Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Denial

 February 8, 2017 –  Morrison brings lump of lacquered coal into Parliament 

Nine years ago, on this day, February 8, 2017, Australian Treasurer (and soon to be Prime Minister) Scott Morrison brings lump of lacquered coal into Parliament  as part of his demented culture war.

To quote myself

A couple of years later, in the quarry-with-a-state-attached some people persist in calling “Australia”, the then-Treasurer (who would become Prime Minister), Scotty Morrison brandished a lump of coal in Parliament.  Some points to note: It was in the middle of a heatwave. He handed it on to one of the most absurd politicians of all time, Barnaby Joyce, who mimicked (?) wide-eyed joy at the gift.  The lump of dead matter (the coal, I mean) was provided by the Minerals Council of Australia, the industry lobby group that has done probably more than any other to stop meaningful climate action in Australia.  The lump was lacquered, so it wouldn’t smudge anyone’s hands – that’s the cleanest coal ever gets.

“Snowballs and morons and coal lumps, oh my”: on the hysterical materiality of old white men – All Our Yesterdays

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 406ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Liberal National Party had gone to the 1990 Federal Election target with an emissions reduction target for the year 2000 that was MORE ambitious than that of the Australian Labor Party.  But they didn’t win that election, and quickly decided they’d been stabbed in the back by the green movement. Since then, and especially under the leadership of John Howard from 1995, the party has been astonishingly evil on climate change.

The specific context was that the climate issue had become a tangled mess of bullshit, bringing down prime minister after prime minister.  And the fact that there was a heatwave gave Morrison no pause for thought, because thought isn’t really what Morrison does.

Also, he very probably believes that if climate change is “real” then it is god sorting out the sheep and goats – he’s a religious nutjob.

What I think we can learn from this is that the “leadership” on climate change is, well, absent.

What happened next:  Morrison toppled Turnbull, won the 2019 election (thanks, Queensland, love ya) and continued his shit-fuckery. The emissions kept climbing and the bill came due. As I write this, heatwaves are baking southern Australia.

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 8, 1956 – Roger Revelle sexes up the dossier to House Committee on Appropriations 

February 8, 1973 –  American ecologist explains carbon build-up to politicians

February 8, 1988 – BBC Horizon on The Greenhouse Effect

Categories
Australia Denial

February 3, 2010 – Tony Abbott and the lunatic fringe

Sixteen years ago, on this day, February 3 2010 newly-minted Opposition Leader Tony Abbott was being his true self.

Tony Abbott’s decision to meet Lord Monckton was contemptible — but smart politics. Abbott is just doing what he has been hired to do: dog-whistle to the extreme right of the party.

Tony Abbott met with conspiracy theorist Chris Monckton yesterday at lunchtime, but Abbott wouldn’t allow photographers to record the meeting or publicly comment on what was discussed.

Keane, B. 2010. Abbott to the lunatic fringe: it’s OK, I’m one of you. Crikey, 4 February.

Abbott to the lunatic fringe: it’s OK, I’m one of you

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since 1990 the Liberal and National party had been terrible on climate change (they had gone to the March Federal election with a more ambitious carbon dioxide reduction target than the ALP, and felt betrayed by the greenies).

The specific context was that Abbott, a manifestly unfit and overpromoted idiot, had become Liberal Leader the previous November, toppling Malcolm Turnbull.

What I think we can learn from this is that Abbott and his goons were brilliant at opposition. Running anything? That’s a different skillset.

What happened next:  Oh, the soap opera. Abbott became Prime Minister in 2013. He was toppled two years later, by Turnbull, who was then in turn toppled by… I can’t type this.
Meanwhile, the coal exports continued, the impacts grew.  Australia is now on the frontline of the Fafocene.

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
Australia Denial

January 24, 2002 – Ray Evans says global warming scam is “the most audacious”

Twenty four years ago, on this day, January 24th, 2002, a well-connected idiot spouts his usual shite.

