Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

July 3, 2012 – Emerson stands by “Horror Movie” performance

Thirteen years ago, on this day, July 3rd, 2012,

Emerson stands by Horror Movie performance  https://www.news.com.au/national/emerson-stands-by-horror-movie-performance/news-story/4b07072f54f607771047b831e85448d4

The singing was bad. And now the Trade Minister has been slammed for being flippant.

oe Hockey has slammed Craig Emerson as a “circus clown” who doesn’t take the concerns of Australians seriously.

“During a television interview yesterday, Mr Emerson started dancing and singing “no Whyalla wipeout, there on my TV” to the tune of 1975 Skyhooks single, Horror Movie.

Mr Emerson’s reference to Whyalla follows comments from Opposition Leader Tony Abbott that the carbon tax would wipe the South Australian town off the map.”

By Malcolm Farr and National Political Editor

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm.  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 decided in 1990 not to do anything serious about climate change. Fun fact – it was Craig Emerson who bashed out, under Paul Keating’s orders – the loophole in the “Interim Planning Target” in October 1990 that meant Environment Minister Ros Kelly could go to the Second World Climate Conference with her head high.

The specific context was that the LNP Opposition, led by the brutally effective moron Tony Abbott (easily the most effective opposition leader ever. Pity about how he handled the PM gig…) had been using “no carbon tax” as a wrecking ball against Prime Minister Rudd, then Gillard, since December 2009.  This was in the midst of all that.

What I think we can learn from this Joe Hockey was not nearly as smart as Joe Hockey thought. Craig Emerson can’t sing.

What happened next  Abbott became Prime Minister, abolished the carbon price. Australia is a criminal country. Its elites have destroyed the prospects for a habitable continent, in the most part.  Went to the Right Schools and Universities but somehow managed to be thick ecocidal turds. Go figure. 

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 Carbon Capture and Storage

July 1, 1999 – GEODISC gets green light

Twenty six years ago, on this day, July 1st, 1999, Australian fans of carbon capture move forward…

GEODISC commenced on July 1, 1999 after extensive consultation with industry regarding the issues, priorities, and available data. Wherever possible international research and development experience is being applied and modified to suit the conditions that prevail in Australia.

(see here)

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 carbon capture and storage had been “bubbling under” since the late 1970s, with pilot studies here and there.  With the (likely) coming into effect of the Kyoto Protocol, which would force rich nations to actually reduce their emissions, CCS was grabbed out of the garbage can/filing cabinet and had some more money thrown at it…

The specific context was

The Australian government under Liberal John Howard had shown unremitting hostility to climate action, and had extorted a very very generous deal at the Kyoto Conference in December 1997.  But if Uncle Sam signed up, they might be forced to, so, good to have some pretend technologies on hand perhaps? I don’t actually know if this all got as far as Howard’s desk – seems rather unlikely, tbh – or was just being done as part of the normal operations of science and technology funding. Nor do I care that much, tbh.

What I think we can learn from this

The CCS bandwagon has been trundling along for a very very long time.

What happened nextAs of a bit later (December 2002) the PMSEIC (Prime Minister’s Science and IndustryCouncil) made some positive noises about CCS, and then it was off to the races…

Categories
Australia

June 29, 2000 – promises of salvation via… vibes

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 29th, 2000.

POWER INDUSTRY GREEN LIGHT FOR GREENHOUSE CUTS

Environment Minister Robert Hill says Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will be dramatically reduced when new efficiency standards are introduced for power stations from July 1st.

Senator Hill said it’s expected the new standards for fossil fuel generators will lead to a cut of about four million tonnes of carbon emissions each year.

“This achievement, the equivalent of taking over one million cars permanently off the road, would not have been possible without the co-operation of industry,” Senator Hill said.

