Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 3, 1995 – Senator McMullan sows the CEDA of our doom..

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 3rd, 1995, a Labor Senator – and I hope you are sitting down when you read this – assures business-types that “the economy” [i.e. corporate profits] is a higher priority than reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

 In a largely unreported speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in Melbourne on Friday [3rd February 1995] , Senator McMullan said: “The levy will be dealt with on the basis of its appropriateness as a measure to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rather than on the amount of revenue it might raise.” “What we need to avoid is any situation where we unilaterally place a wide range of export and import-competing industries at a competitive disadvantage without actually contributing effectively to reducing global or domestic greenhouse emissions,” he added.

Gill, P. 1995. Official warns of small cut in gas with carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 7 February, p.3. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was an almighty battle going on within the Keating government about a carbon tax and the opponents of said tax were trying to ally shop and venue shop and water down and weaken as much as they could. This speech to an economics business think tank/talking shop called CEDA should be seen in that context.

What I think we can learn from this is that introducing a new order of things, as per Machiavelli, is extremely difficult, even if it’s urgent and important. Perhaps especially if it’s urgent and important. 

What happened next: The carbon tax was defeated. Emissions trading schemes were defeated. Finally, Julia Gillard in 2011 got one through. But oh my, what a shitshow. 

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: 

February 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
Activism Australia

January 31, 2009 – Climate Action Summit

Sixteen years ago, on this day, January 31st, 2009,

 From January 31 to February 3, 2009, over 150 community based climate action groups and more than 500 people came together in Canberra to talk, debate, strategise and take action on climate change at Australia’s Climate Action Summit. 

http://www.foe.org.au/australias-climate-action-summit

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from late 2006 onwards, there had been a great deal of awareness/alarm about climate change and its impacts in Australia and various actions in various places. By late 2008 it was obvious that the Rudd Government was doing a tremendous amount of backsliding and caving in to vested interests. 

And so the Climate Action Summit was held in a period where there was a fragile elite consensus that wasn’t really worth a bucket of warm spit, and citizens were trying to do it for themselves. 

What I think we can learn from this is that citizens can’t do it for themselves. They have to somehow create irresistible pressure on elected representatives, on states, on bureaucracies. But this is much easier said than actually done. 

What happened next

Climate change, oddly, continued to be an open sore, kind of permanently, but especially until the end of 2011 when Julia Gillard managed to get climate legislation through the parliament.

Various climate action summits and efforts at NVDA and efforts at public pressure have continued ever since, and here we are – fubarred. 

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: 

January 31, 1979 – Alvin Weinberg’s “nukes to fix climate change” speech reported

January 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

January 31, 1990 – Environmental Racism – then and now… Guest post by @SakshiAravind

Categories
Australia

 January 25, 2007 – John Howard proclaims himself as a “climate realist”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, January 25th, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard tries to explain away his late-2006 U-turn.

 “I regard myself as a climate change realist. That means looking at the evidence as it emerges and responding with policies that preserve Australia’s competitiveness and play to her strengths.” John Howard, Address to the National press Club, 25 January 2007

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a few months earlier John Howard had been forced to begin to pretend that he cared about the possibility of climate change from carbon dioxide build up. This was because of a whole sequence of events, including the ongoing Millennium drought, the release of Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and The Stern Review into the economics of climate change by Her Majesty’s Treasury. And so Howard had created the Shergold Group to look into the possibility of an emissions trading scheme. And this was, of course, stacked with the usual suspects and left out people who might have different, stronger opinions. But Howard wasn’t really convincing anyone. And so Howard was using words like “realism” in his  National Press Club speech. And anyone who knows or has been around for any length of time knows that “realism” and “realistic” are code words that people use trying to frame themselves as the “sensible center” and their opponents as either wild eyed fanatics or dreamers. 

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians will always try and do U-turns if cornered. Of course they will, but these may not work. 

What happened next  Howard became only the second Australian Prime Minister to lose his own seat at a Federal election. In November of 2007 the world got Kevin, “I’m from Queensland, and here to help” Rudd, who said he was going to sort out the climate issue. And he did as much on that as he did on the wheat to Iraq scandal and many others- that is to say, fuck all. 

The National Press Club has hosted all sorts of climate talks, of course, in its long and illustrious life. Here is an incomplete precis- https://marchudson.net/2017/01/29/turnbull-climate-and-the-national-press-club-auspol/

, 

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: 

January 25, 1994: UK government releases “Sustainable Development Strategy

January 25, 1995 – Australian electricity reforms mean more greenhouse gases…

January 25, 2013 – Lord Stern admits #climate “worse than I thought”

Categories
Australia

January 24, 1989 – Minister for Resources tell the truth – ““The greenhouse effect is an environmental issue of global dimensions…. It is not simply an energy issue.”

Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 24th, 1989, an Australian Federal Minister calls it like it is.

