Category: Australia

Categories
Australia United States of America

November 22, 1996 – Clinton in Australia, gives climate speech about Great Barrier Reef…

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, November 22nd, 1996, freshly re-elected US President Bill Clinton is in Australia….

“Finally, we must work to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. These gases released by cars and power plants and burning forests affect our health and our climate. They are literally warming our planet. If they continue unabated, the consequences will be nothing short of devastating for the children here in this audience and their children.

“New weather patterns, lost species, the spread of infectious diseases, damaged economies, rising sea levels: if present trends continue, there is a real risk that sometime in the next century, parts of this very park we are here in today could disappear, submerged by a rising ocean. That is why today, from this remarkable place, I call upon the community of nations to agree to legally binding commitments to fight climate change.”

Remarks on the International Coral Reef Initiative in Port Douglas, Australia | The American Presidency Project

Prime Minister John Howard dissed it of course – see Gordon, M. 1996. “Howard defends stand on emissions.” The Australian, November 25, p.4.

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 Clinton had started his first term with promises of climate action, and then had his arse handed to him over the BTU tax.

The specific context was that Clinton had just won re-election, defeating Bob Dole, and knew that there would be fun and games ahead, internationally, because the Kyoto conference was coming up in December 1997. Given the Australian stance at COP2, it was clear there was gonna be Australian resistance and shitfuckery.

What I think we can learn from this – Clinton was not stupid. Corrupt, venal, slimy, yes. Stupid, no.

What happened next – Australia spent 1997 demanding special treatment, and got it, carving out an increase in emissions as its emissions “reductions” target.

Obama made some nice speeches.

http://www.news.com.au/national/18-years-on-us-president-barack-obama-follows-bill-clinton-to-queensland-for-the-same-outcome/news-story/32318f45fbde89461f9e5fba8db343c0   

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: 

November 22, 2000 – protests at COP6 at The Hague

November 22, 2002 – private business battles on #climate become public in Australia

November 22, 2004 – another denialist screed foisted upon the world

Categories
Australia

November 21, 1997 – Shell is getting out of Aussie coal

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, November 21st, 1997,

ENERGY giant Shell is considering pulling out of coal production in Australia in what would be the first major move anywhere in the world by a multinational company to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The Dutch chairman of the corporation, Mr Cor Herstroter, has told two London newspapers the groups’ coal assets “were at present under review with the aim of divestment”. But Shell Australia executives yesterday played down the reports from London, claiming that the company fully intended to stay in coal production.

Benson, S. 1997. Coal too hot for Shell. Daily Telegraph, November 21

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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, awash in cash in the 1970s, oil companies had bought up all sorts of assets. Some they got out of quickly, others, more slowly. 

The specific context was Shell was having a think…

What I think we can learn from this – companies invest, divest, everything changes.

What happened next – Shell did in fact get rid of its Australian coal mines…

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: 

November 21, 1969 – the first permanent ARPANET link – All Our Yesterdays

November 21, 1978 – Sydney Channel Ten news on Carbon Dioxide build-up and trouble ahead – All Our Yesterdays

November 21, 1994 – Skeptic invited to engage with IPCC (Spoiler, he doesn’t)

November 21, 2013 – “Cut the Green Crap” said UK Prime Minister

November 21 2023 – EU: CDR AOK – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

November 20, 1997 – John Howard’s safeguarding bullshit

Twenty-eight years ago, on this day, November 20th, 1997, Australian Prime Minister John Howard gives a “everything is cool” speech, leading to birth of the Australian Greenhouse Organisation (AGO) and the Mandatory Renewables Energy Target (MRET)

Greens Senator Bob Brown concluded:

A$65 million for renewable energy over five years… does not even retrieve the A$75 million (over five years) lost when the Energy Research and Development Corporation and Renewable Energy Industry Programs were abolished…. The target of an extra 2% of electricity from renewables (making a total of 11% including current large-scale hydro electricity generation) compares miserably with international standards (e.g. Britain’s target of 20% from renewables by 2010)… There are no targets for energy efficiency… There is no move to halt clearing of native vegetation which accounts for 23% of emissions.

(Taplin and Yu, 2000: 104)  [Big Brother and the Chocolate Rations]

R Brown, PM’s Greenhouse Package – 18% Increase! Media Release, Australian Senate, 20 November 1997

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 Australian policy elites had decided not to do anything about climate change by about 1994. John Howard turbo-charged that contempt for future generations when he became Prime Minister in 1996.

