Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 25, 2008 – More economic “modelling” against an emissions trading scheme

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2008 the “sky will fall if we do anything to reduce emissions and here is some economic modelling to ‘prove’ it” bullshit continued, as the Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) release ACIL Tasman modelling, which of course gets uncritical splashes in the Murdoch press.

At the same time, will-be Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull joins then-Liberal leader Brendan Nelson in saying “delay the implementation of an emissions trading scheme.”

Federal opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has fallen into step behind his leader, declaring an emission trading scheme shouldn’t be introduced until it is in Australia’s interest.

In government, the coalition supported a start date of 2012, but earlier this week leader Brendan Nelson indicated it would reject the legislation until big polluting countries agreed to reduce their emissions.

Mr Turnbull, a former environment minister, had steadfastly supported a 2012 start date – until now.

“An emissions trading scheme shouldn’t start until it is ready and until it is in Australia’s interest for it to start,” Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio.

“The government is definitely rushing this, 2010 is far too soon.”

AAP, 2008. Govt ‘rushing’ carbon trading: Turnbull. AAP, 25 July. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. 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 the use of “independent” economic modelling to say that any emissions reductions efforts would lead directly to Stone Age cannibalism was a favoured tactic of the incumbents (why change a game that had been winning since the early 1990s?).

The specific context was John Howard, who had killed off two Emissions Trading Scheme proposals brought to Cabinet in 2000 and 2003 had been forced into a u-turn in late 2006. The next Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had said he’d bring an ETS in, and various incumbent outfits were trying to delay the start date, while also creating all sorts of loopholes and give-aways.

What I think we can learn from this is that the opponents of policy always have fall-back positions. If they can’t stop something in the short-term, they’ll try to soften the blows. This also means that the policy will probably be less effective and easier to reverse in future. A nice little ancillary benefit…

What happened next – Rudd, and his underling Penny Wong, continued to give ground and give ground. Eventually Rudd’s CPRS scheme failed to get through parliament, thanks to new opposition leader Tony Abbott. Rather than call a double-dissolution election, the spineless Rudd pivoted, and tanked his credibility and popularity, which had remained inexplicably high until that point. All this led indirectly to serious blood-letting and bed-wetting. The Australian Labor Party learned all the wrong lessons, and is now just the PR mouthpiece and stabvest for the mining sector. Oh well, so it goes.

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 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia Energy

July 25, 1989 – “Mineral Fuel Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect”

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 25th, 1989, 

Mineral Fuels Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect Seminar in Melbourne

Australian Institute of Metallurgy

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 from 1988 – thanks in part to the domestic work of the “Greenhouse Project” (a collaboration of the CSIRO’s atmospheric physics division and the Commission for the Future) – Australian public debate about the greenhouse effect and what to do about it high.

The specific context was that debates about how to reduce domestic carbon dioxide emissions were about what else besides coal (then dominant) might keep the lights on. Might it be natural gas?

What I think we can learn from this is that there were debates about replacing coal waaaaay back when.

What happened next – the coal lobby fought back (obvs) and even though the debate on natural gas continued, ultimately it was wind and solar that finally began eating into coal’s dominance, in the 2010s. Meanwhile, Australia’s per capita emissions remain staggeringly high, and the impacts of climate change are beginning to bite. Billions of cooked animals. What a species 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: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 24, 2011 – Rubbery numbers about Gillard’s carbon pricing proposal are disputed…

On this day 14 years ago, the trade publication Australian Mining ran the following – 

Climate change groups have dismissed the anti-carbon tax ad blitz launched on Sunday, and its ‘shaky numbers’.

Industry groups came together as the Australian Trade Industry Alliance (ATIA) to create an ad campaign to derail the Government’s carbon pricing scheme, NineMSN reports.

In the ads, ATIA says only $4.9 billion was generated in Europe over the first six and half year by a carbon tax, as compared to a potential $71 billion over the period in Australia.

The Climate Institute have hit out at the advertisement, saying neither the alliance nor its figures, should be believed.

Not only was the $71 billion amount $10 billion off, but the campaign failed to mention that over six years Europe will generate $143 billion, the group said.

“This new industry alliance is just another shady front group with more shaky numbers as they argue for more delay, exemptions or special treatments,” the institute’s John Connor stated.