Writing in the Canberra Times on January 24 (2002), [Ray] Evans stated: “Of all the political scams of the post-war period, the global warming scam … is the most audacious.” https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/wmcs-hypocrisy-greenhouse-emissions 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context is that you will always find people willing to deny impact science, who are willing to say that smoking is safe, asbestos is safe, etc, because, well, they’re being paid to and they regard “impact science” as somehow a betrayal of human ingenuity. Well, it’s absolutely not.

The specific context was that Ray Evans had been the heavy, the thug, for particular mining interest, led by Hugh Morgan, around a whole bunch of issues, Aboriginal land rights, work, worker safety, you name it.

Evans, in the mid-90s had been an important go-between with American denialists, such the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Australian climate denial lobby. That’s not to say there weren’t already relationships with various American denialists being invited down to give talks at the Tasman Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, et cetera.

By 2002 the third IPCC report had come out, the Kyoto negotiations were bogged down. But crucially, in Australia, there was a fierce battle about whether to ratify Kyoto or not. Prime Minister John Howard, a stupid but cunning climate denier, had not yet said he wouldn’t, and outfits like  the Business Council of Australia were suffering internal dissension over Kyoto ratification. The people who wanted Kyoto ratification wanted carbon trading, etc, etc, 

Those who didn’t, thought it was all a scam, and Evans was one of their champions. By this time as well the ludicrous Lavoisier group was a thing.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is always a henchman – and you can waste time thinking too much about them and too little about those they represent.

What happened next  Ray Evans faded and then died. Good riddance. Mad denial continues.

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 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 18, 2006 – Carbon tax 2 (Peter Costello in Los Angeles)

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 18th, 2006 Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello gave a speech in Los Angeles. (In August, Anthony Albanese would use it, to punch the bruise).

On 18 January 2006, in a speech in Los Angeles supporting price signals for energy, Peter Costello stated that:

“A market based solution will give the right signal to producers and to consumers. It will make clear the opportunity cost of using energy resources, thereby encouraging more and better investment in additional sources of supply and improving the efficiency with which they are used. That has to be good for both producers and consumers and better for the environment.

“It is not surprising Peter Costello made this statement as in August 2003 a Cabinet submission to establish a national emissions trading scheme was co-sponsored by four Departments – Treasury, Environment, Industry & Foreign Affairs.

“Unfortunately, the joint Cabinet submission was scuttled by the Prime Minister who is stuck in the past and unable to embrace the future. 

MEDIA RELEASE – ANTHONY ALBANESE MP 16 August 2006

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian elites had been pretending they would act on climate change for almost 20 years by this stage.

The specific context was that John Howard, Costello’s boss, had squashed an emissions trading proposal in August 2003, in the face of a united cabinet.

What I think we can learn from this is they (Costello, Albanese etc) are weasels serving their own interests and those of their rich rich mates, who simply don’t care that hell will rain down.

What happened next 

In April 2006 business and environment groups (ACF) called for an emissions trading scheme.

At the end of the year new Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd started using the issue as a stick to beat Howard with.

The climate issue exploded into view before then, and at the end of the year, Howard did a kind-of-U-turn, which didn’t save him.

See also

Albo or John Howard? Who is the bigger climate criminal? – All Our Yesterdays

August 21, 2004 – The Australian reports on Howard cabinet split over ETS – All Our Yesterdays

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 18, 1964 – Nature mentions atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up

January 18, 1993 – Australian unions and greenies launch first “Green Jobs” campaign

January 18, 1993 – Job’s not a good un. “Green Jobs in Industry Plan” achieves … nothing. #auspol

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 18, 1995 – Carbon tax 1

Thirty one years ago, on this day, January 18th, 1995

FEDERAL Cabinet is considering a series of controversial measures to cut greenhouse emissions, including a carbon tax of up to $20 a tonne, which would raise $13 billion over three years, and an extra 10c/litre fuel excise.

The proposals – detailed in a Cabinet document obtained by The Australian Financial Review – are set to generate massive industry hostility, and to switch the environmental spotlight from Mr Beddall, the minister responsible for the woodchip controversy, to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, and his departmental deputy secretary, Mr Phillip Toyne, who is masterminding the greenhouse strategy.

