Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

July 7, 1992 – Greenhouse Action Australia briefing

Thirty three years ago, on this day, July 7th, 1992,

Greenhouse Action Australia, in Sydney on Weds July 7, Dr Noel Brown, UNEP regional director.

Anon. 1992.Post Earth Summit Briefing. Greenweek, July 7,  p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm.  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 Australia had looked like it was going to take climate change seriously (1988-1989). Or, if you squinted and chose to be optimistic, you could believe that, as the various conferences and jamborees of 1988-1990 took place.

The specific context was that from 1990 onwards there had been a very effective (though crude, and lucky) fight back by the usual suspects. Australia was also lucky in that the George HW Bush administration did most of the heavy lifting on reducing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to mostly empty but nice-sounding words…  By the time of this seminar, the UNFCCC had been agreed, the greenies were back from the “Earth Summit” hoping what they knew was going to happen wouldn’t in fact happen.

What I think we can learn from this is that the failure to act was baked in, 33 years ago. Oh well.

What happened next is that what the greenies hoped wouldn’t happen has 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: 

July 7, 1969 – Newsweek writes about the “good earth,” mentions carbon dioxide build-up

July 7, 1970 – an Australian banker goes “Full Extinction Rebellion”, 50 years early…

July 7, 1988 – foolish “Jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial in Nature.

July 7, 2008 – Liberals start back-tracking on climate promises.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 6, 2008 – Southern Cross Coalition launches “towards an effective and fair response to climate change”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, July 6th, 2008 the grandly-named Southern Cross Coalition publishes ‘Towards an effective and fair response to climate change.”

(SMH Paywalled article)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 385ppm.  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 there had been various attempts to build civil society/social movement coalitions around environment (so called “red-green” coalitions) dating back to the 1970s (the somewhat mythologised ‘green bans’ etc).  One of the problems was that civil society is pretty thin and captured-by-parties in Australia (though I am not quite sure what my comparative metrics are, tbh).  By 2008 it was obvious that Labor could not be trusted (!) to deliver strong action. 

The specific context was that almost as soon as he took office in late November 2007, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd started massaging expectations of actual action down down down (e.g. refusing to budge on pitiful emissions reductions targets) and anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see there was trouble ahead…

And the SCCC? the Climate Institute, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Council of Social Service, and Australian Council of Trade Unions.

What I think we can learn from this – politicians – especially Australian politicians – have now got a full generation and a bit (37 years) of abject failure on climate change.  Back then, it was only 20 years…The only thing that might have saved us was sustained, non-co-optable social movement organisations that then brought broader civil society into the fray. But that was a fantasy then, and we don’t have a time machine now. We are sooooo screwed.

What happened next The so-called “Southern cross coalition” – dominated as it was by extremely timid reformist outfits, pissed off other groups within the “coalition” by doing a stitch up with Rudd the following year in April over a “better” target for the CPRS legislation.

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 6, 1972 – “Workers and the Environment” conference in London…

July 6, 1988 – Piper Alpha blows up 

July 6, 1993 – Australian bipartisanship on climate? Not really…

Categories
Australia

July 5, 1989 – Bob Hawke launches a book

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 5th, 1989,

“Following the Cabinet meeting, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, launched a book by the Commission for the Future on how individuals could take action to help save the planet from environmental disaster.”

 Dunn, R. 1989. Canberra set for Environment Pact. Australian Financial Review, July 6. 

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. By 1986, Australian scientists, aided by Minister for Science Barry Jones, were upping their volume.

The specific context was that Bob Hawke had – with a nudge or three from his Environment Minister Graham Richardson – latched onto “the Greenhouse Effect.” There had already been, in May, a proposal, from Richardson, for the Hawke Government to agree to the “Toronto Target” of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2005. This had been shot down by Treasurer Paul Keating.

Meanwhile, Australia was being flooded …. With books about What You Could Do As An Individual.

What I think we can learn from this is that waves of concern come and go, but people can’t look into the abyss for very long…

What happened next was that this wave was mostly gone by late 1991, thanks to usual wave exhaustion, the first Gulf War and the successful fightback by business interests.

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 5, 1973 – The Predicament of Mankind discussed

July 5, 1989 – Nuclear tries to regain some credibility, latching on to greenhouse

July 5, 2013 – that turd Michael Gove …drops plans to drop climate from curriculum

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 4, 2008 – Garnaut’s draft report released

Seventeen years ago, on this day, July 4th, 2008, economist Ross Garnaut’s draft report about what to do about Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions is released.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 385ppm.  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 made various noises about putting a price on carbon dioxide (a real no-brainer, while still being a drastically inadequate response to the problem) since 1989 (you could say earlier, if you were being particularly uncharitable).  Liberal Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007) had twice had proposals to Cabinet for an emissions trading scheme. One of his underlings had scuppered the first, in 2000, and he himself had vetoed the second in 2003.

The specific context was that in late 2006 public pressure had meant Howard needed to do a U-turn.  In 2007 new Labor leader Kevin Rudd had asked establishment economist Ross Garnaut to produce a report on carbon pricing…

What I think we can learn from this  is that elites – and perhaps especially the Australian political “elite”- have been failing for a very very long time.

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

4 July, 1957 – popular UK magazine The  Listener mentions carbon dioxide build-up

July 4, 1989 – UK Energy Committee ponders greenhouse implications – All Our Yesterdays

July 4, 1996 – article in Nature saying ‘it’s partly us’

July 4, 2004 – @WWF_Australia try to shame John Howard into #climate action…

Categories
Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Malcolm Farr and National Political Editor

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

July 1, 1999 – GEODISC gets green light

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

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

(see here)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

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

The specific context was

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

What I think we can learn from this

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

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

Categories
Australia

June 29, 2000 – promises of salvation via… vibes

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

POWER INDUSTRY GREEN LIGHT FOR GREENHOUSE CUTS

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

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

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

Media Release

Senator the Hon Robert Hill

Leader of the Government in the Senate

Minister for the Environment and Heritage

29 June 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also on this day: 

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

Categories
Australia

June 28, 1994 – Faulkner says carbon tax a possibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xxx

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

Also on this day: 

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

Categories
Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also on this day: 

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

Categories
Australia

 June 25, 1986 – AEC meeting

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

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

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

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

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

Vol 6 (2) October 1986, page 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also on this day: 

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