Anti-carbon tax ads slammed – Australian Mining

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. A carbon tax had been mooted in 1989, and fierce battles against it fought, especially in 1994-5. Liberal Prime Minister John Howard had defeated various emissions trading schemes, but eventually the tide turned and from 2007 onwards the political and economic elites had been wrangling. Kevin Rudd had comprehensively failed and his assassin/replacement Julia Gillard had hoped to kick the issue into the long grass, but parliamentary arithmetic did not allow (i.e. her government relied upon Greens and pro-climate action independents).

The specific context was that Gillard had announced the details of the scheme, and of course a huge anti- campaign had begun…

What I think we can learn from this is that even the mildest of actions are not acceptable to those who really run the show.

What happened next was that Gillard’s legislation got through (she had a remarkable record, btw, of getting legislation through).  But the carbon pricing scheme was then abolished by the next PM, a thug by the name of Tony Abbott, whose down party found him unacceptable a little over a year after 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: 

July 24, 1977 – Climate change as red light? “No, but flashing yellow.”

July 24, 1980 – “Global 2000” report released.

Categories
Australia

July 22, 1996 – “Gremlins in the Greenhouse”? No.

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, July 22nd, 1996,

Gremlins in the Greenhouse. On 22 July [1996] Dr Murray Rowden-Rich outlined the latest ice-cap research, which suggests that internal ice cap dynamics may be a major factor influencing global climate change.

Source – Tasman Institute 1996 Annual Review

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. 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 the denialist campaigns in Australia had begun to kick into gear by 1989-1990. It was largely “subcontracted” to so-called “Think tanks” like the IPA and the Tasman Institute, which acted as an attack dog on environmental policy.

The specific context was that although Australian policy elites had decided no on carbon pricing domestically, and the new Liberal National Party government of John Howard was unlikely to backtrack, there was still the spectre of international entanglements (the Berlin Mandate etc). And also, just laying down suppressing fire, in the form of ongoing doubt-seeding and confusion-boosting.

What I think we can learn from this is that outfits like the Tasman Institute come and go (gone by 1997, as surplus to requirements), but the ideology behind them goes on, of course. 

What happened next – the denial campaigns kicked into higher gear in 2000, with the fear that a Labor government might end up ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. They kicked into even higher gear in 2006-7, when carbon pricing looked likely.

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 22, 1966 – “The Conservation Society” holds launch event

July 22, 1968 – Gordon Macdonald tries to warn about carbon dioxide build-up…

July 22, 1991 – two #climate idiots on the Science Show

Categories
Australia Denial

July 20, 1995 – Patrick Moore at the National Press Club

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 20th, 1995 the Canadian Patrick Moore, who did not, in fact, co-found Greenpeace, speaks at National Press Club in Canberra.

Hard choices for the environmental movement, Greenspirit or Greenpeace

You can listen to it if you like – 59 minutes of your life you will never get back…

See also  22 Jul 1995 – Saturday FORUM Internal tensions threaten environmental successes – Trove

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 by the early 1990s (earlier, really) the incumbents had figured out that a mix of scientists and “environmentalists” who accused others of being alarmists would be a very very effective way of dampening concern….

The specific context was various Australian groups had become adept at inviting US and Canadian public figures and experts to Australia for speaking jaunts – guaranteed to get some free publicity, spread some confusion.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are a limited number (perhaps) of tactics, and incumbents know how and when to use them.

What happened next – the Keating Government (toast by this point) was replaced the following March, 1996, by the a Liberal/National government of John Howard, and these sorts of speaking tours became less necessary for a long time. 

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 20, 1989 – Bob Hawke fumbles the green football…

July 20, 2014- the “Green Blob” blamed

Categories
Australia

July 15, 1994 – ALP and BCA in good cop bad cop routine

Thirty one years ago, on this day, July 15th, 1994, a former Treasurer admits that there is a “good cop bad cop” routine going on with the peak business body.

The Business Council of Australia was the dominant influence on Labor’s reform agenda in the past decade, at the expense of other employer groups and the party’s traditional union supporters, according to the former Treasurer Mr John Dawkins.