“Weather fluctuations and the greenhouse are topics of current real concern as media coverage demonstrates. For example, in The Australian of 24 January 1989, the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, was reported to have called for active co-operation among Asian countries in developing practical ways to minimize the threatening greenhouse effect. He said: “The greenhouse effect is an environmental issue of global dimensions…. It is not simply an energy issue. The challenge for energy policy makers is to assess the range of possibilities that would make an appropriate contribution to reducing the greenhouse effect.”

(Henderson-Sellers and Blong, 1989:3)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that since late 1988 Australian society had been talking up “the Greenhouse Effect”, thanks in large part to a Commission for the Future/CSIRO effort (Greenhouse 87 and Greenhouse 88).  The Hawke Government had been making the right noises too, while also, obviously, seeking to flog more coal overseas.

What I think we can learn from this is that governments are always a bunch of cats in a sack, with motivations pulling in all directions.

What happened next 

By early 1990 the fossil interests had decided this wasn’t a passing fad, and that they had better bring their A-game. Their A-game wasn’t all that good, but it was enough, in large part because Paul Keating became Prime Minister in December 1991.

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: 

January 24, 1967 – Senior British scientist says “by no means can (C02) report be dismissed as science fiction”…

January 24, 1984 – Canadian TV documentary and discussion about #climate 

January 24, 2017 – Climate activist is court in the act

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 20, 1995 – ACF says a carbon tax would be really helpful

Thirty years ago, on this day, January 20th, 1995, ACFto get the ALP to be less crap.

The Federal Government should increase its spending on the environment by $3.3 billion in the May Budget to repair damage to the nation’s land, water and air, the Australian Conservation Foundation said yesterday. Government spending on the environment was paltry, the foundation’s 1995 Budget submission said. About $820 million was spent nationally last year, which amounted to 0.2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. A carbon tax would fund about one third of the foundation’s proposed $3.3 billion spending increase on energy efficiency, public transport, clean industry production and sustainable agriculture. The tax levied at $2.20 a tonne of carbon dioxide among fossil fuel suppliers would raise $850 million, the submission said. Other revenue-raising measures included the elimination of some diesel rebates, an agricultural water-use levy, increases to personal income taxes and wealth and capital gains taxes. Industry and farming groups are opposed to a carbon tax.

Milburn, C. 1995. ACF Calls For $3.3b On Environment. The Age, 21 January, p.7. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was ACF put out it’s all singing, all dancing “gee it would be great if we get a carbon tax” submission ahead of a couple of round tables to be held two weeks later, (the green performance at the pro-round table was not good, and this  would spell the death for the carbon tax. 

What we learn is that good ideas can very easily get shot down, and usually do, Thirty years, Thirty years. ACF did its best, but there wasn’t that engaged, enraged civil society willing to march into the policy spaces and bang on the table, because that never really happens. That’s not how our societies are currently built. 

That’s not inevitable. You can imagine a different way of governing ourselves, besides technocratic neoliberal capitalism. But we don’t have it at present, and we won’t, because as the disasters pile up, people will become more and more frustrated and disenchanted with messiness and complexity, and they will seek a Savior. And there are always narcissists out there willing to say that they will save the situation, if not the individuals. 

What happened next

Instead of a carbon tax there was a feeble voluntary “Greenhouse Challenge 21C”. And other laughable palaver. Once a carbon price finally came into existence, it was then quickly repealed.

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: 

January 20, 1992 – Gambling on climate… and losing #auspol

January 20, 2011 – Shell tries to change the subject from its own emissions   

January 20, 2014 – Gummer sledges “green extremists”

Categories
Australia Science Scientists

January 19, 2016 – Australian Chief Scientific Advisor advises…

Nine years ago, on this day, January 19th, 2016,

Taylor, L. 2016.Outgoing chief scientist Ian Chubb says tougher greenhouse gas targets inevitable. The Guardian, 19 January. 

Chubb also says hostility towards climate science may be easing but scientists still have a duty to offer unflinching advice

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had had chief scientific advisers since 1988 and they had all been saying, “you got to do more on climate,” Including, of course, the first female, and only female so far, Chief Scientific Adviser, Penny Sackett, who quit om 2011 once she realized that Julia Gillard was not going to try to do more than was legislatively on the table. 

What we learn is that scientists are definitely on tap, but they’re never on top, and that anyone who thinks they are is deluded. 

What happened next

Advice kept getting given. We’ve bucket loads of the stuff.

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: 

January 19, 1968 – Engineers are not ecologists…

January 19, 1976 – The carbon consequences of cement get an early discussion.

January 19, 1992 – they gambled, we lost

January 19, 2015 -Four utilities pull out of an EU CCS programme…

Categories
Australia

January 17, 2015 – David Pope’s brilliant “You are now leaving the Holocene” cartoon is published

Ten years ago, on this day, January 17th, 2015,the brilliant cartoonist David Pope delivered another brilliant cartoon.  You are now leaving the Holocene… Below please find an interview with him, conducted via email a couple of weeks ago.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

1. Who are you and how did you get into cartooning?

I drew cartoons for the peace movement and other activist causes when I was younger. Then I started drawing them for the Labour Studies Briefing in Adelaide, while I was a student there. Pre-internet, the Briefing used to produce short summaries of the latest articles and academic research on labour relations and the economy, for trade unions. The unions started to reproduce the cartoons in their own publications, and eventually I decided to devote more time to it.

