Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

April 7, 2006 – Howard versus moths and cockatoos …

Twenty years ago today, governments make their usual big empty promises…

On 7 April, two days after the Bald Hills decision, Neil Mitchell of 3AW put the Prime Minister on the spot in relation to a housing project west of Melbourne at Melton, saying ‘there’s a $400 million development out there at risk’ because of the elusive and endangered grassland-dwelling Golden Sun Moth. The Prime Minister was unaware of the moth. Still he promised ‘I will investigate that’. Other stories queried whether the endangered red-tailed black cockatoo would ‘sink a $650 million pulpmill’ in SA, and whether the little known flatback turtle would continue to raise an issue for Chevron’s $11 billion Gorgon gas project off the northwest coast of Western Australia.

(Prest, 2007: 253)

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 Liberal Party had gone to the 1990 election with a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labor, but this had not won them for the election. Small-g greens had come out for Labor, and the Liberals decided they had been “stabbed in the back” and that all of this was all climate change stuff was a socialist hokum. John Howard, who had become prime minister 10 years before the events described here, had done everything in his power to protect the fossil fuel industry and to quash the growth in renewables and to prevent international action. 

The specific context was that Howard was beginning to look old, beginning to lose his grip. Kyoto had, in fact, finally been ratified by enough nations to come into force, and negotiations for a success and protocol were underway. 

Also, the Australian Conservation Foundation had teamed up with various banks, for example, including Westpac, and released a study with the laughable title “early action on climate change”  that was a couple of days before this. And Howard’s environment minister was maybe not quite as sharp as either of them thought and had managed to create opportunities for people to poke fun. This latest one was the apparent John Howard beginning to not quite be on top of things. We now know that late 2006 was the year that the dam broke and that Howard stopped being invincible and started to look very, very beatable for the 2007 election.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are usually cracks in the dam. Sometimes these cracks just stay there. Other times, with hindsight, you can see that floods about to begin. 

What happened next:  Howard not only lost the 2007 election, but he also lost his own seat.

 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: 

April 7, 1980 – C02 problem is most important issue… “another decade will slip by” warns Wally Broecker to Senator Tsongas

April 7, 1995 – First “COP” meeting ends with industrialised nations making promises…

April 7, 2010 – Ziggie tries to sprinkle Stardust – 50 nuclear reactors by 2050 – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Denial Kyoto Protocol

April 3, 2001 – Kyoto Protocol most serious challenge to Australian sovereignty since Coral Sea

On this day 25 years ago a nutjob wrote…

 Australian government is being applauded by corporate polluters and corporate front groups at home and abroad. The Global Climate Coalition, the major front group for US corporate polluters, features on its web site an article by Alan Wood in the April 3 Australian (<http://www.globalclimate.org>). Wood’s article, titled “Killing Kyoto in Australia’s best interests”, urges Australia to back the US in pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol.

Wood comments favourably on a paper written by climate sceptic Alan Oxley for the Lavoisier Group, an Australian “think tank” which argues that the Kyoto Protocol poses “the most serious challenge to our sovereignty since the Japanese fleet entered the Coral Sea on 3 May, 1942”.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/canberra-covers-bush-greenhouse

AND

The US has called Europe’s bluff, LISTEN to the Europeans and you could be forgiven for thinking George W. Bush has just sent the world to the gas chamber – the greenhouse gas chamber, that is. What Bush has really done by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol is shatter a European dream of running the international energy market, or at least a substantial bit of it.

This dream arose from a mix of Europe’s quasi-religious green fundamentalism and cynical calculation of commercial advantage. Jacques Chirac gave the game away at the failed COP6 talks at The Hague last November, when he described the protocol as “a genuine instrument of global governance”.

Wood, A. 2001. Killing Kyoto in Australia’s best interests. The Australian, 3 April, p13.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that, well, as discussed yesterday, link, the Kyoto Protocol was inadequate, but essential – necessary but wildly insufficient. What you see here is the bat shit, crazy, conspiratorial One World Government crap from someone with an academic background, but no grasp on reality. This language of sovereignty, of “taking back control” is immensely powerful and useful for the nutjobs, and they use pretty much every opportunity they can to deploy it.

