Category: Australia

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

Categories
Australia Coal Industry Associations

May 5, 1990 – Coal barons have to pretend to care

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 5th, 1990, Australian coal merchants have to pretend to give a damn,

1990 Australian Coal Association conference dominated by environmental issues

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the 1988 conference (they had started in 1978, were bi-ennial) had not had environment on the agenda – the issue of climate change only properly broke through later that year. By 1990 though, international negotiations were pending, and the Australian government had already considered signing up to the “Toronto Target” of a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2005. The coal lobby had, therefore, to show what Good Corporate Citizens they were. There was even talk of carbon capture and storage.

What I think we can learn from this

You can use trade association publications and trade conferences as a barometer of what is going on – not necessarily of what the leading actors think, but of what they are worrying about, and what they want other people (regulators, publics, boycott-considering NGOs etc) to think.

What happened next

The fightback against any meaningful climate policy began at about this time and has continued – with remarkable success – down unto this day. Australia’s coal exports grew and grew and grew and plenty of people got rich. During the commodity super-cycle of the 2000s John Howard used the profits accruing to the state (not as much as they could have been) to bribe middle-class voters so he could stay in power. It’s a bit like Thatcher’s use of North Sea Oil in the 1980s to fund unemployment benefits… 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: 

May 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

May 5, 2000 – Business Council of Australia boss on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

May 4, 1992 – Liberals to be terrible on environment, for once.

Thirty three years ago, on this day, May 4th, 1992, in the great southern land…

The Federal Opposition will seek to exploit the Government’s embarrassment over its on-again off-again resource security legislation by prolonging debate in the Senate until after Tuesday’s meeting of the Labor Caucus.

Garran, R. 1992. Opposition to exploit resource indecision. Australian Financial Review, May 4, p 9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the new Keating government was busy burying any residual “green” ambitions, and the opposition, ahead of an election less than a year away, was punching the bruise and trying to peel away voters from Labor who had got Labor over the line in 1990 (not by attracting them to the LNP, but by making Labor look hopeless).

What I think we can learn from this

Two things – the game is the game and that “Moments” where everyone pretends to care about The Environment are almost by definition fleeting – normal service resumes fairly quickly.

What happened next The LNP managed to lose the unloseable election in March 1993 – Keating’s “sweetest victory”. John Hewson, LOTO at the time, has reinvented himself as a Nice Sane Guy on environment.

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 4, 1990 – coal industry sweats over greenie influence

May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face…

May 4, 2016 – South Australian Premier preening at Emissions Reduction Summit – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

April 29, 1989 – Australian Science Minister takes to the airwaves on the Greenhouse Effect.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, April 29th, 1989, the ABC radio programme the “Science Show” had this as its running line up.

The Science Show [Episode 658] – Reply to David Suzuki from Barry Jones; Greenhouse Effect Consequences; New Scientist Editor; Research Used for Biological Weapons; Lichens; Bopplenuts

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Science Show had, from its first August 1975 broadcast, been alerting listeners to the threat of climate change.  Science Minister Barry Jones had been on the case too, and his “Commission for the Future” had worked with the CSIRO on a highly effective “Greenhouse Project.”  The Australian Federal Government was grappling with ‘what to do’… David Suzuki, the Canadian science communicator, was making frequent trips to Australia and had recently lectured on the Amazon.

What I think we can learn from this was that the late 1980s really was a burst of awareness/fear around climate change, but that people can only cope with so much fear and then they turn away, happy to be told that every little thing’s gonna be alright, even (especially) when they know that really, it won’t be…

What happened next

We turned away – the green groups were unable to maintain the momentum, sustain their capacity. It was always going to end like this. It’s how every story ends…Or has ended so far.  Who knows, maybe next time will be different.  Sure.

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 29, 1967 – Canberra Times reviews Science and Survival – All Our Yesterdays

April 29, 1970 – Washington DC symposium talks about carbon dioxide

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

 April 27, 2001 – only Australia cheering Bush’s Kyoto pull out.

On this day 24 years ago Australia’s status as a colony of the United States – an enthusiastic one at that – was confirmed for the (checks notes) gazillionth time.

“Washington has mounted a diplomatic campaign to deflect criticism of its repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol, instead seeking support for its goal of broadening the UN climate change treaty to include developing countries.

And Canberra is Washington’s prize recruit in this campaign.

Asked in Wednesday’s Washington Post which countries backed him on greenhouse, President George Bush said “Australia [and Canada] said they understand why the US took this position”.

“However, the Canadian government has criticised the US for pulling out of the Kyoto process. Only Australia has provided uncritical support and is therefore Washington’s “prize recruit” in its campaign to kill the Kyoto Protocol, according to a report in the April 27 Australian Financial Review.”

Hordern, N. 2001. Bush wary of `kiss of death’ for backers in protocol pact. Australian Financial Review, April 27 , p.30.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that “settled” (invaded) Australia started life in 1788 as a dumping ground for convicts who couldn’t be hanged and/or sent to the American colonies.  The various colonies gained measures of self-government and in 1901 the Commonwealth came into existence, but Australia was still basically a colony.  Which was fine, but in 1942, after the fall of Singapore to the Japanese, it was clear the Brits weren’t going to be able to defend Oz. So the Aus Prime Minister pivoted to the Yanks – needs must. And Australia has been, in all significant respects, a colony ever since. So it goes.

What we learn. Colonial subjects like to imagine they are free. Everyone wants to imagine they are free.

What happened next. The Australian political “elite” (never were scare quotes so relevant) have continued to be craven and pathetic on climate. Why should anyone expect anything else?

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 27, 2010 – Rudd says no CPRS until 2012 at earliest. Seals fate – All Our Yesterdays

April 27, 1979 – Ecology Party first TV broadcast ahead 

April 27, 1987 – “Our Common Future” released.

April 27, 2007 – Coal-bashing campaign by gas company ends

April 27, 2010 – Rudd says no CPRS until 2012 at earliest. Seals fate – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

 April 25, 2000 – “Beyond Kyoto”  more meaningless blather by Australian politicians

On this day 25 years ago, April 25, 2000, the Federal Environment Minister, Robert Hill spoke at a meeting to the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change in Washington, ‘Beyond Kyoto: Australia’s efforts to combat global warming’, 25 April 2000,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that Australia had extorted an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto Conference (Hill had received a standing ovation at Cabinet afterwards). But it had leaked in 1998 that Howard was only going to ratify the deal if the US did (up in the air, with the 2000 election forthcoming). So Hill had to pretend all was well. And people had to pretend to be going along with that. Rude not to.

What we learn. It’s all kayfabe, innit?

What happened next. The Supreme Court handed George W Bush the 2000 election. In March 2001 he pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Australian Prime Minister John Howard waited until World Environment Day 2002 before doing same. Why the delay? Probably just because he liked watching the greenies twist in the wind? For the shingles, in other words.

Also on this day

April 25, 1989 – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying? (Why yes, yes it is) 

April 25, 1969 – Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

April 25th, 1974 – Swedish prime minister briefed on carbon dioxide build-up

April 25, 1996 – Greenpeace slams Australian government on #climate obstructionism

Categories
Australia

April 19, 2001 – Greenpeace Australia does some push-polling on climate

Twenty-four years ago, on this day, April 19th 2001,

 The difficulty for the Howard government is that its position on climate change is deeply unpopular and will cost it votes at the next federal election. A survey commission by Greenpeace Australia and released on April 19 found that 80.4% of respondents believed that Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, without the US if necessary.

The Greenpeace survey drew an angry response from industry minister Nick Minchin. “I think it’s irresponsible to be pushing this line without informing people how many jobs will be lost”, he said in an April 20 media release.

“ABARE [the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics] estimates that, even with the most optimistic assumptions, the costs to Australia of meeting the Kyoto Protocol commitments would be significantly more than a severe recession and several times that of a major drought”, Minchin said.

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

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a federal election coming. Climate change was likely to be – or Greenpeace would have liked it to be – a real issue. George W. Bush had just said America would not proceed with ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and everyone assumed that sooner or later, Prime Minister John Howard would follow suit. 

So Greenpeace thought that they could do a survey, get some press coverage for it, put little pressure on the Liberals, maybe stiffen the spine of Labour, etc. And maybe it worked at the time. 

What we learn is that these sorts of push surveys as a shot across the bows or a spine stiffener, or whatever, are a well-established political technique. What we should also learn is that they’re basically meaningless because people say all sorts of crap in a survey because they want to believe that they are the kind of person who cares. In the privacy of the ballot box people tend to vote with their ids or their wallets – and climate change doesn’t suit either of those. 

What happened next?  In August 2001 the Tampa nightmare happened. Or rather, the lies told by John Howard and his goons, almost 25 years ago now, happened. And Howard got another term in which he very predictably did everything he could to stop meaningful climate action. And then he got another term after that. And the emissions kept climbing.

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 19, 1973 – first film to mention global warming released (Soylent Green)

April 19, 1943 – the Warsaw Ghetto uprising began.

April 19, 2002 – Exxon got a top #climate scientist sacked.

April 19, 2010 -World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Denial

April 18, 1992 – The Australian carries page one headline “Global Warming May Lower Sea Levels”

On this day 33 years ago

New and conflicting predictions continue to be made. For example, on 18 April 1992 the Australian carried a page one headline ‘Global Warming May Lower Sea Levels’, while later in the business section a case was made against a carbon tax on fossil fuels.  Business interests remain unimpressed by the call to tax themselves.

(Love, 1992:44)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that the international negotiations were grinding on (in face of United States intransigence). The denial and confusion campaigns funded by the “Global Climate Coalition” were grinding out, and tame “journalists” were dutifully regurgitating the lies and calling it a contribution to Informing the Public.

What we learn

The Australian has not been a newspaper for a very long time. A poisonous propaganda rag.

What happened next.

The UNFCCC treaty was toothless, at absolute best worthless. The “journalists” prospered. Murdoch prospered (if you can call it that).  We’re so fubarred.

References

Love, R. 1992. Stranger Weather Still.  Arena 99/100 pp.39-46.

Also on this day

April 18, 1970 – Harold Wilson in York, bigging up UN, rights/obligations

April 18, 1989 – begging letter to world leaders sent

April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” revealed to be bullshit