And as long as it’s all plausibly deniable, then the politicians and funders are largely happy. 

What happened next 

Coal21 had some conferences. And then various projects were announced and didn’t eventuate or were failures even under their own terms – looking at you Gorgon. But that’s okay because their success or failure in the real world was kind of irrelevant. They were there primarily to support the continued existence of the fossil fuel industry. 

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: 

March 24, 1989 – Exxon Valdez vs Alaska. (EV wins)

March 24, 2010 – Scientists explain another bad thing on the horizon, this time on soil.