Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 6, 2007 – Rudd taunts Howard on 2003 ETS decision

On this day, February 6 2007 new Labor leade Kevin Rudd had asked Prime Minister John Howard if a submission proposing an emission trading scheme had gone before cabinet in August 2003 and if that proposal was rejected.

Rudd – and frankly everyone else – knew the answer was “yes”. It had been extensively reported, since at least 2004. In August 2003, Howard had met with some business mates and killed off the Cabinet proposal (which the entire Cabinet, including Joe Hockey, Peter Costello etc were behind). See here – August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Rudd was just trying to embarrass Howard, who had a couple of months before performed a screeching U-turn and appointed Peter Shergold (civil servant) and some business cronies to look at an an ETS.

What we learn – it was all theatre

What happened next. Howard’s U-turn made him look weak rather than caring, and he was swept from power. Kevin Rudd then saved the day (subs, please check).

Categories
Australia

February 5, 1992 – Liberal leader Hewson snubs the Australian  Conservation Foundation

Thirty two years ago, on this day, February 5th, 1992, the Leader of the Liberal Party, John Hewson, decided he would not bother meeting with those irritating greenies, who had Betrayed Their Word after the fateful lunch on January 15 1990 (they hadn’t, actually, but it made for a good “Dolchstoss” myth…).

Anon, 1992. Hewson snubs Conservation Foundation. Canberra Times, 6 February, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberals felt that they had been shafted by the greens in March of 1990 and that they had not yet let this go. The Liberal view had hardened  – they felt that the 1993 election was eminently winnable, especially now the widely disliked Paul Keating was PM. Bob Hawke had given a piss weak response to John Hewson’s Fightback! and so, had been toppled by Labour, who chose Paul Keating, who was deeply unpopular with the Australian public as Treasurer. Meanwhile, green issues were no longer salient. And therefore, Hewson thought that telling the Australian Conservation Foundation to go fuck itself was a no lose proposition which would throw red meat and support to the headbangers. 

What we learn is that policies and politics are done by humans who have their senses of status and that can have long-term consequences because there is path dependency. 

What happened next Hewson managed to lose the unlosable election in March 1993. Prime Minister Keating went on to shit all over environment issues and especially climate issues which he considered amorphous. You know the rest. 

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.

See also

See also 12 0ctober 1989 piece by Andrew Fraser on Alexander Downer and market forces

Also on this day: 

Feb 5, 1974 – Energy security, meet anti-Arab sentiment #propaganda

February 5, 2007 – Australian Prime Minister trolled by senior journalist

Feb 5 1990 – A president says what he is told…

Categories
Australia

February 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 3rd, 1994, the fossil fuel lobby was trotting out its favourite argument – that Australia was being treated “unfairly” in the climate negotiations, and throwing “developing countries” in to make it a more confusing message and one harder to counter.  

Australia and the developing economies of the world could bear an unfairly high proportion of the costs of controls on greenhouse emissions in the event of any global agreement to adopt uniform emission-reduction targets, the Outlook 94 conference was told yesterday.

Grose, S. 1994. Unfair burden’ on Australia. Canberra Times, February, 4, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.2ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that President Clinton’s energy tax had been defeated the year before. But it simply wasn’t clear that a carbon tax was dead in Australia too. And the whole question of Australia’s commitments under the climate treaty, which had been ratified, and previous December, was making rich fossil fuel outfits nervous. And so at “Outlook 94”, which was one of the energy sector’s watering holes and ideas-swapping or meme-swapping opportunities. They, including John Daley, were pushing hard on the old idea that Australia was a special case that was being unfairly treated. 

What we can learn is the rhetoric of unfairness is pervasive, and that bullies and assholes will often deny, attack, reverse victim order – DARVO.

What happened next?

The proponents of climate action put their eggs in the carbon tax basket which was entirely sensible to their eyes. And they were defeated. The emissions kept climbing. And you know the rest.

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: 

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
Australia

February 2, 2010 – Abbott on Direct Action, CPRS for 3rd failure…

Fourteen years ago, on this day, February 2nd, 2010,

the new Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, put out a media release about his absurd non-policy “Direct action on the environment and climate change” policy.

And on the same day – 

The Rudd government, for no earthly reason, tabed its “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” for the third time.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tony Abbott had become Liberal opposition party’s leader, in early December 2009, toppling Malcolm Turnbull who wanted to back Rudd’s scheme (which was piss-weak). The Rudd carbon pollution reduction scheme had been defeated for the second time in the House of Representatives and the Copenhagen COP had ended in failure. So now, Abbott was being forced to put up an alternative, which is a curious position for someone who thinks that the science of climate change was “crap.” Liberal voters needed some sort of fig leaf for squaring their love of privilege, power, so-called “free markets” with any concerns that they might have for the environment. Meanwhile, for reasons I really don’t understand, the CPRS legislation was submitted for a third time but was clearly doomed. Go figure – what a waste of effort. 

What we can learn is that the politics are bewildering. Once you get down to brass tacks, stupid overconfident people – and that can apply to several characters in this story – can cause enormous damage. 

What happened next? 

Rudd was toppled for being a jerk and crucially no longer a vote-winner. Abbott was one of the most effective opposition leaders of all time. He destroyed, not just Gillard, and Rudd, but also the possibility of emissions trading and carbon pricing in Australia, an astonishing achievement. 

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: 

Feb 2, 1992- that “sarcastic” memo about exporting pollution…

February 2, 1996 – denialist sprays #climate science with his bullshit

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 1, 1990 – Australian Financial Review ponders carbon tax… (via FT)

Thirty four years ago, on this day, February 1st, 1990, an article about possible carbon taxes from the Financial Times (London) was syndicated in the Australian Financial Review (aka “The Fin”).

“Drastic measures to combat global atmospheric pollution caused by burning carbon fuels were urged yesterday by the International Energy Agency.”

Anon. 1990. Carbon Fuel Tax May Limit Pollution Levels. Australian Financial Review, 2 February.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422.3ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at Nordwijk in November of 1989, nations had agreed to keep talking about talking about negotiating a climate treaty. There were other meetings coming up. And the International Energy Agency was sticking its oar in with the suggestion of carbon taxes and pricing mechanisms. Also there was a federal election pending in Australia, the climate issue was very salient. 

What we learn is that debates about carbon pricing have been shaped by prestigious powerful – or prestigious, at least – outfits like the IEA in ways that I didn’t fully understand for my PhD thesis, but here we are. 

What happened next, Bob Hawke narrowly won the March 1993 election with small g. green votes, and was therefore obliged to follow through with this idea of ecologically sustainable development. 

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: 

Feb 1, 2007- Jeremy Grantham slams Bush on #climate

February 1, 1978 – US TV show MacNeill Lehrer hosts discussion about climate change

Feb 1 2023 – Interview with Russell Porter, Australian documentary maker

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

January 31, 1979 – Alvin Weinberg’s “nukes to fix climate change” speech reported

Forty four years ago, on this day, January 31, 1979 the Canberra Times’ Tony Juddery reported on a speech by American scientist Alvin Weinberg, then visiting Oz.

Weinberg was basically saying “nukes and lots of them, or else suffer climate change.”

Juddery’s take? “A visiting true believer ignores the option of solar technology.”

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/136977708

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Weinberg had been pretty sure about the climate problem and also sure about nuclear’s role in doing something about it since 1974, probably a lot earlier. He was on a tour in Australia, one of those typical “let’s bring out an expert, get some bums on seats, feel like we are an important outpost or colony in the boonies.” 

Judderry of the Canberra Times was a colourful character and did a good job explaining it.

So 1979 a couple of weeks before the First World Climate Conference was going to happen. This was not a big deal down under.  Fun fact; only one Australian WW Gibbs, of the Bureau of Meteorology  went. No one from CSIRO not Pittock, Pearman, not even the boss, Brian Tucker; it just wasn’t a high priority back in the day. 

What we learn

The great and the good were explaining reality to Australian political elites by the late 1970s. But yokels gonna yokel.  And I guess this puts the National and Country senators (Collard etc) efforts in 1981 in perspective…

What happened next.
In November 1981 the Office of National Assessments finally did a report. 

The polymath and Science Minister (1983-1990) Barry Jones got hold of the issue. Finally, in 1986 things began to move.

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

Also on this day: 

January 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

January 31, 1990 – Environmental Racism – then and now… Guest post by @SakshiAravind

Categories
Australia Coal

January 30, 1989 – “Hawkie” flies off to flog coal

Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 30, 1989, amidst all the very fine words and wringing of hands about the Greenhouse Effect…

On the morning of Monday 30 January 1989, the ABC 7.45am news reported the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, had begun an overseas trip to Korea, Thailand, India and Pakistan, with the primary aim of promoting Australian exports, particularly coal, iron ore and agricultural products. Juxtaposed with this report was one describing Senator John Button’s encouragement of Japanese investment in Australian forests designed to safeguard our timber resources. The viability of these economic moves may also be subject to the greenhouse effect. Australian exports of fossil fuel, particularly coal, may be restricted by increasing international pressure to try to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide.

(Henderson-Sellers and Blong, 1989:3)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that while Bob Hawke was making lots of nice noises about the greenhouse effect – giving speeches and everyone was holding hands and singing Kumbaya. But there was also the small matter of selling as much bloody coal, both thermal and metallurgical, as you could to as many people as possible, because that’s going to make the oil companies rich, it’s going to generate some income for state and federal governments, and it’s going to help with the then pressing “balance of payments crisis.”

