Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

April 29, 1989 – Australian Science Minister takes to the airwaves on the Greenhouse Effect.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, April 29th, 1989, the ABC radio programme the “Science Show” had this as its running line up.

The Science Show [Episode 658] – Reply to David Suzuki from Barry Jones; Greenhouse Effect Consequences; New Scientist Editor; Research Used for Biological Weapons; Lichens; Bopplenuts

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Science Show had, from its first August 1975 broadcast, been alerting listeners to the threat of climate change.  Science Minister Barry Jones had been on the case too, and his “Commission for the Future” had worked with the CSIRO on a highly effective “Greenhouse Project.”  The Australian Federal Government was grappling with ‘what to do’… David Suzuki, the Canadian science communicator, was making frequent trips to Australia and had recently lectured on the Amazon.

What I think we can learn from this was that the late 1980s really was a burst of awareness/fear around climate change, but that people can only cope with so much fear and then they turn away, happy to be told that every little thing’s gonna be alright, even (especially) when they know that really, it won’t be…

What happened next

We turned away – the green groups were unable to maintain the momentum, sustain their capacity. It was always going to end like this. It’s how every story ends…Or has ended so far.  Who knows, maybe next time will be different.  Sure.

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: 

April 29, 1967 – Canberra Times reviews Science and Survival – All Our Yesterdays

April 29, 1970 – Washington DC symposium talks about carbon dioxide

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

 April 27, 2001 – only Australia cheering Bush’s Kyoto pull out.

On this day 24 years ago Australia’s status as a colony of the United States – an enthusiastic one at that – was confirmed for the (checks notes) gazillionth time.

“Washington has mounted a diplomatic campaign to deflect criticism of its repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol, instead seeking support for its goal of broadening the UN climate change treaty to include developing countries.

And Canberra is Washington’s prize recruit in this campaign.

Asked in Wednesday’s Washington Post which countries backed him on greenhouse, President George Bush said “Australia [and Canada] said they understand why the US took this position”.

“However, the Canadian government has criticised the US for pulling out of the Kyoto process. Only Australia has provided uncritical support and is therefore Washington’s “prize recruit” in its campaign to kill the Kyoto Protocol, according to a report in the April 27 Australian Financial Review.”

Hordern, N. 2001. Bush wary of `kiss of death’ for backers in protocol pact. Australian Financial Review, April 27 , p.30.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that “settled” (invaded) Australia started life in 1788 as a dumping ground for convicts who couldn’t be hanged and/or sent to the American colonies.  The various colonies gained measures of self-government and in 1901 the Commonwealth came into existence, but Australia was still basically a colony.  Which was fine, but in 1942, after the fall of Singapore to the Japanese, it was clear the Brits weren’t going to be able to defend Oz. So the Aus Prime Minister pivoted to the Yanks – needs must. And Australia has been, in all significant respects, a colony ever since. So it goes.

What we learn. Colonial subjects like to imagine they are free. Everyone wants to imagine they are free.

What happened next. The Australian political “elite” (never were scare quotes so relevant) have continued to be craven and pathetic on climate. Why should anyone expect anything else?

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: 

April 27, 2010 – Rudd says no CPRS until 2012 at earliest. Seals fate – All Our Yesterdays

April 27, 1979 – Ecology Party first TV broadcast ahead 

April 27, 1987 – “Our Common Future” released.

April 27, 2007 – Coal-bashing campaign by gas company ends

April 27, 2010 – Rudd says no CPRS until 2012 at earliest. Seals fate – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

 April 25, 2000 – “Beyond Kyoto”  more meaningless blather by Australian politicians

On this day 25 years ago, April 25, 2000, the Federal Environment Minister, Robert Hill spoke at a meeting to the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change in Washington, ‘Beyond Kyoto: Australia’s efforts to combat global warming’, 25 April 2000,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that Australia had extorted an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto Conference (Hill had received a standing ovation at Cabinet afterwards). But it had leaked in 1998 that Howard was only going to ratify the deal if the US did (up in the air, with the 2000 election forthcoming). So Hill had to pretend all was well. And people had to pretend to be going along with that. Rude not to.

What we learn. It’s all kayfabe, innit?

What happened next. The Supreme Court handed George W Bush the 2000 election. In March 2001 he pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Australian Prime Minister John Howard waited until World Environment Day 2002 before doing same. Why the delay? Probably just because he liked watching the greenies twist in the wind? For the shingles, in other words.

