Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Business Responses

June 7, 1989 – Money to be made from the Greenhouse, says the Fin

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 7th, 1989, the Australian Financial Review (piss-poor, compared to the Financial Times) was talking about the money to be made…

For all the worry that the greenhouse effect is causing around the world there is, perhaps, a bright side.

The greenhouse effect has opened up a number of potentially profitable opportunities for industry. It has created a number of niche markets for environmentally safe products or new strands of vegetable.

The South Australian Government has already taken steps to help industry identify these new niche markets. It has established a council to examine the implications of the greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer on the future direction of industry, agriculture and the economy of the State.

McLachlan, C. 1989. Hot chances for coping with greenhouse effect. Australian Financial Review, 7 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone was talking about the greenhouse effect and what was to be done. Including the business press. And thanks, thank our lucky stars, it turns out there was money to be made. Because otherwise, you know, why would we act? 

What we can learn from this is that every media outlet has its frames: the Hobbesian frame for the Mail and the Telegraph and the slightly more refined but still Hobbesian view for the Times. The bleeding heart Jean Jacques Rousseau, frame for The Guardian. And “let’s make loads of money” and “let’s identify anyone who can stop us making loads of money and squash them like a bug” frames for the business press. 

What happened next? Everyone went on about how much money might be made. But then it turned out that there would be taxes and regulation in order to create new markets and the status quo actors, i.e. the incumbents, were able to squash those markets for a very long time. Until it was too late for anything to actually matter. And here we are. 

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

Also on this day: 

June 7, 1959 – another letter about carbon dioxide build up in the Times of India

June 7, 1971 – Australians warned, on television, about ecological breakdown. #ABC

June 7, 1984 – UK diplomat pushes for more environmental action

Categories
Australia

June 4, 1981 – Sydney Morning Herald reprints CSIRO material about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty three years ago, on this day, June 4th, 1981, the Sydney Morning Herald ran some nice factual stuff about carbon dioxide.

4 June 1981 Sydney Morning Herald reporting on CSIRO, Ecos magazine

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JIZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=n-YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1170%2C681961

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ecos, the CSIRO magazine had done a feature on CO2 build up and that made for a good cheap syndication section in the Sydney Morning Herald. Remember that by this point the occasional article about the changing climate and CO2 buildup was not unheard of. And in late 1978, for example, there had even been a television news item on the subject.

What we learn is that there is a recognised pathway: from the specialist press to the mainstream press, articles get picked up. Because there is space between the adverts that has to be filled. And the more cheaply you can do that, the more your profits. 

 What happened next is that a couple of years later climate change got another boost because of the US Environmental Protection Agency report that was front page in the Australian. And of course a few months after this article in November of 1981 the Office of National Assessments did its secret report…

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 4 , 1989, 1992, 1996 – from frantic concern to contempt for everyone’s future…

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

Categories
Australia

May 31, 1995 – newly-minted MCA meets with Keating…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, May 31st, 1995, the rebranded peak mining body meets with Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating.

Leaders of AMIC, now the Minerals Council of Australia, met with the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, for three hours on Wednesday [31 May] to discuss regional relations, trade liberalisation and relations with Japan and Indonesia. 

In line with the recommendations of a report by the Allen Consulting Group, the MCA is putting increased emphasis on lobbying rather than public campaigning.

Mr Buckingham said the way the industry had helped persuade the Government to drop the proposed carbon tax and increase the  diesel excise showed the benefits of its approach. “Where access [to senior levels of Government] is required there is confidence that that access will be given.”

Davis, I. 1995. New name, image for industry group. Canberra Times, 2 June, p.12

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Mining Industry Council had been vehemently opposed to climate action. But more significantly for this particular blog post even more vehemently opposed to Aboriginal land rights. And the crucial dilemma for any trade association is how hard to fight, how publicly: because if you lose and you’ve punched some politicians in the face, they tend to remember it. So AMIC had hired Geoff Allen, who was a venerable business fixer, abd who had set up the BCA in 1983. Allen had suggested a change of leadership. So out with Lachlan McIntosh, and a name change, to complete the rebranding and maybe toning down all the anti Mabo bullshit. And they managed to engineer a meeting with Paul Keating that apparently was three hours. Keating, whatever he thought, had to be in a mood of reconciliation, and if not all is forgiven and forgotten. Let’s move forward. Because if you want to be a successful leader, you can’t really hold those sorts of grudges. 

