Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

August 7, 1991 – “Draft Ecology Plans released”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1991, the backlash against “greenhouse” and ecology action stepped up a gear.

The price of petrol would rise sharply under sweeping proposals for ecologically sustainable development revealed yesterday by a Government taskforce.

The ambitious plan to make industry sustainable by avoiding the overuse of resources was commissioned by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke.

The ecologically sustainable development working groups, which are writing policies for nine industries, released draft reports yesterday and called for public comment.

1991 Peake, R. 1991. Draft Ecology Plans Released. The Age, 8 August, p.15.

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

The broader context was that there had been an upsurge in concern about environmental issues in the late 1960s, and the Federal Government had responded with the usual mix of new organisations (including a Minister for the Environment) and fine words. Everything had more or less died down/become predictable for a long time, until the late 1980s. In order to keep green groups onside for the Federal Election of March 1990 (it was going to be tight) the Hawke government had promised an “ecologically sustainable development policy process.”

The specific context was that the ESD had been a ‘success’ – in that the arguments for the status quo/no action had been exposed as lazy and half-baked. The problem was, the bureaucrats were in the wings, waiting to water down proposals, and feed tame journalists scare stories…

What I think we can learn from this is that we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. The same mechanisms are in place now, with an extra 80ppm in the atmosphere since then.

What happened next – Hawke was toppled by Paul Keating, who killed off all the green crap the way a lion kills another lion’s cubs when he acquires a new lioness. And the emissions kept climbing. 

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: 

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Academia Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

August 5, 1997 – “Climate Change Policies in Australia” briefing

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, August 5th, 1997 – Clive Hamilton, founder of the Australia Institute,

“Climate Change Policies in Australia: A briefing to a meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate”, Bonn, Germany, 5th August 1997

The Government’s position has been bolstered by economic modelling analysis that purports to show that Australia would be especially hard hit. It is projected that wages in Australia will be 19% lower by 2020 under a scenario that reduces emissions by 10% below 1990 levels in 2020. It is also claimed that the economic cost for each Australian would be 22 times higher than for each European. These extraordinary claims have been challenged by many experts including 131 Australian academic economists who signed a statement declaring that policies are available to slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia.
It is also apparent that the modelling results have been presented in ways that are highly misleading. Despite the fact that the model is constructed in a way that exaggerates the impact of emissions reductions on the Australian economy, the results actually show that the impact would be extremely small.

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

The broader context was that the UNFCCC had been agreed in 1992, but the text did NOT include targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. Why not? Because UNCLE SAM SAID SO THAT’S WHY NOT YOU PINKO TREE-HUGGER.

(i.e. the people around George Bush Snr defeated the “pro-action” forces). So in 1995, the “Berlin Mandate” had been agreed – rich countries would have to come to the 3rd meeting in 1997, with plans/commitments to cut their emissions.

The specific context was that the Australian government of Paul Keating had been deeply reluctant, and once there was a switch to John Howard, the anti-action work had turbocharged. This briefing came during a “charm” (sic) offensive by Howard’s people, trying to get a special deal for Australia. Clive Hamilton, who had set up the Australia Institute three years earlier, was not amused.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Australian political and economic elite are, of course, criminally incompetent when it comes to a host of issues. But especially climate…

What happened next – Howard succeeded in getting that extremely generous deal at Kyoto. Then STILL didn’t ratify it, on general (lack of) principle.

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: 

August 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens – All Our Yesterdays

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight

Categories
Australia

August 2, 2000 – BHP shows its true colours

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 2, 2000, BHP was defending its interests…

Clennell, A. 2000. BHP Threat To Greenhouse Gases Program. Sydney Morning Herald, 3 August, p.5.

BHP yesterday threatened to opt out of the Federal Government’s Greenhouse Challenge program, saying there was inadequate incentives to reduce emissions.

The company said existing policy contained no “simple, powerful rules” to reward large firms for early action. It proposed that the Government introduce “emissions permits [that] would be granted to companies that acted to reduce emissions post January 2000.”

Those permits would later become part of any Australian chapter of an international emissions trading scheme planned after the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

It is understood under BHP’s plan that for every tonne of emission reductions before 2001, a company would receive emission permits of four tonnes when a domestic carbon trading scheme is introduced.

For every tonne reduced between 2001 and 2002, the company would receive permits for three tonnes. The allowances would fall until 2004. 2000 – BHP hesitant over Greenhouse Challenge Programme

http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s158734.htm

AM Archive – Thursday, 3 August , 2000 00:00:00

Reporter: Alsion Caldwell

 COMPERE: BHP says it’s not ready to commit to the Federal Government’s greenhouse challenge program, arguing it needs greater certainty in government policy.

 And BHP isn’t alone. Industry groups are hesitant, saying they want greater certainty and an incentive to act now on cutting back greenhouse gas emissions.

 The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry spokesman, Mark Paterson, spoke to Alison Caldwell.

MARK PATERSON: The ramifications for Australia, for employment, for Australia’s international competitiveness is right on the line.

 Businesses are quite clearly saying that they want greater certainty as to the regime we’re going to be operating in. But I think there’s a clear recognition that too much too soon is potentially harmful and too little too late is harmful.

 There are a number of issues on which an international understanding has not yet been reached, and if Australia were to push too far ahead, we could well be out of step with international regimes and therefore potentially do Australia harm.

 We don’t yet know what the flexibility mechanisms are going to be. The definition of sinks and the role of sinks is not yet resolved internationally. The nature of the international trading regime, if one is to be introduced, the nature of that regime is not yet known. And the role of bringing developing nations into the Kyoto outcome is not yet clear. And all of those are critically important issues for Australia.

ALISON CALDWELL: Now BHP is one of the founding members of the Greenhouse Challenge Program. If they’re concerned about committing, what does that say about the Program’s future?

MARK PATERSON: Many people have been active participants within the Greenhouse Challenge Program which is about voluntary actions to reduce emissions. And it’s been a very successful voluntary program. I think it will continue to be a successful voluntary program, notwithstanding the fact that a company like BHP may hold a different view in relation to it.

COMPERE: Mark Paterson from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry..

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 Australian political elites had been aware of the potential problem of carbon dioxide build-up since the 1970s (front page news on the Canberra Times etc). In 1988 they’d been forced to start to pretend to care about it actively.

The specific context was that Prime Minister John Howard had come to office in 1996 and realised that actively pulling out of the UNFCCC was probably a) too bloody and b) actually unnecessary. Instead he lobbied for a special deal at the Kyoto conference in 1997 and also turbo-charged some public relations “voluntary scheme” created by the previous Keating government.

What I think we can learn from this is that even pretending comes with costs and incentives, as BHP were pointing out here.

What happened next – Howard kept resisting any and all significant climate action. Finally, in 2006 he was forced into one of his U-turns, but it didn’t save him – he lost the 2007 “climate change election” and 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.

Also on this day: 

 August 2, 1970 – LA Times runs #climate change front page story

August 2, 1991- Pledge and Review… – All Our Yesterdays

August 2, 1992 – Canberra Times reporting that Jastrow idiot #RelevanceDeprivationSyndrome – All Our Yesterdays

August 2, 1994 – Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating says greenies should ignore “amorphous issue of greenhouse”

August 2, 2007 – Russia plants a flag on the Arctic sea-bed.

Categories
Australia

July 30, 2005 – John Howard versus the climate

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 30th, 2005, an article about just how much influence the fossil fuel lobby had on Australian energy and climate policy making appeared in the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.

“This week John Howard committed Australia to an American-led climate pact that groups the major greenhouse gas producers and aims to develop technological methods to minimise the detrimental side-effects of using coal to create energy. Today Richard Baker discloses how big industry exercised its influence to torpedo the Kyoto protocols.

“Australia’s former chief climate change official has accused the Federal Government of allowing the fossil fuel, energy and mining industries too much influence over its policies – including its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.