Also on this day

April 25, 1989 – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying? (Why yes, yes it is) 

April 25, 1969 – Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

April 25th, 1974 – Swedish prime minister briefed on carbon dioxide build-up

April 25, 1996 – Greenpeace slams Australian government on #climate obstructionism

Categories
Australia

April 19, 2001 – Greenpeace Australia does some push-polling on climate

Twenty-four years ago, on this day, April 19th 2001,

 The difficulty for the Howard government is that its position on climate change is deeply unpopular and will cost it votes at the next federal election. A survey commission by Greenpeace Australia and released on April 19 found that 80.4% of respondents believed that Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, without the US if necessary.

The Greenpeace survey drew an angry response from industry minister Nick Minchin. “I think it’s irresponsible to be pushing this line without informing people how many jobs will be lost”, he said in an April 20 media release.

“ABARE [the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics] estimates that, even with the most optimistic assumptions, the costs to Australia of meeting the Kyoto Protocol commitments would be significantly more than a severe recession and several times that of a major drought”, Minchin said.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/canberra-covers-bush-greenhouse

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a federal election coming. Climate change was likely to be – or Greenpeace would have liked it to be – a real issue. George W. Bush had just said America would not proceed with ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and everyone assumed that sooner or later, Prime Minister John Howard would follow suit. 

So Greenpeace thought that they could do a survey, get some press coverage for it, put little pressure on the Liberals, maybe stiffen the spine of Labour, etc. And maybe it worked at the time. 

What we learn is that these sorts of push surveys as a shot across the bows or a spine stiffener, or whatever, are a well-established political technique. What we should also learn is that they’re basically meaningless because people say all sorts of crap in a survey because they want to believe that they are the kind of person who cares. In the privacy of the ballot box people tend to vote with their ids or their wallets – and climate change doesn’t suit either of those. 

What happened next?  In August 2001 the Tampa nightmare happened. Or rather, the lies told by John Howard and his goons, almost 25 years ago now, happened. And Howard got another term in which he very predictably did everything he could to stop meaningful climate action. And then he got another term after that. 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: 

April 19, 1973 – first film to mention global warming released (Soylent Green)

April 19, 1943 – the Warsaw Ghetto uprising began.

April 19, 2002 – Exxon got a top #climate scientist sacked.

April 19, 2010 -World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Denial

April 18, 1992 – The Australian carries page one headline “Global Warming May Lower Sea Levels”

On this day 33 years ago

New and conflicting predictions continue to be made. For example, on 18 April 1992 the Australian carried a page one headline ‘Global Warming May Lower Sea Levels’, while later in the business section a case was made against a carbon tax on fossil fuels.  Business interests remain unimpressed by the call to tax themselves.

(Love, 1992:44)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that the international negotiations were grinding on (in face of United States intransigence). The denial and confusion campaigns funded by the “Global Climate Coalition” were grinding out, and tame “journalists” were dutifully regurgitating the lies and calling it a contribution to Informing the Public.

What we learn

The Australian has not been a newspaper for a very long time. A poisonous propaganda rag.

What happened next.

The UNFCCC treaty was toothless, at absolute best worthless. The “journalists” prospered. Murdoch prospered (if you can call it that).  We’re so fubarred.

References

Love, R. 1992. Stranger Weather Still.  Arena 99/100 pp.39-46.

Also on this day

April 18, 1970 – Harold Wilson in York, bigging up UN, rights/obligations

April 18, 1989 – begging letter to world leaders sent

April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” revealed to be bullshit

Categories
Australia

April 17, 2000 – Labor tries to get the green vote…

On this day 25 years ago, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Australian Labor Party was gearing up to use environmental issues to attract voters…  Ha ha ha ha.

Federal Labor is preparing a major push for the green vote at the next election by toughening its stance in key areas including greenhouse gases and mining in national parks.

A draft of its revised policy platform also commits the party to establishing a new independent watchdog, the Commissioner for the Environment.

Labor will also maintain its commitment to examine all legal options to stop the construction of a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney and close the Jabiluka uranium mine in Kakadu National Park.

The Opposition’s environment spokesman, Mr Nick Bolkus, and foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Laurie Brereton, are involved in the push for a revised policy, arguing there is an opportunity to exploit disenchantment with the Government. [Kyoto was removed at August ALP Conference in Hobart by Martyn Edwards and Bob McMullan. But they went to the 2001 election with it, so it got put back at some point…]

Robinson, M. and Clennell, A. 2000. Labor To Push Tough Policy For Green Vote. Sydney Morning Herald, April 17, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that  Australian Prime Minister John Howard was dragging his heels on all environmental issues, and especially renewable energy and other climate issues. 