So much for one fragile world. The Treaty of Westphalia is a treaty of failure, as was predicted by many observers in the late 1970s who knew that getting nations to agree to emissions cuts would be virtually impossible.

The specific context was that Bush Jnr had followed Dick Cheney’s instructions, and pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are doomed.

What happened next:  Howard pulled Australia out the following year, but this was a major factor in his eventual political demise.

Also on this day: 

April 3, 1995 and 2001 – Australia’s international trajectory – from bullshit to batshit delusion (but honest)

April 3, 1980 – US news anchorman Walter Cronkite on the greenhouse effect

April 3, 1991- Does coal have a future?

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

April 3, 2008 – CCS demo plant in Australia

On this day Thursday, 3 April 2008 

The World’s (then) “largest CO2 storage demo plant” opens in Victoria.

THE launch of Australia’s first carbon dioxide storage demonstration project is a “key strategic initiative in the global challenge of addressing climate change”, according to Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitchell Hooke. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that carbon capture and storage had first been proposed as a solution – a partial solution – to carbon dioxide build up in the mid 1970s by an Italian physicist, Cesar Marchetti, as part of the whole IASSA attempt to offer solutions.   

The specific context was that was10 years previously, in the late 1990s the GEODISC programme had gotten underway, and in 2001 the Prime Minister’s Science, Economics and Industry Council then chaired by Roy Batterham, (who was part time also the chief technology officer for Rio Tinto), had put forward CCS as a useful way of side-stepping climate policy and the need for behaviour change and societal transformation. There had been further insane promises about CCS during the 2000s and then in 2008 we see this pilot project begin.

What I think we can learn from this is that  these fantasy technologies have a long history, and it’s not one of success.

What happened next:  Otway kept storing trivial amounts of CO2 and it’s not clear to me that any meaningful lessons were learned. But I’m not a geologist. The big CCS project in Australia is Gorgon as per Chevron, and you can read about its stunning world changing successes here.

Also on this day: 

April 3, 1995 and 2001 – Australia’s international trajectory – from bullshit to batshit delusion (but honest)

April 3, 1980 – US news anchorman Walter Cronkite on the greenhouse effect

April 3, 1991- Does coal have a future?

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Categories
Australia Coal

April 2, 1978 – First Australian Coal Conference begins  

On this day, forty eight years ago, 

1st Australian Coal Conference, Surfers Paradise, Queensland.  2 – 6 April 1978.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that coal had always been a hugely important part of Australia’s economy and as a primary energy source. In the 1960s huge coal fields were discovered in Queensland and an export market to the rapidly developing Asia sprang up.

Then came the things like the Australian Mining Industry Council, and also the need for a place where everyone could schmooze each other, have a good time, get away from the wife and kids, sample the dubious delights of Queensland. And so the first Australian coal conference was held. 

What I think we can learn from this is that industries need their gathering spots, and this can be profitable for the hosts and for the wider economy of gambling, drugs and prostitution.

What happened next:  The coal conference has happened every two years. The 1988 one, in March, had absolutely nothing on climate change. The one two years later was absolutely dominated by the “so-called” greenhouse effect, as we called it then. But the interesting tale with the coal conferences is that they came to be dominated by people wanting to fight the culture wars around greenhouse and other people who were just interested in making money became bemused and frustrated, and eventually the coal conferences stopped being worth attending, stopped being profitable and stopped being held and replaced by other conferences that filled the ecological (!) niche. 