“Gwen Andrews, former chief executive of the Australian Greenhouse Office, told The Age she was never asked to brief Prime Minister John Howard on climate change during her four years in the role, at a time when Mr Howard was deliberating whether to ratify Kyoto.

“This week Australia confirmed its involvement in a US-led Asia-Pacific coalition to tackle climate change which rejects the Kyoto protocol and instead focuses on technology to make fossil fuels cleaner rather than restricting emissions from industry. China, India, South Korea and Japan are also involved.”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/how-big-energy-won-the-climate-battle/2005/07/29/1122144020224.html and

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/industrys-hand-guides-climate-plan/2005/07/29/1122144024576.html?from=moreStories

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 Australian political elite had decided reducing Australian domestic emissions was too much like hard work and would piss off their rich business mates by the early 1990s. Everything since then had been hand-wringing (Labor) or brazen “we don’t give a damn” (Liberal and National Party).

The specific context was the Howard government had set up an “Australian Greenhouse Office” in 1998, but had lacked interest in continuing the pretence, and abolished it – having achieved nothing, which was what Howard wanted – in 2004 or so.

What I think we can learn from this is that it is all kayfabe, all pretend. There are all sorts of pretend organisations, either there to spoil other efforts or give the impression that Something Is Being Done.

What happened next is that the following year, from about September, Howard’s terrible climate record finally began to catch up with him. But Labor were only very very marginally better, and only for a short while. 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: 

July 30, 1968 – the UN says yes to an environment conference

July 30, 1979 – scientists warn US Senators about synfuels and carbon dioxide build-up

July 30, 1989 – UK Conservative politician warns “we have at most 25 years to take action.”

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

July 28, 2005 – AP6 announced

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 28th, 2005 a bullshit “spoiler organisation” the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) designed to undermine the Kyoto Protocol, which neither Australia nor the US had ratified, was launched.

“The partnership announced itself while tepidly pledging not to undermine the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the treaty to limit global greenhouse-gas emissions. Kyoto’s supporters clothed their contempt for the new partnership in condescension.

The birth notice of the partnership was a terse statement issued from the White House by US President George W. Bush a few hours before the press conference in Vientiane on July 28, 2005. With paternity clearly established, the US stepped back and allowed Australia’s foreign minister to chair the announcement.”

Dobell – https://griffithreview.com/articles/the-gang-of-six-lost-in-kyotoland/

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 that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was holed below the waterline before it even left port, thanks to the resistance of the United States to targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations going in the treaty text. The Kyoto Protocol had been an attempt to patch the hole in the hull.

The specific context was that the US had pulled out of negotiations around Kyoto in March 2001, with Australia following in June 2002. But Kyoto had, eventually, become international law in February 2005, thanks to Russia ratifying for a) the shiggles and b) WTO membership (a tacit quid pro quo). So President Bush and Australian Prime Minister little Johnie Howard wanted a “technology-led” spoiler organisation so they could distract from their rampant vandalism, and give possibly worried “conservatives” something to point to, a talking point.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a massive effort to manage Joe and Jane Publics anxieties. If their glorious leaders are assholes (i.e. all the time), then there has to be some way of not seeing what is obvious. Most of that is supplied by the normal bias in the media, but sometimes a spoiler proposal is called for.

NB Nothing here should be read as an endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol, which was criminally inadequate.

What happened next – the AP6 died, and was not mourned. Other spoiler organisations were formed. Grand sounding but just as empty. And the emissions kept climbing.

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

Jeffrey Mcgee & Ros Taplin 2006. The Asia–Pacific partnership on clean development and climate: A complement or competitor to the Kyoto protocol? Global Change, Peace & Security, Volume 18, 3,  173-192  https://doi.org/10.1080/14781150600960230

Also on this day: 

July 28, 1970 – American journalist warns about melting the icecaps…

July 28, 1990 – American #climate denial comes to London

July 28, 2003 – James Inhofe shares his genius

Categories
Australia

July 27, 1988 – The greenback effect

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, July 27th, 1988 a highly entertaining and informative article by Australian chemist Ben Selinger is published in the Canberra Times.

