Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

September 21, 1990 – Ministers call for Toronto Target to be federal policy …

Thirty three years ago, on this day, September 21, 1990, various state ministers urged Bob Hawke’s Federal Government to do what it had declined to do in May 1989 – agree to decent emissions cuts …

CANBERRA: A meeting of all Australian and New Zealand environment ministers increased pressure on the Federal Cabinet yesterday to commit itself to a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The meeting of the Australia and New Zealand Environment Council (ANZEC) in Alice Springs also urged the Government to push for the target at the Second World Climate Conference, to be held in about six weeks.

Seccombe, 1990. Gas Emission Cut Urged. Sydney Morning Herald, 22 September, p.6.

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 various state governments had made a commitment to the Toronto target but the Australian Federal Government had not. The second World climate conference was due to begin in Geneva shortly (it had been pushed back by four months in order to be a staging post for the incipient international climate negotiations). The Toronto target was one that had been suggested at a conference in June of 1988. Environmentals had wanted a 50% cut by 2015 ceiling. This had been watered down to 20% by 2005.

What I think we can learn from this – there was a time when when politicians were seriously ambitious though perhaps not entirely aware of the actual costs of what they were proposing. Or to be fair they read the reports by people like Demi Greene (see March 1990) and decided it wasn’t too ambitious or too difficult.

What happened next

In October 1990s the Australian Federal Government made a very hedged commitment to Toronto rendering the promise basically meaningless.

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

September 19, 1998 – Public Health Association calls for “life-saving green taxes”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 19, 1998, the Australian Public Health Association calls for “life-saving green taxes”

A LEADING health advocacy group has called on main political parties to include ecological levies in their taxation plans to stem environmental degradation and its ill-effects on humans.

The Public Health Association, in warning that mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever and Murray Valley encephalitis could spread as far south as Sydney in the next 20 years, accused the Government and Opposition of ignoring “a most serious health issue”. In a resolution passed at its annual conference in Hobart on Wednesday, the PHA said the Australian electorate deserved tax reform that would contribute to a sustainable future, advocating “ecotaxes” such as on carbon, which have been implemented in many European countries.

PHA spokesman and director of the National Centre in Epidemiology and Population Health Bob Douglas, who moved the resolution, says there was already evidence that climate change was affecting human health.

Ross River fever has been increasing substantially over the past five or six years; outbreaks of Japanese encephalitis have occurred in northern Australia; while multiple sub-types of dengue fever have emerged in Townsville over the past few years.

Malaria also threatens to again become endemic.

“There are very serious concerns that in a worst case scenario the survival of humans is under threat,” Professor Douglas says. “If we go on having rising temperatures with changes in the level of the sea, increased susceptibility to immune paralysis by ultraviolet radiation and if the temperatures make less our food sustainability, we are in some danger of an ecological collapse.”

The proposed eco-taxes would be on activities releasing pollutants such as fossil fuels, for a carbon tax, or nitrogen and sulphur oxides, the components of acid rain.

“We believe most Australians are concerned at the need to constrain greenhouse emissions, which, if they continue at their current rate, will result in ecological changes profoundly damaging to human health,” the resolution says.

Anon. 1998. Association calls for life-saving green taxes. The Australian, September 19, 1998 Page: 044

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 25 years ago it was patently obvious what was coming. This was before the creation of Environmental Doctors for Australia or whatever it’s called. It was also obvious that John Howard was not interested in doing anything about environmental issues. There was an election coming which he was to win …

What I think we can learn from this is that, again, the ideas to fix the problems are all around us but they are rendered politically impossible by powerful organised vested interests.

What happened next – no eco taxes were brought in. We have squandered the past quarter of a century and are not prepared for the amplifying concatenating public health crisis and this my friends is why I’m very glad that I did not breed.

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

September 17, 1987 – report on “The Greenhouse Project” launch

Thirty six years ago, on this day, September 17, 1987, a novel effort between the CSIRO Atmospheric Physics people and the Australian government’s Commission for the Future was reported on (the launch happened on the 16th). Known as “The Greenhouse Project”

The greenhouse effect is not just another disaster story but a real phenomenon that is likely to have far-reaching economic and social impacts within considerably less than a human lifetime, according to a CSIRO scientist.

Dr Graeme Pearman was speaking at a press conference launching the Greenhouse Project, a national campaign organised jointly by the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO to alert Australians and Australian industry to the possible consequences of the effect.

A rapid build-up of “greenhouse gases” could cause sea levels to rise by up to one metre in the next 40 years and global temperatures to rise by up to 4 degrees Celsius.

A one-metre rise in sea level would put the main street of Cairns underwater and result in the disappearance of large areas of beaches around the coast, Dr Pearman warned.

Anon (1987) Launch of Greenhouse Effect plan. Sydney Morning Herald, September 17

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly pp348.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.

 

The context was that CSIRO 1986 realised that climate change was going to be a real problem. This was after 5 years of silence pretty much among the Australian Environment council folks. Science Minister Barry Jones had managed to create a foresight organisation called “The Commission for the Future,” and the greenhouse project was its first effort and very successful one at that.

What I think we can learn from this is that scientists and policymakers were aware of the climate problem and trying to do something about it before the 1988 breakthrough. And the momentum was ultimately lost because the issues are complex, and because business fought back (but everyone knew that business would fight back.)

What happened next – the Greenhouse Project gave us a scientific meeting in December 1987 but then also Greenhouse 88 – a satellite linked up conference in the capital cities of Australia that have passed into a kind of folklore.

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

September 16, 2015 – Turns out big companies are ‘climate hypocrites’?

Eight years ago, on this day, September 16, 2015, a survey shows companies and trade associations are saying one thing and doing another … (shocked, shocked to find …)

BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and the Business Council of Australia are among the world’s largest companies and industry groups holding back action on climate change, according to a new survey.

The research, based on methodology developed by the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists and applied by UK-based non-profit group InfluenceMap, found 45 per cent of the 100 biggest industrial companies were “climate hypocrites” that obstruct action on global warming.

Some 95 per cent of the delaying firms were also members of trade associations that demonstrated “the same obstructionist behaviour”. 

BHP Billiton was rated a “D”,

Hannam, P. (2015) Rio Tinto, Business Council of Australia among ‘climate hypocrites’, survey says. Sydney Morning Herald, September 16.

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

The context was that the national and international climate wars were ongoing. The Paris meeting was coming up, and the Union of Concerned Scientists was trying to weaken the status of corporates and especially business associations lobbying against climate action. One way of doing this was by showing the functions of the business associations were not only to present a united front but also for these business associations to do things with dirty hands that individual companies would find too risky.

What I think we can learn from this is a better understanding of the relationship between business associations and their individual members, and how there is an interplay of blame-shifting and collective spreading of risk that trade associations can do. Sometimes pressure groups go too far and become more trouble than they’re worth.

What happened next

Last time I looked, BHP was still a member of these outfits. It finds them useful and not being a member would be tricky. I guess see also Alex Carey “Taking the Risk out of Democracy.”

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

September 15, 2008- business splits over what to extort from Rudd…

Fifteen years ago, on this day, September 15, 2008, Australian business interests were fighting over how hard to squeeze Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and for what….

ELEANOR HALL: The Australian Government knows it’ll be no easy task to design an emissions trading scheme that’ll satisfy both business and the environment lobby.

Business is largely urging caution and warning of job losses if energy guzzling industries aren’t properly compensated.

But not every Australian blue chip company is as conservative.

The Westpac Bank is today urging the Government to keep the scheme it adopts as pure as possible and not to shelter businesses from the impact of putting a price on carbon.

Santow, S. (2008) Split in business ranks on carbon scheme “The World Today – 15th September , 2008” http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2364852.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Rudd government had made big promises about dealing with climate change which … amounted to introducing an emissions trading scheme. Westpac had had its calculators out about this for years (in April 2006 it had lobbied as part of a business environmentalist roundtable).

What I think we can learn from this is that obviously if there is a trading scheme the banks stand to make a lot of money. It’s also a good way for them to polish their mostly terrible reputation.

What happened next is that Rudd continued to give ground on the policy, weakening it and weakening it more, and more concessions. By the time it got to Parliament for the second attempt at getting it through, in November 2019, it was at best useless, at worst, worse than useless.

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 Coal

 September 12, 2003 – Newcastle Herald thinks the future of coal looks ‘cleaner’…

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 12, 2003, the Newspaper Herald, in the heart of New South Wales coal country, reports on coal industry leaders promising cleaner coal…

ANY “sunset” scenario for the Hunter’s coal industry would be a cleaner one, industry leaders said yesterday.

Using Coal21, a paper put together by the state and federal governments as a starting point, panellists looked at whether the billion dollar industry had a use-by date a “sunset”.

NSW Minerals Council executive director John Tucker said many in the industry believed the move to more diverse energy sources would start to occur in big numbers in 40 to 50 years.

Hennessy, C. 2003. Future Of Coal Looks `cleaner’. The Newcastle Herald,13 September

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia was in the middle of an enormous minerals boom  and becoming very wealthy indeed. Mind you not everyone – the Gini Coefficient was going up and up the minerals boom included coal exports. The fear that eventually there would be restrictions on coal use meant that there were all kind of wheezes about “clean coal” and forums were being carried out. This was one of them.

What I think we can learn from this is that a lipstick will always be found if the pig is particularly valuable. That is to say people will always try to slap the word clean or green or sustainable on whatever on very unclean ungreen unsustainable crap that they are doing. Partly so they can sleep at night, partly so they can recruit more people into the industry, get investors. And partly to make it harder to regulate them.

And there are entire industries made up of individuals and companies who will assist in this lipsticking. And we want to believe those lies, because then we don’t have to do anything particularly difficult or uncomfortable, we can just go with the flow and still get what we want.

What happened next

Twenty years later they are still selling coal from the Hunter. And we’re all going to die. Why? Because these coal mines are death factories.

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 Nuclear Power

September 7, 2005 – “rule out nuclear” say Aussie green outfits.

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 7, 2005, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Greens call on the gov to rule out nuclear energy and release a report “Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Howard government had asked a pro-nuclear scientist to do a review of nuclear power. This was after Howard and Bush had had one of their periodic meetings. The review made the same point that nuclear power was not going to be economic for Australia, and take too long to develop.

But it was also a useful “dead cat” strategy for Howard because he could wedge greens – he knew that some of them are pronuclear. Further, he knew it will take up time, energy and bandwidth and therefore distract from what he was (not) doing on climate.

But this is tricksy, and eventually the magician plays the same trick so many times that people spot how he does it and stop being impressed or even amused. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this is that nuclear is always a good “go to” if you want to avoid talking about what needs doing in the here and right now. And allow you to keep doing what you’re doing.

What happened next

Nuclear was not developed. It will not be developed in Australia because the population is not big enough and there aren’t enough big electricity consumers and anyway everyone has got wind and solar and the nuclear boat has sailed (and I don’t think the nuclear submarines will sail either. But who knows.)

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

September 4, 2000 – industry says sky will fall if there’s a carbon tax

Thirty three years ago, on this day, September 4, 2000, industry did another of its ‘the sky will fall’ efforts.

Victorian economic growth could be slashed by more than 2 per cent, thousands could lose their jobs and the aluminum industry could close if a strict anti-greenhouse gas regime is introduced, according to a landmark study.

The study by the Allen Consulting Group has estimated that Victoria’s gross state product would be between 1.3 per cent and 2.6 per cent smaller in 2012 if an emissions trading system or carbon tax scheme were introduced to combat Australia’s growing rate of unwanted greenhouse gas emissions.

Hopkins, P. 2000. Study Warns Of Greenhouse Gas Mayhem. The Age, 4 September, p1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Victorian government was proposing things that industry did not like. So that was enough for yet another “oh my god the sky will fall if you so much as tax a single molecule of hydrocarbons, we will all starve to death.” These economic models get put in reports and get turned into press releases and speeches which are dutifully reported by stenographers to power.

What I think we can learn from this is that these nonsense economic modeling reports are a favorite weapon in the war against sanity and the public good.

What happened next 

I am a bad historian, I haven’t bothered to go and look at what happened next. Did the government find the backbone to stare down this report? Sometimes they can. It depends on all manner of things not just the particular courage of the particular minister.

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

September 4, 1990 – Industry whines about environment minister’s speech

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 4, 1990, Industry went all snowflake because a minister was a Mean Girl.

Anon, 1990. Industry upset about Minister’s Attack on Miners, Foresters. Green Week, September 4, p.8.

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 Hawke government was having to keep promises it had made to environmental groups in order to win the 1990 federal election. One promise was to set up an ecologically sustainable development process. The very existence of this offended industry, which was used to getting its own way via the usual means and did not feel it should ever have to justify its policies and proposals to anyone, least of all a bunch of smelly hippies. Relations with the then environment minister Ros Kelly were complicated, especially after she had made robust statements about what the miners meant with their definition of sustainability.

What I think we can learn from this is that industry was used to getting its own way and as per that old line “when privilege is removed it feels like oppression” industry always feels oppressed.

What happened next is that the ecologically sustainable development process continued but was then thrown in the circular file when new prime minister Paul Keating shat all over it and the federal bureaucracy buried it as this blog post about the events of August 6, 1992.

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

September 3, 2002 – “Kyoto cuts too small, so we’re not going to bother”. 

Twenty one years ago, on this day, September 3, 2002, Australian Environment Minister David Kemp was on ABC-TV, explaining the Howard government’s position.

Silly Excuse No. 8. Cuts required by the Kyoto Protocol are too small to make a difference, so why bother?

“Kyoto is going to make barely 1 percent difference to global greenhouse gas emissions.” (Environment Minister Kemp, ‘Lateline’, ABC TV, 3 September 2002) Former Environment Minister David Kemp endorsed the IPCC’s estimate that global emissions will need to be cut by 60% or more to stabilize climate change and says the Government would not ratify the Protocol because it will result only in very small reductions.

[Clive Hamilton, 1 sept 2004]

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

The context was the Howard government had negotiated a spectacularly generous deal for Australia at the 1997 Kyoto conference. It had then ruled out ratifying the key Kyoto protocol in June 2002. (It would also rule out emissions trading at a federal level but state governments especially New South Wales and Victoria controlled by Labor were pushing for an emissions trading scheme). 

What I think we can learn from this is that there are no depths of intellectual vacuity and moral skank that old white men will not stoop to if they’re in a corner.

What happened next

Howard continued to resist any action on climate change and then at the end of 2006 tried to do the perception of a u-turn but failed. Throughout all of this emissions have climbed and the consequences have come. more consequences are coming.

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.