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: 

April 2, 1968 – Oz Senate debates Air Pollution Select Committee

April 2, 1979 – AAAS workshop in Anaheim begins…

April 2, 2008 – Senator Barack Obama blathers about coal

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol

April 2, 2001 – Post-”Bush pulling out of Kyoto” joy from various Australian nutjobs 

On this day, 25 years ago, 

A string of federal ministers, led by Prime Minister John Howard, voiced support for the US position following the March 29 announcement by Washington that it would not support the Kyoto Protocol. Federal cabinet decided on April 2 to support the US decision. The government declared that it will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless the US does.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/canberra-covers-bush-greenhouse

And

The April 2 Age 2001 printed an article by Ray Evans from the Lavoisier Group, in which he stated: “President Bush has shown courage and provided world leadership by announcing that the United States will not support the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. What is baffling, however, is that some senior members of the Australian government do not seem prepared to immediately lend support to Bush. In the interests of good policy and good science, they should do so.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the UNFCCC had been signed in 1992. In 1995 rich nations had agreed to turn up to the third Conference of the Parties with plans to reduce their emissions (“the Berlin Mandate”). However, in the United States, fossil fuel lobbies and denialists fought tooth and nail, and reduced ambition. Meanwhile, the Americans forced the Europeans to accept all sorts of carbon trading and so-called “Joint Implementation.” That was a recipe for delay in Australia. The Howard government used all its diplomatic weight to try to carve out a special deal for Australia, resulting in an official de jure, so-called reduction target of 108%, i.e. an increase, but de facto, 130% once you took into account so called land clearing anyway, the 

The specific context was that George W Bush had been handed the 2000 presidential election by his dad’s appointees on the Supreme Court, and although Bush Jr W had said on the campaign trail that carbon dioxide would need to be regulated, once in office, he took orders from Dick Cheney and pulled the US out of Kyoto.

So what you see here is the relief and applause from various Australian assholes because they knew that sooner or later, Howard would make the same announcement, (but not until after the Federal Election of 2001 which, of course, he was looking like he would lose). But then, well, the Tampa and the lies and all of that. 

What I think we can learn from this is that these people applauding Bush pulling out of Kyoto are, frankly, the scum of the earth. This is not to say Kyoto was at all adequate, but they’re still the scum of the earth. 

What happened next:  Kyoto ratification became a weird virtue-signalling fetish in Australia, which suited the Labor politician Kevin Rudd, who used it as a stick to beat John Howard, with Australia, did eventually ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which was a completely futile gesture.

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: 

April 2, 1968 – Oz Senate debates Air Pollution Select Committee

April 2, 1979 – AAAS workshop in Anaheim begins…

April 2, 2008 – Senator Barack Obama blathers about coal

Categories
Australia Renewable energy United Kingdom

April 1, 2002 – Renewables policies in UK and Australia

On this day, April 1,  

UK  Introduced on 1 April 2002, the Renewables Obligation requires all electricity suppliers who supply electricity to end consumers to supply a set portion of their electricity from eligible renewables sources; a proportion that will increase each year until 2015 from a 3% requirement in 2002–2003, via 10.4% in 2010-2012 up to 15.4% by 2015–2016.

and 

2002 MRET in Australia 1st Mandatory Renewable Energy Target established (following speech by Howard just before Kyoto)

The 2% to 0% target shenanigans – see Kent and Mercer 2006…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the 1970s scientists had been saying that continuing to burn coal (and gas and oil) for energy was going to lead to really bad outcomes and that therefore nuclear and renewables needed to be prioritised.

The specific context was that in the UK the Blair government was continuing to bank the emissions reductions from the “dash for gas” and do pretty much as little as possible on climate change.  In Australia John Howard (Liberal Prime Minister) had slow-walked his 1997 (pre-Kyoto) promise of a renewables target.

What I think we can learn from this is that our political leaders don’t lead in any meaningful sense – they do what is convenient to their donors in the short term (next three years or so).

What happened next:  Renewables continued to get not that much support in the UK – though that changed a bit in the 2010s – or rather, offshore wind took off. Howard continued to resist all growth in renewables as much as he could.  

