Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

September 8, 1989 – Deputy PM John Kerin on environment and economics

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, September 8th, 1989,

John Kerin (Deputy PM, Industry) gives a speech to CEDA on environment and economics (he cites it in his Nov 1, 1989 speech) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that after almost two decades of warning about the greenhouse effect to Australian political elite, they were finally having to start talking about it very much in public.

In late 1988 and for the first few months of 1989, the opponents of action seemed quite flat footed, presumably simply waiting for it to burn itself out.

The specific context was And here we see Deputy Prime Minister John Kerin giving a speech on environment and economics, just as the penny is beginning to drop for the opponents of action that they’re gonna have to enter the fray that they can’t wait for this wave to die down.

What I think we can learn from this is that you should never take any event out of its context.

What happened next The Labor government decided to rat fuck environmentalism and environmentalists, and to side with the big end of town. By the mid 90s they were basically indistinguishable from the Liberals. The Liberals went off the deep end. Labor used the climate issue as a way to get back into power in 2007, then comprehensively fucked up the response, and has basically been running scared ever since, and under the thumb of big business, 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 8, 1972 – Green activist vanishes off face of Earth…

September 8, 1990 – Australian #climate denialist spouting his nonsense…

September 8, 2000 – “Minchin’s Quiet Win”

September 8, 2014 – Lobster boat blockaders have charges dropped.

Categories
Australia

September 5, 1990 – “emissions reductions targets will strengthen the economy” says Australian Env Minister

Thirty six years ago, on this day, September 5th, 1990,

Targets to reduce greenhouse gases would strengthen the Australian economy, not cripple it, according to the Minister for the Environment, Ms Kelly.

Speaking to a Metal Trades Industry Association seminar, Ms Kelly made a preliminary sortie in the battle she will fight with her Cabinet colleagues next Monday to try to persuade them to set targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Ms Kelly said a report for her department by Deni Greene Consulting Services showed that a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2005 “is not only possible, it is pretty easy to obtain”.

Industry groups have been lobbying the Government hard in recent days against setting a target to reduce emissions, which they argue could dramatically increase costs.

Garran, R. 1990. Kelly sees big savings in cutting greenhouse gases. Australian Financial Review, 6 September, p. 5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the greenhouse effect had burst onto the public scene around the world, but especially in Australia, in 1988. There were now fierce debates about what was to be done. In March of 1990 there had been a federal election, and the Liberal Party had had a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labor. Yes, that’s true.

The specific context was that here, just as the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy making process was about to kick off, we see a speech about how emissions reductions targets will not weaken the economy but strengthen it. This was a narrative that was hated and challenged repeatedly, usually by commissioning so-called independent reports, which could be thumped down on the table, “Our modelling shows that dot dot dot”.

What I think we can learn from this is that we could have had nicer things, we could have delayed a greenhouse warming, but the powers of darkness, the forces of well, evil, were stronger, and they won the day, and the week, and the month, and the year, and the decades.

But they will not win eternity. Well, they will, if their aim was to cause mayhem.

What happened next The following month the Australian Government agreed to a version of the Toronto Target, but with so many caveats that it was rendered useless. This agreement was simply so the Environment Minister could go to the second World Climate Conference in Geneva with something in her hand. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 5, 1986 – a “Safe Energy” rally, in London

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

September 5, 1995 – Australian Aluminium Council joins “Greenhouse Challenge”

September 5, 2004 – John Howard gloats about cooking the planet

September 5, 2005 – protest about the brown coal in Melbourne

September 5, 2005 – Anthony Albanese introduced “Avoiding Dangerous Climate #Change” private member’s bill

Categories
Australia Energy

September 4, 2014 – Labor Senators help repeal large scale Energy Efficiency Opportunities program

Twelve years ago, on this day, September 4th, 2014,

On Thursday Labor Party Senators lined up with the Government, Palmer United Party and crossbench independent senators to repeal the large-scale Energy Efficiency Opportunities (EEO) program set up with bipartisan support in 2006 under the Howard Government. In a division in the Senate of 55 votes to 10, only the Greens Senators opposed the dumping of this program which had made substantial business energy savings of over $800 million dollars and 8.21 megatonnes reduction in carbon emissions.

The Energy Efficiency Opportunities program was recognised by the International Energy Agency as a world-class program helping businesses to save energy and a key element of energy efficiency policy framework and in addressing climate change.

http://takvera.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/labor-votes-with-government-to-dump-key.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 399ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the previous eight years had been an exhausting series of battles – legislative, political, cultural – in the climate wars in Australia, but ultimately the forces of stupidity had prevailed, as they so often do. Tony Abbott, as Prime Minister, had repealed much of the legislation within Julia Gillard’s Clean Energy Package, especially, for example, the actual emissions trading scheme. 

The specific context was – here you see Labor senators, there aren’t that many of them after the 2013 electoral wipe-out, accepting political realities and voting to abolish the large scale energy efficiency opportunities programme. Energy efficiency is always hated and derided, even though there were and still are significant savings to be made.

What I think we can learn from this – is that there is no depth of stupidity we won’t sink to.

What happened next is that the culture war over climate has never really ended, that we are not smart enough collectively to fix this, and that doom is coming. If the social movement organisations had learned how to harness emotion and to create opportunities for legitimate peripheral participation, and had avoided being co-opted, repressed, or exhausted things might – might – have been a bit different, i.e. the horrors would have been delayed.

But they didn’t, and the horrors have not been delayed. The horrors are here with us now, and they’re only just warming up.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 4, 1969 – Ivory Tower types tell the truth at ANU

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

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

September 4, 2006 – Royal Society to Exxon: “Knock it off with the funding to #climate deniers”

September 4, 2007 – Climate Change Coalition launches

Categories
Australia

September 3, 1991 – Dick Smith launches Reconciling Economics and the Environment

Thirty five years ago, on this day, September 3rd, [nb] 1991,

Dick Smith launches IPA nonsense “Reconciling Economics and the Environment”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Dick Smith had made a quick fortune by establishing and then selling a range of cheap and cheerful electronics outlets, and Smith had also taken an interest in biodiversity. He’d created Australian Geographic, so he had environmental credentials and plausibility. Smith is also, or was at the time – I don’t know if he still is – extremely “dry” on his economics, and so was happy to pal around with the Institute for Public Affairs, a so-called think tank that spews climate denial. It didn’t do it explicitly back then, quite so much as it does now. 

The specific context was that debates over a carbon tax were live, and the IPA was keen to attack such moves as unjustifiable interference in the “free” market.

What I think we can learn from this is that climate denialists know when to push for delay and when to come out with active denial, and they know how to make marriages of convenience with plausible cultural and economic figures. 

What happened next Australian Geographic is still being published. I don’t know (or particularly care) what Smith’s views are on climate change, but ultimately we’re completely fucked. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 3, 1963 – Ritchie-Calder sounds the alarm: CO2 build up will “radically affect glaciers and ice caps”

September 3, 1988 – Ann Landers is Greta Thunberg avant la lettre…

September 3, 1990 – Greenies meet Prime Minister, a cautious dance ensues

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

It was September 7th, according to this – An invitation for Dick Smith, the IPA and other Walter Block fans to the 2nd Australian Mises Seminar

by Benjamin Marks, author of “An Open Letter to Dick Smith,” and Economics.org.au editor-in-chief

In Sydney, on September 7, 1991, famous Australian entrepreneur and environmentalist Dick Smith launched Reconciling Economics and the Environment, edited by Jeff Bennett and Walter Block, for the IPA.1 

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 31, 2010 – Rann says ETS delay a national failure

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 31st, 2010,

AUSTRALIA is failing to meet its international responsibilities by delaying the introduction of an emissions trading scheme, Mike Rann said yesterday.

After staying clear of ETS issues in the federal election campaign, the South Australian Premier told an Adelaide business lunch an ETS was urgently needed to spur international action on climate change.

“Only an emissions trading system allows the country to commit to a specific emissions performance and be assured of achieving it,” he said.

Akerman, P. 2010. ETS delay a national failure: Rann. The Australian, 1 September.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ets-delay-a-national-failure-rann/news-story/db709200b06792098c68b94e479eea30

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that, as per a couple of days ago, the first attempts to get a price on carbon were for a tax. After these were defeated, especially in 1995, attention had turned to an emissions trading scheme. In August 2003 the second attempt to get a trading scheme going under the Howard government was defeated.

The specific context was that Howard’s entire cabinet was united in the need for one. Howard blocked it for a month and came back, and then said “no”, and the spineless cretins all went along with it. Here we see South Australian Premier Mike Rann, who by this time had been taking a keen interest in renewables and the potential for South Australia to generate a lot of electricity from wind entering the fray; Rann had become premier of South Australia shortly before this. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the opportunities, the technologies, the policies were all there, and if they had been implemented, they would not have stopped climate change. They would have slowed down the staggering increase in our emissions. They would have slowly, perhaps, bent the concentration curve down a bit, which might have bought us more time. These catastrophes that we’re facing might have been delayed by as much as I don’t know a decade?

What happened next In 2006 Howard had to do a U-turn in the face of public and political pressure. It did not save him. Labor’s Kevin Rudd then managed to fuck up the emissions trading scheme legislation and was replaced by Julia Gillard, about whom you can say many things, but she was at least competent within her framework. You cannot say that of Rudd.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 31, 1998 – Green dollar growing on trees?

August 31, 1992 – “Community Energy Audit” in Canberra

August 31, 2005 – “Stop Climate Chaos” launched

August 31, 2006 – activists try to “Reclaim Power”

August 31, 2011 – anti-carbon tax protesters call Anthony Albanese a “maggot”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 28, 2006 – “National Emissions Trading Taskforce” report released

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 28th, 2006,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that after two failed efforts to get a carbon tax up in the early 90s, advocates of economics-based action on emissions reductions had turned their attention to an emissions trading scheme. Two proposals had been defeated in John Howard’s cabinet in 2000 and 2003 and thereafter attention had turned to state-based schemes in Australia’s different states, with the possibility of trading between them. 

The specific context was that John Howard was the Prime Minister, was continuing to deride and, wherever possible, block such an effort, especially because it undercut his so-called authority.

What I think we can learn from this is that a policy that is popular, which is not to say would have been particularly effective, will persist, and its advocates will do their best to find other plausible venues, i.e. going through the states rather than the federal government.

What happened next A state-based scheme was supplanted, because in late 2006 it became obvious that Howard was going to have to do a U-turn on the question of an emissions trading scheme if he wanted to stay prime minister. And if he was in fact defeated at the upcoming election (spoiler, he was) then Labor was promising a federal scheme. That federal scheme finally happened from 2012 was then abolished by the next government of Liberal Tony Abbott, and the whole idea of explicit, explicit emissions trading schemes was then defeated.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 28, 1971 – snarky opinion piece in New York Times. Stephen Schneider rebuts days later

August 28, 1977 – First Australian“Greenpeace” action, against whaling 

August 28, 2000 – Victorian power generators refuse to sign up to reduction plan, because it is sticks as well as carrots.

August 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Categories
Australia

August 28, 1996 – BCA still at it “International Energy and Environment Conference”

Thirty years ago, on this day, August 28th, 1996, “International Energy and Environment Conference”, Sydney, organised by Business Council of Australia.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the Business Council of Australia, which had been set up in 1983, had played a pivotal role in defeating proposals for effective and progressive ecologically sustainable development in the late 1980s early 1990s. Not through the force of its intellect, but by good old-fashioned lobbying. And BCA and people from the Minerals Council of Australia had also set up the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, which had been massively successful in coordinating opposition to the 1994-95 carbon tax. Here we see the BCA keeping the flame alive, because although there is a new government, you can never be too safe.

The specific context was there are federal elections every three years in Australia, and so new Liberal Prime Minister John Howard might crash and burn, and the whole question of carbon dioxide build up and what to do about it might – just might – return. So BCA needs to keep its hand in the game, it needs to keep its networks being constantly refreshed, and it needs to be able to fire warning shots across the bows when required.

What I think we can learn from this a good, as in effective, as in vicious and evil incumbent trade association will be doing stuff like this. It won’t look like much, it won’t scream “evil bastard” at you, but if you know how to read the signs, then you’ll see it for what it is, And you can tell me that words like evil are unacademic and unhelpful and analytic dead ends, and I can say yes, and I don’t give a fuck. Enjoy your career as an asshole. 

What happened next Howard served himself and his rich business mates for another 10 years until being kicked out by the voters both as Prime Minister and as MP. By that time the damage had been done. Would Labour have been particularly different? Well, thanks to Tampa in 2001 we will never know.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 28, 1971 – snarky opinion piece in New York Times. Stephen Schneider rebuts days later

August 28, 1977 – First Australian“Greenpeace” action, against whaling 

August 28, 2000 – Victorian power generators refuse to sign up to reduction plan, because it is sticks as well as carrots.

August 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Categories
Australia

August 27, 1969 – The Australian tells the truth on pollution

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, August 27th, 1969,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that through the 60s there had been increasing concern about the costs of industrialization. This was especially visible in big cities around air pollution, most infamously Los Angeles. London, Tokyo, and Australian cities, especially Sydney and Melbourne, were concerned that they would end up in the same place. Clean Air Societies were formed, conferences were held, etc. 

The specific context was in 1968-69 “pollution” became the word of the day. This was especially thanks to the Santa Barbara oil shock following on from the Torrey Canyon a couple of years earlier, and then the river in Ohio catching fire, and so forth. So, really, 1969 is the year that pollution starts to take hold, and a cynic might argue that talking about pollution allowed people to talk about their distaste or concern about where America was going without talking about the Vietnam War. Also, in ‘69 the UN Secretary General had made various speeches, and there had been a report following on from the 1968 Biosphere Conference.

What I think we can learn from this is that The Australian used to be a newspaper as well as a propaganda rag. Now it’s just the latter. And propaganda that looks like propaganda is third rate propaganda, but then if you’ve created generations of third-rate educated people, you only need third rate propaganda.

What happened next Everybody started pretending to give a shit about pollution, up to and including John Gorton, the Australian Prime Minister. In May1971 Australia got an Environment Minister, Peter Howson, but the wave kind of fizzled out by 1973 though some people stuck with it, of course.

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 27, 1859 – The Oil Age begins. UPDATED TO BE a) accurate b) less Eurocentric

August 27, 1962 – Mariner 2 sets off for Venus

August 27, 1970 – Sydney Town Hall packed with greenies wanting action.

August 27, 1993 – international negotiations edge forward

August 27, 2013 – absurd claim of Nobel-prize winners’ support for Liberal non-policy is debunked

Categories
Australia

 August 26, 1997 – Germans versus Australians…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 26th, 1997,

The “holier-than-thou” Germans became “very angry” over Australia’s controversial proposals on how the world should fight climate change, according to confidential Federal Government “greenhouse papers” obtained by the Herald.

Hogarth, M. 1997. Germany ‘angry’ On Clean Air Target. Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia had slipped from being a responsible middle power 1988 to 1990 to an active, very active opponent of climate action.

The specific context was here we see in the run up to the Kyoto Climate Conference, at which rich nations were supposed to bring their plans for significant emissions reductions, as per the Berlin mandate, and the Germans pointing out the facts, which is that the Australians were behaving like utter assholes. Criminal stock indeed.

What I think we can learn from this is that Australian governments since the very early 90s have been criminal. They have disregarded the rights of future generations of humans and other species to anything approaching a habitable planet, and they have done this because they are basically the meat puppets for a bunch of extractivist goons. And you can dress it up however you like, and you can make good money and/or good career in dressing it up, but ultimately you’re dressing it up.

What happened next Australia extorted an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto conference, and then refused to ratify. By the time Australia did ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2008 it was a dead letter. The balance sheet kept breaking up the sky.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 26, 1965 “Climatic Change appears to be underway, in fact.” – the 1965 commencement speech that should have rocked the world.

August 26, 1970 The Alkali Inspector’s report

August 26, 1973 – Sir Kingsley Dunham points out the C02 problem

August 26, 1991- We cannot delay says Brundtland

August 26, 2003 – Australian “plan” to save biodiversity

August 26, 2006 – First “Climate Camp” begins

Categories
Australia

August 25, 2006 – Vestas wind farm closes

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 25th, 2006,

By August [2006] Vestas closed Australia’s first wind turbine nacelle factory in Wynard, Tasmania, just two-and-a-half years after it had opened

(Prest, 2007: 253)

AND 

Prime Minister John Howard yesterday blamed market forces for the news.

He has indicated a rescue fund is not yet on the agenda.

“We are looking at that situation, and we continue to talk to the company,” he said. 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/tas-factory-closure-not-feds-fault-pm-20060826-gdo98c.html

Oh, and look, here’s Anthony Albanese making all the right noises.

https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/one-hundred-jobs-lost-because-howard-doesnt-support-clean-energy

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that despite Australia having enormous potential as a creator of renewable energy technologies (especially wind and solar), successive governments (Liberal and Labor, state and federal) had not been particularly interested, and sometimes actively hostile (as was the CSIRO) from the 1970s onwards.

The specific context was that John Howard had convened a meeting of his “Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group” to get its members to help him… slow the growth of renewables. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the actions and inactions of politicians matters for the pace at which a new technology enters the fray. And Howard belongs at the Hague.

What happened next – Howard lost the 2007 election, and some support for renewables was then introduced. Lost decades though, and entirely unnecessary carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere now, trapping heat.

References

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/news/australia/tas/northtas/200608/s1724891.htm

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-08-26/business-fears-for-future-after-vesta-shutdown/1248224

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 25, 1933 – South Coast Bulletin reports “Carbon dioxide: climatic influence”

August 25, 1969- “Global Circulation in the Atmosphere” Conference in London

August 25, 1970 – Margaret Mead and James Baldwin rap on race…

August 25, 2013 – The IPA loses support, for being stupid climate deniers.