Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

May 29, 1989- “We will all be flooded”

Thirty six years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1989 the Canberra Times pointed to sea level rise as a thing.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by mid 1989 you could not move but for documentaries, newspaper articles, magazine articles about the Greenhouse Effect, at least in Australia. This was part of that.

What I think we can learn from this is that we got all the warnings we needed.But “we” – civil society – was never able to overcome its own inertia and fears, the resistance of the state and the corporates. Not even able to really try, unless you count manifestos, marches and other meaningless maunderings in the absence of sustained, iterative, reflective praxis – and who has the mental, financial, emotional or temporal bandwidth for any of that? 

What happened next. The August 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein knocked the issue of The Environment from its perch (something had to – journalists and readers were getting bored!). It turns out we cannot easily – in the words of Donna Haraway – “stay with the trouble.” And then the denial campaigns properly kicked in and everyone settled into a generations-long game of kayfabe, of pretend. Eventually though, by the late 2010s onwards, the consequences of previous failure began to catch up with us. Mephistopheles was knocking on the door, waiting to collect…

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: 

May 9, 1959 – “Science News” predicts 25% increase of C02 by end of century (Bert Bolin’s guesstimate) – All Our Yesterdays

May 9, 2009 – Another white flag goes up on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”

May 9, 2016 – South Australia’s last coal-plant shuts down 

Categories
Australia IPCC

 May 28, 1990 – “Global Warming is really here” (IPCC First Assessment Report)

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 28th, 1990, the Canberra Times reports on the report of Working Group 1 (the science bit) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Mussared, D. 1990. Global warming is really here: UN.  Canberra Times, May 28, page 11

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC had been agreed in 1988, with pressure from the United States Government, which was keen to avoid a repeat of the ozone issue, where uncontrollable scientists had “bounced” (in the perception of politicians and state functionaries) governments into action. It was not a precedent they wanted reinforced, so the IPCC was set up to head off things like the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases….

The IPCC was asked to produce reports in November 1988 and did so in record time. The Working Group 1 report was presented to Thatcher’s cabinet by John Houghton, head of the Met Office and head of Working Group 1.

What I think we can learn from this. The politicians were briefed. It is not a question of whether they knew enough. They did.

What happened next. The negotiations for a climate treaty were deformed by resistance from the United States, the Gulf states and then Australia. No targets and timetables were set for emissions reductions by rich countries. The IPCC sank into a routine of producing special reports as requested and assessment reports on a five or seven year cycle.

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: 

May 28, 1954 – Will we control the weather?!

May 28, 1956 – Time Magazine reports on “One Big Greenhouse”

May 28, 1969 – “Ecology and Politics in America” teach-in, Berkeley

May 28, 1982 – “International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity”  – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

May 22, 2000 – Industry versus the greenhouse trigger…

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, May 22nd, 2000,

Industry started a strong campaign against the Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill’s, proposed greenhouse trigger yesterday. This follows a fiery Cabinet discussion on Tuesday [23rd] over new greenhouse measures proposed by the Senator.

The Federal Cabinet is understood to have reached a clear understanding on Tuesday that no extra greenhouse requirements should be imposed on the proposed $1billion Kogan Creek power station in Queensland.

It rejected a memo from Senator Hill that the project be forced to invest in greenhouse-abatement projects to offset its own emissions. However, a spokesman for the Environment Minister said the Cabinet had not made a final decision.

2000 Taylor, L. 2000. Industry adds its weight to oppose greenhouse move. Australian Financial Review, 25 May 25, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in the lead up to the Kyoto COP in late 1997 Prime Minister John Howard had been forced to make some public promises about climate action.  He’d then done everything he could to drag his heels/slow things down.  But the pressure was still there, and there was another election coming.

What I think we can learn from this is that Australian politicians have been trying to do as little as they can get away with for a very long time.

What happened next. The greenhouse trigger was defeated – god forbid that Ministers would have to take a credibility hit to wave through dodgy projects every time a dodgy project came along… Soon, they’d have no credibility left…

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: 

May 22, 1972 – Horizon doco “Do you Dig National Parks?” – All Our Yesterdays

May 22, 2007 – “Clean coal” power station by 2014, honest…

May 22 – Build Back Biodiversity: International Biodiversity Day

Categories
Australia

May 22, 1989 – Greenhouse plebiscite mooted

On this day 36 years ago, it was reported that the Federal Environment Minister Graham Richardson said there might need to be a referendum….

