Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 15th, 2007, a stupid politician is stupid,
A SENIOR Federal Government minister has expressed serious doubts global warming has been caused by humans, relying on non-scientific material and discredited sources to back his claim.
One month after a United Nations scientific panel delivered its strongest warning yet that humans were causing global warming, the Finance Minister, Nick Minchin, has questioned the link between fossil fuels and greenhouse gas pollution.
In a letter he wrote on March 5 to Clean Up Australia’s founder, Ian Kiernan, Senator Minchin took issue with Mr Kiernan’s criticism of the minister’s scepticism.
Frew, W. 2007. Minchin denies climate change man-made. Sydney Morning Herald, March 15.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that there’s a kind of Australian politician who takes delight in what we now call “owning the libs” and being a hate figure. They believe that they are somehow heroic Galileos, defending Western civilization or some such. Nick Minchin is one of those, and in 2000 he led the successful campaign to defeat an emissions trading scheme in John Howard’s second cabinet.
The specific context was that the climate issue had burst back into public prominence in September, October, 2006 for a variety of reasons, including the Millennium drought, Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, a fracturing business consensus about Kyoto ratification and the ongoing IPCC process, all of which were taken and being taken advantage of by Labor, the opposition party. In December 2006 Kevin Rudd had become Labor leader, toppling Kim Beasley, and had used climate change as one of his two sticks to beat John Howard with. So here we see the Liberals feeling cornered and flustered, but you can always rely on someone like Nick Minchin to say the stupidest thing possible.
What I think we can learn from this. Some people are just well, they’re who they are.
What happened next. The climate wars continued unabated. The most vicious period was maybe 2011 because we had a female prime minister who was “intentionally barren” trying to do the smallest, most inadequate thing to put a price on carbon dioxide. And those climate wars bubble under today, and you have the problem being that there is no competitive consensus, and that you have a Labor party that has basically given up on everything except being in power.
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.
Vibes aren’t going to cut it: What we (well, I) learn from the Possum rally
Last night I was at the rally on the steps of South Australian parliament protesting the cutting down of 585 mature trees in the North Parklands.
I should write something longer, coherent, but I don’t have time, energy (and perhaps talent). So instead, just a list of random observations. After that, the speech I would have liked to have given.
From an emotional perspective, the whole thing was a success. Those attending got their emotional needs met. Three obvious candidates here –
The cop who tried to push me onto the pavement instead of simply asking (did he get the uniform so he could literally push people around, or did he get the desire once he had the uniform? Chicken, meet Egg)
Some (#NotAllSpeakers) of the speakers, who were loving the attention (they wouldn’t be human if they didn’t). Special shout out to the person who read out a speech that had been written for a council meeting last night and almost lost the crowd (‘read the (lack of a) room’). You could have quickly pointed us to the video of that speech and said something else?
Those attending, who got to feel less lonely (that’s good) and more sane (it’s a crazy-making world). The repeated chants of ‘stop the chop’ are the progressive ‘left’s versions of the muscular bonding and chanting at sports events that hoi polloi get every weekend.
Those attending (2000, according to the ABC, but we will come back to that) got some information they already knew, or could easily have found out. In terms of what to DO they got requests that amounted to (and did not go beyond)
write to your MP
sign the petition
get some stickers
come to another rally on Sunday.
They were assured that the Federal Minister for the Environment had been written to. Well, that’ll show everyone. There were no calls on individuals who had turned up and were keen to know how they could contribute to
Use and expand their skills
Use and expand their knowledge
Use and expand their relationships
Just people as an undifferentiated mass, a pulse of emotional energy, that will be gone like a fist when you open your palm.
We were told to ‘maintain our rage’, a cute line from someone who was not around when Whitlam said it.
Besides who WAS there (Kaurna spokespeople, Adelaide Parklands Association people, Adelaide City Council folks) there was one very very telling absence.
The Conservation Council of South Australia, the peak body for various green groups (the clue is in the name). Did they have any representation at the rally? Not that I saw. Certainly none of the speakers and their blog is entirely silent.
This is not surprising. The CCSA is dependent, financially, on the State Government, and knows it would not be forgiven for biting the hand that feeds it. At this point it is simply a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Labor government. This is a tragedy, but there you have it.
UPDATE 15/7/2026. Last night (14/5/2026) CCSA sent around an email encouraging people to attend the next demo, on Sunday. Their website is still silent on the question. Make of this what you will.
4. The media coverage was hilarious and instructive.
The 7pm ABC TV news of South Australia framed it as ‘no violence happened though police were present’ (yes, and if it meets the needs of the state for there to be violence, doubtless the police – in uniform or plain clothes – will be happy to provide it). There were two vox pops that focussed on the animal livelihoods aspect, not on the far more sinister State government powergrab aspect. Meanwhile, the ‘Advertiser’ (Murdoch toilet paper, the only print paper in town) … pretended it had not happened. Not a single word, because their pet Malinauskus is doing what they like, generally. They had an ‘exclusive’ from him (presumably planned as a spoiler?) about overturning a fracking ban. At this point the Advertiser should just rename as the Santos Sturmer.
