Twenty-five years ago, on this day, October 15th, 1999 the Australian Financial Review reported that ,
The Federal Government has conceded for the first time that its greenhouse gas policy could reduce the competitiveness of key sectors of the Australian economy.
The Australian Financial Review has obtained a draft record of an August 25 meeting of the Council of Australian Governments’ High Level Group on Greenhouse. It puts the Commonwealth position in these terms: “Competitiveness is fundamentally linked to the economy as a whole and not individual sectors – no government could promise that the competitiveness of individual sectors would remain unchanged over time.”
Hordern, N. 1999. Greenhouse policy `can affect competitiveness’. The Australian Financial Review, 15 October, p. 6.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Howard Government had come in in 1996 even more hostile to climate action than Keating. It had ramped up the opposition to international commitments. It had done greenwash where necessary and naked contempt when it thought it could. In 1997 it had been cornered into making a few promises that it was now trying to backtrack on, and water down. But it couldn’t always bluster past the advocates of action at the state level, including New South Wales Premier Bob Carr…
What we learn is that in 1999 even the Howard Government realised that continuing to ignore climate impacts was going to cause problems for The Australian Economy.
What happened next? Howard continued to do everything he could to avoid any climate action, both domestically and internationally. Domestically, he continued to undermine any progress on renewables, and to kill a carbon price twice (in 2000 and 2003). Internationally, he refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (despite having extorted the most unimaginably generous terms) and joined in various “spoiler” activities with the US.
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-eight years ago, on this day, October 12th, 1986, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s science discussion show, Ockham’s Razor – soap box for all things scientific, with short talks about research, industry and policy from people with something thoughtful to say- tackled climate change… Yes. 1986.
Ockham’s Razor [Series 86, Episode 101] – The Greenhouse Effect, Part 1 – Cause – Doctor Brian Tucker [CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the CSIRO had finally been able to ring the alarm bell about carbon dioxide. And people starting to talk about it, worry about it. And it turned up on the radio. The broader context was that there had been people on ABC radio science shows since 1969, – and conceivably earlier – warning about carbon dioxide buildup. We had Frank Fenner on 16th of September 1969 And we’d had Richie-Calder on the first ever Science Show in 1975.
What we learn is what we always learn – that we knew, we knew, we knew.
What happened next. The Commission for the Future put together the Greenhouse Project with CSIRO. It was effective in raising awareness among policy elites and mass publics in 1988 and 1989. And then they didn’t get further funding.
And as per the Rosaleen Love’s article in Arena, it all just went away because we can’t stare into the abyss for very long…
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 10th, 1991, on the one year anniversary of Australia setting an ambitious greenhouse gas reduction target…
MELBOURNE: Accusing the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, of a “gross betrayal”, major conservation groups united yesterday to condemn the Federal Government’s proposed resource-security legislation.
The executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Phillip Toyne, said Mr Hawke was going ahead with the legislation despite a commitment last year that he would not.
He said the Prime Minister had made the pledge to himself and environmentalist-musician Peter Garrett, during a meeting between the three.
“He told us there would be no resource-security legislation. It was an unambiguous exchange of views and the intent was clear,” Mr Toyne said.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Ecologically Sustainable Development process was clearly being gutted. And Hawke was not defending it. It was a long time since the heady days of 1989, 1990 when people were voting green. Hawke had other things on his mind, such as a potential challenge from Paul Keating, and also the new Liberal leader, John Hewson with his so-called Fightback! neoliberal policy. So the green issues could go jump, basically.
What we learn is that for everything there is a season and seasons for environmental concern, rarely seem to last more than a year or two. And then the pull of greed and “must keep the economy bubbling along” comes back stronger than ever. And so it came to pass.
What happened next two months later, Hawke was gone. Paul Keating successfully challenged: he was not a fan of environmental issues. And especially the so-called amorphous greenhouse issue. And it’s fun when you read his memoirs or biographies, it just doesn’t crop up. It’s just staggeringly absent.
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 Monday October 9, 2006, a group of Australian charities and pressure groups, who’d been working with the CSIRO, released a report “Australia Responds: Helping Our Neighbours Fight Climate Change.” (download here if you like).
“
It called for lots of sensible things, including
Increase Australia’s overseas development assistance (ODA) in line with most other developed nations to 0.5% of GNI by 2009 10, and 0.7% by 2015.
Review Australia’s immigration program in light of the expected impacts of climate change. This review should consider mechanisms to support people displaced by climate change within the region. • Make a strong commitment to support disaster risk reduction, mitigation and preparedness measures within the ODA program.
Adopt a national framework for reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60% of 1990 levels by 2050, with an implementation timetable that will provide a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
By the way, something else really important happened on the same day – Anthony Albanese made a statement on how Australia needed to take climate refugees.
You can also read my Open Letter to a Tuvaluan turning 18.
And here is a fourth post (no, nobody has ever told me to shut my damn mouth – why do you ask) tying it together and suggesting some answers to the only question that matters “What is to be done?” It also has links to various organisations trying to help.
The context was the Australian government under Bob Hawke had made noises about accepting climate refugees. Keating ignored the whole issue, and under him the “fuck the world, we’re gonna sell soooo much coal bwahahahaha” strategy got moving. John Howard dialed it up to eleven. Then 12. John Howard belongs in one particular place close to sea-level. That place is The Hague.
From Labour’s “Our Drowning Neighbours” discussion paper
What we learn is that
NGOs can get scientists on board, and work their guts out and it will be a one-day wonder. A political party (especially in Opposition) will piggyback on the work. And the media will very very quickly lose interest, for a variety of structural reasons.
And so it came to pass.
What happened next
The report generated a certain amount of attention.
The low lying nation of Kiribati is just one of our Pacific neighbours facing the real day to day effects of climate change.
Rising sea levels, huge tides and unpredictable winds are already a part of life there. So what do you do when climate change is literally on your doorstep?
Anyway, then the caravan moved on. Peter Garrett, the next climate spokesman after Anthony Albanese, name-checked it in February 2007 at Labor’s little shindig at Parliament House.
But the whole question of accepting climate refugees in the future became, well, somewhat awkward under Julia Gillard. Then along came Tony “Stop the Boats” Abbott and that’s all she wrote.
What happened nextmore generally.
The NGOs kept NGOing.
Meanwhile
The coal exports kept rising.
This had consequences.
The bank balances of Very Important People kept rising.
The donations – official and unofficial – to parties and individuals – kept rising.
Which was all great, obviously , and far more important than the fact that
The emissions kept rising.
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide kept rising.
The seas kept rising.
The whole language of “climate refugees” became a bit awks for the Gillard Government, so was shelved. Everyone moved on.
But the issue did not go away, and then – in November 2023…
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.
Eighteen years ago, on Monday October 9, 2006, the climate spokesman of the Australian Labor Party (then in opposition, and positioning itself to attack Prime Minister John Howard ahead of an election due soon-ish) released a statement with the snappy title
“Labor calls for International Coalition to Accept Climate Change Refugees”
It begins
“It’s in Australia’s national interest that we lead on climate change, not wait decades to act.
While the Minister for Environment accepts Australia “does have a substantial role to play in helping smaller, less-developed countries” that will be devastated by rising sea levels, he fails to show leadership. The Howard Government does not have a strategy to combat climate change and its impact on Pacific countries.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
You should be able to view it on Anthony Albanese’s very own website. It was there as of 0530 Australian Time. If it is no longer there, for some inexplicable reason, well, you can see screenshots and the text are at the foot of this post – Just Scroll On. I’ve even added some hyperlinks and footnotes [in square brackets].
By the way, something else really important happened on the same day – a coalition of human rights and development organisations released a report called “Australia Responds: Helping Our Neighbours Fight Climate Change”. Here’s a post about that.
And here is a fourth post (no, nobody has ever told me to shut my damn mouth – why do you ask) tying it together and suggesting some answers to the only question that matters “What is to be done in solidarity?” It also has links to various organisations trying to help.
The context was that in the late 1980s the Hawke government (Labor, for the younger readers who may not know) was trying to both Care About “The Greenhouse Effect” and also flog a lot more coal (e.g. January 30, 1989). In August 1988 two academics had flagged the possibility of climate refugees and Australia’s responsibilities, at a conference in Sydney. At the July 1989, at the 20th South Pacific Forum, well look at what the Australian Financial Reviewreported
“Both Australia and New Zealand indicated that they and the rest of the world would undoubtably be prepared to take humanitarian action in moving people driven out by rising waters” reported Steve Burrell in an article titled “ENVIRONMENT DOMINATES FORUM” from Tarawa, Kiribati, The Australian Financial Review, 12 July 1989.
The same year English science communicator James Burke had produced a show – shown in Australia called After the Warming. It is – spoiler – about the future of a warming world, in which he included a scenario about climate refugees getting machine-gunned. Watch it on Youtube here. (1)
Then, in late 1991 Hawke lost a Labor Party room spill (there’d been one earlier in the year). The next Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, killed the “greenie nonsense.” A carbon tax was proposed and defeated by big business (1994-5) and then vacuous “voluntary action” was proposed. The Liberal Government of John Howard had been in power from March 1996 and had dialled Keating’s climate vandalism up to 11. And then to 12. By 2006 the Australians were still alongside the USA as the public face of the Venus Lobby, but Labor were beginning to use climate as one of the sticks to beat Howard with.
What we learn is that
Labor in opposition were shameless attention hounds, willing to piggie-back on other people’s intellectual and political work (then again, ‘the game’s the game’).
Labor in opposition were willing to make all sorts of lovely sounding (vague-ish) promises and enough civil society organisations either roll over and squee with delight, or refuse to get their shit together to say “yeah, honey, you don’t make that happen, there’s gonna be serious trouble.”
More generally
Political parties like to be parasites on civil society. They like to take what they want (in this case a chance to get more news for their guff) and don’t really care about the consequences for the wider ecosystem, if they can even see it (mostly they can’t).
For political parties civil society is at best a place to get authenticity, credibility and competent/ambitious personnel from especially when in opposition or facing a new challenge they can’t trot out the usual bullshit with confidence and without reputational risk.
For political parties civil society is at worst (and therefore usually) a bunch of clever and determined people who are agitated and agitating about how, now that you are in government you are not in fact keeping any of the nice (vague) promises you made when in opposition. Poach the smartest, install your own meatpuppets, defund and deride is the main way of dealing with them, alongside some patronising guff about “politics is the art of the possible, you have to govern from the centre” and all the other excuses. Make sure you keep big business sweet, because when pitchfork season comes (and it does, periodically), they are the guys who might send the helicopter to get you out of the palace.
If only somebody had written a short perfect book that ended with this
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
What happened next
Then Labor leader Kim Beazley got knifed by Kevin “I’m from Queensland, I’m here to help” Rudd about six weeks later [Wikipedia]. The shadow climate portfolio went to Peter “in the end the rain comes down” Garrett, who name-checked the “Australia Responds” report (see next post) in February 2007 and then turned his attention to helping funnel enormous sums of taxpayer money to a real climate response, namely Carbon Capture and Storage.
Happy times.
Albo took on other jobs over the years. I don’t quite recall where he is these days, but wherever it is, I am sure he is working day and night to turn the fine words of 2006 into real policy. Oh yes. BUT, in the interests of fairness, alongside all his sterling work to expand coalmines, there was, in fact, in November 2023, an agreement to offer Tuvaluans (280 a year) visas to study and/or work in Australia.
Journalist James Burke reports from the year 2050, where humans and the Earth have survived global warming. Using an innovative device called the “Virtual Reality Generator,” a computer effect that projects different environments on a location, Burke shows various scenarios of global warming and illustrates the potential effects of today’s actions. Burke also addresses the impact of climate change on historical events (and vice versa).
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.
It’s in Australia’s national interest that we lead on climate change, not wait decades to act. [AOY1]
While the Minister for Environment [2] accepts Australia “does have a substantial role to play in helping smaller, less-developed countries” that will be devastated by rising sea levels, he fails to show leadership. The Howard Government does not have a strategy to combat climate change and its impact on Pacific countries.
On today’s AM program [3], Senator Campbell’s limp response was to put off action: “The major impacts, the long-term impacts, of climate change will take many decades to unfold.”
Pacific countries need a plan now, not when they are already under water. [4]
Tuvalu is expected to become uninhabitable within 10 years because of rising sea levels, not in “many decades” as the Minister said. [5]
Pacific countries are increasingly vulnerable to extreme weather events, including contamination of their fresh water supplies.
Labor supports the Kyoto Protocol [6] and has a comprehensive plan to assist Pacific countries threatened by climate change.
Labor’s policy discussion paper, Our Drowning Neighbours, advocates the establishment of an international coalition, led by Australia, to accept climate change refugees from Pacific countries.
The paper recommends the establishment of a Pacific Climate Change Centre to monitor climate change, protect fresh water sources and plan for emergency evacuation where necessary.
Labor welcomes the release of today’s report, Australia Responds: Helping Our Neighbours Fight Climate Change, by a coalition of groups including Oxfam and World Vision.
The report reinforces Labor’s call for urgent action to reduce greenhouse emissions and highlights the need for climate change to also be addressed through the aid budget.
All Our Yesterdays footnotes, from October 2024
[1] Yes, the national interest. Which seems to be always identical to the short-term needs of the fossil fuel industry and its mates, no matter which political party is pretending to hold the reins of power. Not to rain on anyone’s parade (btw, in the end the rain comes down, obliterates the streets of the Blue Sky Town. Just sayin’]
[2] The hapless Senator Campbell. Clive Hamilton is spectacularly rude about him in Scorcher, a book worth reading. Howard replaced Campbell with some guy called Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull urged Honest John to ratify Kyoto (no dice). Turnbull went on to a storied career as a fearless, skilful and highly successful policy entrepreneur on climate, outmanoeuvring the forces of darkness and saving both Australia’s reputation and its physical safety.
[3] Ah, the ABC. Bless. This suggests, btw, that the press release might well have been a brainfart on the day – an ambitious policy wonk suggesting an anodyne statement hooked onto the Australia Responds report would be enough to get some headlines, and punch the bruise that was Howard’s climate dilemma. I could probably find out, maybe. But the game would not be worth the candle.
[4] Thank goodness Albo has worked tirelessly these last 18 years to turn that banal exhortation into shiny reality. (ahahahaha- which stands for All Hail Albanese All Hail Albanese)
[5] Really? And the scientific basis for this headline grabbing claim is? Is? It’s almost as if the ALP doesn’t care about either science or the credibility of environmentalism, if there is a momentary advantage to be had.
This paper investigates how the Kyoto Protocol has framed political discourse and policy development of greenhouse gas mitigation in Australia. We argue that ‘Kyoto’ has created a veil over the climate issue in Australia in a number of ways. Firstly, its symbolic power has distracted attention from actual environmental outcomes while its accounting rules obscure the real level of carbon emissions and structural trends at the nation-state level. Secondly, a public policy tendency to commit to far off emission targets as a compromise to implementing legislation in the short term has also emerged on the back of Kyoto-style targets. Thirdly, Kyoto’s international flexibility mechanisms can lead to the diversion of mitigation investment away from the nation-state implementing carbon legislation. A final concern of the Kyoto approach is how it has shifted focus away from Australia as the world’s largest coal exporter towards China, its primary customer. While we recognise the crucial role aspirational targets and timetables play in capturing the imagination and coordinating action across nations, our central theme is that ‘Kyoto’ has overshadowed the implementation of other policies in Australia. Understanding how ‘Kyoto’ has framed debate and policy is thus crucial to promoting environmentally effective mitigation measures as nation-states move forward from COP15 in Copenhagen to forge a post-Kyoto international agreement. Recent elections in 2009 in Japan and America and developments at COP15 suggest positive scope for international action on climate change. However, the lesson from the 2007 election and subsequent events in Australia is a caution against elevating the symbolism of ‘Kyoto-style’ targets and timetables above the need for implementation of mitigation policies at the nation-state level.
In English? It’s all make-believe. It’s all kayfabe.
Fourteen years ago, on this day, October 7th, 2010,
Gillard scraps climate assembly
ByPaul Osborne
October 7, 2010 — 5.12pm
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has scrapped her election promise of a citizens’ assembly to deal with climate change, a scheme the opposition described as a dud anyway.
Ms Gillard said other aspects of the party’s election platform – including subsidising the replacement of older cars, rolling out renewable energy projects linked to $1 billion of new transmission lines and improving energy efficiency – would still go ahead.
Ms Gillard on Thursday chaired the first meeting of the multi-party climate change committee – one of the promises made to the Australian Greens and independents to gain support to form minority government.
In a communique released after the meeting, the committee confirmed its intention to “work co-operatively across party lines
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Julia Gillard had challenged Kevin Rudd for the leadership at the Labor Party in July, having had enough of his bullshit. There are some quite interesting and plausible accounts of what happened and how it happened. Then she’d gone to an early election. It had been going okay. Mostly, it’s gonna be tight, but Labor looked like they were going to win. Then some leaks started happening from within the cabinet. Funny that. So it was a hung parliament and Gillard had to negotiate with independents like Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott, and the Greens to form a minority government. And therefore, her idea of a climate assembly – having 150 people to talk about the issue for a year, which she had been persuaded by some Blairite advisor – was now a non-starter, because the Independents wouldn’t wear it. The Independents wanted action. And so therefore, there was the Multi Party Committee on Climate Change, which she invited the Liberals and the Nationals to join (while knowing full well that they wouldn’t).
What we learn is that the climate assembly idea might have worked, if Rudd had come up with it (see Rudd’s “2020” event in 2008). But these processes always get dominated by the loudest, most cashed up and determined. They’re rarely particularly deliberative, especially if the stakes are high. And anyway, by 2010, the timing was all wrong. What could have looked like a sensible circuit breaker now just looked like weakness.
What happened next? How long have you got? MPCCC had its meetings, advised by Ross Garneau, etc. It came up with some legislation. Gillard put that through Parliament. It did an advertising campaign. But by then, Tony Abbott had successfully framed it as “a great big tax on everything” and had also fatally wounded Gillard in public perception. I think Gillard was a successful Prime Minister in terms of the amount of legislation she got through. She was a steady hand on the tiller. But then she also lacks certain things. For example, a penis and children. Therefore, awful, awful woman.
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 6th, 1997,
Senator Robert Hill, the federal Minister for the Environment, rejected Japan’s proposal of a 5% uniform reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2012 on the basis that it would result in unacceptable job losses in Australia (ABC television 7.00 pm news 6.10.97)
(Duncan, 1997:10)
Same day President Bill Clinton hosts pre-Kyoto climate conference at the White House… (see New York Times coverage here).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that John Howard as prime minister had taken hostility of Australian political elites to the climate treaty from a solid eight through to 11. (“This one goes up to 11.”) And he had sent diplomats around the world over the course of 1997 to try and convince everyone that Australia deserved special treatment at the impending Kyoto meeting, without much success, it has to be said. The Americans were mocking him. Anyway, this above one attempt to break the logjam by the hosts. The Japanese posed an across the board 5% cut from everyone. Now this wouldn’t have been in keeping with the science but it was a bid worth making. The fact that Australia just turned round with a flat rejection tells you plenty.
What we learn is that Australian political elites just don’t give a shit about the future. All they care about is filling their own pockets with loot in the here and now. This is not uncommon, of course.
What happened next? Howard was rewarded for his efforts. Australia managed to get not only 108% so called reductions target, i.e. they got to increase their emissions. But also just through sheer trickery and nastiness they managed to get a land clearing clause backdated to 1990. So that in effect, the emissions reduction target was 130% essentially, de facto if not the jure.
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 five years ago, on this day, October 5th, 1989, Australian Federal Environment Minister Graham Richardson warns Prime Minister Bob Hawke that he will have to save Kakadu (i.e. ban mining) to win the election, because green-minded voters will accept nothing less. (See Paul Kelly’s The End of Certainty for details)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia had been digging up and exporting minerals for good 25 years in large quantities. And the whole concept of Aboriginal land rights and sacred sites was nothing important back then. Not to the white people anyway. But by the mid-late 80s, that was changing. And the idea for an expansion of the uranium mine at Kakadu that would damage the National Park was a vote loser in the marginal inner city constituencies where Labor hoped it would be able to cling on to power at the next federal election. This had to happen early in 1990 and therefore Graeme Richardson, who was Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s very effective environment minister, was telling Hawke that he was going to have to save Kakadu even though this was going to seriously piss off the mining lobby. The mining lobby feared that it was the beginning of serious restrictions on their ability to plunder, sorry to “develop”, Australia’s resources for their own benefit. And Hawke took that on board; he delayed the decision and took the credit for that.
What we learn is that these seemingly tangential issues are important to understand if you want to understand how climate policy works
What happened next Labor did in fact squeak home in the March 1990 election, and then had a quid pro quo debt to keep the Ecologically Sustainable Development process.
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 years ago, on this day, October 2nd, 1994, as the battle for a carbon tax heats up…
THE FRIENDS and enemies of Phillip Toyne, acquired during years of very public struggle over Aboriginal land rights and the environment, were in a stunned state at the ALP’s national conference in Hobart this week.
The news that one of the hardest nosed and most controversial among Australian activists had joined, of all things, the Commonwealth’s environment bureaucracy (at deputy secretary, level, no less), delighted and appalled in equal measure.. …..
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Phillip Toyne had been a thorn in the side of the Hawke government. He, as the chair of the Australian Conservation Foundation, had also done really useful work on Aboriginal land rights. And now he was tempted to try to change the system from within by becoming a senior bureaucrat for John Faulkner, the Federal Environment Minister, who was publicly toying with the idea of introducing a carbon tax.
What we learn is that people who try to change the system from within get sentenced to 20 months or years of boredom. And sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
What happened next. Toyne was unsuccessful. I don’t know when he quit, but it was pretty clear after February 10 1995, that no meaningful action was going to happen on climate change in Australia, at least not at the federal level. Toyne died in 2015. Having fought the good fight.
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-nine years ago, on this day, September 27th, 1995, the government has to admit that there has been no progress on reducing emissions.
The Keating Government’s action plan to curb emissions of harmful greenhouse gases has failed to produce any significant benefits in the almost three years since it was endorsed by the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments.
Despite the plan, and a further commitment for action in this year’s Greenhouse 21C, independent analysts can find no evidence that any measure is working.
Six months after the launch of Greenhouse 21C, no director has been appointed to run its key initiative. Interviews were held only last week.
The director’s position carries only a middle-management grade in the Public Service, even though that person’s task will be to hammer out voluntary agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions with the heads of some of Australia’s biggest companies.
Gilchrist, G. 1995. Greenhouse Project Fails To Curb Gases. Sydney Morning Herald, 27 September, p11.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australian governments had been making big promises about climate action, for some years. The most notable had been the “Interim Planning Target” in October 1990. And here we were five years later, with the carbon tax defeated in February, with new coal-fired power stations, new freeways. It was totally clear that the Australian Government was not pressing industry, and that the upward trajectory and emissions would continue.
What we learn is that getting governments to make promises is not actually that difficult. Getting them to keep those promises is.
What happened next? Well, two months after this story in December of 1995, the Keating government started promulgating ridiculous ABARE modelling on the global level to try and be more aggressive against the Berlin Mandate. In March of 1996, John Howard took office. And then the fun and games on climate delay and denial really kicked in.
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.
“