The Federal Minister for the Environment, Senator Richardson, has floated the idea of holding a referendum to increase the Commonwealth’s powers to override the States on environmental issues such as the greenhouse effect.

He raised the idea at an environmental conference at the weekend.

Dunn, R. 1989. Plebiscite mooted. Australian Financial Review, May 22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in early 1989 everyone was running around talking about climate change. The denialists hadn’t got their act together properly yet (that would come) and neither had business (which traditionally waits anyway, to see if these things burn themselves out).

What I think we can learn from this is that it was obvious to people then that there would be opposition from state governments and that log-jams would be the norm.

What happened next. There was no referendum (and probably a good thing, because they usually fail in Australia). And there was opposition from state governments and that log-jams were the norm.

xxx

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: 

May 22, 1972 – Horizon doco “Do you Dig National Parks?” – All Our Yesterdays

May 22, 2007 – “Clean coal” power station by 2014, honest…

May 22 – Build Back Biodiversity: International Biodiversity Day

Categories
Australia

May 18, 2011- Malcolm Turnbull disses “direct action” on Lateline

Fourteen years ago, on this day, May 18th, 2011,

18 May 2011: Malcolm Turnbull explains on Lateline that direct action is “a very expensive charge on the budget.” He explains its merits are that: “It can be easily terminated. If in fact climate change is proved to be not real”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Turnbull had wanted to cooperate with Rudd on passing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, but Rudd was enjoying Turnbull getting roasted by the LNP knuckle-draggers too much and so said no. (Rudd is a weapons-grade jerk. This does not mean Turnbull isn’t one too.) Turnbull lost the leadership of the Liberal Party in November 2009, and lurked on the backbenches.

What I think we can learn from this. It was an awful soap opera. No way to run a country. Pure banana republic stuff…

What happened next. Tony Abbott became Prime Minister and his grotesque inadequacy – obvious to those who disliked him – eventually became apparent to even his “supporters”. Turnbull knifed him in 2015, and then got knifed himself in 2018. It made a Jacobean tragedy look like playschool. Meanwhile, the emissions kept climbing, the impacts became ever more obvious. Dumb as a rock.

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: 

May 18, 1953 – Newsweek covers climate change. Yes, 1953.

May 18, 1967 – NA Leslie at Institute of Petroleum, citing Barry Commoner on C02 build up – All Our Yesterdays

May 18, 1976 – US congress begins hearings on #climate

May 18, 2006- Denialist nutjobs do denialist nutjobbery. Again.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

May 14, 2009 – First bite at the CPRS apple

Sixteen years ago, on this day, May 14th, 2009 the first Australian ETS legislation introduced into Parliament:

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 is introduced into the House of Representatives.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been proposals to put a price on carbon dioxide via a tax in the early 1990s. Both had been defeated by coalitions of actors coordinated by the Business Council of Australia and what became the Minerals Council of Australia. There had been an effort by state Premiers to stitch together a “bottom-up” emissions trading scheme after it became clear that the Federal Government would not implement one (Prime Minister John Howard personally vetoed a proposal supported by the rest of his Cabinet in 2003). Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of the ALP had come to power promising climate action. Now, at last, he was introducing some deeply shitty legislation that was basically a do-as-little-as-possible-while-keeping-big-business-happy scheme. He expected it to fail the first time round, and he wasn’t disappointed.

What I think we can learn from this

Play games with the fate of the earth and don’t be surprised when it blows up in your face and people realise you are a hollow wanker. Rudd was the worst Prime Minister Australia had had for a while, imo. But then came Abbott and Morrison…

What happened next the CPRS got reintroduced as legislation in November 2009, and fell, because the Opposition toppled its leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and replaced him with an inadequate knuckle dragger called Tony Abbott. Oh god, what a horrorshow. What a soap opera scripted and directed by David Lynch, Salvador Dali and Satan.

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: 

May 14, 1979 – The greenhouse effect is … “almost common knowledge” – All Our Yesterdays

May 14, 2007 – another C40 large cities summit – All Our Yesterdays

May 14, 2002 – well-connected denialists gather in Washington DC to spout #climate nonsense

May 14, 2010 – a day of action/mourning on climate

Categories
Activism Australia Carbon Pricing

May 13, 2011 – Climate Institute launches “national week of action” to support Gillard’s ETS

Fourteen years ago, on this day, May 13th, 2011, the Climate Institute, as part of its ‘Say Yes’ campaign began a national week of action.

