Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Denial

June 17, 1994 – Moron versus physics. Sorry, “Moran”

Thirty one years ago, on this day, June 17th, 1994, a genius corrected all our WrongThink with an article that has aged like a glass of milk.

Global warming is a con. There is no justification for threatening those jobs that depend on coal and thermal power stations, says ALAN MORAN

The greenhouse phenomenon has raised far more hot air than has emerged from global temperature records. Not all agree with this.

Greenpeace has launched its “Climate Timebomb” catalogue, claiming documentary evidence of global warming attributable to increased emissions of carbon dioxide….

Moran, A. 1994. “Cool appraisal time for global warming.” Australian Financial Review, June 17, p. 26.

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 broader context was that Australian denial had kicked into high gear in 1989 and continued, with institutional support from outfits like the IPA and the Tasman Institute, onwards.

The specific context was that the carbon tax proposal was beginning to take shape, and opponents wanted to lay down some suppressing fire.

What I think we can learn from this is that “newspapers” like the Fin were – and I suppose remain – mostly just propaganda outlets for stupid/greedy/venal people who want to (mis)shape the public discourse.

What happened next  Soft denial became mainstream thanks to the coming of the Howard Government, and the hard denial picked up speed with the formation of the Lavoisier Group in 2000.  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: 

June 17, 2009 –  Blistering speech about how “The Climate Nightmare is Upon Us” by Christine Milne – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 16, 1994 – Australian business want international allies

Thirty one  years ago, on this day, June 16th, 1994, Australian business interests were looking for people who could help them out in avoiding any significant climate commitments.

  BUSINESS groups have called on the Federal Government to form strategic alliances with other countries to maximise its negotiating position in future climate change negotiations. The suggestion at yesterday’s [June 16] round table follows widespread concern in the business community that Australia might be forced into a greenhouse response which is not in its interests. While the form of any alliance on greenhouse gas has not been spelt out, it could be modelled on the Cairns Group of 14 agricultural exporters which played a key role in the Uruguay Round of world trade talks. It is understood the Cairns Group model has been informally discussed by industry representatives concerned that Australia will have little influence in the negotiations. A paper prepared for yesterday’s round table by the Australian Coal Association and the Australian Mining Industry Council says it is “high time we stopped mouthing undefinable expressions” and pursued more precision in a so-called “burden-sharing agreement”.

Gill, P. 1994. Call to form strategic alliances.  Australian Financial Review, 17 June. 

And

“Canberra has been remarkably close-mouthed about how Australia is to reduce emissions. The Prime Minister, the Environment Minister and the Resources Minister met yesterday with the NGOs and State Government ministers to exchange views on this and related matters.”

Moran, 1994, 17 June.

And 

The Federal Government has assured business groups that Australia won’t be financially penalised in meeting its international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“We have got to set an example on greenhouse gases but there has always been a caveat in our negotiations that it won’t be at an economic cost to Australia,” the Minister for Resources, Mr Beddall, told The Australian Financial Review.

The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, had earlier yesterday given similar reassurances at a high-level forum on the environment in Canberra.

Mr Keating told the meeting of more than 100 business and environmental representatives that the Government was aware of the “economic implications” of adhering to international guidelines on greenhouse gas emission.

The meeting thrust the greenhouse issue onto the economic agenda, with 10 business groups demanding the Government adopt measures that reflected Australian industry’s greater use of energy before agreeing to further international targets on greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental groups mounted a strong counter-attack at the meeting by accusing the Government of failing to match the effort of other countries in responding to the United Nations Climate Change Convention.

Dwyer, M. 1994. Greenhouse ‘won’t put us in the red’. The Australian Financial Review, 17 June, p.3.

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

The broader context was that Australia had ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in late 1992, along with a surprising number of other nations.  The treaty was now international law, and the first Conference of the Parties was to be held in Berlin next March.  Australia was already in an awkward position – it had promised (with caveats) steep domestic emissions cuts which were not in fact happening. Meanwhile, its coal exports were raising eyebrows….

The specific context was that Environment Minister John Faukner had already floated the idea of a carbon tax, and business was nervous.

What I think we can learn from this

The solutions – or some of them – were staring us in the face.  The rich didn’t like those solutions, so they kicked the can down the road. And down the road. And here we are in 2025.