What we learn. Labor used to pretend harder to care.

What happened next.  Labor lost the 2001 Federal Election. And the 2004 one.  Then – irony of ironies – Kevin Rudd was able to use Howard’s policy vandalism on all matters climate as a stick to beat him with ahead of the 2007 election. Howard became only the second sitting Prime Minister to lose his own seat in the November 2007 election. 

 April 17, 1981 – David Burns writes in New York Times about trouble ahead – All Our Yesterdays

April 17, 1993 – Paul Keating versus the idea of a carbon tax…

April 17, 2007 – UN Security Council finally discusses the most important security issue of all…

Categories
Australia Coal

 April 15, 1994 – Greenpeace sues to stop a coal-fired power station being built

Thirty one years ago, on this day, April 15th, 1994,

Greenpeace yesterday sought to test a new international treaty on global warming for the first time by filing a lawsuit to stop the construction of a $220 million New South Wales power station. The executive director of Greenpeace, Ms Lynette Thorstensen, said the action would test the force of the United Nations convention on climate change, which seeks to cut greenhouse gases.

1994 Kelly, H. 1994. Greenpeace Sues To Halt Building. The Age, 16 April, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which talked about stabilising emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 and of course, Australia had nominally agreed to 20% cut by 2005 though this was totally hedged with caveats to make it meaningless.

Building new coal fired power stations was going to blow an enormous hole in all of that. Ironically, this was the day that the UNFCCC became international law, because 90 days had passed since enough nations had ratified it. 

What I think we can learn from this Is that government pronouncements and policy statements are not worth a bucket of warm spit unless there are vibrant, uncooptable and irrepressible social movements forcing them to keep at least some of their promises. They will promise you anything that you want to hear and worry about the consequences of being caught having broken promises later.

What happened next

Greenpeace lost that court case in, I think, November of 1994 and the coal fired power station got built. 

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: 

April 15, 1965 – Murray Bookchin warns about carbon dioxide build-up

April 15, 1969-  Coventry lecture – Mellanby says Air Pollution could cause flood… – All Our Yesterdays

April 15, 1974 – war criminal Henry Kissinger gives climate danger speech

April 15, 1974 – Kissinger cites climate concerns

Categories
Australia Business Responses

April 14, 2009 – Penny Wong meets the Business Council of Australia, white flag in hand…

Sixteen years ago, on this day, April 14th, 2009,

It’s a clear autumn day in April and Penny Wong and her chief of staff, close friend Don Frater, are in a hire car on their way to Noosa. As the sun shines on the coastal playground and restaurant mecca, the politician and her staffer are far from relaxed. Wong and Frater have flown from Canberra to Maroochydore in the Government VIP, then picked up the hire car for a high-stakes game – navigating their way through the politics of the emissions trading scheme they have massaged and managed for months.

The trip is top secret. Four weeks earlier Wong had faced the uncomfortable truth: the scheme, the mainstay of Kevin Rudd’s green credentials, had become a political nightmare, backed neither by business nor by environmental lobbyists, let alone by any of the parties with the balance of power in the Senate.

Today – April 14 – in Noosa is about a strategic backdown. The target is the president of the Business Council of Australia, Greig Gailey, who is on holiday in the town. Today he opens the door to some very businesslike guests. They want to sound him out about exactly what it would take to win business over.

(Taylor, 2009)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 2006-7 Australian politician Kevin Rudd had used the issue of climate change as a stick to beat Prime Minister John Howard with. Rudd was now enjoying watching the Liberals continue to tear themselves apart on whether or not to support an emissions trading scheme. This was all part of the game of politics. The CPRS legislation was about to be introduced into parliament, and everyone expected it would fall the first time. Which did come to pass. 

What I think we can learn from this is that we do not live in a democracy. We live in a corporate shell game with demonstration elections. And there are people willing to be the hawkers and the sidekicks to that, because the perks are nice. 

What happened next

 The CPRS legislation fell again in November-December, 2009 and Kevin Rudd initially thought this was great that Tony Abbott would tank. But then Copenhagen tanked, and then Rudd seems to have had some sort of breakdown and refused to call a double dissolution election, even though he was advised to. And then, when he pulled the plug on his CPRS (see April 11 post), his popularity plummeted very quickly, and he switched to trying to introduce a liberal resources tax. The rest is, as the podcast title goes, is history. 