[graphic via the wonderful Wayback Machine]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the ALP had already corralled the bigger environmental groups in 2009, to support their wretched “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.” By 2011 the grassroots groups were exhausted and despondent and the best anyone could do was support the “Say Yes” campaign, with its Carbon Cate advert.

What I think we can learn from this Political parties (especially when in government), ultimately, have the whip hand over social movement organisations and non-governmental organisations, using the usual arguments (“art of the possible” “if not us, then the even more evil motherfuckers” etc etc). And social movement organisations know on some level that they can’t sustain the activity, “maintain the rage” and so (have to) fold, have to go along with monstrously inadequate measures.

What happened next Gillard’s ETS got through in late 2011, and became law in mid-2012. It started to “work” – in that emissions began to come down (or was that actually due to more Tasmanian electricity, from hydro, coming into the mainland grid – opinions vary). Then the LNP took office, and Tony ‘wrecking ball’ Abbott abolished Gillard’s ETS. Australian climate politics has been a form of madness ever since. In medical terms, take your pick – Cheynes-Stokes breathing, ventricular fibrillation, whatever – it’s all just “circling the drain” or “approaching room temperature.” What a species.

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: 

May 13, 1957 – Guy Callendar to Gilbert Plass on how easy it is to criticise, how hard to build theories – All Our Yesterdays

May 13, 1977 – UK energy experts gather at Sunningdale – All Our Yesterdays

May 13, 1983 – idiots get their retaliation in first…

May 13, 1991 – UK Energy minister fanboys nuclear as climate solution. Obvs.

May 13, 1992 – Australian business predicts economic armageddon if any greenhouse gas cuts made

Categories
Australia

May 11, 1990 – Money or the Planet. You decide (except you don’t).

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 11th, 1990, the Australian Financial Review ran the following, based on an early example of “the sky will fall if we give the greenies an inch” economic ‘modelling’. There’d be much more of this nonsense over the coming years – it’s a favoured tactic, because, well, it works.

Sustainable development is catching up with Australia fast. The economy is going through an investment boom which could provide the export revenue in the 1990s that would make our current account and foreign debt positions “sustainable”….

The accompanying table lists 26 major investment projects under consideration which Access Economics says appear to be in danger of environmental veto, including the Cape York spaceport (worth $350 million), the Very Fast Train project ($4.5 billion) and 24 resource and manufacturing projects valued at $11 billion.

Stutchbury, M. 1990. Environmental threat to investment boom. Australian Financial Review , 11 May.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that capital was having one of its periodic bouts of panic that the meatpuppets it owned in the nominal independent “State” (aka “politicians” and “senior civil servants”) might not respond to string-pulling quickly enough, and might end up – under popular pressure – passing laws that hindered the rights of the filthy rich to get filthier richer quicker. When that happens there’s hand-wringing and pearl-clutching and then reports produced about how the sky will fall if Intemperate Action is taken. There’s a sideline in issue denial (usually done with plausible deniability). There’s quiet words with key people about where they see themselves in five years (non-executive directorships etc or out on their ear) and the point is made that nobody is indispensable and that opposing political parties will be happy to receive donations etc.

What I think we can learn from this.It is about capital accumulation. Don’t get in their way unless you’re happy to be roadkill. This is the lesson all junior apparatchiks are taught. Those that learn it may last a while. Those who don’t learn it won’t, by definition.

What happened next No serious impediments have ever been placed on the ability of capital to “invest”/extract/whatever they want. Australia is becoming an uninhabitable slagheap, full of miserable angry people. The figures behind the Harvester Settlement will be squirming in their graves… Oh well.

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: 

May 11, 1971 – U Thant gets The Message

May 11, 1988 – “Greenhouse Glasnost” USA and USSR to co-operate on climate

May 11, 1990 – the Financial Times on good intentions not cutting it – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

May 10, 2007 – Future Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan “punches the Liberal bruise” on climate and emissions trading

Eighteen Years ago, on this day, May 10th, 2007, the Australian Labor Party’s Treasury guy, Wayne Swan, makes fun of Peter Costello because the latter acquiesced, four years previousy, in the destruction of an emissions trading scheme that the entire LNP cabinet had been okay with. Well, entire but for one guy – Prime Minister John Howard…. By 2007 this was perfect ammunition for Kevin Rudd and his cronies, who were using climate as a stick to beat Howard with.

10 May 2007 Swan versus Costello in Parliament on the 2003 emissions trading scheme

Mr SWAN (2:11 PM) —My question is directed to the Treasurer, and I refer him to his interview on The 7.30 Report on the ABC on budget night where he refused to answer a question on past Treasury advice on carbon trading.