Selinger, B. 1988. The greenback affects the greenhouse effect. Canberra Times July 27, p.8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. 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 scientists (and probably especially the chemists!) had been looking at carbon dioxide build-up for at the very least a decade and saying “oh, there will be trouble at some point.”

The specific context was in 1988 the issue had hit the headlines (in part thanks to sterling work by the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO’s division of Atmospheric Physics). By 1989, we were into the blustering and “funding for further research” dodges and wheezes as politicians began to understand quite how disruptive to the status quo that real greenhouse action would be.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a very identifiable pattern to the recurrent booms in awareness – we live in a kind of Groundhog Day, but without quite realising that. So, a boring tragedy instead of a Buddhist comedy…

What happened next – the counter-attack to climate concern got properly going in late 1989 and then picked up momentum and support. Meanwhile, the emissions kept going up, as did the atmospheric concentrations…

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

Also on this day: 

July 27, 1977 – Pro-nuclear professor cites #climate concerns at Adelaide speech

July 27, 1979 – Thatcher’s Cabinet ponders burying climate report

July 27, 2001 – Minerals Council of Australia versus the Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

July 26, 2006 – Costello versus wind farms

Nineteen years ago, on this day, July 26th, 2006,

The same month, the Treasurer Peter Costello stated in a doorstop interview, ‘Well if you are asking me my view on wind farms, I think they are ugly, I wouldn’t want one in my street, I wouldn’t want one in my own back yard’

(Prest, 2007: 254)

Peter Costello, Press Conference 26 July 2006

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 hostility to renewable energy has a long history in Australia, dating back to the 1970s. Coal was king, and intended to stay that way.

The specific context was that John Howard, Prime Minister since 1996 had been busy trying to slow the growth of renewables, with considerable success, as per the leaked minutes of the “Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group” in 2004. 

What I think we can learn from this is that old white conservative men with brittle fragile egos and limited understanding of – well – everything – have delayed the “energy transition” to the point where it is impossible and everything is turning to very hot shit. Oh well.

What happened next – Costello didn’t “have the ticker” to challenge Howard for the top job. Renewables got some help under Labor of Rudd and Gillard, but nowhere near what was needed to push emissions down. 

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

Hudson, M. 2017 Wind Beneath Their Contempt. ERSS

Also on this day: 

July 26, 1967 – Allen Ginsberg tells Gary Snyder it’s “a general lemming situation”

July 26, 1977 – Australians warned about cities being flooded #CanberraTimes

July 26, 1988, – Australian uranium sellers foresee boom times…

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 25, 2008 – More economic “modelling” against an emissions trading scheme

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2008 the “sky will fall if we do anything to reduce emissions and here is some economic modelling to ‘prove’ it” bullshit continued, as the Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) release ACIL Tasman modelling, which of course gets uncritical splashes in the Murdoch press.

At the same time, will-be Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull joins then-Liberal leader Brendan Nelson in saying “delay the implementation of an emissions trading scheme.”

Federal opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has fallen into step behind his leader, declaring an emission trading scheme shouldn’t be introduced until it is in Australia’s interest.

In government, the coalition supported a start date of 2012, but earlier this week leader Brendan Nelson indicated it would reject the legislation until big polluting countries agreed to reduce their emissions.

Mr Turnbull, a former environment minister, had steadfastly supported a 2012 start date – until now.

“An emissions trading scheme shouldn’t start until it is ready and until it is in Australia’s interest for it to start,” Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio.

“The government is definitely rushing this, 2010 is far too soon.”

AAP, 2008. Govt ‘rushing’ carbon trading: Turnbull. AAP, 25 July. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. 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 use of “independent” economic modelling to say that any emissions reductions efforts would lead directly to Stone Age cannibalism was a favoured tactic of the incumbents (why change a game that had been winning since the early 1990s?).