What we learn, these trade associations have to be careful. There are limits to what they can do. And if they overstep those limits, there are consequences just because they’re made up of powerful individual companies or sectors. Doesn’t mean they have total carte blanche.

What happened next? Well, the Australian Mining Industry Council/MCA and the BCA had been beavering away and they created a really effective group called the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, which was massively successful for over a decade in combating both domestic policy, e.g., the 1994/5  carbon tax battle, but also the international stuff keeping Australia from making any sane commitments for Kyoto, and for ratifying it once they’ve extracted that victory. And you’ve got to hand it to them, they’re really really good at what they did. 

And, you know Guy Pearse and Clive Hamilton chart that success in their books High and Dry and Scorcher respectively. And see also the Carbon Club by Marian Wilkinson. 

But never forget that the picture of Labor as sweet and innocent is complete bullshit. Because if you look at the period especially from 1990 to 1996 they were making sure that no serious action on climate change happened. 

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: 

May 31, 1977 – “4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise by 2027” predicts #climate scientist Wally Broecker

May 31 1996 – Rocket Scientist Charlie Sheen uncovers warmist alien conspiracy!!

May 31, 2012, an Australian climate minister makes a song and dance

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

May 30, 2007 – Kevin Rudd pledges to ratify Kyoto, set emissions target and create an ETS

Seventeen years ago, on this day, May 30th, 2007, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said he’d take climate action, oh yes.

“The Labor Party, led by Kevin Rudd, promised a more progressive approach. It pledged to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, establish a target of reducing Australia’s emissions by 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2050 and create an emissions trading scheme by 2010.” Macintosh, 2008 Page 52

K. Rudd An Action Agenda for Climate Change, Annual Fraser Lecture, Belconnen Labor Club, Canberra, 30 May 2007 (Australian Labor Party, Canberra: 2007).

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 Rudd had been using climate change as a stick to beat John Howard with, very successfully and this was another punishment beating that he issued with great success. Sadly, because he raised expectations of morality, decency, seriousness, and then dashed them. 

What we learn is that talk is very cheap. And seductive if you’re sick of the current vandal.

What happened next

Rudd became Prime Minister, then fannied about rather than getting the job done. And crashed his chance to be a Labor leader for the ages. 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: 

May 30, 1990 – Midnight Oil do a gig outside Exxon’s HQ in New York

May 30, 1996 – Denialist goons smear scientist

Categories
Australia

May 29, 2007 “Climate Clever” ad campaign in attempt to save John Howard

Seventeen years ago, on this day, May 29th, 2007, Prime Minister John Howard uses taxpayers’ money to try to get people to forget his past ten years of climate vandalism/criminality.

Labor turned up the heat over federal government advertising as Prime Minister John Howard conceded a climate change campaign was on the way.

Anon, 2007. Climate change ad battle heating up. Sydney Morning Herald, 29 May.

See also

THERE is $52.8 million ready to spend on a climate-change advertising blitz if and when the Government chooses to introduce one, Prime Minister John Howard admitted yesterday.

Doherty, B. 2007. Howard coy on $53m ads. The Age, 30 May.

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 Australian Prime Minister John Howard had spent 10 years doing everything in his power to stop climate action. He had been enormously successful with this. From September 2006, however, the pressure for action became intense, and he needed to pivot. So we had the Shergold report group that was supposed to pronounce on an emissions trading scheme. But Howard had not really convinced anyone about his new green credentials. The ABC’s Tony Jones had trolled him in February of 2007. And he had denounced the Stern Review as “pure speculation.” So it’s kind of unsurprising that all this taxpayer funded Climate Clever advertising bullshit, launched in September 2007, convinced precisely no one.

What we learn is that politicians are used to being able to U-turn, pivot on a dime, to have no convictions, but there is a limit. (See Martin Kettle talking about Francois Mitterrand in The Guardian, December 7 2023, which is the day I’m recording this.) And you can’t easily remake yourself once people have made up their mind about you as much as you would like to think that you can. You’re set in concrete. 

What happened next, the Climate Clever nonsense was spoofed by Get Up. Howard couldn’t bring himself to ratify Kyoto, because he knew he looked weak. And he was swept from office by Labor’s Kevin Rudd. But that didn’t mean that the climate policy issue then got dealt with by adults. That would have to wait until Juliet Gillard, in 2011. That is not to say there weren’t adults who didn’t make massive mistakes but still, nonetheless, adults. 

