Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

August 27, 2013 – absurd claim of Nobel-prize winners’ support for Liberal non-policy is debunked.

Ten years ago, on this day, August 27, 2013, soon-to-be environment minister Greg Hunt was caught frolicking in fantasy land about the absurd “Direct Action” policy.

27 August 2013: Greg Hunt’s claims that Nobel laureates support direct action debunked by The Wire as they had not heard of ‘direct action’ or Greg Hunt and issue further followed up by Climate Spectator. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/news-story/b8184490c3ccc2a49c17cd9c23048357

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 Liberal Party in Australia had spent the previous 3 years boosting an anti-market pro-government intervention policy which was laughingly called “Direct Action.” Direct action had been analysed and shown to be bullshit. Business was pleading with Liberal leader Tony Abbott not to do it, but he couldn’t u-turn and we now ahead of the 2013 election had a situation where the Liberal environment spokesperson Greg Hunt was just making stuff up, knowing that there would not be consequences.

What I think we can learn from this is that, in the words of journalist Nick Tomalin, “they lie they lie they lie.” And they are allowed to lie by a supine amnesiac Media and here we are.

What happened next

The Abbott government brought in so-called Direct Action and it did not reduce emissions. Of course it did not – it was never designed to do that

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 25, 2013 – The IPA loses support, for being stupid climate deniers.

Ten years ago, on this day, August 25, 2013, the vicious stupid thugs at the Institute for Public Affairs lose some corporate funding (but of course can then turn that around to proclaim their fearless independence).

Some of the world’s largest companies have dropped financial support and membership for the free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs amid concern at its vociferous campaign against action on climate change.

Petroleum giants ExxonMobil and Shell and large miners are among the multinationals that have confirmed leaving the Liberal-linked IPA, led by party member John Roskam, who this year was compared to Jesus Christ with his disciples by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

Schneiders, B. and Millar, R. 2013. Climate hard line costs IPA support. Sydney Morning Herald, 25 August.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/climate-hard-line-costs-ipa-support-20130824-2sirk.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm423 , but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that IPA had been a proud culture warrior in defeating Gillard’s carbon price and generally being asses. But this kind of “swinging for the fences” mentality comes with risks and costs, as we have seen already with the Global Climate Coalition and the Heartland Institute.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are are limits on what funders are willing to risk, and if you go too hard too far too fast some of your more mainstream groups which are also at the same time trying to spin a CSR (corporate social responsibility) line will clutch their pearls for fear of being exposed as hypocrites and being subject to consumer boycotts and so forth.

What’s interesting is sometimes the culture warriors just forget that there are limits and you saw this happened with Monkton with the swastika comment. They get trigger happy/high on their own supply and the Red Mist descends and they lose touch with what is going to fly and what isn’t.

What happened next

The IPA to my knowledge has continued to be asshat on climate change but I have not bothered to see whether they have dialled it down a notch, maybe someone can tell us.

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 24, 1989 – a Sydney council takes greenhouse suggestions on-board (or says it will).

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 24, 1989, Sydney councillors start to take note of citizen ideas for tackling “the greenhouse effect”. And use it to put the spotlight on the feds.

A concerned citizen’s letter has prompted Leichhardt Council to send three submissions to a Senate committee inquiring into ways of reducing the impact of the greenhouse effect.

The submissions, from Alderman Issy Wyner, as chairman of the council’s environment pollution control panel, Dr Ken Sullivan, president of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand, and Mr John Mara, council’s deputy chief health and building surveyor, were posted on Friday.

Mr N. G. Hyde, of Kingsgrove, had written to Leichhardt Council, expressing his concern about the greenhouse effect and depletion of the ozone layer.

“He probably wrote to every council but it stimulated a response from us,”Mr Mara said.

“We kept the matter on the agenda by writing to the Federal Environment Minister, Senator Richardson, and his NSW counterpart, Mr Moore, for advice, and picking up information from newspapers and journals.”

Bilic, J. 1989. Council officers greenhouse tips. Sydney Morning Herald, 24 August. 

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 everyone was running around with urgency and ideas for dealing with what was then called the greenhouse effect. People who understood it knew that early action was not only preferable but necessary because once it has got out of hand it wouldn’t just be “too expensive to do anything about” but “impossible ti do anything about.”

This was at a federal state and local level in Australia. (Of course we had had the Brundtland Report by now, which emphasised the importance of local action).

What I think we can learn from this is that all the rhetoric about responsive government, citizen engagement citizen participation have been with us for generations. And on whole, in most places, it has not taken. And even in the places where it has taken it needs persistent consistent effort because the culture of atomization of neoliberalization of techno-salvationism is very very strong.

What happened next – they gave us the language of Local Agenda 21, but local councils went back to doing what they do best – being secretive, flogging off state assets including publicly-owned land to developers in exchange for brown envelopes and acting as a career launch pad and finishing academy for ambitious young politicians wanting to be an MP, and general “snout in the trough” opportunities for others

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 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

Fifty two years ago, on this day, August 23, 1971, recently retired Australian civil servant Nugget Coombs delivered a lecture on “ecological and economic realities” at 12th Pacific Conference, Canberra.

