Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Coal

 September 12, 2003 – Newcastle Herald thinks the future of coal looks ‘cleaner’…

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 12, 2003, the Newspaper Herald, in the heart of New South Wales coal country, reports on coal industry leaders promising cleaner coal…

ANY “sunset” scenario for the Hunter’s coal industry would be a cleaner one, industry leaders said yesterday.

Using Coal21, a paper put together by the state and federal governments as a starting point, panellists looked at whether the billion dollar industry had a use-by date a “sunset”.

NSW Minerals Council executive director John Tucker said many in the industry believed the move to more diverse energy sources would start to occur in big numbers in 40 to 50 years.

Hennessy, C. 2003. Future Of Coal Looks `cleaner’. The Newcastle Herald,13 September

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia was in the middle of an enormous minerals boom  and becoming very wealthy indeed. Mind you not everyone – the Gini Coefficient was going up and up the minerals boom included coal exports. The fear that eventually there would be restrictions on coal use meant that there were all kind of wheezes about “clean coal” and forums were being carried out. This was one of them.

What I think we can learn from this is that a lipstick will always be found if the pig is particularly valuable. That is to say people will always try to slap the word clean or green or sustainable on whatever on very unclean ungreen unsustainable crap that they are doing. Partly so they can sleep at night, partly so they can recruit more people into the industry, get investors. And partly to make it harder to regulate them.

And there are entire industries made up of individuals and companies who will assist in this lipsticking. And we want to believe those lies, because then we don’t have to do anything particularly difficult or uncomfortable, we can just go with the flow and still get what we want.

What happened next

Twenty years later they are still selling coal from the Hunter. And we’re all going to die. Why? Because these coal mines are death factories.

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.

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

September 7, 2005 – “rule out nuclear” say Aussie green outfits.

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 7, 2005, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Greens call on the gov to rule out nuclear energy and release a report “Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Howard government had asked a pro-nuclear scientist to do a review of nuclear power. This was after Howard and Bush had had one of their periodic meetings. The review made the same point that nuclear power was not going to be economic for Australia, and take too long to develop.

But it was also a useful “dead cat” strategy for Howard because he could wedge greens – he knew that some of them are pronuclear. Further, he knew it will take up time, energy and bandwidth and therefore distract from what he was (not) doing on climate.

But this is tricksy, and eventually the magician plays the same trick so many times that people spot how he does it and stop being impressed or even amused. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this is that nuclear is always a good “go to” if you want to avoid talking about what needs doing in the here and right now. And allow you to keep doing what you’re doing.

What happened next

Nuclear was not developed. It will not be developed in Australia because the population is not big enough and there aren’t enough big electricity consumers and anyway everyone has got wind and solar and the nuclear boat has sailed (and I don’t think the nuclear submarines will sail either. But who knows.)

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..

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 4, 2000 – industry says sky will fall if there’s a carbon tax

Thirty three years ago, on this day, September 4, 2000, industry did another of its ‘the sky will fall’ efforts.

Victorian economic growth could be slashed by more than 2 per cent, thousands could lose their jobs and the aluminum industry could close if a strict anti-greenhouse gas regime is introduced, according to a landmark study.

The study by the Allen Consulting Group has estimated that Victoria’s gross state product would be between 1.3 per cent and 2.6 per cent smaller in 2012 if an emissions trading system or carbon tax scheme were introduced to combat Australia’s growing rate of unwanted greenhouse gas emissions.

Hopkins, P. 2000. Study Warns Of Greenhouse Gas Mayhem. The Age, 4 September, p1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Victorian government was proposing things that industry did not like. So that was enough for yet another “oh my god the sky will fall if you so much as tax a single molecule of hydrocarbons, we will all starve to death.” These economic models get put in reports and get turned into press releases and speeches which are dutifully reported by stenographers to power.

What I think we can learn from this is that these nonsense economic modeling reports are a favorite weapon in the war against sanity and the public good.

What happened next 

I am a bad historian, I haven’t bothered to go and look at what happened next. Did the government find the backbone to stare down this report? Sometimes they can. It depends on all manner of things not just the particular courage of the particular minister.

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.

Categories
Australia

September 4, 1990 – Industry whines about environment minister’s speech

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 4, 1990, Industry went all snowflake because a minister was a Mean Girl.

Anon, 1990. Industry upset about Minister’s Attack on Miners, Foresters. Green Week, September 4, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Hawke government was having to keep promises it had made to environmental groups in order to win the 1990 federal election. One promise was to set up an ecologically sustainable development process. The very existence of this offended industry, which was used to getting its own way via the usual means and did not feel it should ever have to justify its policies and proposals to anyone, least of all a bunch of smelly hippies. Relations with the then environment minister Ros Kelly were complicated, especially after she had made robust statements about what the miners meant with their definition of sustainability.

What I think we can learn from this is that industry was used to getting its own way and as per that old line “when privilege is removed it feels like oppression” industry always feels oppressed.

What happened next is that the ecologically sustainable development process continued but was then thrown in the circular file when new prime minister Paul Keating shat all over it and the federal bureaucracy buried it as this blog post about the events of August 6, 1992.

