Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Denial

December 15, 2009 – Monbiot versus Plimer on Lateline

Fourteen years ago, on this day, December 15, 2009, UK commentator George Monbiot took on and demolished Australian geologist Ian Plimer.

2009 Monbiot versus Pilmer on Lateline http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs

http://www.monbiot.com/2009/12/17/showdown-with-plimer/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was talking climate because of the recently concluded Copenhagen conference and the general upsurge in concern over the previous three years. Plimer had written a book called “Heaven and Earth” which has become a major denialist tract. Monbiot was always up for a ruck. Monbiot had already put paid to David Bellamy’s appearances by pointing out that Bellamy had completely misunderstood an aspect of glacier retreat.

What I think we can learn from this

That is rare for a single intellectual crushing and humiliation to particularly matter, but cumulatively they can, I guess.

What happened next

Plimer kept plimering. Monbiot kept publishing. Kevin Rudd did not announce the double dissolution election in response to the blockage of his wretched legislation. The Australia climate wars just got worse. 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..

Categories
Australia

 December 10, 2006 – Shergold Group announced

Seventeen years ago, on this day, December 10, 2006 Australian Prime Minister John Howard, cornered on the subject of climate change, undertakes a U-turn that convinces absolutely no-one (but gives ‘conservative’ commentators something to write about while convincing themselves that all is well).

Shergold Group announced – J Howard (Prime Minister), Prime Ministerial Task Group On Emissions Trading, media release, 10 December 2006. Reports on 31 may 2007

On the same day, 10 December, as bushfires ravaged north-eastern Victoria and Sydney’s dam levels dropped ever lower, Howard appointed a high-level business and government taskforce to report on global emissions trading options by May 2007…. It has a whiff of big business panicking a little because having delayed action for so long, the main polluters will be fearful of Labor designing a future trading scheme rather than one designed by a Coalition government.

(Hogarth, 2007:32) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australians had – almost 20 years after the previous wave – become agitated (or at least agitatable) about climate change, in the context of the seemingly-endless Millennium Drought, and international factors (including Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth). Meanwhile, Federal Labor politician Kevin Rudd had been banging on about it, and getting traction. By the time the Shergold thing was actually announced (it must have been on the drawing board for a while?) Rudd had become opposition leader, and it was clear climate was going to be a key tool in Rudd’s attempt to unseat Howard at the next Federal Election, which had to happen by December 2007. 

What I think we can learn from this

When they are cornered, politicians will resort to “task forces” which will produce reports. They hope this will remove the oxygen from the issue, and that they can say they are “listening”/consulting. It’s an old tactic, but it works (see also Macmillan Manoeuvre).

What happened next

The Shergold Report was released the following May, but did not achieve the closure/diversion that Howard clearly wanted it to. Events overtook it, the tide of opinion had decisively shifted. Howard was toast. Not that Rudd was actually any better on the issue. 

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

On the sudden coming of the climate issue in late 2006, see The Third Degree by Murray Hogarth.

Categories
Australia Denial

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

Twenty five years ago, on this day, December 9, 1998, a Howard minister talked the usual nonsense so that enough concerned Liberal voters would stay asleep.

Media Release Statement by Senator Nick Minchin Minister for Industry, Science and Resources

 Wednesday, 9 December 1998 98/047

Canberra businesses commit to the Greenhouse Challenge 

Canberra has an important role to play in demonstrating the nation’s commitment to the environment, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, and Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill said today.

The Ministers were speaking at Greenhouse Challenge Day at Parliament House in Canberra. Greenhouse Challenge is a joint industry-Government program, designed to encourage business to take a voluntary and self-regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This most commonly involves improvements in energy and process efficiency.

“The Greenhouse Challenge has had a positive impact on the environment and energy management systems in place here at Parliament House.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media/pressrel/2R006%22

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 Howard government, in the run up to the Kyoto meeting, had undertaken an intense diplomatic push against strong commitments being imposed on Australia. Domestically, in October 1997 Howard had made a speech with impressive sounding but actually empty nonsense about a Renewable Energy Target, and the creation of the “Australian Greenhouse Office” (see link). This announcement was part of the ongoing con.

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians say any old nonsense if it will get them what they want. There are enough confused/cynical liberals (small l) who choose not to see that they are being conned. If they did see they were being conned, they would either have to admit they were gullible/corrupt/complicit, or get off their arses. Neither option is attractive…

What happened next

Minchin was the guy who led the successful charge against an emissions training scheme in 2000. 

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 Scientists

 December 8, 2003 – Chief Scientific Advisor under microscope for Rio Tinto role

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 8, 2003, the Australian chief scientific adviser was being asked to explain about how he squared offering impartial advice with his other day-job of … working for Rio Tinto.

Questions raised over chief scientist’s Rio Tinto role 8 December 2003 – Reporter: Andrew Fowler (no longer on ABC website). See also Scorcher by Clive Hamilton

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard clearly did not give a shit about climate change, and wasn’t bothered who knew it.

Formal scientific advice channels to Australian Prime Ministers had started in 1989 with the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council, under Ralph Slayter. And one of the first things they talked about – well, climate change (link).

What I think we can learn from this

Australia is essentially a quarry with a state attached to it; not so much a banana republic, as a coal republic. But we will persist with our pretences…

Fun fact – Labor are not that much better. In 2011 Penny Sackett resigned because Gillard et al. were not listening. This is not about personalities or dispositions – political parties are there to manage the state for “better” capital accumulation.

What happened next

Batterham eventually stepped aside.

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

December 4, 1989 – Greenhouse tax urged…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, December 4, 1989 a climate action advocate suggested a perfectly sensible economic response to climate change – tax things that are unhealthy, as governments were doing for cigarettes…

The Federal Government should move to control car exhaust emissions and expand the public transport system to discourage people from using cars, a greenhouse effect expert said in Melbourne on Tuesday. [December 4/]

Dr Ian Lowe, the Director of Science Policy Research Centre at Brisbane’s Griffith University, was speaking at the launch of his book explaining the greenhouse effect’s repercussions and ways to avoid them.

He predicted a transport system dominated by hydrogen and electric cars in 50 years.

Some countries already issued fuel efficiency targets for cars, taxing car-owners according to how well they met the targets, while others issued mandatory efficiency targets for company-operated fleets, he said.

Anon. 1989. Greenhouse gas tax urged. Green Week, December 5, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone had been talking about the problem, and possible targets, for a year. But what, specifically, to do? Well, a tax is a logical response to an environmental problem, 

What is amazing is just how little traction it got. Of course, there was a very successful campaign. First against the existence of the problem then the fallback position is to admit that there might be a problem but the solution is too expensive. 

What I think we can learn from this

We knew enough and we didn’t act. 

What happened next

We didn’t put any taxes or prices, or economic disincentives in place. And guess what happened? Business as usual, which is literally destroying the planet’s ecosystems.

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

November 29, 1988 – Australian parliamentarians taught climate

Thirty five years ago, on this day, November 29, 1988, Australian members of parliament have a grip and grin photo opportunity to show how much They Care about the greenhouse issue. See this from the Canberra Times.

Parliamentarians of all political persuasions were encouraged to test the Wets and the Dries yesterday. But in this case the Wets and Dries were more in the realm of science than politics.

The Wets and Dries Testing Unit forms part of a display on climatic change held at Parliament House by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and opened yesterday by the Minister for Science, Barry Jones.

The display covers climate change and greenhouse-effect research being carried out by the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian National University as well as the Commission for the Future.

Mr Jones encouraged his colleagues to take a hands-on approach to the equipment the better to understand Australia’s field work.

He said that if Australia were to deal effectively with potential problems resulting from the greenhouse effect it would have to work carefully with all international bodies. Australia should also work closely with neighbouring regions such as the Pacific Islands, which faced annihilation if nothing were done.”

Wednesday 30 November 1988 Canberra Times page 22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a few days after Bob Hawke had opened the Science Centre, here was his science Minister Barry Jones trying to get politicians from both Labor and Liberals and Nationals to have “hands-on experience” of climate change at an event in Canberra. In 1988 everyone was running around being concerned about climate (we called it ‘the Greenhouse Effect’ back then), or saying they were. 

What I think we can learn from this

This sort of photo op jamboree serves multiple purposes. You can tell when you organise these things who turns up and who doesn’t, who sends her apologies, who doesn’t bother how engaged they are. Those turning up will want to get their photo in the newspaper, so that they can say to concerned constituents or “Yes, I recently attended X.”

Journalists get cheap/reliable copy. Everyone’s a winner!

What happened next

 The follow-on to the Greenhouse Project didn’t get funded. And so a separate entity Greenhouse Action Australia had to be founded. Jones lost his ministerial seat in factional infighting in 1990. And these sorts of jamborees became less doable after 1990, because it’s old news and because Liberals decided that they didn’t really want to try to capture green votes having failed to do so in 1990. Back to the betrayal, myth, Dolchstoss etc.

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

November 26, 1998 – “National Greenhouse Strategy” (re)-launched

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 26, 1998, yet another “National Greenhouse Strategy” was launched in Australia. Utterly meaningless of course.

Robert Hill launches the National Greenhouse Strategy (just a ‘refresh’, basically – bureaucratic games…)

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F39006%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been the “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” dribbled out in December 1992, which was a lot of fine words stripped of all meaning after the defeat of the people in favour of sanity during the ecologically sustainable development process.

The Howard government, re-elected in October 1988 thought they needed to pretend that they’re doing something. The AGO has been launched, but the Renewable Energy Target was still being kicked down the road, down the road, down the road demoralising environmentalists and investors.

What I think we can learn from this

Just because it is said by a “serious” person doesn’t mean it ain’t kayfabe.

What happened next

The National Greenhouse Strategy went nowhere. Of course, it was always designed that way, and anyone who thought otherwise was either naive or cynical. And 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.

Categories
Australia

November 26, 2008 – pre-CPRS meeting (yawn)

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 26, 2008, a bunch of self-congratulators met for a mutual back-patting exercise about the wonderful wonderful (checks notes)… White Paper that was coming out. Warning; you will need a sick bag.

2008 Ahead of the release of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper this December, the Centre for Policy Development (CPD) thought there was a need to bring all sectors of the community together to hammer out their differences on climate change policy in an atmosphere of optimism and cooperation.

What better way to do this than through Common Ground?

Common Ground: the event series that brings together people from different worlds, opposing parties or conflicting interest groups and invites them to talk about what they have in common. The CPD’s third Common Ground was held on Wednesday 26 November 2008, with over 150 people joining us at beautiful Customs House in Circular Quay, Sydney to hear Bob Carr (former Premier NSW), Pru Goward (NSW Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Environment) and a panel of diverse voices representing business, religious and minor party perspectives on climate change.

http://cpd.org.au/2008/12/common-ground-on-climate-change/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the long-awaited white paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was going to be launched. And so former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr hosted a “Let’s all hold hands and say how wonderful Labor is” event beforehand. As you will know, from reading this, Bob Carr had been aware of climate change as an existential threat since 1971, along with a lot of other people in Australia. [link]

What I think we can learn from this is that people who don’t know better, are willing to be swept up in the frenzy in the “feel good” mutual masturbation, back-slapping circle-jerk whatever you want to call it. It was always going to end the way that it did. Because we have not got a democracy. We’ve got an anocracy. And we’ve got a bunch of huller technocrats who wouldn’t know ecological truth and ecological limits if it bit them on the arse. How do I know this? It is biting on the ass and they still don’t know.

What happened next

The CPRS was a catastrophe. The economist Ross Garnaut nailed it. Rudd failed to get the legislation through, then was too gutless to call a double dissolution 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.

Categories
Australia

November 24, 2009 – the Climate War in Australia goes kinetic…

On this day, November 24, 2009, the Liberals and Nationals finally decide there are more votes in rage than in the future…

The pivotal event was the Coalition party meeting of 24 November [2009] to consider the shadow cabinet recommendation to support Rudd’s amended scheme. This meeting determined the future of conservative politics for many years, and its consequences for Australia were far-reaching. The debate began at 10am with a briefing from Macfarlane who called the deal ‘exceptional’. Most backbenchers struggled with its complexity. The meeting ran for more than seven hours, with two breaks. Its disputed outcome was an insight into the arcane nature of political rituals.

Kelly, (2014:252)

The context was that, despite having gone to the 1990 Federal Election with a stronger climate target than the ALP, the Liberals and Nationals decided that the scientists were lying, physics was wrong and there was nothing to worry about. That held until 2006, when Prime Minister John Howard had been forced into another of his U-turns, and had announced the “Shergold Report” – a “limited hangout” of an emissions trading scheme. It had convinced nobody and Howard was swept from office in November 2007. The Liberals had started to backtrack on climate under the first Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson. Once Malcolm Turnbull had taken over, things shifted back. But Turnbull, disliked by his own party and also wounded by a shoot-self-in-foot scandal earlier, was in a weak position…

What we can learn is that big events don’t need big causes. It can all go horribly wrong for no particular reason (though by this time the Australian Coal Association had properly got itself going on the anti-carbon pricing campaigning. Again.

What happened next

Turnbull was sacked. His replacement was not, as many expected, Joe Hockey, but thugchild Tony Abbott. And the climate wars properly kicked off…

Categories
Australia

November 23, 1988 – Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke gives greenhouse speech

Thirty five years ago, on this day, November 23, 1988, Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke gives a speech to open the “National Science and Technology Centre

The Government has also shown it is prepared to coordinate research in new and emerging areas of inquiry, such as our recently announced studies into the Greenhouse effect. Just two weeks ago Australia was elected to vice Chairmanship of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set up by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation. This gives Australia a leading position in the panel activities which are seen as a prime focus for world activity on the Greenhouse effect.

(Compare Thatcher at Hadley in 1990)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that if there hadn’t been all the concern about greenhouse and Greenhouse 88, and all the rest of it, it wouldn’t really have been something that Hawke would have bothered with perhaps so much, or certainly wouldn’t have been covered. But we were at peak global warming interest in 88, 89 and into 1990.

What I think we can learn from this is politicians will turn up to the opening of an envelope. If everything is going to be easy for them and they’re not likely to get heckled. See also, Thatcher opening the Hadley Centre in May 1990. 

What happened next

Hawke needed small g-green votes to win the March 1990 election. The Liberals felt betrayed and have maintained their suspicion/loathing of “greenies” pretty much 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.