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 everyone was running around talking about ecological damage and – as the phrase would come out next year – “the Limits to Growth.” So you have what sounds, even today, as quite radical perspectives. 

The other context is Nugget Coombs had been a very important influential even famous civil servants in Australia. He was recently retired and was able therefore to talk more freely. This paper sets out clearly what was stake.

What I think we can learn from this

 That the language around non growth economy meeting human needs ecological limits. all of this has been around forever well 50 years.

What happened next

Coombs kept active and was still alive 20 years later when the next big wave of “Environmental Concern” came around.

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 22, 2011 – anti-carbon pricing rally flops

Twelve years ago, on this day, August 22, 2011 , another anti-”carbon tax” rally flops

Come 22 August [2011], the event is a screaming flop. Three hundred people gather on the lawns outside Parliament House, and a ragtag of trucks circle it blowing their horns. Jones, alongside his mate Tony Abbott, addresses the crowd who all holler and howl and demand Gillard’s head over the carbon pricing scheme. Perhaps aware of what a dud he’s partly responsible for, Jones sensationally accuses the ACT Police of stopping ‘thousands’ from attending the rally and blocking ‘hundreds of trucks’ at the ACT border – as he describes it, ‘the most disgraceful thing to happen to our democracy.’

(Walsh, 2013:54-5) The Stalking of Julia Gillard      

An angry crowd of about 300 people gathered on the Australian Parliament lawns as 200 vehicles from all over the country rolled around Canberra blowing their horns, for what protesters called the convoy of no confidence.      Cummings, T. 2011. When things turned ugly. ABC News, 23 August.

There was an ugly confrontation in Canberra yesterday, one that could potentially have been very nasty indeed.

It had nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with the Convoy of No Confidence that rolled into our nation’s capital, nothing to do with the carbon tax, or live exports, or any of that.

and

I wonder whether the Convoy of No Confidence will be an unexpected pivot point in Australian politics.

Carpenter, N. 2011. Convoy Contempt could be of some consequence. The Drum, 29 August. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-29/carpenter-convoy-contempt-could-be-of-some-consequence/2860718

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first half of 2011 had been totally dominated by the question of an emissions trading scheme. Tony Abbott had made all sorts of outlandish claims about the cost and risk there had been marches and protests, most notoriously on March 23rd in Canberra. This was an attempt to show enormous opposition. But I think many people were tired and bored and realised that by now they had lost, and that Gillard was going to be successful in getting the legislation through.

What I think we can learn from this is that it is not just left wing progressive protest groups who are prone to burnout and exhaustion. There is an emotacycle collapsing also for those who are trying to stand in the way of climate action, who  are also prone to burnout and exhausting themselves.

What happened next 

Julia Gillard’s legislation did indeed get through. The scheme started on the 1st of July 2012 and was then abolished by the next government headed by Tony Abbott. Emissions started climbing again. (There is some argument that the perceived success of the emissions trading scheme was down to more hydro from Tasmania in the national electricity grid at the time).

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/further reading

 Willingham, R. 2011. Convoy of no confidence runs short on revs. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August 2011.

Categories
Australia

August 22, 2000 – Minchin kills an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

Twenty three years ago, on this day, August 22, 2000, the first effort at getting an emissions trading scheme for Australia died a death, killed off by climate denier Nick Minchin.

22 August 2000. Cabinet meeting at which Minchin beats Hill on a domestic emissions trading scheme. (See Crabbe, 23 Aug Advertiser etc)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been lots of talk about emissions trading in the previous two or 3 years both at a national and especially New South Wales level because it seemed Australia might ratify the Kyoto Protocol. And if it did it would want to have its own emission trading scheme and perhaps make lots of money from growing trees. The best laid plans had not really come to fruition, and this was the first body blow – the rejection of a national emissions trading scheme.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have spent a veeery long time coming up with all sorts of visions and schemes rather than reducing our emissions in a safe and fair way by changing behaviours and incentives for energy efficiency etc.

What happened next

John Howard, to no-one’s surprise ruled out Kyoto ratification in 2002. In 2003 the idea of emissions trading scheme came back to cabinet and this time Cabinet was united in favour but Howard vetoed it LINK.

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 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 17, 1998, an Australian Parliament committee looks at Emissions Trading as the ‘way forward’.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts into the possible introduction of trading in this new commodity. (Carbon) http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_committees?url=environ/greenhse/gasrpt/finalrpt.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian government had extorted an extremely sweet deal at the Kyoto conference in December 1997. This was the starting gun for the idea of emissions trading schemes in different countries which would ultimately linked up and make bankers and traders rich while, as a sideline, “saving the world on the cheap.” 