 Callick, R. 1995. Revealed: Green tax shock *$13bn grab *$20/tonne carbon tax *New 10c/litre fuel levy. Australian Financial Review, 18 January, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the idea of taxing “bads” is hardly new (Pigou, much?) and had been suggested for carbon dioxide not merely in the late 1980s, but all the way back to 1970.

The specific context was that industry had already seen off a previous tax proposal (or the idea of one) in 1990-1, and had been prepping for another battle for a while, since it was obvious that those wanting climate action would try again.

What I think we can learn from this is industry mostly gets what it wants. We are screwed.

What happened next – those wanting a price on carbon switched to an emissions trading scheme. This makes bankers and consultants happy, and offers enormous opportunities for loophole finding and patronage which turns into post-election-defeat jobs.  Even that was resisted, successfully, for ages.

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 18, 1964 – Nature mentions atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up

January 18, 1993 – Australian unions and greenies launch first “Green Jobs” campaign

January 18, 1993 – Job’s not a good un. “Green Jobs in Industry Plan” achieves … nothing. #auspol

Categories
Australia

January 14, 2006 – IPA gets laughed at for its climate stance.

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 14th, 2006 one Australian offshoot of the Atlas Network had shade thrown at it by a very good Australian climate scientist.

“The Institute of Public Affairs supports, as far as I know, road rules and safety standards, for example for automotive design, medical procedures and drugs. Sensible regulation, with carrots and sticks for people to do the right thing, is necessary in an imperfect world. The same must apply to environmental damage caused by human activities that threatens future human health and welfare.”

Pittock, B. 2006 “In global warming war, may market forces be with you”, The Age, January 14. 

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

The broader context was  the Atlas Network – well, you can read about it here. The IPA, set up during WW2 had been a fairly stodgy beast, but then became a leading player in the push to the right… .

The specific context was  from 1989 the IPA had been pushing doubt and denial. They were (and still are, one assumes) proud of that..

What I think we can learn from this is that there are simple arguments – look up the Plimsoll line – that do cut through all the bullshit.

What happened next

The IPA continued on its merry way and was a major player in the denial-o-sphere of the late 2000s and early 2010s.

The emissions kept climbing. The Age of consequences (for rich white people, the only ones who matter) 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 14, 1962 – As much truth as one can bear, James Baldwin

January 14, 2003 – WWF Australia raises the alarm – All Our Yesterdays

January 14, 2010 – Investors hold UN summit on #climate risk

Categories
Australia

January 13, 2023 –  Hot as hell in Australia (50.7 Celsius)

Three years ago today –

“The hottest Australian temperature ever recorded was 50.7C in the Pilbara town of Onslow on 13 January 2023.”

Heatwave scorches states from east to west as temperatures soar across Australia | Australia weather | The Guardian

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 320ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists have been warning us. Then shouting. Then pleading.  Also, lots of ordinary people who didn’t go to the right universities, don’t have the right qualifications.

The specific context was that there isn’t a specific context. This is just how it is going to be from now on. Except it will get worse, gradually and suddenly, suddenly and gradually, in fits and starts.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is just how it is going to be from now on. Except it will get worse, gradually and suddenly, suddenly and gradually, in fits and starts.

What happened next

The record hasn’t been broken. Yet. Watch this space. 

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 13, 2004 – Bob Carr rallies states for emissions trading

January 13, 2005- UN Secretary-General calls for “decisive measures” on climate change

January 13, 2021 – New Scientist reports on types of intelligence required to deal with #climate change   

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

January 8, 1991 – Peter Walsh versus a habitable planet (Walsh wins)

Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 8th, 1991, former Federal Treasurer Peter Walsh lets rip,

BACK in 1989 a proposal to spend $6 million on an Australian response to the greenhouse effect and climatic change was being considered. The 1990 Budget Papers identify another $17 million for climate change core research and “multifaceted programme initiatives” – which presumably includes funding various national and international greenhouse conferences so beloved by greenhouse activists.

Walsh, P. 1991. Credibility Gap in Greenhouse Gabfests. Australian Financial Review, 8 January, p.7.