The specific context was John Howard, who had killed off two Emissions Trading Scheme proposals brought to Cabinet in 2000 and 2003 had been forced into a u-turn in late 2006. The next Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had said he’d bring an ETS in, and various incumbent outfits were trying to delay the start date, while also creating all sorts of loopholes and give-aways.

What I think we can learn from this is that the opponents of policy always have fall-back positions. If they can’t stop something in the short-term, they’ll try to soften the blows. This also means that the policy will probably be less effective and easier to reverse in future. A nice little ancillary benefit…

What happened next – Rudd, and his underling Penny Wong, continued to give ground and give ground. Eventually Rudd’s CPRS scheme failed to get through parliament, thanks to new opposition leader Tony Abbott. Rather than call a double-dissolution election, the spineless Rudd pivoted, and tanked his credibility and popularity, which had remained inexplicably high until that point. All this led indirectly to serious blood-letting and bed-wetting. The Australian Labor Party learned all the wrong lessons, and is now just the PR mouthpiece and stabvest for the mining sector. Oh well, 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: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia Energy

July 25, 1989 – “Mineral Fuel Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect”

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 25th, 1989, 

Mineral Fuels Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect Seminar in Melbourne

Australian Institute of Metallurgy

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

The broader context was from 1988 – thanks in part to the domestic work of the “Greenhouse Project” (a collaboration of the CSIRO’s atmospheric physics division and the Commission for the Future) – Australian public debate about the greenhouse effect and what to do about it high.

The specific context was that debates about how to reduce domestic carbon dioxide emissions were about what else besides coal (then dominant) might keep the lights on. Might it be natural gas?

What I think we can learn from this is that there were debates about replacing coal waaaaay back when.

What happened next – the coal lobby fought back (obvs) and even though the debate on natural gas continued, ultimately it was wind and solar that finally began eating into coal’s dominance, in the 2010s. Meanwhile, Australia’s per capita emissions remain staggeringly high, and the impacts of climate change are beginning to bite. Billions of cooked animals. What a species 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: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 24, 2011 – Rubbery numbers about Gillard’s carbon pricing proposal are disputed…

On this day 14 years ago, the trade publication Australian Mining ran the following – 

Climate change groups have dismissed the anti-carbon tax ad blitz launched on Sunday, and its ‘shaky numbers’.

Industry groups came together as the Australian Trade Industry Alliance (ATIA) to create an ad campaign to derail the Government’s carbon pricing scheme, NineMSN reports.

In the ads, ATIA says only $4.9 billion was generated in Europe over the first six and half year by a carbon tax, as compared to a potential $71 billion over the period in Australia.

The Climate Institute have hit out at the advertisement, saying neither the alliance nor its figures, should be believed.

Not only was the $71 billion amount $10 billion off, but the campaign failed to mention that over six years Europe will generate $143 billion, the group said.

“This new industry alliance is just another shady front group with more shaky numbers as they argue for more delay, exemptions or special treatments,” the institute’s John Connor stated.

Anti-carbon tax ads slammed – Australian Mining

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

The broader context was that Australian political elites had been warned about carbon dioxide build-up repeatedly. A carbon tax had been mooted in 1989, and fierce battles against it fought, especially in 1994-5. Liberal Prime Minister John Howard had defeated various emissions trading schemes, but eventually the tide turned and from 2007 onwards the political and economic elites had been wrangling. Kevin Rudd had comprehensively failed and his assassin/replacement Julia Gillard had hoped to kick the issue into the long grass, but parliamentary arithmetic did not allow (i.e. her government relied upon Greens and pro-climate action independents).

The specific context was that Gillard had announced the details of the scheme, and of course a huge anti- campaign had begun…

What I think we can learn from this is that even the mildest of actions are not acceptable to those who really run the show.

What happened next was that Gillard’s legislation got through (she had a remarkable record, btw, of getting legislation through).  But the carbon pricing scheme was then abolished by the next PM, a thug by the name of Tony Abbott, whose down party found him unacceptable a little over a year after that.

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

Also on this day: 

July 24, 1977 – Climate change as red light? “No, but flashing yellow.”

July 24, 1980 – “Global 2000” report released.