What we learn is that politicians always have competing priorities. The very nature of politics is the allocation of resources without violence. And so it can hardly be a surprise that Hawke is able to say one thing to one audience, and another to another. This is doublethink hypocrisy, whatever name you want to apply to it. It’s just the way things are. And in the absence of social movements capable of demanding sanity, then insanity and suicidal, short term, greed will win. And since we can’t have those broad, tough social movements, well, insanity, greed, short sightedness, and suicidal stupidity will in fact, win. And they almost have by now; won’t be long… 

What happened next

Hawke was forced to agree to an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process to win the March 1990 Federal Election.

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

Also on this day: 

January 30, 1961 – New York Times reports world is cooling

January 30, 1989 – Je ne fais rein pour regretter… #climate jargon

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial

January 29, 2004 – John Daly, Australian skeptic, dies

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 29th 2004 the author of The Greenhouse Trap, John Daly died of a heart attack.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Daly had been spewing nonsense and bullshit about climate change for 15 years. He had written a book called “The Greenhouse Trap”, also known as “the greenhouse crap”. And I know you’re not supposed to speak ill of the dead –  I’m sure he was lovely to dogs and children – but people like Daly are a small part of why we as a species, and as Australians, have failed to take action. Only a small part but “which side are you on boys? Which side are you on?” Well, we know and I hope he’s having a nice afterlife. 

What happened next? Denial continued because it is too painful for some people not to hide within. 

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

Also on this day: 

January 29, 2001 – President Bush announces “energy taskforce” #TaskforceAnnouncementGrift

January 29, 2006 – Attempts to gag James Hansen revealed

Categories
Australia

January 28, 1992 – Ros Kelly versus Industry commission on greenhouse plans

Thirty-two years ago, on this day, January 28th, 1992, the Australian Environment Minister was trying to keep her options open…

The Federal Government will press ahead with plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2005 despite an Industry Commission report that says such reductions would cut Australian production by about 1.5 per cent, or $6 billion a year. The Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, said yesterday that the report, released yesterday, had a “very narrow focus” and failed to capitalise on the opportunities available for industries….

1992 Glascott, K. 1992. Kelly dismisses attack on greenhouse plan. The Australian, January 29, p.4.

And

 The Federal Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, conceded yesterday it would be “very difficult” to achieve global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent – a target endorsed by the Federal Government.

Garran R. and Lawson, M. 1992. Kelly concedes greenhouse difficulties. Australian Financial Review, 29 January, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a fierce battle within the Hawke and then Keating governments about greenhouse. And everybody knows the good guys lost. As part of the quid pro quo for declaring an interim planning target of a 20% reduction by 2005 (so that Kelly could go to the Second World Climate Conference with something in her hand) the then-Treasurer Paul Keating had managed to extract the concession or agreement that the Industry Commission (later renamed the Productivity Commission) would study the costs. Once the costs document was released, it was predictably used as a stick to beat advocates of energy efficiency and sanity over the head. 

What we can learn is that always these battles within governments and allegedly “independent” “scientific”/economic reports are a key weapon. 

What happened next? The Kelly gang lost and we’ve been losing ever since. 

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

Also on this day: 

January 28, 2013 – Doomed “Green Deal” home insulation scheme launched in the UK

January 28, 1993 – Parliament protest – “Wake Up, the World is Dying” – Guest Post by Hugh Warwick

Categories
Australia

January 25, 1995 – Australian electricity reforms mean more greenhouse gases…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, January 25, 1995 the tension between making lots of money in the near-future and doing something about climate change became obvious.

AUSTRALIA’S electricity reforms and greenhouse policy appear to be headed in contradictory directions. While senior Federal ministers concede that a carbon tax would not be a single solution to meeting greenhouse targets, demand management reforms that would have a substantial impact on greenhouse emissions have been proposed by a working party of the National Grid Management Council. Yet the latest drafts of that report suggest that the NGMC will step back from critical recommendations. On December 7, the NGMC’s working party on demand management in the emerging competitive power market, produced a third draft that listed three specific options – Budget allocations, an energy efficiency levy or tax incentives – to promote energy efficiency. But when the “final draft” was produced on January 25 by the NGMC itself – in preparation for its ultimate submission to the Council of Australian Governments – each of these recommendations was substantially different…

1995 Gill. M. 1995. The meek take the running on electricity reform. Australian Financial Review, 13 February, p.12.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that state owned electricity systems in the states of Australia, were busy being privatised. The idea was also to have a national grid excluding Tasmania, but still excluding Western Australia, because there was money to be made. And of course, if you had to have greenhouse, and environment considerations included, that would interfere with rich white people getting even richer. And we can’t have that now, can we? Because that would be communism. 

What we learn – failure was systematically baked in.

What happened next? Everybody knows the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost. Greenhouse was kept out of the documents that set up the Australian energy market and all of that who had the national grid. And this is a good part – by no means the only part but a good part – of why Australia has had until recently astonishingly high carbon intensity in its electricity generation. I mean, brown coal, I ask you. 

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

Also on this day: 

January 25, 1994: UK government releases “Sustainable Development Strategy”

January 25, 2013 – Lord Stern admits #climate “worse than I thought”