Media Release

Senator the Hon Robert Hill

Leader of the Government in the Senate

Minister for the Environment and Heritage

29 June 2000

http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/archive/env/2000/mr29jun200.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.8ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Prime Minister John Howard had made it very clear he did not believe that climate change was a problem, and that Australia should not have signed the UNFCCC.  However, he needed to pretend to give a bit of a damn, to keep intelligent Liberal voters (they exist) on side/able to pretend that “Liberal values” weren’t going to trash Australia.  So, various bullshit PR stunts – like the “Greenhouse Challenge” and so on, were rolled out.

What I think we can learn from this.  There was, until Trump, a tendency of the knuckle-draggers to pretend that they gave a damn. Now they don’t bother so much….

What happened next  Howard killed off two Emissions Trading Schemes (one in August 2000 and another in mid-2003).  When climate change became a salient political issue in late 2006 he tried a pivot, but nobody believed him.

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: 

June 29, 1979 – G7 says climate change matters. Yes, 1979. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 28, 1994 – Faulkner says carbon tax a possibility

Thirty one years ago, on this day, June 28th, 1994 Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner says carbon tax a possibility – 

Faulkner tells states: World Heritage, woodchipping high on my agenda.

A new Commonwealth-States row was looming last night after the Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, unveiled a hardline environmental strategy which includes a push to expand Australia’s World Heritage listings…. Later yesterday, Senator Faulkner said he was considering the implementation of a carbon tax and user pays strategies for heritage areas, as well as other economic measures to benefit the environment. He said he was expecting a departmental report on a range of measures by the end of the year so he could look at the possibilities “in the context of any submission I might make to Cabinet in the lead up to the next Budget”.

Lenthall, K., Darby, A. and Kelly, H. 1994. Green Showdown Looms. The Age, June 29, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting was scheduled to take place in Berlin in March-April 1995, and Australia could not afford to turn up empty handed. The “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” had been emptied of all meaning by a huge and successful lobbying effort (helped along by the transfer from Prime Minister Hawke to Prime Minister Keating).

What I think we can learn from this is that doing something about climate change, using the simplest and surely least controversial policy tool of carbon pricing – was successfully hammered out of existence by the rich, who just do not give a damn about the future of the planet and its species. 

What happened next Faulkner’s effort was met with highly effective opposition, and he ran up the white flag in February 1995. Carbon pricing came back on to the agenda, as an Emissions Trading Scheme, in 2006-7. An ETS was finally passed in 2011, only to be repealed in 2013-4. And here we are. 

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.

Also on this day: 

June 28,1982 – Secretary of State for Energy justifies flogging off public assets – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 26, 1992 – BCA versus reality (BCA wins in the short-term)

Thirty three years ago, on this day, June 26th, 1992 the Business Council of Australia was defending the short-term interests of the rich, while weeping crocodile tears for the poor and completely ignoring the future. So good that they’ve changed their MO since then, eh?

“Australia would be “severely disadvantaged economically” if a 20 per cent reduction of greenhouse gases is achieved by 2005, according to the Business Council of Australia.

The council’s assistant director, Chris Burnup, in her address to the Institution of Engineers’ greenhouse policy seminar yesterday, said that Australia’s international trade competitiveness would decline and there would be a fall in the standard of living.”

 Sibley, D. 1992. Economy may suffer if gases reduced. Canberra Times, June 27, p.4.

This was at an Institution of Engineers Australia seminar – see also

Diesendorf, M., Kinrade, P., 1992. Integrated greenhouse policies for energy and transport post-Rio. Institution of Engineers Australia seminar on Australia’s greenhouse policy, Canberra, 26 June 1992. Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Rio Earth Summit had finally been agreed; it did not contain targets and timetables for emissions reduction (Uncle Sam had threatened to boycott if those were in the text, and the French blinked).  Australia had signed, having said no to a carbon tax at the same time (there’d be another battle in a couple of years).

What I think we can learn from this,  Business always wants to keep the beaches open. What’s a few people chomped by Great Whites between friends?

What happened next. The BCA continued to play a spoiler role. Of course. Crucially, it and the Minerals Council of Australia (then known as AMIC) created the “Australian Industry Greenhouse Network”, which fought against domestic and international action with great success. 

