Forty-three years ago, on this day, October 25, 1980, episode 234 of the Science Show had the following – Letter re Science Show; Flight from Maths; Hepatitis B Vaccine Success; Carbon Dioxide and Climate; Kakadu National Park; Northern Territory Wildlife.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there were more and more people writing about potential climate change. The Australian Academy of Science had just had its first big conference. And so getting a brief item about (I think this one was about starting to make measurements at Cape Grim)something else was not a big surprise. And, as I’ve said before the very first Science Show, in the middle of 1975, had talked climate with Lord Ritchie Calder.
What I think we can learn from this
Again, that subset of Australian politicians who listen to the Science Show, which is probably a much smaller proportion than the national average, would have known about the problem Long, Long ago.
What happened next
We kept talking about it. Everyone has kept talking about it. In the late 1980s the denial campaigns kicked into gear, once it was clear action was needed, and that oil, coal and gas were in the cross-hairs.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, October 20, 1983, the Murdoch-owned newspaper The Australian gave a tolerably accurate summation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s report.
The Australian page 3 climatic change (based on EPA report)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The Australian runs a page three greenhouse gases story that isn’t a complete shit show?! By this point, climate change was well understood as a potential long-term problem in Australia, various magazines, newspapers would run stories. Senators would make speeches…
What I think we can learn from this
I guess, what we learn is that The Australian newspaper has decayed markedly, perhaps never from a particularly high baseline. But now it’s just a fucking rag.
What happened next
There was another climate report released by the National Academy of Science the following day. And that is the topic of tomorrow’s blog post….
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.
Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 19, 2002, another civil society organisation – Doctors for the Environment – joined the fray.
“David Shearman with his amazing persistence undertook to complete the necessary paperwork and on the 19th October 2002 “Doctors for the Environment, Australia” was well on its way to becoming a fully constituted environmental entity at the Mornington meeting”.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that it was clear that at the federal level, the Howard Government was determined to avoid doing anything about climate change. It had already said no to even an emissions trading scheme, and a few months earlier John Howard had taken delight in saying that Australia would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This despite having extracted a fantastically generous deal. The other context is that public health academics had been worrying about climate impacts for a while, and probably felt there needed to be a specific organisation.
What I think we can learn from this
Groups form. But my goodness it’s hard to keep them going, especially when it’s clear that the government is determined to do nothing, or only lip service…
What happened next
What happened next? Well, doctors for the environment is still going 20 years 21 years later.
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.
Fifty years ago, on this day, October 17, 1973, a “coup” happened at the Australian Conservation Foundation. The ACF had been set up by “Great and Good” figures in the mid-1960s. By the early 1970s its membership had shot up (as part of the global wave of concern about pollution. Lots and lots of the newcomers had a different understanding of what the root causes of the problems were, and how to solve them. Matters came to a head…
“How The ACF Was Taken Over: A report to ACF Members on the events of 17th October, 1973, by the Seven Councillors who resigned on that day”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the ACF had been set up in the mid 60s by the great and the good. Garfield Barwick etc, as your typical elite conservationist programme. I think there were moves for it to actually be the official offshoot of the then new World Wildlife Fund, but I could be wrong. And for a few years, it was able to put out newsletters and hold conferences. It was fantastically well connected with the Australian industrial and political elite. But then with the coming of the late 60s, many more people started to get interested in and concerned about conservation, ecology, etc. And the fact that the ACF had been founded by and was being still controlled by a bunch of extremely well-connected, what we would now call old white men. began to be a problem. Because people were moving beyond the idea that the problems were caused either by greedy, poor people or a lack of information. And so there was a two or three year power struggle within the ACF – people getting elected to the board with different perspectives from the founders, countermoves, et cetera.
What I think we can learn from this
You see this a hell of a lot when a group has been established and then there’s an influx of people with a different view. Now, on one side, the incumbents can say, “Well, why don’t you just go and found your own group?” and on the other, the challengers can say, “Hang on, I thought this was a democratic organisation? And anyway, we’re the ones who brought in all the extra money and members and ideas. And we shouldn’t have to walk away from that.” It’s an age old dilemma. In this case, it was solved by a putsch. And the old ACF guard had to quit. The document described their version of history, and may or may not be accurate. I don’t care – that’s beyond the point of this website, which to remind you, is here to help people understand the patterns.
What happened next – The ACF became more “radical” if you want to call it that, it depends what your baseline is. And we also saw the rise of Friends of the Earth and Ecology Action, which is best I can tell was a very New South Wales and especially Sydney focused thing.
By the mid 70s, because of the enormous economic dislocations, the environment movement in Australia had shrunk. This was a worldwide pattern. “Whatever happened to the revolution,” as the Skyhooks sang
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.
Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 16, 1990, some big green groups said “yes” to a policy process. It’s more significant than it sounds…
“The Federal Government’s sustainable development consultations received a fillip yesterday with the long-awaited decision by three of the four main environment groups to take part in industry working groups.
However, the three groups – the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace and the Worldwide Fund for Nature – refused to take part in the forestry working group on the grounds that it duplicated a Resource Assessment Commission inquiry into the industry.
The fourth main green group, the Wilderness Society, decided not to take part in the working groups, saying the Government’s recent environmental decisions showed it was unlikely to put ecologically sustainable development ahead of “conventional economic growth”.”
Garran, R. 1990. Green groups to join govt inquiry. Australian Financial Review, 17 October.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
In order to win the March 1990 Federal election Labor had had to cuddle up to green organisations, and promise them that it would be different next time, that the green organisations would be invited into the room with the big boys who were making the decisions. The “ecologically sustainable development policy making” process was part of this big picture but obviously that came with risks for everyone…
What I think we can learn from this
Is that for green groups there is an eternal dilemma – if they engage closely with state policy-making processes they can use up their time energy and credibility on something that goes nowhere, but if they refuse and are the perpetual outsiders than the foundation money is less forthcoming, ambitious people go elsewhere because aren’t you trying to change the system from within. “If you’re not trying to change the system from within, well what’s the point of you?” say middle class people who don’t understand how power works.
But then maybe they do, maybe without these sorts of efforts – even though they often go wrong – we would be in an even worse position? Who knows…
What happened next
The green groups went in, and the ESD process went tits up. And this was most evident in the middle of 1992 when a planned two-day conference ended in farce. New Prime Minister Paul Keating kicked ESD into the long grass. And it is mentioned ruefully now if at all; you have to be quite old to have any history with 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.
Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 13, 1990, Australian Environment Minister Ros Kelly defended the decision taken to have loopholes in the climate change target…
Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 13, 1997, Australia was busy saying “yeah, nah” to the world…
The Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, defended the Government’s conditional greenhouse target, saying an unqualified one would have been “irresponsible”.
On Thursday, Cabinet agreed to a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent on 1988 levels within the next 15 years.
However, no action will be taken that might adversely affect Australian international competitiveness.
The temperature is rising in the debate over greenhouse and Australia is coming under increasing pressure to declare its hand ahead of the Kyoto summit. A lot is at stake, writes Lenore Taylor.
Every world leader John Howard speaks to about greenhouse gas emissions wants him to answer one question. What can Australia do?
Bill Clinton asked him at the White House. Tony Blair asked him at 10 Downing Street. Neither got an answer.
Australia has invested enormous diplomatic and political energy explaining what it can’t do – and according to the Government it definitely can’t agree to any absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
But it has failed to say what it can do.
Taylor, L. 1997. The heat is on. Australian Financial Review, 13 October, p. 16.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354/363ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was in 1990 the Australia Federal Government had made a promise with tricksy caveats that had kept its domestic allies – or people that needed to pretend they agreed – on side and allowed for the international reputation not to be too much in the toilet. Seven years is a long time in politics. In 1997 John Howard was doing his level best to to minimize Australia’s commitments under the UNFCCC that Ros Kelly had signed. The State and corporate interests, as they saw them, had not really changed – Howard was simply being more honest about it all, because he was being forced to be honest with his back up against the wall.
What I think we can learn from this
That it is too easy in every sense to tell stories about government policy-based entirely around public utterances or perceived personalities of state functionaries leaders. I have been guilty of that of course, we all have. But we also need to remember that states are battlegrounds of and reflections of powerful interests, be they ideological such as churches but also private companies and multinationals etc. Within this mix you’ll also find the usual collection of unions and civil society busy-bodies and do-gooders and somewhere at the bottom the usual collection of, well, people who are trying to figure out if they can afford to stay alive next week and both heat and eat.
What happened next
Australia kept up the criminality.
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, October 12, 2007, Queensland is Queensland, again…
The presiding member handed down his decision on 15 February 2007, dismissing QCC’s objections and recommending the applications for the mines be granted without any conditions sought by QCC or any conditions addressing greenhouse gas emissions. He doubted the fact that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions were contributing to climate change and pose a severe threat to the environment.
(McGrath, 2007: 225)
There was an appeal, President McMurdo, with whom Holms JA and Mackenzie J agreed, found that the fact President Koppenhol relied upon material doubting the existence of anthropogenic climate change, ‘in the circumstances… amounted to a denial of natural justice to QCC.’
The Court of Appeal ordered the decision to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Land Court (which had assumed jurisdiction for mining objections by the time the appeal was decided) to be determined according to law.
Six hours after the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 12 October 2007, the Queensland Premier and Minister for Mines announced the Queensland Government would enact special legislation to ‘ensure the coal mine’s future’.
(McGrath, 2007: 226)
Within hours of the Queensland Court of Appeal handing down its decision, the State’s Premier, Anna Bligh, announced her government would legislate in Xstrata’s favour – an announcement all the more striking because Xstrata had just been the beneficiary of similar legislation in the Northern Territory after the Territory Supreme Court upheld a challenge by the Northern Land Council against the Territory government’s approval of an expansion of Xstrata’s McArthur River zinc mine. Despite the prevalence of special legislation in Australia approving major projects without adequate environmental scrutiny or proper public participation, Xstrata set a record in being the beneficiary of two such Acts in five months.
(Bonyhady, 2007: 23)
Government to legislate to ensure coal mine’s future. Media Statement from Premier Anna Bligh and Minister for Mines Geoff Wilson, 12 October 2007.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 383.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Queensland governments of any political persuasion have a long and sordid history of siding with developers and the white shoe brigade. Nothing really much changes whoever’s in government. And of course governments are able to use the police forces as attack dogs and the court system as usually their rubber stamp.
What I think we can learn from this
The game is the game and the game is rigged.
What happened next
The Queensland government has kept going into that for big infrastructure projects.
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.
Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 11, 1990, the Federal Government of Australia, under Prime Minister Bob Hawke, made its first “commitment” to reduce emissions.
The Commonwealth Government followed the states and also adopted the Toronto Target of a 20 per cent reduction, a target that in retrospect appears hopelessly optimistic. (Scorcher, p. 47)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Second World Climate Conference was coming up. October 10th was the last cabinet meeting before Ros Kelly would be flying off to Geneva and she couldn’t go empty-handed. Meanwhile the environmental lobby wanted a strong target.
Politicians like targets – it makes them feel and look responsible and responsive. As long as there are caveats and loopholes, they’re happy enough. Other people are willing to sign on with that, more or less. The target is usually so far in advance that the politician will have at least left public office or if it’s a 30 or 40 year in the future target then they’ll be dead and they don’t care. Legacy games, that’s what these are, that’s all they are. But the other effect of the existence of a target is it allows middle-class people to snooze rather than get up on their hind legs.
What happened next
Kelly went to the second World climate conference shortly after. The international negotiations began properly.
The Industry Commission also did a report about the economics of climate change this was one of the quid pro quo that Paul Keating, still at this stage Treasurer, had extracted for going along with the the Interim Planning Target Australia never took the steps it would have needed to meet the interim Planning Target and by 1995 it was a dead duck. As will our species be in another 20 or 30 years. You could almost say in fact that we are already functionally extinct. We just don’t know it yet but I digress…
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.
Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 10, 1997, the Melbourne Age ran a front page story about businesses looking forward to Australia agreeing to actual emissions cuts…
Canberra — The Federal Government’s hard-line stance against greenhouse gas reductions has failed to win the support of Australian business.
Two-thirds of 630 company directors in a national survey across a range of sectors supported global reduction targets for Australia, with 70 per cent of those favoring a legally binding agreement.
However, directors were almost evenly divided on how targets should be set, with 50 per cent supporting a uniform goal across all countries and 48 per cent supporting different targets reflecting local economic conditions.
The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, said this week the Government would not sign an agreement unless Australia was allowed to continue increasing emissions.
He said binding, uniform targets would unfairly damage the economy, costing tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in potential investment in energy and energy-intensive export industries.
The survey on environmental realism, by KPMG and the Australian Institute of Company Directors, found that 69 per cent of directors regarded environmental measures as a cost but also as an opportunity for innovation leading to improved commercial performance.
Miller, C. (1997) Business Supports Gas Emission Cuts. The Age, October 10, page 1
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Australian Prime Minister John Howard was trying to claim that business was united in opposition to a strong deal at Kyoto in which Australia agreed to be ambitious.
Someone had the bright idea to actually do an anonymous survey of business and it turns out the results were not what Howard had said. Therefore this was front page news
What I think we can learn from this
That it is good to to not take the claims of your opponents at face value and to actually test their claims especially if the claim is that “business is united behind policy X or Y”, because almost by definition there are businesses who would benefit from the status quo being shaken up and they would like the state to do some shaking up.
New businesses may be able to form trade associations and get their case under the noses of the right ministers, make ministers think “this is a constituency that can’t be ignored/fobbed off or told to piss off “ Whether those new and small trade associations can get in the media and start challenging existing “common sense” and create a new common sense is another question
What happened next
Howard sent Robert Hill as Environment Minister to Kyoto. Australia got an incredibly generous deal, partly through good luck but also exhaustion. And essentially were told they could just keep emitting what the hell they liked.
It was a disgrace it was possibly the most shameful moment in Australia’s climate diplomacy against some stiff competition
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.
Thirty two years ago, on this day, October 9, 1991, an Australian politics and economics commentator Ross Gittins is, well, Ross Gittins…
MY suspicion was right: the column I wrote a few weeks back about the greenhouse effect drew a sheaf of letters from readers. I write on lots of controversial subjects, but none sends the readers scurrying to their word-processors like a mention of the environment.
I argued that, since the greenhouse problem is global and Australia’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is tiny, there isn’t much we can do about it in the absence of an international agreement.
The letters were almost universally disapproving; some weren’t too polite about it. So are my views quite out of step with the Herald’s readers’? I doubt it. People who violently disagree with something they read in the paper are more inclined to put pen to paper than those who don’t.
Gittins, R. 1991. Thou shalt not stuff up the environment. Sydney Morning Herald, 9 October, p. 15.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the green moment that hit the headlines in 1988 was fading, and fading fast – even though the problems were real and getting realer. Meanwhile, Gittins needing to fill a newspaper column and get a rise out of his readers, was on display here
What I think we can learn from this is that the conversation was never very sophisticated morally or intellectually and we’ve probably gone backwards thanks to dementia, reaction formations, organised denial, you name it.
What happened next
Gittins kept scribbling, people got to read him. The emissions kept climbing. Here we 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.