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: 

April 1, 1857 – Bucharest gets oily illuminations

April 1, 1960 – TIROS satellite launched – All Our Yesterdays

April 1, 1970 – Eco-documentary shown on Melbourne TV, carbon dioxide build-up mentioned

April 1, 1979 – JASONs have their two cents on the greenhouse effect

Categories
Australia

April 1, 2001 – Lindsey Tanner warns the ALP…

On this day, April 1, 2001 an Australian Labor Party MP tries to explain the dangers ahead for his party.

In a speech yesterday, Tanner opined that middle class voters of both hues cared about the environment. “If Labor allows the distinction between the Greens and the Coalition to become the dominant point of environmental differentiation in Australian politics, we will lose a major advantage over the Liberal and National Parties,” he said.

Tanner was concerned that the government would slip through the environment net through advertising glossing over its record. The big one going now is TV celebrity Don Burke extolling the Coalition’s Greenhouse credentials. Funny that, since most of the cash comes courtesy of the Democrats, who insisted on real money going into alternative energy research and rail as part of its price for supporting the GST. The Democrats got $400 million in extra funding for greenhouse gas projects over four years. In retrospect, lucky for the Coalition.                                   

Kingston, M. 2001. Australia: green enough for Kyoto? Sydney Morning Herald, April 2 . http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/21/1069027322567.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that social democratic parties, based in productivism and unions, were always uneasy allies with greenies: the “environment issue” gets bolted on (the foot of) pre-existing shopping lists of demands. It’s easier done in opposition when you can criticise the ruling party, the governing party. Once you’re in power, it gets trickier (though Moss Cass, Whitlam’s Environment Minister had some successes). 

The specific context was that, after the failure and betrayal of the Hawk Keating governments on climate change, the greens (small g) had, on the second or third attempt, created a national political party. By 2001 they were beginning to win, warning that Labour could continue to bleed support.

What I think we can learn from this is that spotting dilemmas is easier than taking action to manage them.  

What happened next:  The Green vote has continued to grow (unevenly both spatially and temporally).  And Labor continues to have sooks when people they think they own vote otherwise. And the emissions continue to climb.  

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: 

April 1, 1857 – Bucharest gets oily illuminations

April 1, 1960 – TIROS satellite launched – All Our Yesterdays

April 1, 1970 – Eco-documentary shown on Melbourne TV, carbon dioxide build-up mentioned

April 1, 1979 – JASONs have their two cents on the greenhouse effect

Categories
Australia

 March 30, 2000 – Robert Hill “attacks” industry

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 30th, 2000. 

Industry has been slammed by Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill for its slowness to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“I’m not inclined to reward those companies who make Australia’s emission reduction task more difficult,” Senator Hill said yesterday.

The blunt message came at The Australian Financial Review’s Third Annual Emissions Forum, being held in Sydney. But industry wants the government to provide better incentives to reduce emissions.

Hordern, N. 2000. Hill attacks industry over gas emissions. The Australian Financial Review, 31 March, p27.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  that the Australian political elites, by 1994-95 had definitively decided that they were going to prioritise the coal industry over future generations of Australians and the ecosystems and you name it, because the money, the non-executive directorships, the prestige, etc, all came from the coal industry and its allies. In 1996 the Liberal National Party, or liberal and national parties, for most states, had won the 1996 election and Prime Minister John Howard had come to power. He was extremely hostile to all things environmental, but especially the problem of carbon dioxide build up. This was evident from the second COP in June of that year onwards.  

The specific context was that Howard had simply kept a wheeze created under Paul Keating (previous Prime Minister). The “Greenhouse Challenge” had been the booby prize after a carbon tax was defeated. And the Greenhouse Challenge was one of these, “voluntary schemes” where industry was supposed to show that it could do what was needed and wanted without the heavy hand of unnecessary regulation. And guess what? Industry didn’t. Who knew. What A Shock.

What I think we can learn from this is that.  So here we have the Environment Minister performatively “chiding” industry, and industry would largely take it on the chin. It’s all pretend. It’s all kayfabe. Everyone knows that only the terminally-naive think that anything is actually going to be done and that government is going to get up on its hind legs and challenge big business. I mean, come on, it’s not the 1970s anymore. 