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..

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

September 3, 2002 – “Kyoto cuts too small, so we’re not going to bother”. 

Twenty one years ago, on this day, September 3, 2002, Australian Environment Minister David Kemp was on ABC-TV, explaining the Howard government’s position.

Silly Excuse No. 8. Cuts required by the Kyoto Protocol are too small to make a difference, so why bother?

“Kyoto is going to make barely 1 percent difference to global greenhouse gas emissions.” (Environment Minister Kemp, ‘Lateline’, ABC TV, 3 September 2002) Former Environment Minister David Kemp endorsed the IPCC’s estimate that global emissions will need to be cut by 60% or more to stabilize climate change and says the Government would not ratify the Protocol because it will result only in very small reductions.

[Clive Hamilton, 1 sept 2004]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Howard government had negotiated a spectacularly generous deal for Australia at the 1997 Kyoto conference. It had then ruled out ratifying the key Kyoto protocol in June 2002. (It would also rule out emissions trading at a federal level but state governments especially New South Wales and Victoria controlled by Labor were pushing for an emissions trading scheme). 

What I think we can learn from this is that there are no depths of intellectual vacuity and moral skank that old white men will not stoop to if they’re in a corner.

What happened next

Howard continued to resist any action on climate change and then at the end of 2006 tried to do the perception of a u-turn but failed. Throughout all of this emissions have climbed and the consequences have come. more consequences are coming.

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.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 1, 1998 – Sydney Futures Exchange foresees a bright future. Ooops.

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 1, 1998, carbon trading seemed to be coming to Australia…

SYDNEY (Dow Jones)–Sydney Futures Exchange said Tuesday it has formally established the Australian Emissions Trading Forum to provide opportunities for members to exchange information on greenhouse issues and encourage debate on emissions trading.

An advisory committee to the AETF, comprising representatives from a range of key industry and government agencies, has also been formed, the SFE said in a statement.

“There is growing interest in the prospect of greenhouse gas emissions trading as a means of meeting our greenhouse target, however, many potential stakeholders have found it difficult to obtain information about how the various schemes might develop,” Les Hoskings, SFE’s chief executive said.

At the U.N. climate change convention in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, a number of developed countries made binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Australia has committed to limit emissions to 108% of 1990 levels.

1998 Sydney Futures Exchange Sets Up Forum On Emissions Trading. September 1 Dow Jones International News

See also Fullerton- 31 August 1998 http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s48208.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various people thought that there would be a rush towards emissions trading, once Australia had its own national scheme and had ratified the Kyoto Protocol (which it had already signed).. The foreign money would come pouring in from nations where cutting carbon was harder (e.g. Japan, which had gone seriously energy efficient after the 1973 oil shock). These nations would instead of making expensive local investments could instead buy some trees in New South Wales and say “job done.” Meanwhile the middlemen and the bankers would get seriously rich. That was the idea, that was the cunning plan.

What I think we can learn from this is that smart people with an eye to the main chance are always coming up with cunning plans. Pity that these didn’t help with the decarbonization effort. Oh well

What happened next

The Sydney Trading Futures thing shut down in 2000 just before the Minchin/Hill Cabinet showdown… 

It get off the ground basically emissions trading didn’t either in Australia and the emissions kept climbing and climbing at least globally (t’s all a bit dodgy depending on how you do your accounting)

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.

Categories
Australia

August 31, 1998 – Green dollar growing on trees?

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 31, 1988, the Australian press sees kerching in the climate…

Trees could take on a new value as the world struggles to reduce greenhouse gases, according to a British forestry expert.

International commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, forged at last year’s Kyoto climate summit, would put a high value on preserving large tracts of forest as carbon sinks, a director of the International Institute for Environment and Development, Dr Stephen Bass, told a Melbourne conference last week. 

Winkler, T. 1998. Green Dollar Growing On Trees. The Age, 31 August, p.6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Kyoto Protocol had created putative new asset classes, such as trees as a source of carbon sequestration. In the aftermath of Kyoto – which had happened in December 1997 – lots of conferences about getting rich and saving the planet happened. People listening politely to each other, schmoozing each other, no one sticking up their hand and saying “but this is all a f****** inadequate fantasy isn’t it?” Because if you tell the truth, you don’t get applauded like the boy who said the emperor was naked – you simply tank your career and get uninvited in future.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have pissed 35 years against the wall in all sorts of self-soothing fantasies about market solutions and cleverness. And we never got down to brass tacks of radically reducing energy demand through efficiency, ending the growth economy delusion and being responsible sentient beings on the planet. The consequences of those decisions and actions and inactions are now becoming clear, even to rich white people.

What happened next

It was 2011 before Australia finally had a national emissions trading scheme. It didn’t ratify Kyoto until 2007, by which time it was a purely symbolic action. And the whole thing with carbon sinks is just a sick joke in the context that you may have noticed but there have been some bushfires and enormous quantities of carbon have been thrown up into the atmosphere, including the carbonized corpses of I don’t know a billion animals. What a species 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.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 30, 1989 – A global tax on emissions?!

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 30 1989 the Australian newspaper the Canberra Times reported on the crazy ideas that … might have made a difference.  What a stupid stupid species we turned out to be.

“A third set of more imaginative options are ruled out as too costly. These include a global tax on carbon emissions, major investment in renewable energy, and the banning of coal.”

Guest, I. 1989. World Bank tackles global warming. Canberra Times, 30 August, p. 9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that debates about the responses to climate change – what we used to call the greenhouse effect – were well underway, because various nations were adopting or thinking about adopting emissions reductions targets such as the Toronto Target. What’s entertaining in this is the question “compared to what?” So, if there had been a global carbon emissions tax and the money raised had gone into investing in renewable energy and compensating the workers affected by the demise of coal, then we might have gotten somewhere… But it would all have been too costly to save the world.

What I think we can learn from this is that the ideas we needed were there but turning ideas into a political program requires more skill and resources than we had. This is largely (but not totally) because of the veto power of business and the obduracy of large technical systems and so on.

What happened next

We never got a carbon tax. We got attempts at emissions trading schemes. The so-called major investments in renewables came very late, too late. And although we may exit coal, we will do it far too late.

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.

Categories
Australia

August 30, 1975 – The Science Show does climate change…

Forty eight years ago, on this day, August 30, 1975, the very first edition of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s new science program carries a segment about climate change.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-science-show-celebrates-35-years/3023384#transcript

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Scottish public intellectual Ritchie-Calder had been aware of the potential problem of climate change since 1954 at the latest (probably earlier).  He had been speaking of it as a serious problem by 1963 at the latest. His January 1970 article about “Mortgaging the Old Homestead,” which had been serialised in the Bulletin and elsewhere, included a relatively lengthy mention of the carbon dioxide problem.

At the time this show was broadcast the Australian Academy of Science was conducting an investigation into “the carbon dioxide problem”. It was Nugget Coombs who’d set that ball rolling, using Kissinger’s speech to the General Assembly as a pretext. 

What I think we can learn from this is that intelligent Australians who listened to the Science Show knew from 1975 what was going on.

What happened next was that the Science Show kept covering the climate issue and we’ve already talked about it on this website – the  Nirenberg and O’Brien episode and others… well done Robyn Williams!

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.

Categories
Australia Business Responses

August 29, 2008 – business tells Labor to go softly (Labor then does, obvs).

Fifteen years ago, on this day, August 29, 2008, business supplied the Labor government with the white flag they expected the government to wave.

“Today in the national capital, close to 60 business representatives will meet Resources Minister Martin Ferguson to outline their concerns over the draft ETS outlined by Ms Wong”

Lewis, S. 2008.

“Mr Rudd can’t afford to get this one wrong. The national economy is in a precarious state. Smoke signals send carbon trade talks around in circles. The Advertiser, 29 August, p.19.  

See Lewis follow up story the following day!

Lewis, S. 2008. Government wilts as business turns up heat on emissions: Backdown on climate plan. Herald-Sun, 30 August, p.97.

The Rudd Government has given the first sign it will change its controversial emissions trading scheme amid warnings that billions of dollars in investment will be lost offshore.

In the most significant challenge to Labor since the November election, 60 business chiefs yesterday told the Government that big ticket projects would be canned.

And Kevin Rudd was warned his Government risks a repeat of the “GST food fight” as industry and policy makers battle over the shape of a carbon trading scheme.

Executives from a raft of firms — including BHP, Rio Tinto, Woodside, Chevron, OneSteel and Alcoa — warned they might be forced to halt investment during a meeting with Resources and Energy Minister, Martin Ferguson.

Other representatives from the cement, paper and pulp, coal and resources sectors also raised concerns during the Canberra summit, which is likely to lead to key changes in the design of the ETS.

In the first potential breakthrough, the head of the Climate Change Department, Martin Parkinson, signalled the Government was prepared to modify its scheme — to prevent a backlash. Mr Parkinson told the meeting in Canberra that the Government was willing to look at changing the formula for how “free” permits were issued.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Kevin Rudd had surfed to power on climate change as “the great moral challenge of our generation,” and had started a convoluted policy process which was open to all sorts of special pleading and lobbying, especially in the context of global financial crisis. And this above is an example of business – which was already very practised at presenting a united front even if there wasn’t one – in well lobbying ministers, which in a pluralist system is totally ok, and is absolutely not a display of naked business power at all, you crazed conspiracy theorist you.

What I think we can learn from this is that any policy you try to implement is going to get watered down rather than watered up. This is the sort of thing that Ross Garnaut was talking about when he said that never has so much been given by so many to so few in his December 2008 article “oiling the squeaks.”

What happened next

Rudd’s December 2008 white paper was even more of a giveaway to business. Then in 2009 the process got even more corrupted and watered down. Rudd clearly had a mouth for it but didn’t have the spine to stand up to the vested interests who run the country. By the time he discovered that spine in April May June 2010 it was too late.

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.