Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Technophilia technosalvationism

August 14, 2000 – Carbon Capture Technology will save us. Oh yes.

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 14th, 2000,

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Warren Entsch MP today officially launched the 5th International Conference on the Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies in Cairns, saying the Government is committed to meeting its greenhouse obligations while continuing to protect jobs and economic growth.

M2Presswire, 2000. Australia meeting Greenhouse Gas challenge. M2 Presswire 14 August.

AND

Emissions soar 17 per cent despite $1b spent on crisis

AUSTRALIAN scientists are investigating a scheme to bury carbon dioxide underground as a way of reducing our burgeoning greenhouse gas emissions.

A research team, which is in the middle of a four-year project, claims it can find a cost-effective way of sealing carbon dioxide in the earth, safely and permanently, by putting it back where it came from.

They are looking at sedimentary basins across Australia – deep saline areas, coal seams which cannot be mined and depleted oil and gas reservoirs – for spaces big enough to hold big volumes of carbon dioxide.

The continuing research will be presented at an international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies in Cairns today, after new figures which warned of the effects of global warming.

2000 Rose, R. 2000. Plan To Bury Greenhouse Gas. The West Australian, 15 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that dreams of “carbon capture and storage” had been around since the mid-1970s. Promises, promises.

The specific context was the Howard government, aware that it might – just might – have to ratify Kyoto if Democrat Al Gore got the White House, was making non-committal noises about CCS.

What I think we can learn from this – is if there is the possibility of having to make a real commitment to action, politicians will keep their options (especially their techno-options) open.

What happened next. In November 2000, Gore did not get the White House – he lost the vote 5-4 in the Supreme Court. Bush got the White House. Pulled out of Kyoto, meaning Australia could do likewise.

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: 

August 14, 1989 – South Australia creates “interdepartmental committee on #climate change”…

August 14, 1971 – Stanford Prison Study begins…

August 14, 2002 – Australian economists urge Kyoto Protocol ratification

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

 August 13, 2009 – Senate kibboshes “CPRS”

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 13th, 2009, Kevin Rudd’s car crash of a climate “policy” began to collide with, well, everything…

Endeavoring to keep its commitment to enact the CPRS into law prior to the meetings in Copenhagen in December 2009, the CPRS Bill was introduced to Parliament on May 14, 2009, and was passed by the House of Representatives on June 4th. It was defeated, however, in the Australian Senate on August 13, 2009, by a 42 to 30 vote where the Opposition, the Greens, and two independent Senators hold the balance of power. Carbon Capture and Storage:

Wishful Thinking or a Meaningful Part of the Climate Change Solution MICHAEL I. JEFFERY, Q.C.*

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had used climate change as one of his ways of attacking John Howard (Prime Minister from 1996 to 2007). Once in office he avoided doing simple powerful good things and instead went for a complex  “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” that was, by this time very clearly, a give-away to the most powerful industries – the carbon intensive manufacturing, fossil fuel export and energy production sectors.

The specific context was that Rudd and his supporters were not bothered about the legislation the first time – they expected it and enjoyed watching the Liberals and Nationals tear each other apart.

What I think we can learn from this is that Rudd was terrible on many things. Most consequentially, climate.

What happened next  The CPRS was re-introduced in November, and defeated. It brought down Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull, who was replaced by Tony Abbott.  Rudd was delighted, thinking that Copenhagen would be a success and he could come back and defeat Abbott… tumbleweed…. Funny how life turns out, isn’t it?

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: 

August 13, 1882 – William “Coal Question” Jevons dies

August 13, 1991 – clouds and silver linings 

August 13, 2007 – Newsweek nails denialists

Categories
Australia

August 11, 2005 – Bob Brown in the Senate

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 11th, 2005, Bob Brown, a man of undoubted physical and moral courage, said the following in the Australian Senate,

The motion calls on the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to explain to the Senate his denial in the Federal Court that global warming exists and that the burning of coal contributes to global warming. He did not do that in his 20-minute speech to the Senate. It was his opportunity. The debate could have been concluded and we could be discussing other things, but he steered totally away from that because there is no way that he can answer his duplicity on the matter. There is no way that he can answer the double standards being exhibited as he tries to do the impossible—firstly, address climate change and, secondly, deny it.

