Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

Feb 17, 2004 – Zero Emissions Technology Conference in Australia. At peak excitement of tech solutions

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 17th, 2004, CCS hype really got going.

JUDGING by the heavy hitters attending a conference on the Gold Coast this week, geosequestration is about to get a substantial workover in Australia in the next few years.

Geosequestration is the capture of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and placing them underground. To some environmentalists the concept is about as popular as toxic waste.

For Australia’s biggest export industry, coal, geosequestration may be the difference between death and survival.

Wilson, N. 2004 Turning coal clean and green. The Australian, February 21 

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22media/pressrel/0ROB6%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from about 1999/2000 oil and gas companies and their crumb maidens had started being enthusiastic about technology, especially carbon capture and storage as a way of legitimising the ongoing digging up transporting, selling and burning of thermal coal. This was especially important for Queensland and New South Wales (Victoria’s brown coal is unexportable). 

What we learn is that you can wave a new technology, however implausible under people’s noses, and they’ll come trotting, squealing with delight, thinking that there’ll be another trough for them to stick their snouts in. The song remains the same. 

What happened next, the promises around CCS kept going until 2009/10. Reality intervened, physics intervened, economics intervened. The whole promise thing went away again. And then came back 10 years later, because, well…  what else has the fossil fuel industry got? 

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: 

February 17, 1993 – President Clinton proposes an Energy Tax.

 February 17, 2003 – Bob Carr says John Howard showing poor leadership (too generous!)

Feb 17, 2013 – Scientists, activists, actors, arrested outside Whitehouse, protesting #Keystone

February 17, 2013 – celebrities arrested at Whitehouse, protesting Keystone XL

Categories
Australia

February 15, 2011 – Lenore Taylor’s truth bombs

Thirteen years ago, on this day, February 15th, 2011, Australian journalist Lenore Taylor, who’d been covering climate policy since the very early 1990s, lays out the choices.

For a decade the main parties in Australian politics have been choosing expensive, dumb policies to reduce greenhouse emissions over the cheap, smart option of an efficiently designed carbon price.

They’ve consciously picked ideas that cost 10 times more than the cheapest option of a carbon price, which they have repeatedly promised, only to change their minds.

Taylor, L. 2011. Time to knuckle down to make a choice, before it’s too late. The Age, 15 February.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the battles over climate policy had been raging in Australia really since – depending on how you count – early 2007 when Kevin Rudd, as new opposition leader had started using it as a baseball bat to clobber John Howard.  By the time of Taylor’s article there had been four years of back and forth, sound and fury. Lenore Taylor, who had been covering the climate issue on and off since the early 1990s,, was pointing out that there was a time when you either piss or get off the pot, and there were consequences for inaction. And guess what? We’re now living with the earliest consequences of inaction. There are more, nastier, consequences to come. 

What we can learn is that smart well-respected journalists have been calling it like it is since the year dot. But they actually have a relatively limited power. 

What happened next Prime Minister Julia Gillard introduced legislation. It was shepherded through Parliament and became law. And then the next government, under Tony Abbott, quite quickly got rid of it. And were super-cheerful that they’d done so. Here’s a photo to prove it. 

An act of astonishing vandalism, stupidity. But there you have 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: 

Feb 15, 1994 – Isaac Newton versus the Global Forum #Manchester

February 15, 2013 – the carbon bubble, will it burst?

Categories
Australia

February 13, 2006 – Four Corners reveals the “Greenhouse Mafia”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, February 13th, 2006. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Four Corners documentary on “Greenhouse mafia”

You can see a bit of it here

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a lobbyist, Guy Pearse had written a really interesting PhD thesis. The Millennium drought seemed never-ending, as did Australian Prime Minister John Howard‘s opposition to any climate action  unless it was loose and clearly, phoney talk of nuclear as a solution. And so Four Corners, which is a bit like Horizon, was looking to return to an issue that they had  covered extensively in the 1990s. 

And it latched on to recently published research by Guy Pearse. The program was a crucial weakening of Howard’s legitimacy/hegemony which would be dealt killer blows through the rest of 2006.

 What we learn is that academic research can sometimes – if the stars align – make a difference, at least in the agenda-setting phase, possibly, in the implementation phase, who knows? 

 What happened next

A very good book – “High and Dry” came out the following year, based on (but also extending) Pearse’s PhD.  Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister. And you know the rest…

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: 

February 13, 2007- Industry is defo allowed to silence scientists…

Feb 13, 2015 – We refuse to divest ourselves of illusions

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 10, 1995 – Faulkner folds on carbon tax – doesn’t have the numbers in Cabinet

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, February 10th, 1995, the Australian Environment Minister John Faulkner conceded that he didn’t have the numbers to get a carbon tax proposal through cabinet.