2. When and how did you get switched on to environmental concerns?

Again, in Adelaide, I started drawing some cartoons for the national magazine of Friends of the Earth. I think I drew my first cartoon on “the greenhouse effect” in 1990, but in the 80s, the possibility of a nuclear winter was more pressing on my young consciousness, and connected to that, the campaign against uranium mining.

3. On the cartoon, do you remember any of the thought processes or the inspiration behind it? Were there any particular responses to it?

No, I have no memory of what prompted that cartoon at the time. Perhaps there was a climate report or interview that was trying to introduce the concept of the Anthropocene to a wider audience. It was reprinted in a few scientific papers and presentations, so I presume it did the job in conveying some sense of epochal transition.

4. Anything else you’d like to say – Chance to plug any books, exhibitions or anything else that you’ve got going on…

I make posters available through RedBubble

https://www.redbubble.com/people/hinze/explore?page=1&sortOrder=recent

Many of those focus on the environments of the high country and the coast near where I live, and are a foil to the daily and more didactic political cartoons I draw for The Canberra Times and ACM. I don’t publish collections of my political cartoons, but some of them make it into Scribe’s excellent annuals, “Best Australian Political Cartoons”, available at most bookshops.

<END OF INTERVIEW>

See also this blog post on my personal website.

Cartoons, catastrophe and the “long” view (even a generation seems as much as we can cope with)

Cartoons, catastrophe and the “long” view (even a generation seems as much as we can cope with)

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

January 17, 1970 – The Bulletin reprints crucial environment/climate article

January 17th – A religious perspective on climate action

January 17, 2001 – Enron engineers energy “blackouts” to gouge consumers

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

January 16, 1992 – ACT draft Greenhouse Strategy released

Thirty four  years ago, on this day, January 16th, 1992 the draft greenhouse strategy of the Australian Capital Territory government was  launched. 

Lamberton, 1992 Canberra Times  

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various state governments had promised that they would create and enact greenhouse strategies. The Australian Capital Territory, (not a state), was among them, It had  in fact, agreed to The Toronto target early on. And so this launch, is in the months leading up to the Rio Earth Summit in June,, the kind of thing that happens. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the wheels of bureaucracy necessarily grind slowly, but they do grind, if not scuppered by new political dispensations. 

What happened next

There has been fairly good progress (yes, yes, I know, not consumption based, no big industry blah blah).

Also on this day

January 16, 1919 – banning things that people like turns out not to work

January 16, 1995: There’s power in a (corporate) union #auspol

January 16, 2003 – Chicago Climate Exchange names founding members

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

January 14, 2003 – WWF Australia raises the alarm

Twenty two years ago, on this day, January 14th, 2003,

Human-induced global warming was a key factor in the severity of the 2002 drought in Australia, the worst in the country’s history, according to a report issued Tuesday [14 January] by WWF Australia. The report is part of an effort by Australian environmental organizations to convince the Liberal Government of John Howard to reverse its policy and sign the Kyoto climate protocol.

Human Actions Blamed for Worst Australian Drought. Jan 15. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2003/2003-01-15-02.html SYDNEY, Australia, January 15, 2003 (ENS) –

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush and then John Howard had both pulled out of negotiations around Kyoto Protocol, citing economic interests. (But it went deeper than that it was about culture and the way the world should be.) The Millennium drought was causing mayhem, and WWF was oh, sorry, trying to stitch together coalitions to put pressure on governments, especially the federal government.

What I think we can learn from this is that policy entrepreneurs even the centrists, (and you don’t get more centrist, or, in fact, neoliberal and elite etc, than WWF) will have to try multiple times to get any attention. This particular report gained no traction. WWF did further work with the Wentworth group and insurers. It wasn’t until another business friendly coalition back in 2006, that they began to get through. It’s a bit like trying to chop down a tree. You can’t do it in one blow, usually.

What happened next

The emissions kept climbing. The Age of consequences (for rich white people) has begun. 

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: 

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

January 12, 2006 – the nuclear option, yet again

Nineteen years ago, on this day, January 12th, 2006,

 “NUCLEAR power will be examined as part of the solution to global warming when ministers from six countries meet this morning in Sydney for talks on climate change…”  

Peatling, S. 2006. Nuclear question looms large at climate change talks. Sydney Morning Herald, 12 January. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that everyone knows there’s going to have to be a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, even though (because) t was far too weak. And so the proponents of action are talking about a stronger emissions trading scheme with fewer loopholes. And the opponents are, of course, talking about “technology.” The Bush and Howard governments had been banging on and creating these entirely fake and stupid bodies that would allow world leaders to stand at a podium in front of a new logo and declare “hydrogen” or “nuclear” or “CCS” or some other nonsense instead of any actual emissions cuts, And this is further examples of that. 

What I think we can learn from this

Technology is always invoked as the get out of jail free card. Enough people find it convenient to believe, or easy enough to pretend to believe.  And the emissions keep climbing.

What happened next

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: