Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 12, 1995 – Australian carbon tax coming??

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, January 12th 1995 the game of chicken and dare around a carbon price in Australia was coming to a head. A front page story in the Canberra Times began as follows,

“A greenhouse gas levy remains firmly on the Government’s agenda, with the bureaucratic working group responsible for developing the levy meeting for the first time yesterday.”

 Henderson, I. 1995. Greenhouse gas levy remains to the fore. The Canberra Times, 12 January, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Conservation Foundation (a big green NGO) and others had been pushing for a carbon tax for years initially as part of the Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process. And although they had suffered defeats, they didn’t let it go. New Environment Minister John Faulkner had taken that on board and he had also taken on board Phlilip Toyne who had been a major force in the Australian green movement as head of the Australian Conservation Foundation. 

What we can learn is that there is a great deal of believing when you’re top of the web or “dissent ecosystem”, (not that you can be at the ‘top’ of such a thing) in that when you’re a big player it’s tempting to believe that you can join the system and change the system from within. Then there’s a logic to doing so, or wanting to do so: beyond easy claims and smears of careerism, and parlaying radicalism to take one of the jobs for the boys. Toyne tried. He failed to get the tax up – but that was because the opposition to it was clear and clever and the support for it did not have its shit together.

What happened next a month and two days after this was in the newspapers, Environment Minister John Faulkner pulled the plug on a carbon tax. Instead, there was a meaningless voluntary scheme, the Greenhouse Challenge, which was reheated a couple of times, but frankly, never amounted to a bucket of warm spit. 

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: 

Jan 12, 1983 – RIP to the “master organizer in the world of science”, Carroll Wilson

January 12, 2008 – Australian mining lobby group ups its “sustainability” rhetoric #PerceptionManagement #Propaganda   

Categories
Australia

December 30, 2006 – “Industry snubs climate strategy”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, December 30, 2006, the coal-floggers were, surprise surprise, not happy with spending money on climate change mitigation…

Australia’s coal-fired electricity industry has dismissed the Federal Government’s key strategy to cut the nation’s escalating greenhouse emissions as too expensive, financially risky and untested. The National Generators Forum, the 21 companies that dominate Australia’s power industry say the Government’s plans to rely heavily on carbon capture and underground storage to clean up emissions from coal burning are unrealistic, and will not work. Its members are also not convinced carbon dioxide is linked to climate change.

Beeby, R. 2006. Industry snubs climate strategy. Canberra Times, 30 December.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Howard government had been forced – kicking and screaming – to start to seriously pretend that it was going to do something about Australia’s domestic emissions. Howard had appointed a bunch of business types to the so-called Shergold Report committee, and was trying to make the right noises. But for some of the knuckle-draggers it wasn’t enough – they didn’t get that it was all kayfabe…

What I think we can learn from this

There are always knuckle-draggers and the climate skepticism thing is entertaining… But they were also right about CCS not working -l and this is one of those pivotal moments which, if I had my time over, I’d explore again.

What happened next

Howard’s Shergold Report thing convinced no one – it just made him look weak and he got his ass handed to him in the November 2007 election. He was, I think, only the second Prime Minister to lose his seat in an election. 

CCS went nowhere in terms of reality, but continues to have a wonderful life in Australia as a fantasy technology.

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

December 19, 2010 – CCS dies in Queensland

Thirteen years ago, on this day, December 19, 2010, the CCS dream dies.

“The announcement by the Queensland Government that it plans to transition out of the Zerogen vehicle, does not signal a significant impediment to the continued development and demonstration of CCS technologies in Queensland,” Mr Hillman said. In its announcement today the Queensland Government makes it clear that it remains committed to the development of CCS and will continue to be a significant funder of this technology along with the Commonwealth Government and industry.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the CCS bubble was bursting because promises were not being backed up and investors were taking a long hard look at the numbers and of course by this time it wasn’t clear when or even if there would ever be a carbon price in Australia, and whether it would be high enough. But you’d need a seriously high carbon price to make CCS work and if you had a really high carbon price you’d incentivise other forms of electricity generation such as wind and solar ahead of coal-supported CCS – just the facts of life.

What I think we can learn from this 

CCS keeps falling over and it keeps being put back up on its feet, a bit like nuclear, because there are strong lobby groups trying to help it to happen, and it helps the numbers add up.

What happened next

 CCS died in Australia but as all has been put on life-support and is now still being supported in 2023 by people who who either too thick to know better or do know better. 