Such was the intimacy of the relationship, Mr Dawkins claimed, that it had been useful on occasions to have the BCA appear to be a critic of the Government’s performance.

Williams, P. and Ellis, S. (1994) DAWKINS KISSES AND TELLS ON BCA. Australian Financial Review, July 15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 the ALP had always had a “complicated” relationship with business, and if its leadership got too determined to do anything, well, there could always be a change of leadership, either by elections dominated by propaganda or, as a last resort, the Governor-General… This is a story repeated with social democratic parties everywhere…

The specific context was that Australia’s economy had been “opened up” (tariffs down, dollar floated etc) from the mid-1980s onwards, in the name of “reform”, which somehow magically morphed into the rich getting richer and the poor really getting the picture. The BCA, set up in 1983, played a key part in all this.

What I think we can learn from this is that the means by which policy is made – and the way nominally independent political parties are shaped – is not theorised very well by academics, who are not nearly as bright as they think they are.

What happened next – the wealth inequality in Australia, already accelerating under Keating, became turbo-charged under Howard (1996-2007). And the emissions kept climbing, though hidden behind accounting tricks and dodgy numbers – and the atmospheric concentrations 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: 

July 15, 1968 – first(?) UK government attention to the possibility of climate

July 15, 1977 – “Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate”

July 15, 2005 – The “Stern Review” into #climate is announced…

Categories
Australia Health

July 14, 1996 – Australian Medical Association and Greenpeace

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, July 14th, 1996 in the midst of the second COP meeting, in Geneva the Australian Medical Association and Greenpeace combine to issue a report

Tens of millions of additional deaths a year are predicted worldwide early next century from heat waves, starvation and epidemics of infectious diseases, in a landmark report on the health impact of climate change from the greenhouse effect.

The findings increase pressure on the Howard Government to soften its pro-industry stand against action to protect the world’s climate at this week’s climate summit in Geneva.

The new report, by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Program, concluded that immediate action to combat global climate change was warranted.

In an unprecedented alliance, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and Greenpeace jointly launched the report in Sydney yesterday, soon after its release in Geneva. Both groups called on the Howard Government to step up actions to reduce emissions of harmful greenhouse gases.

Gilchrist, G. (1996) Act Now Or Risk Health Of Millions: Study Sydney Morning Herald July 15, p.5

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 COP2 was crucial, and the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network were helping the Howard government push back against the promises made in Berlin the previous year – that the rich nations would turn up in 1997’s climate conference with actual commitments to reduce emissions. 

The specific context was that Greenpeace had been trying to find allies in the climate fight – be it re-insurers, medics, whatever. They knew what was at stake. 

What I think we can learn from this is that outfits like Greenpeace did the right thing – trying to build alliances, explain what was at stake. Meanwhile, the wreckers were building coalitions of their own. More vicious, better funded. Guess who won?

What happened next. The emissions kept climbing. By the third decade of the 21st century, the consequences were being felt. Many nastier consequences to come….

Greenpeace and the AMA held a conference in 1996

See book – – Climate change and human health in the Asia-Pacific Region / edited by Peter Curson, Charles Guest, Erwin Jackson.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/24537948

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 14, 2000 – Miners versus the ALP/ and climate action

July 14, 2011 – “Four Degrees or More: Australia in a Hot World” conference closes

Categories
Australia

July 13, 1999 – Australia’s emissions climbing. Obvs.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, July 13th, 1999,

Opposition and Conservation groups attacked the Government’s greenhouse performance yesterday over revelations of a 16.9 per cent rise in greenhouse-gas emissions between 1990 and 1998. Labor environment spokesman Nick Bolkus said there was ‘no way’ Australia would meet its Kyoto greenhouse targets based on National Greenhouse Gas Inventory figures, which showed a record annual jump in emissions from 1997 to 1998. Australia has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to no more than 8 per cent above 1990 levels by 2010 under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Webb, H. 1999. Emission Levels Put Cabinet Under Fire. Canberra Times, July 14, p.2.

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 Australia’s political elites had made some of the right noises on climate change in the period 1988 to 1990, but then started backtracking and weaselling.

The specific context was that since 1996 the Liberal government of John Howard had been less apologetic, and in fact almost gleeful about not bothering on emissions reductions.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been knowing that we were heading in the wrong direction, at faster and faster speed, for a generation. But our political systems, and those in them, well, shoulder shrug…

What happened next Shoulder shrugs! Eventually (2006-7) Labor used the climate issue as a way of dislodging John Howard. Then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd played politics with the issue rather than getting something decent through. And then Julia Gillard (who toppled him) had to guide an emissions trading scheme through parliament. And then Tony Abbott came in and tore it up. Worst soap opera ever.

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 13, 1971 – Stephen Schneider “predicts” an ice age (so the myth goes)

July 13, 2013 – future Australian PM ridiculed for #climate idiocy

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 12, 2011 – Tony Abbott and the The Australia Institute

Fourteen years ago, on this day, July 12th, 2011, 

The whole purpose of the carbon tax is to phase out the coal industry…. Now, I think that the coal industry is the foundation of a modern economy. I think that affordable power is essential to Australia’s economic future. I don’t want to close down the coal industry… the Government’s own figures they say that coal will go from 80 percent of our power generation to 10 percent or 25 percent, if you include clean coal using various forms of sequestration. So, the Government’s own figures involve a radical downsizing and ultimate demise of the coal industry (emphasis added Abbott,2011a).

T.,Abbott, 2011a.Transcript of joint doorstop interview:Dandenong South, Victoria, 12 July:JuliaGillard’scarbontax. 〈http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/down load/media/pressrel/922506/upload_binary/922506.pdf〉.

And

12 July 2011: Australia Institute publishes a detailed analysis of direct action and building on past schemes suggests around $100 billion would be needed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. 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 the Liberal Party, after a brief flirtation with competing for small-g green votes in 1990, had decided to stick with their mining mates and the culture war (unlike Labor, which wants to stick with its mining mates while NOT having a culture war).

The specific context was that from late 2006 the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide became “mainstreamed” (after long long resistance). But in late 2009 Tony Abbott became Opposition Leader, and ended that fragile consensus. He used carbon pricing as a scare campaign about the “great big tax on everything” on his way to become Prime Minister.

What I think we can learn from this is that political parties are not meritocracies around intelligence, integrity or vision. They are bear pits, where the most vicious and determined rise to the top.

What happened next. Abbott became Prime Minister (god help us) and abolished the (inadequate) carbon pricing scheme that Julia Gillard had managed to push through. And the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide? Up and up and up of course.

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 12, 1953 – “The Weather is Really Changing” says New York Times

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

July 12, 2007 – #Australia gets swindled on #climate change…

Categories
Australia

July 11, 1972 – Gay rights vs ABC

Fifty-three years ago, on this day, July 11th, 1972,

At one peaceful protest, outside the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) headquarters on 11 July 1972, against the refusal by ABC management to show a segment on Gay Liberation (that featured Dennis Altman) on This Day Tonight, McDiarmid was arrested, the first such arrest at a gay rights protest in Australia.[6]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 327ppm. 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 the Black Civil Rights struggle of the 1950s onwards had acted as an “initiator” movement with spin-offs for second wave feminism, Puerto Rican rights, “ecology” and … gay rights.

Also, homosexuality was still criminalised, with all the attendant fear, opportunities for police brutality, extortion, shakedowns, blackmail etc.

The specific context was that brave men and women decided they weren’t going to live like that any more, under those conditions.

What I think we can learn from this is that outfits like the ABC are not the friend of progressive organisations and ideas. They have to be pushed (hard) even to be relatively “neutral”. That’s not to say there aren’t brave and principled journos working within them, producing solid work.

What happened next – South Australia led the way in decriminalisation (it took the death of a nice middle-class man at the hands of the police – RIP George Duncan). Other states followed.

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 11, 1968 – The UN Secretary-General, U Thant, delivers report on Human Environment that mentions carbon dioxide and climate change

July 11, 1989 – Australia says “sure, we’ll take #climate refugees.” Yeah, nah.

July 11, 1994 – Australian Environment Minister admits not clear if Australia hitting targets (spoilers, it wasn’t) 

July 11, 1996 – Celebrity Death Match: Australian fossil fuels industry versus The World (Spoiler: world lost)

July 11, 2013- “don’t be evil” my fat arse….