Don’t get me wrong. Rallies matter. Good signs are good signs.
But it is not enough. We have been here so many times. So so so many times. If we don’t use rallies for MORE than feeling good in the moment, for supplying ego-fodder and being ego-fodder, then more losses will pile up, while the pile of debris that gets called progress grows skyward.
Maybe this campaign will win – it’s the future, so I don’t know. But IF it wins, it hasn’t laid any ground work for future bigger campaigning sinews, relationships, skills, knowledge, expectations. And if it loses, then people will just have more grounds for despair.
Below is the three minute (ish) speech that could have been given.
Hypothetical speech to Rally.
Thank you for coming. That you are here matters. But it doesn’t matter ENOUGH.
I want us to reflect on who we are, what are we even doing here, and what we must do in the coming days, weeks and months.
Who are we?
Some of us here have ancestors who were here, on this land, thousands and thousands of years ago. (hopefully applause). Some of us maybe trace our history with this land to 1836 or thereabouts, when South Australia was ‘settled’. (pause) . South Australia was not settled. South Australia was invaded. And sovereignty was never ceded.
Some of us maybe trace our history to the last 50 or 20 years.
But this is home. All of us here tonight, we know this land, this air, this water, these other creatures we share with, is precious. We know it is fragile, and that it must be protected from those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. We know it must be protected from people who have no respect for nature, or for democracy, for anything than their wretched careers and bank accounts.
Do we know this?
(Hopefully everyone yells “yes”)
Do you – you, me, everyone – want to protect this land, this air, the possums, the birds, the humans, the future generations?
(Hopefully everyone yells yes).
Okay. That was the easy part.
What are we even doing here?
I have bad news. Besides the trees being cut down, besides the naked powergrab by the State Government. The bad news is that while you being here now, today, is great – and thank you for coming – it is not enough.
Is it enough?
(Hopefully people shout ‘no’).
Can we do more?
Can we do more?
(Hopefully people yell ‘Yes’)
Will we do more? Do you, as an individual, commit to doing more?
(Hopefully people yell ‘Yes’)
Okay, so this is where it gets interesting. I do NOT have a short list you can tick off. – “sign here, donate there. Tick that, next campaign.” Sorry.
But I do have some pledges for you, me, all of us to make. They want to destroy 585 trees, homes to birds, animals. 585. So I am going to close out with three pledges.
Does each of you pledge to talk, in the coming days, with five people who don’t know about what is happening? To listen to them, to inform them, to help them take a stand. Five people. Do you pledge this?
(Hopefully ‘yes’)
We need Peter Malinauskus and the Labor Party more generally to know that they have made a mistake, but that it is not yet too late for them to do the right thing.
Eight sentences. Do you pledge to write an eight sentence letter to Malinauskus, and send a copy to your MP -about this. Not War and Peace; Just eight sentences, which maybe you show to those five people, to your local councillors and that you post online?
Do you pledge this?
(Hopefully ‘yes’)
This is great. Thank you. But this is not enough. We need more. So a final pledge is coming up..
We need artists, poets, songs. We need tiktok videos, we need memes, slogans. We need blogs. We need letters to the Advertiser. Sorry- I was just playing with you. We need to bypass the Murdoch media. We need lawyers, we need conversations, we need networks. We need people standing outside football matches with placards and information about what is being done by this government, and in whose benefits. We need – well, we need more ideas than I have, we need all the ideas, skills and energy that YOU have.
Does each of you pledge to go home from here and – alone or with your friends – come up with a list of five things you all can do, with your knowledge, your skills, your networks, your time? Then DO those things, get better at those actions. Share those actions? Do you?
(Hopefully ‘yes’)
Talk to five people
Write an eight sentence letter to the Premier and your MP
recent climate updates published by Australian scientists
a way forward out of our Climate and Nature Emergency through a rapid energy descent, simpler lifestyles and restored relationships with our planet and each other
opportunity for a group discussion
When: Wednesday 20 May, 2026
Where: St. Mary’s Hall, Glenelg Catholic Parish, High St, Glenelg
Twenty five years ago, on this day, May 8th, another ignored warning,
Canberra – Pressure mounted on the Australian government on Tuesday to resume international climate change talks after a report by a government agency foreshadowed a dramatic surge in temperatures in the next 70 years.
Australia’s key government research organisation, the Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), predicted a drier and hotter Australia, with average temperatures rising by up to six percent by 2070.
“Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases are the culprit,” head of CSIRO’s atmospheric research group Peter Whetton said in a statement.