Just yesterday in the Senate, in answer to a dorothy dixer on climate change from Senator Adams, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage said:

… climate change is already affecting the climate in Western Australia, with quite significant reductions in rainfall in the south-west affecting farm production. It shows all of us in Australia just how important saving the climate is, just how important addressing climate change is and how important it is not only to mix substantial domestic policies to address this within Australia’s borders but to work steadfastly internationally to ensure that we have policies that work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions …

And

The extraordinary thing about the Australian newspaper’s page 7 story today, headed ‘Canberra in denial over greenhouse’, is that right next to it is an advertisement from Energy Australia. It has a little heading up the top, over a picture of a sprig growing out of a power pole, saying, ‘Nature-friendly power.’ This is one of the nation’s biggest energy providers, from the state—the coal state, if you like—of New South Wales. The first two sentences say:

It’s time to make the switch. Traditional coal-fired electricity produces large amounts of greenhouse gases, which cost our environment dearly.

How can we have everybody agreeing that that is a fact but the minister going into court and denying it? It is Alice in Wonderland; it is a total absurdity. It would be laughable were it not so serious.

ParlInfo – GLOBAL WARMING 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was the Greens had formed nationally when it was obvious that it was a waste of time and energy – and opportunity – expecting the Labor Party (social democratic at its very best) to be anything more than a meat puppet for corporate interests, especially extractive ones (forestry, mining etc). They’d finally set up in the early 1990s, and Bob Brown was a key player in this.

The specific context was that Brown was protesting the utter criminal uselessness of the Howard government, which was resolutely trying to avoid doing ANYTHING that would inconvenience its fossil fuel mates.

What I think we can learn from this – Brown has behaved with honour, dignity, intelligence and courage. You can’t say that about many recent Labor sorts (Tom Uren gets a pass, obvs, Moss Cass, and a few others). Gillard on a very generous reading gets a “C+” on climate, which is better than Rudd, Keating etc. 

What happened next Brown stuck around and was instrumental in shepherding through the first carbon pricing scheme in Australia in 2011.

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: 

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut) – All Our Yesterdays

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe”

Categories
Activism Australia

August 10, 2021- climate protest with burning pram…

Four years ago, on this day, August 10th, 2021,

The IPCC planned to release their sixth report and a spate of protests had been planned around Canberra ahead of it. CoCo was among a group of eight who planned to take their message directly to parliament. Their group included ANU Associate Professor Nick Abel, a climate scientist and kicked off when CoCo set fire to a pram and glued herself to the pavement. In the background was parliament house. As her fellow activists began to spray paint the words “Duty of Care” and “No Time” on columns across parliament, CoCo live streamed a speech about how she wanted to be a mother but could not “in all conscience bring a child into the world to face hell on earth.”

“The government, beholden to the fossil fuel lobby, has burnt my dreams,” she said.

It was a hammy performance, acted-up for the camera but the underlying message was true. CoCo had always wanted to be a mother but as she learned more about climate change, it was a future she would deny herself.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 416ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was – wait, you can’t remember 4 years ago? – The bushfires, the brutal heatwaves, the floods. The chickens coming home to roost.

The specific context was that Scott Morrison was still Prime Minister of Australia. Among other portfolios.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are toast. Sorry, but there it is. I’ve done ten of these posts on the trot, and have clearly got to stop (for now) before it just becomes a prolonged howl of rage. 

What happened next – More emissions. More jail terms for activists. More disasters. More despair.

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: 

August 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends 

August 10, 1978 – Ford Pinto deaths spark class action lawsuit – All Our Yesterdays

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles…

Categories
Australia

August 10, 2000 – States’ greenhouse gas failure

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 10th, 2000 – as part of the “we’re gonna do stuff, and the states aren’t doing their bit” strategy, Environment Minister Robert Hill is dishing out smears.

“State governments – including South Australia – have failed “abysmally” to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions satisfactorily, Environment Minister Robert Hill said yesterday. Senator Hill said most states would achieve only half the cuts they had promised two years ago on signing the National Greenhouse Strategy.”

Anon, 2000. States’ greenhouse gas failure. Adelaide Advertiser, August 11, p. 13.