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

 December 16, 2008 – “The Australian” attacks on climate change

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 16, 2008, the “news” paper the Australian goes to town on Kevin Rudd’s (admittedly wretched) white paper about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Kevin Rudd had become Australian Prime Minister in November 2007. A large part of his “offer” was to do something about climate change. He had sidelined independent expert Ross Garnaut for being too independent, and set up a green paper and white paper process. There had been enormous lobbying and in the words of Garnaut “never had so much been given by so many to so few” 

The Australian had been largely sceptical, talking up both scientific doubts and economic consequences. And of course this is in the context of global financial crisis which had started in September 2008.

The white paper had been released to mostly disappointment (and a physical protest at the National Press Club) a week earlier and this Australian page 3 page spread is part of the response.

What I think we can learn from this is that some people thought Rudd was going far too far others thought that there was no ambition. The latter were correct.

What happened next

Rudd bottled it. In 2009 Rudd tried twice to get legislation through with virtually no skill. The contrast with Julia Gillard with the minority government in 2011 is remarkable.

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

December 16, 2004 – “2 degrees of warming to be a catastrophe”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, December 16, 2004, we got another warning.

SCIENTISTS have warned of the catastrophic consequences of a 2C rise in global temperatures.

They say it could threaten Latin American water supplies, cut food yields in Asia and lead to a rise in extreme weather in the Caribbean.

The warnings were issued in a report led by a group of European scientists and presented at a UN conference on climate change. It was released as delegates from almost 200 nations refined details of the Kyoto Protocol, a global warming treaty, to be implemented in February.

Hobart Mercury (2004) Just 2C could ruin us Hobart Mercury 16th December

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that through the 2000s scientists became more certain and more desperate about the impacts of a rapidly warming world. And some newspapers would pick up on this periodically, although the Hobart Mercury is part of Murdoch’s stable, it for whatever reason had always had slightly more independence (being, I think, the only Murdoch paper that did not support the Iraq War).

What I think we can learn from this

We have known exactly what was coming for us, and we have not acted. Of course unpacking that “we” is crucial. It mostly means our lords and masters…

What happened next

We did not act on this warning and all the other warnings that have come since. There is also such a thing as “too late.”

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 Denial

December 15, 2009 – Monbiot versus Plimer on Lateline

Fourteen years ago, on this day, December 15, 2009, UK commentator George Monbiot took on and demolished Australian geologist Ian Plimer.

2009 Monbiot versus Pilmer on Lateline http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs

http://www.monbiot.com/2009/12/17/showdown-with-plimer/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was talking climate because of the recently concluded Copenhagen conference and the general upsurge in concern over the previous three years. Plimer had written a book called “Heaven and Earth” which has become a major denialist tract. Monbiot was always up for a ruck. Monbiot had already put paid to David Bellamy’s appearances by pointing out that Bellamy had completely misunderstood an aspect of glacier retreat.

What I think we can learn from this

That is rare for a single intellectual crushing and humiliation to particularly matter, but cumulatively they can, I guess.

What happened next

Plimer kept plimering. Monbiot kept publishing. Kevin Rudd did not announce the double dissolution election in response to the blockage of his wretched legislation. The Australia climate wars just got worse. 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..

Categories
Australia

 December 10, 2006 – Shergold Group announced

Seventeen years ago, on this day, December 10, 2006 Australian Prime Minister John Howard, cornered on the subject of climate change, undertakes a U-turn that convinces absolutely no-one (but gives ‘conservative’ commentators something to write about while convincing themselves that all is well).

Shergold Group announced – J Howard (Prime Minister), Prime Ministerial Task Group On Emissions Trading, media release, 10 December 2006. Reports on 31 may 2007

On the same day, 10 December, as bushfires ravaged north-eastern Victoria and Sydney’s dam levels dropped ever lower, Howard appointed a high-level business and government taskforce to report on global emissions trading options by May 2007…. It has a whiff of big business panicking a little because having delayed action for so long, the main polluters will be fearful of Labor designing a future trading scheme rather than one designed by a Coalition government.

(Hogarth, 2007:32) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australians had – almost 20 years after the previous wave – become agitated (or at least agitatable) about climate change, in the context of the seemingly-endless Millennium Drought, and international factors (including Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth). Meanwhile, Federal Labor politician Kevin Rudd had been banging on about it, and getting traction. By the time the Shergold thing was actually announced (it must have been on the drawing board for a while?) Rudd had become opposition leader, and it was clear climate was going to be a key tool in Rudd’s attempt to unseat Howard at the next Federal Election, which had to happen by December 2007. 