THE Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, has abandoned proposals for the introduction of a carbon tax …. His decision was made on Friday [10th February] after two days of talks with environmental and business groups

Ellis, S. and Gill, P. 1995. Faulkner calls off plans to impose carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 14 February, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been an entirely sensible idea put forward by the greenies at the Australian Conservation Foundation, among others, to have a small carbon tax that would fund energy efficiency and solar. This had finally been put forward by the environment minister, John Faulkner in 1994. It had led to a vehement coordinated attack on the proposal. The opponents had played their cards very well. The proponents not always so well. And on Friday 10th of February Faulkner had realised he didn’t have the numbers because the crucial role in politics is “learn to count.” 

What we learn is that everybody knows the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost and this is one of the times that the good guys lost. What we also learn is that proposals for sanity get made all the time and usually get defeated. 

What happened next?  Faulkner went to COP1 in Berlin and announced himself happy. There was the announcement of the entirely voluntary greenhouse challenge, bullshit that achieved nothing other than to confuse people. Its purpose was to make BHP and its chums look like ”responsible” corporate citizens. 

Also on this day: 

Feb 10, 2010 – Dutch scientists try to plug denialists’ holes in the dike

February 10, 2011 – Australia gets a “Climate Commission”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 7, 1995 – Business Council of Australia vs a carbon tax. Of course

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, February 7th, 1995, the lobby group for big business successfully fought off a carbon tax.

Canberra — The Business Council of Australia yesterday attacked the Federal Government’s proposed carbon tax, saying that it could jeopardise more than 47,000 jobs and $43 billion in production in the nation’s export energy industries.

Drawing on a report released by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics yesterday, the council said a carbon tax, at any level, would result in lost jobs, production and exports.

The executive director of the council, Mr Paul Barratt, said any carbon tax would have a serious impact on Australia’s oil and gas, coal, metal products, petrochemicals, pulp and paper and cement industries.

Thomas, C. 1995. Business Council Hits Plan For Carbon Tax. The Age, 7 February, p.50.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a fierce battle going on over a proposal for a carbon tax at federal level in Australia, and the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Mining Industry Council, (who made the tie-in official as the AIGN later) were at the forefront of a campaign to stop it. And one of the ways – not the only one,  but one of the ways – was to say that the “sky would fall” economically speaking.  

And what you do is you get some economic modelling by so-called independent experts who set their parameters in such a way that the sky will fall, you then turn that into a report, write a press release. You give it to some tame journalists, who then get it put up on the front page of a newspaper. Then get questions asked in Parliament. It gets picked up on television and the “common sense” that action on climate change will cost a fortune is just that little bit further embedded. 

And they have been playing this game for a very long time. They’re very good at it and the reason they keep playing it is it’s usually a winning tactic for them. 

What happened next. The carbon tax was defeated in February of 1995 before the BCA and its chums had to pull up the really big guns. Policy advocate interest shifted to emissions trading schemes. One was finally introduced in 2012, only to be abolished two years later. Australia deserves everything it gets.

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: 

 Feb 7, 1861- 161 years ago, a scientist identifies carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas

February 7, 1979 – Met Office boss bullshits about his carbon dioxide stance

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 6, 2007 – Rudd taunts Howard on 2003 ETS decision

On this day, February 6 2007 new Labor leade Kevin Rudd had asked Prime Minister John Howard if a submission proposing an emission trading scheme had gone before cabinet in August 2003 and if that proposal was rejected.

Rudd – and frankly everyone else – knew the answer was “yes”. It had been extensively reported, since at least 2004. In August 2003, Howard had met with some business mates and killed off the Cabinet proposal (which the entire Cabinet, including Joe Hockey, Peter Costello etc were behind). See here – August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Rudd was just trying to embarrass Howard, who had a couple of months before performed a screeching U-turn and appointed Peter Shergold (civil servant) and some business cronies to look at an an ETS.

What we learn – it was all theatre

What happened next. Howard’s U-turn made him look weak rather than caring, and he was swept from power. Kevin Rudd then saved the day (subs, please check).

Categories
Australia

February 5, 1992 – Liberal leader Hewson snubs the Australian  Conservation Foundation

Thirty two years ago, on this day, February 5th, 1992, the Leader of the Liberal Party, John Hewson, decided he would not bother meeting with those irritating greenies, who had Betrayed Their Word after the fateful lunch on January 15 1990 (they hadn’t, actually, but it made for a good “Dolchstoss” myth…).

Anon, 1992. Hewson snubs Conservation Foundation. Canberra Times, 6 February, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberals felt that they had been shafted by the greens in March of 1990 and that they had not yet let this go. The Liberal view had hardened  – they felt that the 1993 election was eminently winnable, especially now the widely disliked Paul Keating was PM. Bob Hawke had given a piss weak response to John Hewson’s Fightback! and so, had been toppled by Labour, who chose Paul Keating, who was deeply unpopular with the Australian public as Treasurer. Meanwhile, green issues were no longer salient. And therefore, Hewson thought that telling the Australian Conservation Foundation to go fuck itself was a no lose proposition which would throw red meat and support to the headbangers. 

What we learn is that policies and politics are done by humans who have their senses of status and that can have long-term consequences because there is path dependency. 

What happened next Hewson managed to lose the unlosable election in March 1993. Prime Minister Keating went on to shit all over environment issues and especially climate issues which he considered amorphous. You know the rest. 

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.

See also

See also 12 0ctober 1989 piece by Andrew Fraser on Alexander Downer and market forces

Also on this day: 

Feb 5, 1974 – Energy security, meet anti-Arab sentiment #propaganda

February 5, 2007 – Australian Prime Minister trolled by senior journalist

Feb 5 1990 – A president says what he is told…

Categories
Australia

February 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 3rd, 1994, the fossil fuel lobby was trotting out its favourite argument – that Australia was being treated “unfairly” in the climate negotiations, and throwing “developing countries” in to make it a more confusing message and one harder to counter.  

Australia and the developing economies of the world could bear an unfairly high proportion of the costs of controls on greenhouse emissions in the event of any global agreement to adopt uniform emission-reduction targets, the Outlook 94 conference was told yesterday.

Grose, S. 1994. Unfair burden’ on Australia. Canberra Times, February, 4, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.2ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that President Clinton’s energy tax had been defeated the year before. But it simply wasn’t clear that a carbon tax was dead in Australia too. And the whole question of Australia’s commitments under the climate treaty, which had been ratified, and previous December, was making rich fossil fuel outfits nervous. And so at “Outlook 94”, which was one of the energy sector’s watering holes and ideas-swapping or meme-swapping opportunities. They, including John Daley, were pushing hard on the old idea that Australia was a special case that was being unfairly treated. 

What we can learn is the rhetoric of unfairness is pervasive, and that bullies and assholes will often deny, attack, reverse victim order – DARVO.

What happened next?

The proponents of climate action put their eggs in the carbon tax basket which was entirely sensible to their eyes. And they were defeated. The emissions kept climbing. And you know the rest.

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: 

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
Australia

February 2, 2010 – Abbott on Direct Action, CPRS for 3rd failure…

Fourteen years ago, on this day, February 2nd, 2010,

the new Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, put out a media release about his absurd non-policy “Direct action on the environment and climate change” policy.

And on the same day – 

The Rudd government, for no earthly reason, tabed its “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” for the third time.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tony Abbott had become Liberal opposition party’s leader, in early December 2009, toppling Malcolm Turnbull who wanted to back Rudd’s scheme (which was piss-weak). The Rudd carbon pollution reduction scheme had been defeated for the second time in the House of Representatives and the Copenhagen COP had ended in failure. So now, Abbott was being forced to put up an alternative, which is a curious position for someone who thinks that the science of climate change was “crap.” Liberal voters needed some sort of fig leaf for squaring their love of privilege, power, so-called “free markets” with any concerns that they might have for the environment. Meanwhile, for reasons I really don’t understand, the CPRS legislation was submitted for a third time but was clearly doomed. Go figure – what a waste of effort. 

What we can learn is that the politics are bewildering. Once you get down to brass tacks, stupid overconfident people – and that can apply to several characters in this story – can cause enormous damage. 

What happened next? 

Rudd was toppled for being a jerk and crucially no longer a vote-winner. Abbott was one of the most effective opposition leaders of all time. He destroyed, not just Gillard, and Rudd, but also the possibility of emissions trading and carbon pricing in Australia, an astonishing achievement. 

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: 

Feb 2, 1992- that “sarcastic” memo about exporting pollution…

February 2, 1996 – denialist sprays #climate science with his bullshit

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 1, 1990 – Australian Financial Review ponders carbon tax… (via FT)

Thirty four years ago, on this day, February 1st, 1990, an article about possible carbon taxes from the Financial Times (London) was syndicated in the Australian Financial Review (aka “The Fin”).

“Drastic measures to combat global atmospheric pollution caused by burning carbon fuels were urged yesterday by the International Energy Agency.”

Anon. 1990. Carbon Fuel Tax May Limit Pollution Levels. Australian Financial Review, 2 February.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422.3ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at Nordwijk in November of 1989, nations had agreed to keep talking about talking about negotiating a climate treaty. There were other meetings coming up. And the International Energy Agency was sticking its oar in with the suggestion of carbon taxes and pricing mechanisms. Also there was a federal election pending in Australia, the climate issue was very salient. 

What we learn is that debates about carbon pricing have been shaped by prestigious powerful – or prestigious, at least – outfits like the IEA in ways that I didn’t fully understand for my PhD thesis, but here we are. 

What happened next, Bob Hawke narrowly won the March 1993 election with small g. green votes, and was therefore obliged to follow through with this idea of ecologically sustainable development. 

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: 

Feb 1, 2007- Jeremy Grantham slams Bush on #climate

February 1, 1978 – US TV show MacNeill Lehrer hosts discussion about climate change

Feb 1 2023 – Interview with Russell Porter, Australian documentary maker