The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Hill, yesterday threatened to withhold up to $400 million in State funding for greenhouse gas abatement, and said NSW was more interested in producing “glossy brochures” than in taking real action. [POTS AND KETTLES]

The threat came as he said he believed the United States would ratify the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions regardless of who won this year’s presidential election. In addition, he said the Government would announce in a few months an early-credit scheme to encourage businesses to keep reducing emissions even before the protocol was ratified.

Senator Hill’s statements follow BHP’s threat last week to opt out of the Federal Government’s Greenhouse Challenge program, saying there were inadequate incentives to reduce emissions.

Clennell, A. 2000. Style Put Ahead Of Substance On Greenhouse: Hill. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 August, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the Federal Government was happy to blame state governments when it suited their interests – state-federal tensions are hardly new.

The specific context was that Howard and his colleagues were engaging in the usual blame-shifting.

What I think we can learn from this – Federal systems have more room for experimentation, but also blame-shifting.

What happened next Howard kept on blocking all action, including undermining the growth of renewables etc etc. Criminal.

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: 

August 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles…

Categories
Australia

August 9, 2000 – a new Greenhouse Strategy – including on LNG. Yeah, yeah sure.

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, August 9, 2000,

The Federal Government is set to announce a new national strategy on greenhouse gases after a Cabinet subcommittee resolved key issues this week.

At a three-hour meeting on Wednesday [9th August], the Cabinet subcommittee on greenhouse agreed on a broad national greenhouse strategy, which would subsume ministerial wrangling over how individual industries such as liquefied natural gas should be affected by future government greenhouse decisions.

Taylor, L. 2000. Government set to unveil greenhouse strategy. Australian Financial Review, 11 August. P 15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that John Howard had made it clear he wasn’t going to take climate action, especially if it interfered with growth in fossil fuel exports. He’d already carved out an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto conference in 1997. 

The specific context was that the Howard government was about to discuss whether to debate an emissions trading scheme, and presumably this sort of thing was there to make at seem that SOMETHING was being done. 

What I think we can learn from this – much of what passes for “policy” announcements is there as perception management/public relations.

What happened next – Howard kept on blocking all action, including undermining the growth of renewables etc etc. Criminal.

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: 

August 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 9, 1999 – The Australia Institute calls for emissions trading

Twenty-six years ago, on this day, August 9, 1999, the Australian Financial Review deigned to cover climate change…

The introduction of a domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme could generate $7 billion in annual revenue, enabling government to cut the company tax rate to 30 per cent, abolish accelerated depreciation and reduce payroll tax by 60 per cent, according to a paper by the Australia Institute.

“Emissions trading has the potential to become an important tool in environmental protection and economic and fiscal management,” the institute’s Mr Clive Hamilton and Mr Hal Turton say in their paper Business Tax and the Environment Emissions trading as a tax reform option, released last week.

1999 Hordern, N. 1999. Emissions trading call `half-baked’. The Australian Financial Review, 9 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that putting a price on things you don’t like, to encourage decreased use (cigarettes, anyone?) is hardly controversial, especially if you’re going to use money raised to explore alternatives.
Or rather, it is VERY controversial to those people currently making money and wanting that to continue. Two carbon tax proposals had been defeated already, and attention therefore switched to “emissions trading schemes.”

The specific context was that Australia had signed (but not ratified) the Kyoto Protocol, and so ways and means to ‘reduce’ Australia’s emissions (it had a 108% target!) were being investigated, not just by The Australia Institute but also other outfits.

What I think we can learn from this – the simplest and in some ways least significant actions turned out to be, well, impossible.

What happened next – Prime Minister John Howard killed off two proposals for Emissions Trading Schemes, in 2000 and 2003. States got interested in doing a “ground-up” scheme among various states. This never really got off the ground, before action turned back to the Federal level in 2006-7.

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: 

August 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Categories
Australia

August 7, 2007 – Cate Blanchett asks “Who on Earth Cares”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, August 7th, 2007, 

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) launched a new campaign – Who On Earth Cares – with Cate Blanchett as its ambassador, aiming to provide online community spaces for people to show they care about climate change in Australia, and who want to see Australia reduce its greenhouse pollution.

Cate Blanchett and Don Henry on Sunrise

https://www.treehugger.com/culture/who-on-earth-cares-cate-blanchett-does.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the ACF had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up as a Real Problem since the early 1980s, but only began campaigning on it in the late 1980s (for very understandable reasons). They’d done really good work (within the confines of what is ‘possible’) in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But the times change – the Liberals decided they’d been “betrayed” and Labor began to resent the rise of the Greens.

The specific context was that in late 2006 the climate issue had exploded onto the scene in Australia, and ACF hoped to develop pressure around this, especially as there was an election coming up…

What I think we can learn from this – there are waves of attention and inattention. During a wave you might get some promises of action. Whether you get action once the inattention kicks in depends on what kind of infrastructure of monitoring and pressure you have (or haven’t) built.

What happened next – Blanchett also, in 2011, fronted some adverts in support of Gillard’s carbon price – the “Say Yes” campaign. This, predictably, earned her the moniker “Carbon Cate” from the Murdoch press.

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: 

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Australia

August 7, 1991 – “Draft Ecology Plans released”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1991, the backlash against “greenhouse” and ecology action stepped up a gear.

The price of petrol would rise sharply under sweeping proposals for ecologically sustainable development revealed yesterday by a Government taskforce.

The ambitious plan to make industry sustainable by avoiding the overuse of resources was commissioned by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke.

The ecologically sustainable development working groups, which are writing policies for nine industries, released draft reports yesterday and called for public comment.

1991 Peake, R. 1991. Draft Ecology Plans Released. The Age, 8 August, p.15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there had been an upsurge in concern about environmental issues in the late 1960s, and the Federal Government had responded with the usual mix of new organisations (including a Minister for the Environment) and fine words. Everything had more or less died down/become predictable for a long time, until the late 1980s. In order to keep green groups onside for the Federal Election of March 1990 (it was going to be tight) the Hawke government had promised an “ecologically sustainable development policy process.”

The specific context was that the ESD had been a ‘success’ – in that the arguments for the status quo/no action had been exposed as lazy and half-baked. The problem was, the bureaucrats were in the wings, waiting to water down proposals, and feed tame journalists scare stories…

What I think we can learn from this is that we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. The same mechanisms are in place now, with an extra 80ppm in the atmosphere since then.

What happened next – Hawke was toppled by Paul Keating, who killed off all the green crap the way a lion kills another lion’s cubs when he acquires a new lioness. 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: 

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Academia Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

August 5, 1997 – “Climate Change Policies in Australia” briefing

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, August 5th, 1997 – Clive Hamilton, founder of the Australia Institute,

“Climate Change Policies in Australia: A briefing to a meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate”, Bonn, Germany, 5th August 1997

The Government’s position has been bolstered by economic modelling analysis that purports to show that Australia would be especially hard hit. It is projected that wages in Australia will be 19% lower by 2020 under a scenario that reduces emissions by 10% below 1990 levels in 2020. It is also claimed that the economic cost for each Australian would be 22 times higher than for each European. These extraordinary claims have been challenged by many experts including 131 Australian academic economists who signed a statement declaring that policies are available to slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia.
It is also apparent that the modelling results have been presented in ways that are highly misleading. Despite the fact that the model is constructed in a way that exaggerates the impact of emissions reductions on the Australian economy, the results actually show that the impact would be extremely small.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the UNFCCC had been agreed in 1992, but the text did NOT include targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. Why not? Because UNCLE SAM SAID SO THAT’S WHY NOT YOU PINKO TREE-HUGGER.

(i.e. the people around George Bush Snr defeated the “pro-action” forces). So in 1995, the “Berlin Mandate” had been agreed – rich countries would have to come to the 3rd meeting in 1997, with plans/commitments to cut their emissions.

The specific context was that the Australian government of Paul Keating had been deeply reluctant, and once there was a switch to John Howard, the anti-action work had turbocharged. This briefing came during a “charm” (sic) offensive by Howard’s people, trying to get a special deal for Australia. Clive Hamilton, who had set up the Australia Institute three years earlier, was not amused.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Australian political and economic elite are, of course, criminally incompetent when it comes to a host of issues. But especially climate…

What happened next – Howard succeeded in getting that extremely generous deal at Kyoto. Then STILL didn’t ratify it, on general (lack of) principle.

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: 

August 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens – All Our Yesterdays

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight