Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

January 4, 2015 – Christine Milne warns about extreme weather events, knackered infrastructure etc.

10 years ago, on this day, January 4th, 2015, the Greens leader Christine Milne points out the obvious,

“Every year we are going to face these extreme weather events, which are going to cost lives and infrastructure, and enough is enough,” she said.

“The Abbott Government has to stop climate denial and help to get the country prepared to adapt to the more extreme conditions.”

Ms Milne said now was the time to talk about Australia’s preparedness for extreme weather events.

“Look at what is happening to people, communities, our environment, loss of infrastructure and for goodness sake abandon your nonsense about climate variability,” she said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-04/south-australia-victoria-bushfires-climate-change-greens-milne/5999342

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 400ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Milne makes another plea for sanity and a warning about the consequences that lie ahead, as she had in June 2009.

But she is, of course, only a woman, and she is, once again, basically ignored. I should definitely read Cassandra by Crista Wolf. But to be fair, her gender is only part of the story. Because lots of men who are saying the same thing are also being ignored

The context was that the emissions trading scheme the Greens had worked with independents and the minority-ALP government to enact was toast.  Tony Abbott was doing everything he could to slow down the growth of renewables. Desperate times.

What I think we can learn from this is that a good minority of political elites have known, perhaps a tiny minority of political elites have both known and been willing to speak out. What was always missing and is still really missing is engaged enraged, civil society. We have a few NGOs, but that doesn’t count as civil society. 

What happened next

Milne stepped down as Green Party leader a few months later. The emissions, of course, they kept climbing, and here we are.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

January 4, 1977 – US politician introduces #climate research legislation

January 4, 1982 – Global 2000 Report updated

Categories
Australia Cultural responses

January 3, 1988 – The Sea and Summer, early Australian cli-fi, is reviewed.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 3rd, 1988 the Australian newspaper the Sun Herald, ran a review of The Sea and Summer by George Turner  under the heading “Melbourne is drowning” (possibly gleeful, given the Sydney-Melbourne rivalry).

The book itself? As Ruth Morgan explains

“Over a decade after his novel The Cupboard Under the Stairs won the Miles Franklin Award in 1963, Turner had turned to writing science fiction (Milner, ‘The Sea’ 112). The Sea and Summer, published as Drowning Towers (1988) in the United States, had earlier appeared as a short story, ‘The Fittest’ (1985), and reflected the growing popular awareness of the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change in Australia. Turner envisioned a Melbourne drowned as a result of rising sea levels in the middle of the twenty-first century, its population cleaved into haves and havenots, the Sweet and the Swill.” (Morgan, 2014).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that “the Greenhouse Effect” was becoming newsworthy, thanks to a combination of the ozone hole (sensitising people to atmospheric pollution generally) and the post-Villach efforts of scientists, including at the Australian CSIRO.

What I think we can learn from this

When an issue is “hot” (i.e. salient) then journalists will figure out a hook, books that might otherwise not get reviewed, get reviewed.

What happened next

In the second half of 1988 climate change became a public policy issue, that politicians etc had to have opinions about, say warm words about etc.  

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

Morgan, Ruth. ‘Imagining a Greenhouse Future: Scientific and Literary Depictions of Climate Change in 1980s Australia.’ Australian Humanities Review 57 (2014): 43-60.

Turner, G. 1987. The Sea, the Summer

Also on this day: 

January 3, 1984 – US report on energy transition to combat climate released.

Jan 3, 1992 – Greenpeace vs POTUS on Climate Change

January 3, 2007 – Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air, says Union of Concerned Scientists

Categories
Australia

January 2, 2016 – Australian environmental NGOs write another wish list…

Nine years ago, on this day, January 2nd, 2016, green groups seek planning permission for more castles in the air…

 A “new deal” blueprint for sweeping reform of Australia’s environment laws that puts climate change at the centre of ­future economic decision-­making is being prepared by a coalition of 40 leading conser­vation groups.

The reform agenda marks an aggressive new phase in environmental lobbying in the wake of the Paris climate meeting, at which Australia agreed to a new “high ambition” agenda to limit future warming to 1.5C.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/green-groups-push-for-environmental-law-reform/news-story/f01474a7609d8041f2f96ef46a2d3d29

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 403ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a perfectly reasonable (if totally inadequate) emissions trading scheme had been junked by Prime Minister Tony Abbott in 2014.  But Australia was now led by a “green” Liberal, Malcolm Turnbull, and greenie groups felt that there might be some wiggle room. And presumably, needed to be seen to be busy, for reasons of self-respect, career and getting direct debits from guilty/frustrated middle-class people.

What I think we can learn from this

The environmental NGOs are always writing these wish lists, as challenges (1988’s “Green Gauntlet”, anyone) and the politicians are always either flat out ignoring them or else pretending to listen while doing virtually nothing.

What happened next

Turnbull got turfed by another Liberal (seriously, these were hilarious days). Eventually a Labor government won office and instantly did everything on this 2016 list. Oh yes.  (sarcasm).

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 2, 1955 – Commie newspaper covers climate

January 2, 2008 – tiresome (but sound) “Green Fatigue” warning is made

.Jan 2, 2014- “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop,

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

December 30, 1997 –  “How seriously should we take the greenhouse effect?” asks deeply unserious economics hack

Twenty six years ago, on this day, December 30th, 1997

How seriously should we take the greenhouse effect – how fast is the world’s temperature rising, and how important is it that we should take precautionary measures, and of what kind? How much should we spend now, given the uncertainties of the whole issue? And how, or on whom, should we spend? 

1997 MCGuinness on ‘environmentalist propaganda’ McGuinness, P. 1997. Running risks of global warming. Sydney Morning Herald, 30 December, p.6

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people have been talking about Australia’s “national interest” and climate change and limits to carbon for a long time because the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol had been going on all year. And here’s Paddy McGuinness, a libertarian economist who had given aid and comfort to the Centre for Independent Studies recycling his bullshit, and refusing to actually think that gosh, he and his beloved ideology might be wrong. 

What we learn is stupid people gonna stupid, especially if their stupidity gets them a seat at the top table, and helps make rich people stay rich/get richer. They need useful idiots in the war of ideas. 

What happened next? Well, McGuinness died, which is why I can speak freely about him. 

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 30, 1957 – a letter from Gilbert Plass to Guy Callendar

December 30, 1976 – President Jimmy Carter is lobbied about #climate change

December 30, 2006 – “Industry snubs climate strategy”

December 30, 2007 – Bert Bolin dies.

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

December 28, 2002 –  Renewable Energy vs John Howard, round 55ish…

Twenty-two years ago, on this day, December 28th, 2002

RENEWABLE Energy Generators of Australia Limited has dismissed as flawed a recent government report, saying it would lead to the abandonment of renewable energy developments

Hobart Mercury (2002) Report on renewable energy `flawed’. 28th December

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1997, John Howard had – in the run up to the Kyoto COP – promised a 2% renewable energy target for Australia. He had slowed that process down as much as humanly possible. In the end, a Mandatory Renewable Energy Target had come in, in April of 2001. And started working. And then of course, another Howard acolyte launched a review that threw the whole thing into doubt. And here we have small trade association trying to point this out, getting a hearing and that leads to Hobart Mercury, and maybe elsewhere. Possibly of interest to Hobart, in Tasmania, because that’s just at this point Vestas must have been deep in the planning of starting its factory. 

What we learn is that trade associations for new sectors struggle, because they don’t have many member companies. And those companies tend to be small and poor. And incumbents have better lobbyists, better connections, and it can be a real uphill battle. And often these little trade associations fall apart under lack of money and lack of personnel and all the rest of it. 

What happened next 

Howard successfully made life so hellish for renewables that his preferred options – coal, LNG – dominated throughout his reign. (Vestas pulling the plug in 2005 etc etc)

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 28, 1978 – fly the plane. Don’t keep tapping the fuel light.

December 28, 1994 – Australian Financial Review says “say yes to Tradeable Emissions Quotas”

Categories
Australia

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

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 27th, 2004,

How do we make people more aware of the accelerating problems of climate change? The Australian Conservation Foundation’s new president says we must make them pay for their damage – literally

Clarke, D. (2004) NEW CONSERVATION CHIEF Climate controller The Advertiser 27th December

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Federal government had once again said no to an emissions trading scheme. And the states we’re talking about bottom up. Meanwhile, the Australian Conservation Foundation, which had been banging on about how a carbon tax would be a Good Idea for 15 years, had a new president. And although the times were inauspicious Howard had been given another three years, you always have to propose your ideas even if they’re seemingly out of time and unpopular.

What happened next various other business groupings surfaced, trying to talk about climate and carbon pricing. The most consequential of these probably was the April 2006 effort with Westpac and so forth. And then, of course, when Kevin Rudd came along, carbon pricing took off. 

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, 2009 – Art exhibition in Copenhagen saves the world

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

December 22, 1999 – Australian population growth and carbon reductions – not so easy…

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, December 22nd, 1999 the economics editor for the Fin, Alan Mitchell, came out with some truth bombs.

It is unfortunate that political considerations probably mean market-based policies will never play their full role, because the Productivity Commission was right.

Instead of mucking around with regulation and “education and awareness”, or fiddling at the edges with immigration, we should be slapping on a carbon tax.

Notwithstanding the claims of the Australian Industry Group, just jacking up the price of generating greenhouse gases is exactly what we should be doing.

Mitchell, A. 1999. Migrants, Kyoto don’t gel. The Australian Financial Review, December 22, p.16.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Institute then run by Clive Hamilton had weighed in on the question of Australia setting very high ambition net immigration targets as potentially a bad thing. There’s been an historical quandary over this for environmentalists. Because if they oppose lots of immigration, they can be accused of being racist and selfish. And if they point out that the main boosters for a big Australia are businesses who want to depress wages and at the same time, increase the market for their products they can be accused of being Marxists, or conspiracy theorists. So they’re in a bit of a cleft stick. 

What we learn – Anyway, what’s interesting here is that the Financial Review’s economics editor pointed out that business was bullshit on this and that a carbon tax was precisely the sort of thing be required if you were going to deal with climate change 

Twenty-five years ago, today, the sin was talking a certain amount of sense on the climate issue. 

What happened next? Mitchell is now at the Sydney Morning Herald.

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 22, 1759 – “What have ye done?”

December 22, 1975 – “Scientist Warns of Great Floods if Earth’s Heat Rises” (surely “when”?)

December 22, 1978 – UK Energy Department chief scientist worries about CO2 levels and pressure to reduce them…

Categories
Australia

December 21, 1992 – Keating in Adelaide

Thirty two years ago, on this day, December 21st, 1992, Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating went to the provinces…

“Adopting clean production methods which minimise waste and pollution and maximise efficient use and recycling of resources is essential to the success of our manufacturing industry. The market is there for cleaner industries and cleaner products. It is also there for environmental management systems and technologies. Australians are developing those things. The drive for environmentally friendly industries and the protection of our natural environment is, in short, part of the economic drive, part of the international competitive drive in which Australia is engaged.” (Paul Keating: Statement on the Environment 21 December 1992) 

Also – The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, will announce today the ratification of two international treaties that will extend Federal Government powers over the environment.

Garran, R. 1992. Keating to flag new environmental leap. Australian Financial Review, December.21

And 

The Prime Minister’s Environment Statement, released in Adelaide on December 21, last year, was weighted heavily towards water and air quality.

It was noticeable for its lack of any of the most contentious of the pressing environmental problems, such as the setting of firm greenhouse-gas reduction targets; any attempt to implement the recommendations of the ecologically sustainable development working groups; the introduction of effective national endangered species legislation – to name just some. 

Toyne, P. 1993. Environment forgotten in the race to the Lodge. Canberra Times, March 8 p. 11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Keating had come to power exactly a year previously. He had inherited an Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process, which neither he nor the federal bureaucrats were at all fond of.

Keating had not gone to the Rio Earth Summit, the only one of the OECD leaders not to do so.

The bureaucrats had spent a year shoving it into 17 committees and just generally killing it off (though they were too blatant and caused a bit of a storm…See August 6, 1992 – Australian environmentalists and businesses united… in disgust at Federal bureaucrats)

There had been a National Greenhouse Response Strategy released a couple of weeks before early December

This was him, probably through gritted teeth, having to talk about stupid green issues. And as Toyne said, it was silent on the all-important question of greenhouse targets.

What we learn is that in the same way that in nature, you’ll find the cubs and babies of another father getting unceremonious killed by the new father (and this being genetically the smart thing to do) you’ll find policies – good, bad and indifferent – that were put forward by the previous person, whether they’re in your party or on the opposition party, unceremoniously wiped out and that’s what happened here. Though you can overgeneralise this, it was simply that Keating was in thrall to the neolibs, who had hated and still hated environmentalist issues which they regard as silly green irrelevant externalities and a Trojan horse for SOCIALISM.

In 1994 Keating would chide environmentalists for their focus on the “amorphous” issue of greenhouse gases. https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/08/01/august-2-1994-australian-prime-minister-paul-keating-says-greenies-should-ignore-amorphous-issue-of-greenhouse/

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 21, 1993 – European Union agrees to ratify UNFCCC

December 21, 2005 – US activist William Rodgers commits suicide

Categories
Australia Industry Associations

December 19, 2017 – BHP exits World Coal Association. 

Seven years ago, on this day, December 19th, 2017,

Australian mining company BHP releases review of industry associations report, pulls out of World Coal Association and puts Minerals Council of Australia “on notice.” (See this report in Financial Times (paywalled).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 407ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the World Coal Association had been trying to talk up high emissions, low efficiency coal, (or maybe the other way around, it’s hard to tell) and generally being pugnacious in the culture wars. BHP no longer needed that because frankly, it had gotten out of thermal coal. And so, quitting a toxic trade association makes you look responsible. Especially since you can wag your finger at the Minerals Council, and hopefully get some of the activists off your back or at least pointing somewhere else for a little while. 

What we learn is this is pretty standard behaviour of individual companies to try to signal their virtue by leaving especially toxic trade associations. They usually don’t do it till they’ve divested. 

What happened next? As of December 2024, BHP is still a member of the MCA.

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 19, 1988 – the launch of “Ark”

December 19, 1991- Will UN negotiations go as usual and “commit us to global catastrophe”?

December 19, 2010 – CCS dies in Queensland

Categories
Australia

December 18, 1996 – Australian greenhouse emissions sharply UP.

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, December 18th, 1996,

AUSTRALIA’s greenhouse gas emissions will blow out by almost 50 per cent by next century, according to a Federal Government report to be released today.

The document, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, reveals that a 42 per cent increase in energy demand by Australians by 2020 will result in a similar increase in carbon dioxide emissions.

Benson, S. (1996) Power surge to hit greenhouse. Daily Telegraph, December 18.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that despite the so-called National Greenhouse Response Strategy and the Greenhouse Challenge and all the other piss-weak national announcements, coal-fired power stations were still getting approved, built, expanded and extended. And therefore you could see that any hope of hitting carbon targets around reduction would be blown out of the water. It was a relatively simple set of mathematics.

What we learn is that coal has been enormously beneficial to some people and is going to destroy us all because as of 2024 coal use is still expanding. (see here).

What happened next. The report had precisely zero impact. The lies and bullshit around the greenhouse kept going. 

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 18, 1970 – Science article about “Man-Made Climatic Changes”

December 18, 2008 – Tim DeChristopher does his auction action