What I think we can learn from this

When they are cornered, politicians will resort to “task forces” which will produce reports. They hope this will remove the oxygen from the issue, and that they can say they are “listening”/consulting. It’s an old tactic, but it works (see also Macmillan Manoeuvre).

What happened next

The Shergold Report was released the following May, but did not achieve the closure/diversion that Howard clearly wanted it to. Events overtook it, the tide of opinion had decisively shifted. Howard was toast. Not that Rudd was actually any better on the issue. 

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

On the sudden coming of the climate issue in late 2006, see The Third Degree by Murray Hogarth.

Categories
Australia Denial

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

Twenty five years ago, on this day, December 9, 1998, a Howard minister talked the usual nonsense so that enough concerned Liberal voters would stay asleep.

Media Release Statement by Senator Nick Minchin Minister for Industry, Science and Resources

 Wednesday, 9 December 1998 98/047

Canberra businesses commit to the Greenhouse Challenge 

Canberra has an important role to play in demonstrating the nation’s commitment to the environment, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, and Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill said today.

The Ministers were speaking at Greenhouse Challenge Day at Parliament House in Canberra. Greenhouse Challenge is a joint industry-Government program, designed to encourage business to take a voluntary and self-regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This most commonly involves improvements in energy and process efficiency.

“The Greenhouse Challenge has had a positive impact on the environment and energy management systems in place here at Parliament House.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media/pressrel/2R006%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Howard government, in the run up to the Kyoto meeting, had undertaken an intense diplomatic push against strong commitments being imposed on Australia. Domestically, in October 1997 Howard had made a speech with impressive sounding but actually empty nonsense about a Renewable Energy Target, and the creation of the “Australian Greenhouse Office” (see link). This announcement was part of the ongoing con.

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians say any old nonsense if it will get them what they want. There are enough confused/cynical liberals (small l) who choose not to see that they are being conned. If they did see they were being conned, they would either have to admit they were gullible/corrupt/complicit, or get off their arses. Neither option is attractive…

What happened next

Minchin was the guy who led the successful charge against an emissions training scheme in 2000. 

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 Scientists

 December 8, 2003 – Chief Scientific Advisor under microscope for Rio Tinto role

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 8, 2003, the Australian chief scientific adviser was being asked to explain about how he squared offering impartial advice with his other day-job of … working for Rio Tinto.

Questions raised over chief scientist’s Rio Tinto role 8 December 2003 – Reporter: Andrew Fowler (no longer on ABC website). See also Scorcher by Clive Hamilton

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard clearly did not give a shit about climate change, and wasn’t bothered who knew it.

Formal scientific advice channels to Australian Prime Ministers had started in 1989 with the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council, under Ralph Slayter. And one of the first things they talked about – well, climate change (link).

What I think we can learn from this

Australia is essentially a quarry with a state attached to it; not so much a banana republic, as a coal republic. But we will persist with our pretences…

Fun fact – Labor are not that much better. In 2011 Penny Sackett resigned because Gillard et al. were not listening. This is not about personalities or dispositions – political parties are there to manage the state for “better” capital accumulation.

What happened next

Batterham eventually stepped aside.

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 Pricing

December 4, 1989 – Greenhouse tax urged…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, December 4, 1989 a climate action advocate suggested a perfectly sensible economic response to climate change – tax things that are unhealthy, as governments were doing for cigarettes…

The Federal Government should move to control car exhaust emissions and expand the public transport system to discourage people from using cars, a greenhouse effect expert said in Melbourne on Tuesday. [December 4/]

Dr Ian Lowe, the Director of Science Policy Research Centre at Brisbane’s Griffith University, was speaking at the launch of his book explaining the greenhouse effect’s repercussions and ways to avoid them.

He predicted a transport system dominated by hydrogen and electric cars in 50 years.

Some countries already issued fuel efficiency targets for cars, taxing car-owners according to how well they met the targets, while others issued mandatory efficiency targets for company-operated fleets, he said.

Anon. 1989. Greenhouse gas tax urged. Green Week, December 5, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone had been talking about the problem, and possible targets, for a year. But what, specifically, to do? Well, a tax is a logical response to an environmental problem, 

What is amazing is just how little traction it got. Of course, there was a very successful campaign. First against the existence of the problem then the fallback position is to admit that there might be a problem but the solution is too expensive. 

What I think we can learn from this

We knew enough and we didn’t act. 

What happened next

We didn’t put any taxes or prices, or economic disincentives in place. And guess what happened? Business as usual, which is literally destroying the planet’s ecosystems.

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..