BASED ON DALY GREENHOUSE TRAP

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that the Hawke government’s Cabinet had, in October 1990 created the interim planning target of a 20% reduction in the CO2 emissions by 2005 with the notable caveats that it didn’t hurt the economy and that other nations took similar action, i.e., “we’re not going to do it.” And even these caveats were not enough for people like Walsh, who regarded environmentalism as akin to paganism, astrology, whatever. 

What’s interesting about this is that the column is based largely on a then-new book called The Greenhouse Trap by a guy called John Daly. So you see here the mechanics of how a book, even if basically self published, can get picked up and used in speeches and opinion columns and reverberate and become part of the actual or possible “common sense”, or certainly part of the acceptable range of opinions. Blah, blah, Overton Window, blah, blah – there’s a kind of conveyor belt going on.

What I think we can learn from this  is that Old White Men have a lot of cultural power, or at least influence.

What happened next

Walsh kept ranting –  February 23, 1993 – Peter Walsh spouting his tosh again – All Our Yesterdays

Walsh was involved in the dimbulb denialist outfit the Lavoisier Group, and Daly kept on being daily until he died in January 2004.

And the gab fests, as Walsh called them, became meaningless, principally because the United States insisted that targets and timetables not be included in the treaty text of the UN Convention.

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 8, 1968 – LaMont Cole to AAAS about running outta oxygen, build-up of C02 etc

January 8, 2003 –  Energy firms plan to “bury carbon emissions”…

January 8, 2013 –  Australian Prime Minister connects bush fires and #climate change

January 8, 2018 – Joe Root doesn’t come back to bat

Categories
Australia

December 31, 1994 – “Climate Change Science: Current understanding and Uncertainties”

Thirty one years ago, on this day, December 31st, 1994,

 Rupert Myers president of AATSE on “Climate Change Science: Current Understanding and Uncertainties”

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 climate problem had become an issue at last in 1988. Between then and 1994 there had been the release of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report, the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and its ratification by enough nations (quite speedily) for it to become international law and for the first “Conference of the Parties” (COP) to be set up. It was due to meet in Berlin in March-April 1995.

The specific context was that there were still people knocking around wanting to emphasise the uncertainties in the “let’s not take action” direction (there are, as we have learnt to our cost, dangers of UNDERestimating impacts).

Also, there was a carbon tax proposal that was going to come to Keating’s Cabinet soon.

What I think we can learn from this – species be doomed.

What happened next – the emissions climbed, the atmospheric concentrations climbed, the temperatures climbed. Species be doomed.

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.

Further reading

Rupert Horace Myers 1921–2019 | Historical Records of Australian Science | ConnectSci

Also on this day: 

December 31, 1997 – Government slags off Australian Conservation Foundation

December 31, 2012 – Murdoch employee throws predictable inaccurate shite at Greens…

December 31, 2022 – FT publishes letter about Thatcher and Just Stop Oil

December 31, 2022 – We Quit, says some group everyone has forgotten about

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

December 27, 2010 – Queensland government withdraws ZeroGen CCS funding

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 27th, 2010,

Queensland has axed its funding for a cutting-edge 530-MW power plant that was to run on gasified coal and store 90% of its greenhouse gas emissions underground through the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, just weeks after the project was short-listed to receive additional support from the Australian federal government, it was revealed at the weekend

Cooper, M. (2010) Queensland government withdraws ZeroGen CCS project funding 27 December Platts International Coal Report

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 as per the post a few days ago, CCS had been an ongoing strand of technophilia in Australia, breaking through into public awareness in 2004.

The specific context was – Copenhagen had fallen over, the numbers weren’t adding up and everyone was pulling the plug.

What I think we can learn from this – these are literally pipe-dreams.

What happened next – the CCS soap opera continued, because our Lords and Masters have no other option. They couldn’t possibly question the hyperconsumerism they have foisted upon us all. We’re so 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: 

December 27, 1989 – Greenhouse effect = “socialist hokum”

December 27, 2004 – ACF boss says “cough up” – All Our Yesterdays

December 27, 2009 – Art exhibition in Copenhagen saves the world