Government members interjecting—


The SPEAKER —Order! Members on my right will come to order.


Mr SWAN —It was a spectacular performance by the Treasurer.


The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lilley will commence his question again, and he will be heard.


Mr SWAN —I refer the Treasurer to his interview on The 7.30 Report on budget night where he refused to answer a question on past Treasury advice on carbon trading. Can the Treasurer confirm that the government rejected a 2003 cabinet submission on emissions trading? Is this why Dr Henry, the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, said he wished he had been listened to more attentively on climate change? Does the Treasurer believe the last four years is an unacceptable delay or an acceptable delay?


Mr COSTELLO (Treasurer) —The government is about to receive a report on emissions trading prepared by an interdepartmental group which senior members of the Treasury have been participating in. I look forward to receiving that. As soon as the government receives that report it will announce its response, and I expect that to be a good response.


Ms George —You won’t get rolled this time like you did last time.


Mr COSTELLO —Oh, yes, the former ACTU president comes in on cue. There is a former ACTU president over there, one over here, one over there and another one to come.


Mr Swan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The Treasurer said it is on his desk. Will we have to wait four years to see it?


Mr COSTELLO —Labor might regard Rod Eddington as ‘another voice’, but it regards the ACTU as a multiple chorus. I am going to go on and make another point about receiving the report on the carbon emissions trading scheme. This government will actually receive the report before it announces its policy, and it will actually consider the consequences of various emissions targets before it names that policy which it will undertake. That is quite different from the Labor approach, which was to name an emissions target. This is what the Leader of the Opposition did: he named an emissions target and then he set up an inquiry to figure out what it would mean. He said that he was going to have this target by 2050 and then he said to Ross Garnaut, ‘Go and find out what the effect would be.’ I tell you this: when you are dealing with economic consequences, when you are dealing with people’s lives, it is a much better principle to find out what the effect of your policies will be before you adopt them—and that is what this government will be doing.


The SPEAKER —Has the Treasurer completed his answer?


Mr COSTELLO —Yes.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2007-05-10%2F0080%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in late 2006 the climate issue had again broken through in Australia. Everyone had to pretend that they had always cared, and always taken appropriate action. John Howard’s track record of pure evil asshole-ness made this especially difficult for him, and he couldn’t manage it.

What I think we can learn from this. Again, it’s all kayfabe.There are plot-lines and story arcs, but the main through-line is that nobody is going to risk their career etc by doing the “right” thing, especially when that won’t matter.

What happened next is that the Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd won the 2007 Federal election and then managed to screw the pooch on climate so bad that – well, Australia is doomed. But was anyway – the damage was done by 1995, and there’s been no coming back…

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: 

May 10, 1931 – Daily Oregonian mentioning greenhouse…. – All Our Yesterdays

May 10, 1968 – “The Age of Effluence” says Time Magazine. C02 build-up mentioned… – All Our Yesterdays

May 10, 1978 – Women told that by 2000 “we will be frantically searching for alternatives to coal.”

May 10, 1997 – Murdoch rag in denialist shocker

Categories
Australia

 May 6, 1969 – a legacy lunch in Melbourne…

Fifty six years ago, on this day, May 6th, 1969,

Dunbavin Butcher gave a speech to a Legacy luncheon in Melbourne – reported in the Age the following day (see below). Mentions c02 build-up!

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 321ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by the mid-late 1960s it wasn’t just pointy-headed meteorologists and climatologists thinking about carbon dioxide build-up. It was also oceanographers, biologists etc. One reason for this was the 1966 book “Science and Survival” by Barry Commoner.

What I think we can learn from this. We knew. The problem is not knowledge, information, it is – as per Sven Lindqvist’s opening to Exterminate The Brutes – courage.

It is not knowledge we lack. What is missing is the courage to understand what we know and to draw conclusions. Sven Lindqvist, “Exterminate All the Brutes

What happened next

Through the 1970s and 1980s the carbon dioxide issue was being tracked. And it finally “broke through” in 1988. Then the denial campaigns – astonishingly successful – kicked in. Essentially, the species decided to let itself die. But the act of letting itself die has also doomed countless other species. Berserk hairless murder apes – what can you do?

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: 

May 6, 1977 – Bert Bolin article in Science about increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations owing to forestry and agriculture – All Our Yesterdays

May 6, 1997 – The so-called “Cooler Heads” coalition created

May 6, 2004 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard meets business, to kill renewables