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: 

May 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

Categories
Australia

May 27, 1971 – Australia gets a Minister of the Environment

Fifty-three years ago, on this day, May 27th, 1971, the colony joins the club…

The Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, announced yesterday the appointment of Mr Peter Howson to the Federal ministry.

Mr Howson, of Victoria, will become Minister for the newly formed Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts.

Anon, 1971. Mr Howson is new Minister. Canberra Times Friday 28 May, page 1

And Mungo MacCullum

“When McMahon finally got the job in 1971, Howson lined up for his reward. Having held down a junior ministry during the Menzies, Holt and even Gorton years, he thought he was in line for promotion. But it was not to be. As he left the new prime minister’s office, a colleague asked him what he had got. Howson snarled back: “The little bastard gave me trees, boongs and poofters.””

https://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/05/peter-howson-minister-for-trees-boongs-and-poofters/
Peter Howson, minister for ‘trees, boongs and poofters’

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been rising concern about environmental issues, air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, pollution pollution population the culling of kangaroos and wildlife biodiversity crisis happening. There was a new prime minister Billy McMahon and he wanted to show how in touch with the ordinary man in the street he was so he created the Ministry of Environmental Affairs, Arts and Aboriginal Affairs. 

 What we learn is that while other nations were creating standalone environment departments, Australia’s ambition was pitiful and tokenistic. 

 What happened next? Howson along with many of his Liberal mates, lost the 1972 election that swept Gough Whitlam into power. And the next environment minister was Moss Cass, who was an altogether more impressive 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.

Also on this day: 

May 27, 1973 – World Council of Churches wrings its hands

May 27, 1996 – Not just a river in Egypt – denial in #Australia, organised, ramifying…

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

May 25, 1992 Keating Cabinet discusses Rio

Thirty-two years ago, on this day, May 25th, 1992, the Cabinet of new Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating discussed the upcoming Earth Summit in Rio. Cabinet was (mostly) not in favour of making any big splash, and Keating himself would not attend the event (the only leader of an OECD country not to go…)

Check out the article about the 1992-3 Cabinet Papers I wrote for The Conversation. And the longer version here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that as early as 1987, there had been an agreement that there would be an Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio. The following year, climate change had exploded onto the public consciousness and the Earth Summit had become the place where the climate treaty would be agreed. Australia had been initially seen as a leader on this, one of its diplomats had helped the IPCC processes as a co-chair on working group one (WM Tegart), and there had been an extremely hedged promise in October of 1990 for a so-called interim planning target. 

However, since then, the champion of action Bob Hawke had been toppled. His replacement, Paul Keating was actively hostile to greenies. And Australia was in/emerging from a recession, “the recession we had to have.” And Keating wasn’t gonna go to Rio, (he was the only head of an OECD member who didn’t).

There had also been a successful campaign against introducing a carbon tax. This had been  a suggestion as part of the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. So all in all, the Cabinet meeting was just signing off on allowing the environment minister to go. But pretty much saying to her that she wasn’t allowed to be exuberant or make any promises. And so it came to pass. 

What we learn is that Australia had an opportunity to behave differently, but the leadership of the time had other plans and other priorities. And we are living with the consequences of that. And future generations will live and die with the consequences of that. And here we are. 

What happened next, RosKelly went to Rio, was the ninth person to sign up to some misogynist flak from the denialists, of course. And Australia had another bite at the carbon tax for domestic purposes. This also failed, and then Australia carved out an insanely generous steal at Kyoto, which it then didn’t ratify. Poisonous, horrible, horrible political, economic elite. But what do you expect of an extractive settler state, a quarry with a state attached to 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: 

May 25, 1953 – “I read about them in Time Magazine” (Gilbert Plass’s greenhouse warning

May 25, 1990 – Thatcher opens Hadley Centre

May 25 – Interview with Ben King – of #climate, education and the need for tubas

May 25, 2011 – Aussie #climate scientist smeared rather than engaged. Plus ca change…

Categories
Australia

May 23, 2000 – Deputy Prime Minister versus Greenhouse Trigger

Twenty four years ago, on this day, May 23rd, 2000,

Prior to a Cabinet meeting on 22 May [2000] where the greenhouse trigger was to be discussed, the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson publicly criticised the proposal, describing it as ‘unnecessary and inappropriate’ and suggesting it would harm the economy, particularly in regional [page break] areas. In a press release issued on 22 May, Anderson said that ‘it was not necessary or appropriate for the Commonwealth to effectively take over the State’s role in the environmental assessment and approval of major developments.

