Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

July 1, 1983 – Australian High Court “saves” Franklin River (it woz the activists wot won it)

Forty years ago, on this day, July 1, 1983, in a landmark decision, the High Court on circuit in Brisbane ruled by a vote of 4 to 3 in the federal government’s favour, – i.e. the Tasmanian government could not build a damn dam across the Franklin.  “Judges Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane were in the majority and justices Wilson and Dawson with Chief Justice Gibbs were in the minority” (source).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 345.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a huge campaign by environmentalists and “normal” civil society to save the Franklin river from being dammed. This included not just the usual marches and petitions and meetings, but lots of lobbying of individual politicians, targeting marginal seats and… nonviolent direct action. The ALP, under Bill Hayden, had promised to stop the Franklin and once elected in March 1983, new leader Bob Hawke followed through. The High Court narrowly said that the Federal Government had the power to do that sort of thing.

What I think we can learn from this is that court cases to courts will sometimes solidify a win for civil society that has been fought for, and sometimes overturn it. But even if the government has new powers, as it did in this case, getting them to use those powers is another thing altogether because ministers and prime ministers are usually coming under very effective counter pressures. 

What happened next. The dam never got built. The Feds never used those powers (Labor afraid of pissing off powerful miners and developers, and voters in specific seats). Tasmania remained a flashpoint for environmental concerns. And the Franklin campaign of 1983 became a touchstone and talisman and was unfortunately the subject of an attempt of repeat in Queensland in 2019. And you could argue that that gave Scott Morrison another three years as prime minister…

We can sometimes be seduced by our own myths, and the danger is probably greatest 35 years later, when those who were young and now thinking of legacy, and the granular detail has been long forgotten.

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

 June 27, 1998 – we’ll trade our way outa trouble (not)

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 27, 1998, the Australian state broadcaster, Radio National, broadcast a programme about the joys of then-almost-fashionable Emissions Trading…

1998  Radio National Earthbeat on Emissions Trading

Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Radio National (Organisation)

Michael Walsh (Guest)

Ian Causley (Guest)

Hugh Saddler (Guest)

Peter Graham (Guest)

Anna Reynolds (Guest)

Alexandra de Blas (Reporter)

Alexandra de Blas (Presenter)

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/earthbeat/greenhouse-emissions-trading/3647076

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 the Liberal party was wanting to seem like it cared about climate change at some level. There was after all an election coming and so it had started making some noises about emissions trading and the New South Wales premier Bob Carr was making a lot of noises.

What I think we can learn from this

Emissions trading is popular with diverse social actors because it allows, effectively, the appearance of doing something when you are not. And some people can get seriously rich.

What happened next

An Emissions Trading Scheme was presented to Cabinet in the year 2000 and killed off by Nick Minchin. Emissions trading never really got off the ground, and has been beset by enormous and predictable difficulties. Has it actually reduced any emissions anywhere? That’s a good question.

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

June 26, 1986 – “our children will grow old  in a world that fragmenting and disintegrating.”

On this day in 1986 the Melbourne newspaper The Age ran a decent and entirely prescient spread about the coming crisis.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 346ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after the pivotal Villach conference in September 1985, scientists were pulling every lever they could. They had cred and salience because of the Ozone Hole.  The CSIRO (Australian Science Body) was, with the help of the Commission for the Future, getting its public-facing act together. More immediately, the Age had run a brief front page story on 19 June.

What we can learn

The predictions were right, give or take

What happened next

Opportunities to hold hands, proclaim our virtue and … emissions. Lots of emissions

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 Business Responses

June 20, 2000 – Australian business writes the rules.

Twenty three years ago, on this day, June 20, 2000, business was getting what it wanted…

It’s quite plain who has the Government’s ear on greenhouse issues, writes Andrew Clennell.

At 4pm on June 20 on a busy parliamentary sitting day in Senate committee room 1S3, the big players in industry put their views to Government on greenhouse. A single sheet of paper was placed on the table. Now, as the Government takes its place in talks on global warming in The Hague, we can appreciate the full significance of that piece of paper. Policy on greenhouse coincides with business’s June wish list. See also his piece – Clennell, A. 2000. Industrialists Urge Caution On Gases Plan. Sydney Morning Herald, 21 June, p.5.

A contingent of industry leaders asked the Federal Government last night to state clearly that it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases unless the United States did so first, and to pledge that Australian jobs would not be sacrificed.

Representatives from BP Amoco, Rio Tinto, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Alcoa Generation met the Industry Minister, Senator Minchin, the Environment Minister, Senator Hill, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, and ministerial advisers from three other offices to discuss Australia’s greenhouse policy.

On the red leather chairs at the rectangular table were three ministers Robert Hill (Environment), Nick Minchin (Industry) and John Anderson (Deputy PM) and advisers from their offices and from the offices of the Treasurer, the Finance Minister and the Forestry Minister.

Facing them were BP’s Australian head, Greg Bourne, miner Rio Tinto’s managing director, Barry Cusack, and heads of the major lobby groups the Business Council, the Minerals Council, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry among others.

Clennell, A. 2000. Taking Care Of Business. Sydney Morning Herald, 14 November, p.15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Xxx John Howard was now 4 years as prime minister and facing another election soon. He had displayed just how willing he was to stop environmental policy if it hurt the interests of the fossil fuel industry, and what the above Google shows is the detail of how lobbyists helped make that happen.

What I think we can learn from this

We can learn that even though business is structurally lucky and in a mutually supportive relationship with the state apparatus usually, it never really takes anything for granted and so, the lobbying and smoothing of the wheels continues non-stop.

What happened next

 Howard made sure that the Kyoto protocol was not brought forward for ratification and prevented an emissions trading scheme from being started. ronically this would have helped some forms of business but he also was unrelentingly unremittingly hostile to renewables.

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

June 19, 2009 – Liberals warn ‘woke’ companies…

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 19, 2009, the leader of the Liberal Party gets in a snit because business is – gasp – happy enough with the weak policy being proposed by the Australian Labor Party (then in government).

MALCOLM Turnbull has attacked big business for “snuggling up” to Labor, demanding business publicly back the Coalition strategy of amending and then passing the government’s emissions trading laws.

In a blunt exchange with about 30 chief executives at a Business Council of Australia breakfast at Parliament House on Wednesday, [17]Mr Turnbull attacked business for being “intimidated” into supporting the government and for failing to publicly push for amendments to the laws.

Taylor, L. 2009. Opposition tells industry: don’t `snuggle up’ to Labor — Turnbull puts heat on business. The Australian, 19 June, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Malcolm Turnbull as the new Liberal Party leader needed to attack Labor, get business on side and not lose his own support. This was always going to be tricky given the competing and frankly irreconcilable demands.

What I think we can learn from this

A political party has explicit ideological needs, whereas business needs to cuddle up to whoever is in government and to keep selling stuff to people even when they’re having one of the periodic fits of “Let’s save the Planet.” Therefore business is going to take a more rational clear-eyed reality-based focus. This can be hard for a political party – especially one which takes business support for granted – to understand.

What happened next

Turnbull tried to take the carbon pricing issue off the table sending his Chief of staff Chris Kenny to talk with Rhodes chief of staff but no dice road was enjoying Turnbull’s agony too much. See Paul Kelly’s book Triumph and Demise for the gory details. Turnbull then lost his position as Liberal party leader to Tony Abbott, who came out swinging against doing anything on climate change.

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 Renewable energy

 June 18, 2013 – Feeble ’Wind Fraud’ rally in Canberra

Ten years ago, on this day, June 18, 2013 there was a very sparsely attended  “National” Wind Power Fraud Rally in Canberra

https://stopthesethings.com/tag/national-wind-power-fraud-rally/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The carbon tax battle had been lost. And now the anti-climate anti-Gillard sorts were doing their best to keep the flame alive with an anti wind power rally. But you can’t reheat a souffle. And this one was an embarrassment because people on the whole, like wind power, (especially if they don’t have to have their house immediately underneath a turbine). 

What I think we can learn from this

Some technologies catch the public mind and are considered nice and good, and others are not. It’s not entirely fair. And neither is life. 

What happened next

The anti-wind turbine people kind of more or less, folded up their tent and switched to other sorts of stuff, but then they could afford to do that because by September of 2013, their guy was in power and he hated the damn things. (See my 2017 paper ‘wind beneath their contempt’)

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 Denial

June 12, 2011 – Nazi smears used by denialists, obvs

Twelve years ago, on this day, June 12, 2011, Christopher Monckton is forced to apologise for throwing around swastika slurs in his “Big Footprint Is Green the new tyranny” rant.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Monckton was on one of his periodic tours of Australia, lapping up the attention that he was getting for his swivel eyed lunacy contesting the science of climate change with half baked nonsense. And unfortunately for him, he got high on his own supply, and went too far. With an allegation that Schellnhuber was a Nazi, or that Ross Garnaut was a Nazi. This then created a reputational issue for his sponsors and the Liberal Party, then led by Tony Abbott, and pressure was clearly applied, and Monckton apologised. For what that was worth, not that anyone particularly believed it. 

What I think we can learn from this

What we can learn is that culture warriors often get triggered, have peaks and go below you and go too fast, and then have to try to claw back their position. See, another example of this would be the Heartland Institute and its Unabomber billboards. 

Another would be with Oregon Petition and NAS saying “please don’t do this.” 

What happened next

At a climate conference in Melbourne, in July, the Lyndon LaRouche lunatics held up a noose and called Schellnhuber a Nazi. It was so classy.

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 Business Responses United States of America

June 11, 2003 – US and Australian think tanks conspire vs (pluralist) democracy 

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 11, 2003, AEI + IPA vs, well, life on earth.

On June 11, 2003, AEI and an Australian think tank, Institute for Public Affairs (IPA), cosponsored a conference titled “Non-governmental Organizations: The Growing Power of an Unelected Few,” held at the AEI offices in Washington, D.C. The conference laid the ground for the launch of “NGO Watch” – a website and political campaign cosponsored by AEI and The Federalist Society.

(Hardistry and Furdon 2004)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Public Affairs were both long-lived think tanks which had been captured by the neoliberals in the 70s and 80s. And were now launching a full frontal assault on civil society and NGOs. In order to get the ignorant rabble in line. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a never-ending war for public perception and the power struggle to make sure that the state is insulated from popular pressure and can be a trough for favoured industries and research and development, and also function to continue to batter the proles until they submit.

And the “DDT is good for you” myth never goes away. 

What happened next

As you’d have predicted, the IPA then set about trying to attack and smother civil society organisations in the United in Australia. It set up a fake environmental group in 2005 in order to try to confuse people, because that’s who these scum buckets are.

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

Categories
Australia

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury forced to acknowledge carbon dioxide…

Fifty years ago, on this day, June 8, 1973, the Australian Treasury, in a paper about the environment, even mentioned climate change.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was this – Australia and the climate issue – it goes back to 1969, MacFarlane Burnett, Nugget Coombs and so forth. By 1970 the issue was popping up in newspapers and in books. Coombs was looking at Steady state economy.

What I think we can learn from this. 

The. Problem. Is. Not. Information. The. Problem. Is. Power.

What happened next

Treasury kept pretty schtum, as best I can tell. By the late 1980s they were muttering about potential carbon pricing. This morphed into emissions trading in the mid-late 1990s. And we all know how THAT ended…

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 Kyoto Protocol

June 5, 2002 – John Howard says Australia won’t ratify Kyoto Protocol

Twenty one years ago, on this day, June 5, 2002, climate thug (among other kinds of thug) John Howard told parliament he would not be submitting the Kyoto Protocol for ratification

‘It is not in Australia’s interests to ratify. The protocol would cost us jobs and damage our industry.’

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Howard had long been hostile to environmental and especially global warming issues. Since taking office, he had expended a lot of diplomatic energy and capital in 1997 to carve out an absurdly generous deal for Australia. It had already been leaked in September 1988, that the Cabinet had agreed not to ratify Kyoto, unless the United States did. So Howard’s announcement came as no surprise to anyone. But it was a colourful insouciant arrogant kick in the teeth to do it on World Environment Day, the kind of thing that makes Howard the turd that he is. 

What I think we can learn from this is that these sorts of announcements are timed, in part, to throw red meat to supporters, but also to demoralise those who are pushing for stronger action. Because if you can demoralise them if they don’t turn up to the next battle, it’s easier for you to win. And hopefully you can set up a virtuous circle where they are forced from the field. That’s the theory. And often it works – but on climate, there’s always new people waking up and getting frantically concerned because well, the issue is frantically concerning (although most of them burn out quick, and retreat to lick their wounds, because there aren’t the groups that can help them sustain themselves).

What happened next

Howard continued to cause mayhem and irreparable damage.

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

Veil of Kyoto rather good on “gesture politics”

Haworth and Foxall, 2010. The Veil of Kyoto and the politics of greenhouse gas mitigation in Australia. Political Geography Volume 29, Issue 3, March 2010, Pages 167-176.