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: 

June 26, 1991 “environment is not flavor of the month any more” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

 June 25, 1986 – AEC meeting

Thirty nine years ago, on this day, June 25th, 1986

The 18th Meeting of the Australian Environment Council on 25 June heard a special address on the environmental consequences for Australia of probable global climatic change.

The address, by the Chief of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, Dr. G. B. Tucker, was arranged so that Ministers could hear a first-hand account of recent studies of the effects of carbon dioxide and other trace gases on the atmosphere (the ‘greenhouse’ effect). Dr Tucker told the meeting of findings from measurements made at the Commonwealth baseline air monitoring stations at Cape Grim, Tasmania, which indicate in concentrations of key gases associated with climate change. He demonstrated the global effect which could take place within fifty years and said that the changes could not only take place in such a relatively shot time, but “There is nothing we can do about it.” For instance, in Australia there is likely to be a 2 degree C rise in mean summer temperatures b 2030.

Dr Tucker said that the effect of a two  degree rise in temperatures brought about by the greenhouse effect could seriously diminish rainfall in the grain growing areas of the northern hemisphere. IN Australia it could cause increased rainfall in northern areas and some grain growing areas. A two degree rise could drastically alter the snowfield climate to that of an area 300 metres lower. Dr Tucker said he had used these examples to illustrate some of the problems which Australia would have to begin planning for.

The Chairman of the AEC, Dr Don Hopgood, (Deputy Premier of South Australia and Minister for Environment and Planning) said Dr Tucker had foreshadowed a complex of problems which would have to be faced in the coming years. The issue was of global and regional significance and Australia should continue to play an active role in scientific studies on climatic change and its implications.

Vol 6 (2) October 1986, page 5

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was in September 1985 atmospheric scientists had met, compared notes and decided that all alarm bells needed to be rung about carbon dioxide.

Australian scientists had long been aware of the problem – see for example the meeting organised in 1977 by Graeme Pearman of the CSIRO, the 1978 conference on Philip Island, the 1980 AAAS symposium in Canberra, and Brian Tucker’s 1981 publication.

Meanwhile, the “Commission for the Future”, set up under the auspices of Minister for Science Barry Jones, was collaborating with the CSIRO on “the Greenhouse Project.”

What I think we can learn from this is that before an issue “breaks through” there has to be a hell of a lot of preparatory work…

What happened next is that the media started to pay a lot more attention (see the Age). Chair of the AEC Don Hopgood gave a speech.  By 1988, the issue was everywhere. And yet here we are, four decades later, having utterly, fundamentally failed. Oh well.

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: 

June 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

June 24, 2010 – Large and small renewables

Fifteen years ago, on this day, June 24th, 2010 Australian renewable energy target was tweaked to differentiate between large and small scale. 

To promote large scale renewable generators, on 24 June 2010, there was an amendment to the RET by differentiating  between large scale renewable energy target (LRET) such as wind farms, solar plants and geothermal facilities; and also small scale renewable energy target (SRET) such as solar panels and solar hot water systems.

Effendi and Courvisanos 2012 p 247

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the resistance to renewables under Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007) had given way to Labor “all of the above” ness.

What I think we can learn from this – is that our technocratic lords and masters are not nearly as smart as they think.

What happened next – renewables took a hit again under various Liberal administrations (2013-2022). While things are moving forward, well, once you’re behind the curve, good luck catching 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: 

June 24, 1986 – New Yorkers get to watch a documentary on “The Climate Crisis” – All Our Yesterdays

June 24, 2009 – Scottish Parliament passes insufficient climate legislation; claims ‘leadership’ anyway – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia International processes

June 23, 1997 – Howard vs world, API versus world

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1997,

John Howard was too busy meeting Baroness Thatcher to attend Earth Summit II in New York this week. It was a controversial decision in light of our position on greenhouse gases,

FIRST thing on Monday morning, as Earth Summit II began in New York, the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, brought his huge bulk into the chamber of the United Nations General Assembly – the venue for the biggest environment conference since the Rio Summit in 1992.

A few minutes later, the US Vice- President, Al Gore, made a passionate but carefully worded speech welcoming delegates from over 70 countries. For a few minutes he even wandered into the throng on the floor of the General Assembly, and took a seat with the rest of the US delegation.

Both of these leaders were having a back-slappingly, handshakingly good time. Both seemed to be making the most of the opportunity to meet and talk with other leaders. For both men the reason for their presence was because they have a political imperative to make a statement about their concern for the environment.

But Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, did not appear. To the disappointment of conservationists, he decided to send his Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill.

On Monday [23rd June], Howard was meeting his hero and mentor, the former British prime minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher.

Woodford, J. 1997. Leaders Warm To The Task. Sydney Morning Herald, June 28.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Kyoto meeting of the UNFCCC was due to be held in December. Rich countries were supposed to turn up with emissions reductions pledges.  Liberal Prime Minister John Howard was really not up for that…

What I think we can learn from this is that John Howard is a terrible human being. But one who was enabled by other terrible human beings.

What happened next.  Australia managed to extort an incredibly generous deal at Kyoto, and Howard STILL refused to ratify 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: 

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 23, 1989 – Richo gonna save the world…

Thirty six years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1989, Graham Richardson, Federal Environment Minister, says some accurate things….

THE Federal Government is considering changes to cut Australia’s excessive energy consumption, according to Federal Environment Minister Senator Graham Richardson.

Everything from power stations to cars would be targeted to produce sizeable drops in energy use, he said in an interview in Adelaide on Friday after an ALP fund-raising dinner.

Senator Richardson said Australia produced some of the highest per capita levels of carbon dioxide in the world, while our economy ranked among the most energy intensive in the world.

In 1984, Australia ranked 13th in the world in per capita consumption of commercially traded fuels-a figure which Senator Richardson said was very high.

Australia had a long way to go to match other nations in cutting waste and using energy more efficiently, he said. 

Jones, B. 1989. Govt aiming to cut fuel usage. Sun Herald, 25 June, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Richardson was ‘switched on’ to eco issues. And there was an election coming, one that was going to be very very tight…

What I think we can learn from this is that when they feel they might lose office, politicians may be willing/able to think a little outside the box

What happened next is that Richardson moved on from the Environment portfolio after the March 1990 election.  By late 1991 the “green” moment had passed. The ALP never spoke the truth in quite this way again…

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: 

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Activism Australia

June 22, 1990 – ALP already undermining green agenda

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 22nd, 1990, the governing Labor Party of Australia is – gasp – siding with the rich and against the future.

Conservation groups have accused economic ministers within the Hawke Government of hijacking the environment debate and pre-empting discussion of a paper on sustainable development due to go to Cabinet next Tuesday.

The executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Phillip Toyne, said yesterday that the ACF was “extremely concerned” to express disquiet with the fact that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, John Dawkins, and other economic ministers were trying to dominate the sustainability debate.

1990 Lamberton, H. 1990. Environment debate ‘hijacked’. Canberra Times, 23 June, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the ALP had clung to power at the March 1990 election thanks to green-concerned voters holding their noses and voting for Labor candidates.  Some Labor figures (Peter Walsh, for instance) hated this, and hated the greens (the Greens didn’t exist yet). Meanwhile, the business pushback against all things environmental (except greenwash, obvs) had begun in earnest in March 1990….

What I think we can learn from this is that the ALP has never been able to cope with green issues. On some level they know this, I assume.

What happened next. The Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process got underway, and came up with some decent workable ideas, which were then watered down/ignored and then memory-holed – see here for the spectacular implosion of the whole process- … And the emissions kept climbing.

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

Also on this day: 

June 22, 1976 – Times reports “World’s temperature likely to rise” – All Our Yesterdays

June 22 ,1988 – Roger Rabbit on forced consumption (and so on to #climate apocalypse) – All Our Yesterdays