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

Taylor, L. 2009. The minister of cool. The Australian Magazine May 23.

Also on this day: 

April 14, 1964 – RIP Rachel Carson

 April 14, 1980 – Carter’s scientist, Frank Press, pushes back against CEQ report – All Our Yesterdays

April 14th, 1989 – 24 US senators call for immediate unilateral climate action

Categories
Australia Energy

April 13, 2007 – smart meters are gonna save us…

Sixteen years ago, on this day, April 13th, 2007, Australian governments said smart-metering was just round the corner,

By April 2007 there was formal agreement by COAG to a national mandated rollout of electricity smart meters to begin by the end of 2008, in locations where an economic case could be made, as summarised in the 13th April 2007 COAG Meeting Communique:

‘‘COAG. . . endorsed a staged approach for the national mandated roll out of electricity smart meters to areas where benefits outweigh costs, as indicated by the results of the cost-benefit analysis which will be completed by the end of 2007.” [COAG (2007): 1]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone in Australia (okay, some people, but a little hyperbole is okay) was running around either actually caring or – more commonly – pretending to care about Saving The World.  In late 2006, as if a switch had been flicked, the issue had broken through, and by December even arch-blocker Prime Minister John Howard had been forced into a U-turn. So here we have various government types having to say they’re going to act. And “smart meters” are part of that whole neo-liberal efficiency discourse, that sorta sounds okay until you think how it comes up against Jevons Paradox, techno-failure and the use of technology to surveil populations.

What I think we can learn from this

Policies can be announced. Doesn’t mean they’re gonna get implemented.

What happened next

Fast forward to November 2024-

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) has announced a final rule requiring smart meters to be deployed across the National Electricity Market (NEM) by 2030.  

This reform aims to modernise Australia’s energy system and accelerate the transition to renewable energy. 

Smart meters are essential for enabling a connected, efficient energy system and achieving net zero targets. 

The reforms include: 

  • faster smart meter deployment to help households and businesses access savings and energy benefits sooner 
  • improving network access to important power quality data for better network management, reduced costs and improved safety. 

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

(Lovell, 2017:103) Lovell, H. 2017. Mobile policies and policy streams: The case of smart metering policy in Australia. Geoforum, 81, pp.100-108.

Also on this day: 

April 13, 1968 – the New Yorker glosses air pollution, mentions carbon dioxide

April 13, 1992 – Denialist tosh – “The origins of the alleged scientific consensus”

April 13, 2011 – GE and others say Gillard is on right track

Categories
Australia

April 11, 2010- Rudd fails to make a decision about the CPRS

Fifteen years ago, on this day, April 11th, 2010, Kevin Rudd’s collegial personality and organisation are on full display

The confusion was so overwhelming that some central participants genuinely cannot agree on when a formal decision to dump the [CPRS] scheme was made. A majority recall that it happened at a meeting of the Gang of Four in Brisbane on 11 April 2010.” 

(Chubb, 2014: 106)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd grand plan  for getting the carbon pollution reduction scheme through Parliament had failed when the Liberals axed Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott took charge. 

But the initial response to Turnbull’s toppling was of delight, because the perception was that Abbott would destroy the Liberals, and that people were ready to vote on climate. However, then the Copenhagen conference was a failure, and Rudd, by all accounts had some sort of breakdown. Always chaotic, he was never able to advance a discussion in a collegial manner. And there was a chaotic meeting on this day in 2010 according to the various accounts compiled by Paul Kelly. Philip Chubb and others, where it was somehow agreed that the CPRS would be dumped, but the “optics” of it, were never considered.

This would come back to bite Rudd, very firmly on the arse, not very much longer later.

What we learn is that the people “running the show” are often unable to run themselves and to run an effective decision making process. 

What happened next? Rudd pivoted to a minerals tax, which faced enormous opposition from Rio Tinto and others. But that wasn’t what did for Rudd. What did for Rudd was that his henchman briefed a journalist about the loyalty of his deputy, Julia Gillard. And that set off an absolutely monumental chain of events.

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: 

April 11th, 1987 – A matter of… Primo Levi’s death

 April 11, 1989 – “Ark” sinks its cred

April 11 – Interview with Sophie Gabrielle about memes vs Armageddon….

April 11, 2014 – Greenpeace China releases coal report – All Our Yesterdays