What happened next  Faukner’s carbon tax proposal met fierce, fierce opposition and came to a grisly end in February 1995.  The Berlin COP happened and Australia signed on to turn up at the 3rd meeting with a plan to reduce its emissions.  But by then it was no longer Keating in charge – John Howard became Prime Minister in March 1996, and had other ideas…

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: 

June 16, 1971 – “Ecology Action” formed in Sydney. – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1972 – David Bowie and (Five Years until) the End of the World. Also, Stockholm – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 14, 2011 – climate change threat to Australia’s top wines

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 14th, 2011,

CLIMATE change is a ticking time-bomb for Australia’s $5.5 billion wine industry and threatens some of our favourite wines with extinction, a study has revealed.

CSIRO climate change scientist and wine expert Leanne Webb examined ripening times across Australia and found grapes were maturing faster in recent warmer temperatures, affecting quality and taste.

Some growers say they are already modifying their winemaking to cope with the effects and at least one major player is taking steps to move production further south.

By Robert Burton-Bradley, NewsComAu

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/climate-change-threatens-australias-wine-industry-study-warns/news-story/afae2b1bc6ee62fb8858df1ee52019de

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was Australian scientists had been warning about the impacts of climate change on agriculture since the late 1970s.  It wasn’t a secret.

The specific context was that a rough coalition of people, organisations, business sectors were trying to work together to support the Gillard “carbon pricing” effort (see AOY passim ad nauseam) and this – “wine will be affected” was one of the memes to get across how Serious it all was.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings is that we just haven’t created and sustained the sorts of institutions that help us understand a complex world and relatively simple problems like climate change (I said relatively!).  And in the absence of those institutions (life-long self-directed learning, workers education associations, independent civil society) then people are prey to all sorts of weapons of mass distraction and mental immiseration.  And here we are.

As “active citizens” see above. The institutions were destroyed in the aftermath of World War 2….

Academics might like to ponder who they are writing for.

What happened next. Gillard’s legislation passed, possibly had some effect and was then abolished by the next Prime Minister, Tony Abbott.

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 14, 1979 – the messy inclusion of climate change in energy politics – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Indonesia

June 13, 2008 – Australia-Indonesia joint statement on climate change

Seventeen years ago, on this day, June 13th, 2008, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, still being given the benefit of the doubt by the Australian public, did one of the mostly meaningless grab and grins that he thought added up to a coherent policy agenda. 

Rudd, Kevin. 2008. ‘Australia-Indonesia joint leaders’ statement on climate change, with the President of the Republic of Indonesia’.

Media release. Prime Minister. Jakarta, Indonesia. 13 June 2008.

See also – http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/CGD-Climate-Forest-Paper-Series-21-Davies-Indonesia-Australia-Forest-Carbon.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that rich nations had been shitting on poor nations for a very long time. The climate issue, arriving in the late 1980s was only going to be solved if that behaviour was radically toned down/eliminated. So that’s what we did.  Ha ha, I’m just playing with you. The bullshit continued, and the poor nations knew it. They’re poor, not stupid (and the elites tend to be relatively rich, obvs).

The specific context was that Indonesia had hosted the Bali COP the year before, that created the “Road to Copenhagen.”  Newly-elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had gotten a standing ovation, principally for not being John Howard. Even though his intransigence on raising the level of emissions reductions targets was noted by the European, he still managed to convince people that He Cared.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – it is kayfabe. “Leaders” do these pressers, giving the appearance of action, but it’s just stunted stunts for stunned mullets.

As “active citizens” – pay as little attention to these kayfabic pseudo-events as possible?

Academics might like to ponder – their complicity in all this.

What happened next  Rudd only came unstuck in 2010, after ditching his climate “action” “plans” and refusing to call an election about them.  Spineless, brainless.  He then was, deservedly, toppled by his deputy, Julia Gillard.

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say” – All Our Yesterdays

June 13, 2008 – activists stop coal train, throw coal off. Convictions eventually quashed… – All Our Yesterdays

June 13 1963 – Revelle, Von Braun and Teller talk futures

June 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say”

Categories
Australia

June 11, 2011 – miners want more compensation

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 11th, 2011, in the midst of the fierce fight over the Gillard carbon pricing scheme, a union had its hand out, again.,

ONE of the nation’s largest unions has threatened a blue-collar revolt should the nation’s dirtiest coalmines fail to receive the same level of assistance as they were promised under the original emissions trading scheme.

With industry compensation still being thrashed out behind closed doors, the national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Tony Maher, said he is worried coalminers will be dudded to appease the Greens.

Coorey, P. 2011. Mine union digs in over compensation under a carbon tax. Sydney Morning Herald,  June 11, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that proposals for a carbon price (a tax) were put forward in the 1990s within the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process, and then again in 1994-5. The latter had been defeated by a broad coalition of clever actors, who tactically incorporated the mining union, which managed to dominate the climate issue within the ACTU.  Various other efforts at carbon pricing (Emissions Trading Schemes) had been put forward in 2000 and 2003, and were defeated by John Howard and his cronies.  The lack of any action on climate (and carbon pricing is only one small part of what was required, but hey-ho) was a major factor in the defeat of John Howard in 2007. But Kevin Rudd’s disastrous “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” didn’t fix things.

The specific context was that after the 2010 election Labor leader Julia Gillard only formed a government with the support of Greens and independent MPs, who demanded a carbon price.  So, she gritted her teeth and got on with it.  And along came the miners, with their hands out again…

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings we’re doomed.

As “active citizens” policy is at best a sausage, and it doesn’t pay to look too closely at how it is made.

What happened next  Gillard’s carbon pricing mechanism became law and may have been responsible for some emissions reductions (depending who you ask – other folks point to the introduction of more hydropower into the Australian grid).  In any case, it was abolished by Tony “moron” Abbott in 2014.

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

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 11, 1997 – US ambassador says Australia should stop being so awful on #climate – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

 June 10, 2015 – Abbott and Jones versus windfarms

Ten years ago, on this day, June 10th, 2015 soon to be ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott was being, well, Tony Abbott.

Bill Shorten accuses PM of hurting investment in renewables as Abbott says his government is working to reduce the number of ‘visually awful’ turbines

Tony Abbott finds windfarms visually awful and agrees they may have “potential health impacts”, and says the deal on the renewable energy target was designed to reduce their numbers as much as the current Senate would allow.

Speaking to the Sydney radio host Alan Jones – a long-term windfarm critic – the prime minister said: “I do take your point about the potential health impact of these things … when I’ve been up close to these windfarms not only are they visually awful but they make a lot of noise.

Taylor, L. 2015. Tony Abbott agrees windfarms may have ‘potential health impacts’. The Guardian, 10 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 403ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Tony Abbott is an idiot

The specific context was that Tony Abbott is an idiot and that his outriders and enablers are also idiots. Often they are smart, and have no excuse for what they did, beyond greed.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings we choose the most idiotic to lead us (see the psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion on this).

As “active citizens” we should watch out for allowing idiots to lead us.

Academics might like to ponder – their role in puffing up idiots to lead us.

What happened next

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 9, 2010 – Gina’s protest

Fifteen  years ago, on this day, June 9th, 2010, an Australian billionaire took part in a political protest. True story. 

Australian billionaires take to the streets for tax protest

It was, by any measure, a most unusual rally. Many of the placard-waving protesters gathered in a Perth park wore suits and ties, and impassioned speeches were delivered from the back of a flat-bed truck by two billionaires, including Australia’s richest woman.

Marks, K. 2010. Australian billionaires take to the streets for tax protest. The Independent, 10 June.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australian-billionaires-take-to-the-streets-for-tax-protest-1997284.html

Some video footage here – Axe the tax rally Perth – Kevin Rudd

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.3ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was extractivism has been Australia’s “thing.”  First via imported species (beef, sheep) and then later mining – coal, iron ore, latterly natural gas.

The specific context was that desperate failure Kevin Rudd (Prime Minister at the time) had torched his reputation and the hopes of millions of Australians with a truly moronically cowardly “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” which was killed off by Tony Abbott (and Rudd). Too spineless to call a double-dissolution election, Rudd pivoted to a tax on miners (which is, of course, not a bad idea in and of itself).

The miners responded. Of course they did. This was one very small gaudy part of it. Far more important was the TV adverts etc.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings is that we don’t live in functional democracies.

As “active citizens” money talks. Choose your “leaders” wisely.

What happened next. Rudd was toppled by his deputy, Julia Gillard, who uncharacteristically lost her cool after being smeared in the Sydney Morning Herald by a journalist who clearly had been briefed by Rudd’s henchman.  That set in train an unstoppable leadership challenge (Rudd was absolutely despised by most of the parliamentary Labor Party).  Gillard then ran up the white flag and the miners did not, in fact, pay more tax.