(Macintosh, 2007: 49-50) 

And then this –

Senator Hill had been ambushed. It appears neither he nor his staff were aware the trigger proposal was likely to face such fierce opposition in Cabinet….

The anti-greenhouse, anti-trigger camp did not stop at this. The following day [23 May 2000] senator Minchin presented research he had commissioned from Dr Brian Fisher of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), a critic of the Kyoto Protocol, which found that meeting Australia’s Kyoto target could cost between 0.5 per cent and 1.4 per cent of Gross National Product at 2010. The fossil fuel lobby used this research as a springboard to back Anderson’s and Minchin’s position, suggesting the trigger would have significant adverse economic implications. Dick Wells, the executive director of the Minerals Council of Australia, was quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying, ‘[w]e agree with John Anderson that the trigger would harm employment and regional growth…..

(Macintosh, 2007: 50) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Howard Government had signed the environmental biodiversity protection and conservation act in 1998 and there was talk of a so-called greenhouse trigger which meant that any particularly carbon intensive scheme would have to go to a minister for approval. Yikes, because this would mean that there would be more lobbying and more political cost in waving through the latest worship of the great god Development. The opponents of greenhouse action hated this idea. And on this day, there was an ambush. 

What we learn is that political parties have different factions representing different interests. And there is always going to be a headbanger element, whether it’s Warwick Parer, Nick Minchin, John Anderson, whatever.

What happened next? Well, the greenhouse trigger did not get up and three months later, there was another defeat when the emissions trading scheme also bit the dust. 

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: 

May 23, 1977 – President Carter announces Global 2000 report… or “Let’s all meet up in the Global2000”

May 23, 1980 – Aussie senator alerts colleagues to #climate threat. Shoulder shrugs all round. #auspol

May 23, 2012 – wicked problems and super-wicked problems all around…

Categories
Australia

May 16, 1973 Energy and how we live. UNESCO seminar at Flinders

Fifty-one years ago, on this day, May 16th, 1973, there was a UNESCO-sponsored conference on Energy and how we live at Flinders University of South Australia, 

16-18 May 1973 / Australian Unesco Seminar ; Australian-Unesco Committee for Man and the Biosphere. –

You can see a clip with John Bokris here https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-12/professor-john-bockris-on-his-warning-of-impending/13837976

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.6ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that UNESCO had been holding conferences about the environment and man’s impact pollution, blah, blah, blah for a while, the most notable of these was in Paris in ‘68. And that had been attended by some Australians. 

There was the Man in the Biosphere programme. Meanwhile, Adelaide had been alerted to climate issues, in newspapers and so forth. And watching the television, for example, the Monday programme and there had been the “Is Technology a blueprint for destruction?” seminar at Adelaide University in September of 1972. 

What we learn is that people who cared about that sort of stuff, were well aware of the dangers ahead, but basically were unable to convince everyone else that the danger was real and that something meaningful could and must be done. 

 What happened next. In November 1973 South Australian politician, Don Jessop gave a speech in Parliament about the buildup of CO2, possibly influenced by this event. 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: 

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese says critical action on #climate being delayed by 20 years… #auspol

May 16, 2006 – UK Prime Minister Tony Blair goes nuclear…

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese, eco-warrior…

May 16 – Interview with Rosie, about zero population growth, zero climate progress, etc…

Categories
Australia

May 15, 1972 – Clean Air Conference in Melbourne

Fifty-two years ago, on this day, May 15th, 1972, a Clean Air Conference in Melbourne is told about carbon dioxide build up by CSIRO scientists, including Graeme Pearman,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been clean air conferences in states and now national or even international in Australia.

There had been the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution started in 1968 delivering its findings in ‘69. And what’s particularly significant about this conference is the first time there was an explicit specific session on carbon dioxide build up, with Graham Pearman.

What we learn – oh, the usual – we knew, we knew, we knew.

What happened next – more reports, more warnings, paths not taken. And now we are on a path that leads nowhere nice. It didn’t have to be like this, but it does have to be like it’s going to be – laws of physics are like 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: 

May 15, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard spouting “nuclear to fix climate” nonsense

May 15, 2010 – another pointless overnight vigil.