What happened next

The Greenhouse Challenge was rebooted as Greenhouse Challenge Plus, but then, sort of by 2004 or five it became impossible for anyone to pretend and so the whole thing was quietly done away with. Then late the following year, 2006 the climate issue exploded onto the scene and has never really left. It’s just now a running open saw that no one knows what to do 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

 March 30, 1948 – The Conservation Foundation founded

March 30, 1983-  EPA sea level rise conference

March 30, 1992 – Thelma and Louise could teach humans a thing or three….

March 30, 2005 – The Millennium Ecosystems  Report is launched.

March 30, 2007 – Climate as “the great moral challenge of our generation” #auspol

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

March 27, 1990 – Greenweek on carbon capture

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 27th, 1990,

On this day, the publication Greenweek has a news article titled

“Radical way to take carbon dioxide from power stations”

“A dramatic fall in greenhouse gas emissions in the industrialised Hunter Valley in NSW could come about if the Hunter Technology Group can proceed with studies of a radical method of removing carbon dioxide emissions from power stations.

“The group is seeking $150,000 from the NSW Government to study a proposal whereby carbon dioxide emissions would be pumped along ground-level pipelines to rural and forest areas, rather than be sent through smokestacks into the atmosphere.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Green Week had been set up by an enterprising journalist, I think in the beginning of 1989  and was doing exactly what it said, publicising events and policy discussions, etc. And here we see discussion in its early stages of quote, carbon capture and storage a fantasy, if ever there were one. 

The specific context was that all sorts of bullshit was being bullshitted at this time.

What I think we can learn from this is that the carbon capture and storage thing, which had started in the mid 1970s as a putative solution to CO2 build up, was there in the undergrowth in the 90s.

What happened next

The fantasy technology staggers on. The amount of CO2 actually captured is pitiful, especially if you take out the stuff that is used for enhanced oil recovery. 

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: 

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27, 1971 – Norwegian Tabloid talks about the climate threat 

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

March 27, 1995 – former Nature editor John Maddox admits was wrong on Greenhouse, without, er, admitting it.

March 27, 2008 – James Hansen writes a letter to Kevin Rudd

Categories
Australia

March 24, 1995 –  Australian scientists release report

Thirty one years ago, on this day, March 24th, 1995,  

AUSTRALIA’S top science bodies say much uncertainty remains over greenhouse warming predictions despite claims by Argentinian researchers that Antarctica’s ice shelf has begun cracking up.

Current increases in global temperature cannot be linked with certainty to human action, the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering caution in a joint report released yesterday.

Cribb, Julian, 1995. Greenhouse theory ‘still uncertain’. The Australian 25/03/95 Page 10

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 climate change from carbon dioxide build up began to be talked of seriously by Australian scientists in 1977, after Graeme Pearman came back from a trip to the US and Europe. There had been conferences in 1980 and 1987, and monographs, articles etc etc.

The specific context was that the IPCC had already released its first report, and its second assessment report was nearing completion. Presumably, this report was designed to be released to inform the COP to take place in Berlin. It’s hard to know what the lead times were, but I can’t imagine. It’s much of a coincidence. Maybe it is. 

Meanwhile, the Australian was and is still SUCH a reliable source of information about what scientists are saying. Oh yes.

What I think we can learn from this is that is that any scientific report can be massaged in any direction you like, pretty much, and if it can’t be massaged in the direction you like, well, you can simply fucking ignore it or suppress it. 

What happened next. More reports, more suppression, more reports, more emissions, higher concentrations, more impacts, more despair and the window closes.

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: 

March 24, 1989 – Exxon Valdez vs Alaska. (EV wins)

March 24, 1990 – Labor politician has dummy spit on election night about needing small g-green votes

March 24, 2004 – Launch of Coal21 National Plan

March 24, 2010 – Scientists explain another bad thing on the horizon, this time on soil