Gillard then called an early election, which she probably would have won but for these mysterious anti-Gillard leaks – “the calls are coming from inside the house.”  Who could have had means, motive and opportunity for doing that? I guess we’ll never 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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 8, 1990 – Greenpeace versus the polluters

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1990, Business Review Weekly reminded subscribers who the enemy was…

In the battle for hearts and minds, the environmentalists have it all over companies. The business sector’s difficulty in grappling with the environment issue will result, sooner or later, in a company director finding himself in the dock facing charges over pollution. Both NSW and Victoria now have legislation that can render executives and directors personally liable for environment protection offences. Many within the environment movement are looking for a test case of this legislation.

In this week’s cover story BRW writer Matthew Stevens examines the challenge that Greenpeace is throwing out to Australian companies. As Stevens reports, the local branch of the international Greenpeace organisation has thoroughly reorganised itself and is armed with the latest techniques developed in the US for direct action against companies. Greenpeace is out to achieve the greatest public humiliation of those it chooses to expose.

Uren, D. 1990. Editor’s note. BRW, 8 June.

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

The broader context was that climate change had finally “broken through” in 1988, almost 10 years later than it might have (You can write a plausible alternative history that has it all kicking off in 1979-1980).

The specific context was that the Australian mining and more-general-capitalist interests had assumed the “fad” about the Greenhouse would blow itself out. By the end of 1989 it was clear it wasn’t going to, and so the fight back began in earnest…

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings is that people with money and power like things the way they are, more or less (while always thinking about how it would be nice to have MORE money and MORE power).

As “active citizens” that there may be a delay between an issue breaking through and the response – though this is perhaps less the case now with instantaneous comms and vast networks of tooled-up, cashed-up junk tanks…

Academics might like to ponder why they rarely warn the punters about this. Could it be they are too dim to even see the pattern?

What happened next  The fossil interests fought the greenies to a standstill – not intellectually, they lost all the arguments – but by tapping their friends in the Federal bureaucracy on the shoulder.  The “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process ended in farce in 1992.  The “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” was none of those things. The emissions climbed, the concentrations climbed and the consequences, eventually, arrived. We are in 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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973.  – All Our Yesterdays

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 7, 1990 – Tasman Institute and a Nature letter about weathering

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 7th, 1990 a neoliberal attack-tank was launched, and a letter about weathering also appeared,

A privately funded economic think tank and joint venture between Australia and New Zealand called the Tasman Institute was launched in Melbourne yesterday.

Anon. 1990. Trans tasman think tank backed by big business. New Zealand Herald, 8 June p.5.

And

Letter in Nature about silicate and enhanced weathering by Sieffert https://www.nature.com/articles/345486b0

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

The broader context was that everyone was scratching their heads about what to do about th “Greenhouse Effect”

The specific context was that in Australia right-wing forces knew that they needed some new pieces on the chessboard 

What I think we can learn from this – organisations get formed to push a certain line, combat others. Once the initial impetus is gone, they may survive, but this will require them to pivot. If they can’t, they tend to die…

What happened next Tasman was a dead duck by 1997 – with Howard in the Lodge (the residence of the Australian Prime Minister) it was surplus to requirements. 

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 7, 1971 – Australians warned, on television, about ecological breakdown. #ABC – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 5, 2001 – NSW Premier Bob Carr promises a climate advertising blitz

Twenty four years ago, on this day, June 5th, 2001, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr (ALP) promises an advertising blitz

The Carr Government has promised a $17.5million advertising campaign on environmental education, provoking conservationists to demand that the Premier should lead with actions – not words.

The campaign, to run over 3 1/2 years, began on television last night, featuring the theme song It’s a Living Thing, sung by Christine Anu.

The launch follows Labor criticism of Federal Coalition advertising campaigns, most recently attacks on the $6 million Agriculture Advancing Australia campaign, a $3.6 million promotion of the Natural Heritage Trust, and a $3.9 million greenhouse campaign featuring Don Burke.

The NSW campaign will focus on electricity, water and paper.

2001 Woodford, J. 2001. Carr Promises $17.5m TV Blitz For Green Ads. Sydney Morning Herald, June 6, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australians had been warned about “the greenhouse effect” very effectively between 1988 and 1991.  And had then, largely, chosen to forget/ignore the issue.  From 1996 the Federal Government was overtly hostile to all actual climate action, and the states were beginning to pick up some of the slack.

The specific context was that Bob Carr had been switched on to the climate issue in 1971, thanks to a visit by biologist Paul Ehrlich.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can have all the publicity you like, but if you don’t have sustained and sustaining social movement organisations, all the knowledge and concern will just leak away, like tears in the rain.

What happened next – it would be another five years – late 2006 – before Australian civil society would begin to say it cared about climate change.

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: 

June 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays