Thirteen years ago, on this day, October 7, 2010, newly re-elected (sort of) Prime Minister Julia Gillard decided not to go ahead with her “citizens’ assembly” wheeze from the election campaign. There’ll be a multi-party climate change committee instead …
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in order to try to square the circle about climate change Gillard had proposed a climate assembly on the election campaign. This was widely perceived as a way of kicking the whole idea into the long grass clearly after negotiating with the independents and the Greens – legislating and emissions trading scheme was the price of their support. The whole climate assembly idea was simply no longer relevant, and so it was killed off. We got the multi-party committee on climate change. The liberals were invited to participate, but it was not in their interests to do so; they would rather be outside the tent pissing in …
What I think we can learn from this is that participatory structures like “climate assemblies” or “citizens assemblies” can be used to defer decision-making and to give everyone a sandpit to play in. It always comes back to the basic question of who is going to implement this and who’s going to monitor whether it gets done or not.
And if you’re not talking about that then all you’re doing is setting yourself up for failure down the road. But talking about that brings up lots of difficult questions about building sustained and sustainable groups, learning new skills, sharing their skills. Embedding those skills within a group at all tremendously difficult instead let’s just have the orgasmic moment.
What happened next
The multi-party committee on climate change came up with the ETS proposal and suggested the emissions trading the Climate Commission and so forth. And they all got along more or less but everybody knew that by 2013 ahead of the next election the happy families would fall apart, and the Greens would need to split off in order to shore up their vote. And Labor would also want to pin any failures on the Greens. And so it came to pass. Meanwhile the citizens’ assembly idea keeps getting put forward by naive or stupid or careerist dickheads.
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 four years ago, on this day, October 6, 1989, the Hawke government got a briefing from people who knew what they were talking about. Nobody can say they were not warmed. Sorry, warned ….
Two topics of considerable importance both to the Government and to the nation are being discussed at today’s meeting. They are global climatic change and the issues it raises for Australia, and resources for science and technology and their utilisation.
Also included in your press kits is a paper describing recent developments in government policies for science and technology and significant actions taken since the may statement ‘ Science and Technology for Australia’. Global Climatic Change Issues for Australia This morning the Council is discussing the scientific evidence for the greenhouse effect and considering the effects of possible changes.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that even having a “science council” was a relatively new thing. Politicians tend not like to be told that what they’re doing is going to have bad consequences. They would rather be able to pretend that nobody told them. The leader of this group was Ralph Slayter, who had been around for yonks and had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up no later than 1969 and possibly a lot earlier. Hawke was facing an election in a few months, so being able to dress himself up as responsive and aware were going to help him with green votes. (Am I too cynical?)
What I think we can learn from this
There is an interplay between the science, the scientists, the politicians and the politics. The idea that the politicians must also always “listen to the science and the scientist” is a comforting one, but reality is far harder because there isn’t one settled science. You also have a difference between production science and impact science and anyway the whole thing is shot through with questions about appetites for risk and what you are finally aiming at. The claim that politicians should be under the thumb of scientists is “risky” shall we say.
What happened next
Various science panels have persisted. Famously under Howard the chief scientific advisor role was part-time and it was filled by someone who also simultaneously working for the mining company Rio Tinto. In 2011 the chief scientific advisor quit and the assumption is it is because she wasn’t being listened to and not enough action was being taken on climate change
But ultimately the people to blame for that are the citizens of democracies not getting stuck in and being democratic actors. But then, that brings us back to bureaucracy and the neoliberal state and neoliberal societies and and what’s that line by Brecht about the government being very disappointed in the people and abolishing them in electing a new one (this was after the East German workers’ uprising in 1953).
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
On this day, 9 years ago, yet another promise of imminent “low emissions technologies” was made…
2014 INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP TO DEVELOP LOW EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES Statement from Brendan Pearson, Chief Executive, Minerals Council of Australia The Minerals Council of Australia today announced the establishment of an industry-led Leadership Roundtable for the development of Low Emissions Technologies for Fossil Fuels. The Roundtable will be chaired by Mr Stewart Butel, Managing Director of Wesfarmers Resources Limited, Chair of COAL21* and a Director of the Minerals Council of Australia. Membership will include senior representatives from the coal, oil and gas, and power generation industries, research organisations, federal and state governments and the Global CCS Institute.The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 400ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that although Tony Abbott was now Prime Minister (though not for much longer, it turned out!), the fossil industry still felt the need to say the right things.
What I think we can learn from this
Endless promises. It would be funny if it were not tragi.
What happened next
The usual – nothing substantive.
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 1, 1997, an international conference on Environmental Justice took place in Melbourne.
More than 400 academics and environmental activists from 30 countries attending an Environmental Justice conference at the University of Melbourne heard on Wednesday [1st October] that much of the Federal Government’s greenhouse gas research had been funded by the fossil-fuel industry.
Dent, S. 1997. Greens see red on gas. Herald-Sun, 3 October.
[Environmental Justice: Global Ethics for the 21st Century : International Academic Conference of the University of Melbourne, Australia, October 1st-3rd 1997.]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.6=5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by 1997 it was obvious that the international negotiations were not going very well. The Kyoto conference which was then impending, was likely to have a pretty watered-down, scientifically inadequate agreement on emissions reductions. There had already been a “Countdown to Kyoto” conference in Canberra. Meanwhile the Howard government had been busy slicing and dicing the CSIRO and other potential problems.
What I think we can learn from this
The hand-wringing about fossil- fuel funding can be overdone. “Intellectuals’ ‘ have always sucked up to power structures, be they the church, the state or corporations – those people with the money, who can dish out the prestige and the cushy living. Don’t be surprised.
What happened next
The fossil fuel gang had continued to dominate. They have tightened their grip in most ways like an anaconda. But still occasionally some academic will try and tell the truth and will get publicly punished for it as a lesson to the others
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 three years ago, on this day, September 28, 2000, an Australian Liberal MP went full “black helicopters” during hearings about the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had signed and was – at least nominally – due to ratify sometime (it didn’t until 2007).
“The Lavoisier Group’s ranting about the risk of invasion by Kyoto eco-fascists has its echo in comments from the Liberal MP and Treaties Committee chairperson, Andrew Thomson. During public hearings of the committee last year, Thomson wondered aloud whether Australia would find itself at the mercy of international greenhouse inspection committees dominated by “hostile” developing countries, and speaking on ABC radio on September 28, (2000) Thomson questioned the “strange notion of inspections like having Richard Butler go into Iraq”.
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 anti-Kyoto anti-climate nutters occasionally let slip in public the full depths of their batshit craziness. Howard had, it was already clear, made up his mind that the Kyoto protocol would not be ratified (that was leaked in September of 1998).
What I think we can learn from this is that climate denial will take you to some odd places.
What happened next
The climate denial keeps going to odd places while we in the reality-based community had to deal with reality. Andrew Thomson’s political career if you can call it that ended as these careers are wont to do.
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 five years ago, on this day, September 26, 1998, the Canberra Times had a good old-fashioned scoop, thanks to a leak … . That was that the government of John Howard had decided – despite having extorted an insanely generous deal at Kyoto, and having signed it in April, they would not submit it to Parliament for ratification unless (and this was vanishingly unlikely) the USA did.
Sept 1998 – Howard government decision not to ratify Kyoto unless America does. Leaks on 26 September (Scorcher p. 102)
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 Australian government had secured an eye-wateringly generous deal at Kyoto but that still was not going to be suitable to Howard because once you’re in the ratchet it can keep ratcheting. And it would lead on to having to do more and more over time. Howard was on the record as saying that the Australian should never have even signed up to the UNFCCC. The leak, the leak was in the context of an impending federal election.
What I think we can learn from this
This is “clever politics”- you are kicking it into the long grass but you are not saying “never.” And you are hinge-ing it on other people’s actions, so everyone can get mad at them instead. It’s a bit like the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket picking on Private Pyle.
What happened next
George Bush, once he had been selected president, pulled the US out of Kyoto. Howard waited for another 16 months before confirming that Australia would not ratify. He did this on World Environment Day. For the lulz.
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, September 25, 2003, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, who had been aware of the greenhouse effect as a problem since 1971, keeps going in his efforts to make the state a hub of carbon offsets/trading and so on …
“Carr strikes greenhouse deal with European investors”
PM – Thursday, 25 September , 2003 Reporter: Peta Donald
(David Kemp slaps it down – not carbon trading.)
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 the Federal Government of Australia had shown time and again that it was not interested in carbon trading or making any international linkages that weren’t bullshit photo-ops with George Bush. This was not to stop the New South Wales government and Bob Carr from pursuing such deals which he did…
What I think we can learn from this is that in a Commonwealth system there are multiple points of entry and pressure, and there is a back-and-forth between States and Federal Government as there is between federal and international systems. When one is failing the other is supposed to pick up the slack and vice versa. That’s the theory -sometimes both are failing …
What happened next – nothing much came of it, it all just kind of petered out, as far as I remember (if you know different, drop me a line!).
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 four years ago, on this day, September 24, 1989, German activist and member of parliament Petra Kelly opined on Australian government policy
WHEN BOB HAWKE cried at a press conference in 1984, his face was plastered all over German newspapers.
That was about the last time matters of any relevance to Australian domestic politics rated even a centimetre of German news space.
That is, until Bob Brown and his team of green independents made it on to the Tasmanian Government benches in May.
According to the founder of the West German Green Party, Petra Kelly, the greens’ success in Tasmania was widely reported – even in the smallest German village.
“I think Bob Brown is probably the most well-known Australian in Europe,” Ms Kelly said from her hotel in Adelaide last week.
“He’s much more widely known than Mr Hawke.”
In Australia for an “ecopolitics” conference at the University of Adelaide, Petra Kelly has attracted media attention for describing Bob Hawke’s moves to capture the environment vote as just “green cosmetic surgery”.
Mealey, E. 1989. Petra sees green over Aussie Politics. Sun Herald, 24 September.
(Petra – the diminutive name – wouldn’t be used for Bob or Andrew. But tbf, has been used for “Boris”)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Petra Kelly was a big star from the German environmental movement and antinuclear movement. Adelaide was a good place to do this stuff and I totally missed it. I was not plugged into those networks and it pisses me off but it is what it is. At that time, btw, everyone in Australia was running around talking about the “greenhouse effect.”
What I think we can learn from this is that the mass media will use diminutive names, first names for women, in a way that they would not for men
That there were linkages between German and Australian movements and learning; see Christopher Rootes’ article about this which appeared in Environmental Politics.
What happened next is that Petra Kelly died in 1992 – it was probably murder-suicide or possibly an agreed pact we can never know. And Hawke made grand promises about climate action that, well, never got kept. And 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.
Ten years ago, on this day, September 23, 2013, the Australian state broadcaster explained – for the umpteenth time – the dreadful lies the radio shock jocks were peddling.
On 23 September 2013 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) program Media Watch explored a textbook example of why too many Australians and their politicians continue to stumble through a fog of confusion and doubt in regard to climate change. The case under the microscope typified irresponsible journalism.
Media Watch host Paul Barry, with trademark irony, announced: ‘Yes it’s official at last … those stupid scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] got it wrong’, in their latest assessment report. He quoted 2GB breakfast jock Chris Smith from a week earlier saying the IPCC had ‘fessed up’ that its computers had drastically overestimated rising temperatures. ‘That’s a relief,’ said Barry, and how do we know this? ‘Because Chris Smith read it on the front page of last Monday’s Australian newspaper. When it comes to rubbishing the dangers of man-made global warming the shock jocks certainly know who they can trust.’
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia had been going through a very high pitch culture war on climate policy since 2006, positions had hardened even further and climate denial became “acceptable” (i.e. had lower social and political costs than had been assumed) again from about 2010 onwards. And various so cold shock jocks wallowed in it
What I think we can learn from this is that it is easy to create an echo-chamber of mutually reinforcing bullshit that gets published in newspapers then commentated on, then reported then there is reportage on the commentating of the reportage of the commentating. It is all cheap, it is easy, and it does not need to connect to anything actually scientific.
What happened next
After becoming Prime Minister later in 2013, Tony Abbott proved that he was not a fit leader for the Liberal Party let alone by country. He was turfed by his own party after only narrowly beating an empty chair in a January 2015 vote.
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 two years ago, on this day, September 22, 1971, (in)famous Australian activist Maurice Crow wrote about the climate crisis …
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that everyone in Australia was running around like a headless chicken saying the apocalypse was at hand from business to mainstream NGOs to the communists. And they had been importing American radical commentary in their International Socialist magazine etc. Maurice Crowe just put an effort at a local spin on it.
What I think we can learn from this is that calls for “system change” were around 50 years ago. And as per a recent article in Environmental Politics, what is meant by system change is a moveable feast.
What happened next
The environmental movement ran aground a bit but as late as 1975 there was a “radical ecology” conference in Melbourne and Crow was part of 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.