The specific context was that Howard had spent 1997 sending emissaries to try to carve out the sweetest deal possible at the December 1997 COP in Kyoto.  He had come under some pressure from within the Liberal Party (from grandees who had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up for decades) and also needed to pretend to care to shore up the small-l liberal voting block. Therefore, this wretched speech.

What I think we can learn from this – just because they are evil denialists, doesn’t mean they lack the skills to manipulate people.

What happened next – the vaunted “Australian Greenhouse Office” was a joke – its boss never even got to brief Howard once.  The whole thing fell apart, and Howard did everything he could to slow the growth of renewables too (for example, this).

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

J Howard, ‘Safeguarding the future: Australia’s response to climate change’, House of Representatives, ministerial statement, Debates, 20 November 1997. 

Also on this day: 

November 20, 1930 – the Fox is born!! 

November 20, 1973 – “Is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Disintegrating?”

November 20, 1974 – BBC airs “The Weather Machine”

November 20, 1974 – “The Weather Machine” is broadcast – All Our Yesterdays

November 20, 1988 – Will Thatcher pick up the Green Gauntlet? (spoiler: no, no she won’t) – All Our Yesterdays

November 20, 2008 – Green capitalism flexes a (weak) BICEP

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

November 16, 2009 – who is going to PAY for CCS? Well, you, obvs.

Sixteen years ago, on this day, November 16th, 2009,

A recently-released report by the World Coal Institute (WCI) on how to finance the experimental Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology for power stations, reminded me of a cartoon from years ago by the Australian cartoonist, Patrick Cook. In the cartoon, a huge bloated budgie (parakeet) with the letters “BHP” emblazoned on its chest, was holding a gun to its own head while proclaiming to a cowering politician, “Hand over the loot or the budgie gets it.” (At the time, BHP — which owned iron ore mines and steel mills — was haggling for government support for its ailing steel operations).

Burton. B. 2009. The Coal Industry Wants Your Cash to Save Them. PR Watch, 16 November.

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2009/11/8696/coal-industry-wants-your-cash-save-them

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. 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 there had been a brief flurry of interest in CCS in 1989-1990, but then people had realised how much it would cost and moved on to other schemes.  By 2000 the bandwagon was rolling again, not quickly, but rolling. 

The specific context was 2009 is kind of peak-CCS, because the Global Financial Crisis then wrecked the EU’s proposed funding model for it.

What I think we can learn from this – the rich are not going to dip into their own pockets. They’re gonna use the state to do the R&D…

What happened next – CCS fell in a heap. Has since been propped up, a bit like “Weekend at Bernie’s”, frankly.

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: 

November 16, 1982 – development aid and the greenhouse effect… – All Our Yesterdays

November 16, 1994 – Industry lobbyists trot out “sky will fall” argument against emissions cuts. Again. Of course. As ever.

November 16, 1995 – another skirmish in the IPCC war

November 16, 2021 – Chancellor cuddles up to oil bosses, of course.

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

November 14, 1997 – Aussies want WTO to scupper UNFCCC

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, November 14th, 1997,

The Federal Government is growing concerned about the threat of trade sanctions against Australia should it refuse to sign the global deal aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions at the world conference on climate change in Kyoto next month.

According to a confidential Australian Government briefing paper in the hands of The Australian Financial Review, the Government is seeking to have the World Trade Organisation treaty override any agreement reached by nations signing the United Nations’ Climate Change Convention that aims to significantly curb CO emissions, which many believe cause global warming.

“Australia’s proposed language also sends a message to parties that efforts to include trade measures against parties as possible penalties for non-compliance would be subject to strict disciplines,” the briefing paper says.

More specifically, the paper proposes that the Kyoto agreement should “not derogate from the rights and obligations of parties under existing international agreements and, in particular, shall not derogate from the provisions of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation or affect the rights and obligations of members of the WTO”.

An official has commented in handwriting beside Australia’s proposed text: “This is the most powerful safeguard we can devise to preclude or make it very difficult for parties to use the protocol to invoke trade sanctions on non-parties or non-complying parties who might very well be energy exporters [and] exporters of energy-intensive products.”

While the official Australian position is that it wants to play a leading role in the deliberations over the climate change convention, the briefing paper is a further sign that Australia is preparing the ground for opting out of the Kyoto agreement.

McCathie, A. 1997. Australia heating up over trade threat. The Australian Financial Review, November 14, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 been a foot-dragger or worse on climate negotiations for several years now.

The specific context was Prime Minister John Howard was trying to get other nations to agree Australia was exceptional and should not be under the cosh for emissions reductions at the upcoming Kyoto conference.

Here he was clearly thinking about plan-B, in case things went wrong at Kyoto.

What I think we can learn from this – everyone “venue shops”.

What happened next – Australia got its sweet sweet deal at Kyoto. Still refused to ratify.  Meanwhile, the WTO became instrumental in climate policy in an unusual way –  In 2004 Russia agreed to ratify Kyoto in (tacit) exchange for membership of the WTO.

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: 

 November 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

November 14, 2005 – Downing St blocked with coal – All Our Yesterdays

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

November 13, 2000- Kyoto “would hardly make any difference.“

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 13th, 2000,

According to Graeme Pearman, Australia’s senior climate scientist and head of its greenhouse research effort, not much. On ABC `7.30 Report’ last night (13th) he concluded –

Dr Graeme Pearman: “The reality of the protocol as it is at the moment, is even if all of the nations were able to achieve those targets, it would hardly make any difference.”  

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. 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 UN negotiating process around climate was, as had been predicted, a total clusterfuck. Targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries had been kept out of the initial treaty by the US threatening to boycott the Earth Summit.

Graeme Pearman, by this stage, had been studying C02 build-up for almost 30 years, and had advised Keating’s cabinet (in 1994).  

The specific context was Australia had extorted an astonishingly generous deal, and had signed, but was still not moving to ratify, and it was pretty obvious (see leak from September 1998) that it would only do so if the US ratified.

What I think we can learn from this – international climate “policy” is basically make-believe, kayfabe.

What happened next – Australia finally ratified Kyoto, under Kevin Rudd, who then refused to set ambitious targets for further action.

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: 

November 13, 1963 – Ritchie Calder warns of trouble ahead because of carbon dioxide…

November 13, 1975 – climate testimony to House of Reps committee

November 13, 1995 – no Aussie savings of greenhouse gases so far – All Our Yesterdays

November 13, 2008 – Coal industry tries to get some ‘love’

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

November 9, 1994 – interdepartmental bunfight in Australia

Thirty one years ago, on this day, November 9th, 1994,

A DOCUMENT leaked from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has revealed the department’s strongly critical view of business and farm lobby concerns over international environment treaties now being negotiated by the Government.

The document, a minute written by First Assistant Secretary, Mr W.N. Fisher, to the department head, Mr Michael Costello, reveals a DFAT institutional view that is highly critical and dismissive of business and farm lobbies.

The minute will gravely embarrass the Federal Government, which has undertaken to improve consultation with business and farm groups over treaty negotiations. The minute reveals DFAT’s conviction that consultations are a waste of time because, ultimately, the Government knows what is best for business.

In it, he calls DFAT contacts with business “despairing” and “pretty appalling”. He says Mt Isa Mines Ltd salesmen are “incompetently briefed” by the company on a climate change convention now being negotiated.

“You would think that MIM, with a multi-million dollar export contract at stake, would at least have the wit to brief its salesmen on the contents of the framework convention so that if they have to confront these arguments they would know what they are talking about.”

“Too much to hope for, apparently. MIM salesmen must be a pushover for the Germans and the Japanese to deal with,” the minute says.

Barker, G. 1994. Govt leak scorns business lobby. The Australian Financial Review, 9 November.

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 there had already been fierce fights within the federal policymaking machinery about climate change.  Problem was, the bad guys were winning.

See this great piece by Royce Kurmelovs on ABARE…

The specific context was – the first COP was coming up (Berlin, March-April 1995) and Australia wanted to get its position straight. Meanwhile, there was a fierce campaign for (and a fiercer campaign against) a carbon tax.

What I think we can learn from this – states are not monoliths. There are all sorts of fights going on about turf, but also direction of travel. And industry has its meatpuppets within the official bureaucracy, as well as lots of zombie think tanks etc.

What happened next – the Department of Climate Criminality and Assholeness continued to win all the important fights.

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: 

November 9, 1988 – Tolba gives “Warming Warning” speech at first IPCC meeting

November 9, 1991 – Australian TV station SBS shows demented ‘”Greenhouse Conspiracy” ‘documentary’

November 9, 1992 – Ark sails on, Downunder – All Our Yesterdays

November 9, 2000 – Tyndall Centre launched

November 9, 2009 – Senior Liberal says CCS won’t work – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

November 8, 1989 – somebody suggests the polluters pay….

Thirty six years ago, on this day, November 8th, 1989,

SYDNEY: The Federal Government should consider introducing a “polluter-pays” tax on companies which add to the greenhouse effect, the Minister for Science, Barry Jones, said yesterday.

Anon. 1989. Polluter-pays’ taxation suggested by minister. Canberra Times, November 9, p.4.

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 the idea of pollution taxes had been around in the early 1970s, including in Australia. Barry Jones, who is pretty smart, will have known all about that. I mean, it’s not a controversial position, is it?

The specific context was – thanks to Barry Jones’ “Commission for the Future”, working with the CSIRO on “The Greenhouse Project” in 1987, Australians were pretty well-informed about the problems that they would face.  By late 1988 the issue was hot hot hot.

What I think we can learn from this – putting a price on something “bad” to discourage it is not controversial sometimes. Other times, it is made controversial.

What happened next – There were ferocious campaigns against any form of carbon pricing (tax or emissions trading scheme) that ebbed and flowed. Finally, albeit briefly, a carbon price was in place from 2012, but was then abolished in 2013-4.

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: 

November 8, 1989 – ALP Minister says environmentalism a “middle-class fad” – “greenies” respond…

 November 8, 1989 – Thatcher gives climate speech to UN General Assembly – All Our Yesterdays

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Categories
Australia

November 8, 2011 – Australian polluters are going to have to pay (briefly)

Fourteen years ago, on this day, November 8th, 2011,

The Clean Energy Package (CEP) passed the Senate on 8 November 2011 with the support of the Greens and a vote of 36:32, becoming law on 1 July 2012.57

(Crowley, 2013: 377)

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 – as per November 8, 1989 – the general principle of a price on carbon had been around for over two decades.

The specific context was – Julia Gillard was only Prime Minister because after the 2010 election she had managed to cut deals with enough independent MPs (and a Green) for a minority government. Those independents and the Green insisted that she legislate a carbon price. There followed an extraordinarily intense campaign of fear-mongering and character assassination, but eventually Gillard got the legislation through.

What I think we can learn from this – Australia is a quarry with a state attached. It’s a settler colony riven with white supremacism, petro-masculinity and anti-reflexivity. There is resistance to this, of course.

What happened next – the carbon price was abolished in 2014.  Since then climate and energy policy has been a festering sore.

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: 

November 8, 1989 – ALP Minister says environmentalism a “middle-class fad” – “greenies” respond…

 November 8, 1989 – Thatcher gives climate speech to UN General Assembly – All Our Yesterdays

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Categories
Activism Australia Kyoto Protocol

November 7, 2001 – Australian Conservation Foundation bluffs in support of Kyoto ratification

Twenty four years ago, on this day, November 7th, 2001, ACF tries to say the rest of the world is raring to go…

“What is clear is that the rest of the world is not waiting around for the US and is getting on with the changes to their economies that are necessary to cut greenhouse pollution. Unless Australia ratifies we will not be able to benefit from international markets emerging in environmental technologies and greenhouse pollution reduction. Australia must get on with the job and join other nations committing to ratify the protocol.”

Australian Conservation Foundation, Media Release, Australia loses out as world moves closer to Kyoto, 7 November 2001.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. 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 been asshole-ish on climate from 1991 to 1995, but that ramped up once the Liberal National Party government of John Howard came along in March 1996.  They’d managed to extort a fantastically generous deal at the third COP, in Kyoto, in December of 1997, which meant Australia could increase its emissions.  But still Howard was refusing to ratify. 

The specific context was that in March 2001 President George W Bush, gifted the presidency by his dad’s Supreme Court picks, had pulled the US out of Kyoto, despite having said on the campaign trail the previous year that C02 from power plants would need regulating.

What I think we can learn from this – Conservation/Environment groups are forced to use the language of economic growth and “more technology” in order to seem responsible and have any chance to exert even the tiniest of pressures.

What happened next – it would be 2007 before Australia ratified Kyoto, under Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

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 and further reading

The Veil of Kyoto

Also on this day: 

November 7, 1973 – Energy security avant la Ukraine: Nixon announces “Project Independence”

 November 7, 1997 – Australian governments bang heads in pre-Kyoto bash 

November 7, 2000 – Australian “The Heat is on” report released

November 7, 2022 – journalist covering JSO protest arrested