The Australian government had signed the Kyoto protocol document in April of 1998. The leak about ratification only happening if the Americans ratified will still a month away, so at this precise moment the idea of Australia having its own emissions trading scheme that then linked up to other emissions trading schemes was not the fantasy that we would look on it as with 25 years of bruising experience.

What I think we can learn from this is that standing committees/senate inquiries house of reps stuff, it’s all nice busy work or undergrowth for policy wonks where they can can justify their money they are on, make professional connections and try to create a common sense agreement around whatever their particular pet solution is. Policy subsystems, policy constituencies etc etc.

What happened next is a proposal for an emissions trading scheme for Australia went to John Howard’s cabinet in the year 2000 killed off by Nick Minchin from South Australia the Sydney’s future exchange never got off the drawing board.

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 16, 2010 – Polar Bears going through the motions

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 16, 2010, protestors tried to keep issues on the agenda 

Even outside the venue, the protestors simply went through the motions. There were four anti-abortion advocates with basic placards, a huge plastic marijuana joint, two people dressed as polar bears, and another dressed as a blue elephant. But they were not so much demonstrating as loitering.

(Cassidy, 2010:202)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this was the middle of an election campaign. And even the polar bear can’t be bothered. Everyone’s just going through the motions.

What I think we can learn from this

The polar bear costumes just don’t work. They should be hung up.

What happened next

Gillard was faced with painful electoral math and therefore had to bring carbon pricing back on to the table. 

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

Categories
Activism Australia

August 15, 2010 – a walk against warming fails to catch fire. #RepertoireRot

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 15, 2010, the “walk against warming” … waned

From 40,000 in 2006 to barely 10,000 in 2010. That’s the number of people who protested yesterday against “the greatest moral challenge since the dawn of time” or something (© KRudd). Maybe it’s because the population is slowly waking up…

The waning "Walk against Warming"

and

More than 500 protesters gathered by Lake Burley Griffin and marched to Parliament House yesterday to demonstrate their support for climate change action. Walk against Warming, held simultaneously around the country, was timed to coincide with the lead-up to Saturday’s federal election. Tens of thousands of people took part across Australia, with 10,000 filling the streets of Sydney’s CBD. Protesters also marched in Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne and Perth.

Kretowicz, E. 2010. TURNING UP THE HEAT; Climate crusaders walk against warming. Canberra Times, 16 August, p.4.

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 as per the BZE post a couple of days ago, the air has kind of gone out of the issue. People are confused, frustrated, bored, fed up, disappointed. They feel they were conned by Kevin Rudd, who had been revealed to be just another cowardly scuzzy politician. And what’s the point of going on a march for that especially when there’s an election coming  and you don’t know who might win it. People get tired of marching. 

What happened next? 

Labor’s Julia Gillard, because of the electoral math, was forced to reintroduce an emissions trading scheme. This was a non negotiable with both the Greens but also some of the Independents like Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott. 

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
Academia Activism Australia

August 14, 2002 – Australian economists urge Kyoto Protocol ratification

Twenty one years ago, on this day, August 14, 2002, Aussie economists tried to get the smallest, most inadequate action taken…

“In a further response to what many see as Australia’s failure on the environment, more than 270 of the country’s academic economists called on 14 August [2002] for Prime Minister John Howard to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without delay. Howard rejected the Kyoto Protocol in June this year, stating that it would not be in the country’s interest to ratify without the inclusion of the US and developing nations. This is despite the fact that a recent survey of Australian citizens revealed that 71% believe it would be in the country’s interest to ratify.

“As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it serious environmental, economic and social risks and that preventive steps are justified,” says a statement by the economists. “Policy options are available that would slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia, and these may in fact improve productivity in the long term.”

However, Environment and Heritage Minister Dr David Kemp, told journalists on 19 August that Australia intends to keep to the targets laid out in the Kyoto Protocol, despite the fact that the country will not ratify.”

http://www.edie.net/news/16/Australias-environment-is-in-reverse/5878/

Excerpt from report by Radio Australia on 14 August

The Australian government is under further pressure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in the lead-up to the World Environment Summit in Johannesburg later this month. Samantha Hawley reports:

[Hawley] More than 250 economists have sent a message to the federal government, urging it to sign up to the protocol before the Johannesburg summit begins. Clive Hamilton, from the policy think tank, the Australia Institute, says the economists believe it will increase jobs and living standards.

[Hamilton] It really does throw the question to the prime minister on what basis is he making these claims on the economic cost ofKyoto. [End of recording]

[Passage omitted]

[Hawley] The call comes as the government moves to release its long-awaited greenhouse gas abatement figures tomorrow, which were originally due out before the election.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had, on Earth Day (June 5) announced he would not send the Kyoto Protocol for ratification through the Australian parliament. Clive Hamilton/Australia Institute got 270 economists together to do an open letter.

What I think we can learn from this

This is the sort of thing you have to do to raise the cost of bad behaviour, show that other people see the world differently. It didn’t work, but that’s not the fault of the people who tried it.

What happened next

Howard continued to be an asshat. Knocked down an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2003.

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.