Cox, G. 2001. Overheating Australia needs ‘wake-up call’. IOL 8 May.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that scientists have been warning about carbon dioxide build up for a very long time. There had been warnings and warnings and warnings. There had been the Brian Tucker monograph 1981. In the same year, there had been the secret Office of National Assessments report on fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect. From 1986 the Australian Environment Council, and onward and onward, but none of it had landed.
The specific context was that the Millennium drought is ongoing, and the IPCC Third Assessment Report has come out but none of it is going to really shift the dial, because little Johnnie Howard is a scumbag.
What I think we can learn from this is that we as a species, struggle with the long-term, we struggle with collective cognition, shall we say? And it was more comfortable simply to ignore the truth, especially if everyone else was doing it.
What happened next. More warnings, more please. Reminds me of this cartoon by the late great John Kudelka – “Is this thing on?” Oh, my Lord.
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 four years ago, on this day, May 7th, 2002,
The Australian mining industry still has a long way to go in its quest for sustainable development, but a major report on the sector has found it has made considerable progress in meeting its social and environmental obligations. WMC chief executive, Hugh Morgan, will today unveil the Facing the Future report, which investigated the Australian mining industry as part of the Global Mining Initiative undertaken by the world’s biggest miners.
Howarth, I. 2002. Report card on mining industry to be unveiled. Australian Financial Review, May 7, p. 14.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that there had been repeated greenwash efforts in Australia around mining and the environment, stretching back to the 70s, probably earlier. One of my favourites was AMEEF launched in 1991.
Anyway, here we see reality catching up with the mining industry. Glossy books were published but the reality was that nothing substantive was being done, because doing anything would cost loads of money or mean not progressing with profitable projects, and neither of those is going to fly in the C suite and at the AGM with the shareholders, who are interested in returns and dividends. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together, and the courage to use them, ultimately knows this.
The specific context was that the Howard Government was clearly not going to ratify Kyoto, or put any constraints at all on the ability of the mining companies to do whatever the hell they wanted.
What I think we can learn from this. It’s all kayfabe.
What happened next. More reports, more pleas for capitalism and industrialism and humanity to act in its long term interest. Meanwhile, the waste remains and the damage accumulates,
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.
Seventy three years ago, on this day, May 6th, 1953,
The Hobart Mercury runs a story on the presentation by Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass at the American Geophysical Union meeting in Washington DC.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that in the 19th century scientists had figured out that something must be trapping a certain amount of the Sun’s heat from bouncing back into space. Eunice Foote and John Tyndall had figured out it was carbon dioxide (aka carbonic acid). At the end of the 19th century Svante Arrhenius had said that – over thousands of years – man’s release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels would heat the planet. In 1938 British steam engineer Guy Callendar said it probably wouldn’t take that long.
The specific context was that World War Two had boosted the ability of humans to collect data and to analyse it. Plass had access to data and computers. And had ‘institutional heft’, being at Johns Hopkins University.
What I think we can learn from this is that the idea we might toast ourselves was well-reported a very long time ago.
What happened next. Sixteen years later a Tasmanian chemistry professor warned the Senate Committee looking at Air Pollution about carbon dioxide.
The emissions kept climbing…
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.
– My question is directed to either the Minister for Science or the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. I ask whether the Minister is aware that the solar energy report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources states:
There is no Australian energy policy and in the absence of any central direction to co-ordinate a search for alternatives, the complacency that currently exists will continue.
Is the Minister aware also that the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Thomas, endorsed at least the first part of that statement this morning on the radio program AM? Does the Minister agree with that proposition? If not, is he able to indicate what is the energy policy of the Government?
Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP
-I shall take this question as I think it properly belongs in the area of responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources. I have not had the advantage of reading the report put down in the Senate yesterday by my friend and colleague, Senator Thomas. Therefore, I think it would be unfortunate if, not having read the report, I were to make any comment on it. However, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has drawn my attention to it, I shall look at it and certainly shall draw the honourable senator’s comments to the attention of my colleague in the other place . https://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770505_senate_30_s73/#subdebate-3-0
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that there had been interest in solar energy, especially in the aftermath of the first oil shock, ‘73-74 but that with the return of a Liberal National Government, some of that enthusiasm melted away.
The specific context was that there were lots of attempts at energy investigations and so on. (What’s interesting here is that thanks to what’s being said in Parliament, you can learn what is and isn’t being said on the radio, and to a lesser extent, the television and TV and radio are much harder things to research than newspapers.)
What I think we can learn from this is that when you have plentiful supplies of coal, investigating solar seems stupid and unfriendly to the incumbents, and people who are unfriendly to the incumbents tend not to prosper in our political systems.
What happened next. Solar energy advocates kept banging on, largely ignored. There was a petition in late ‘77. Solar only really took off in the 2010s onwards.
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.
I went to a student meeting. I am not a student. It was excruciating, obvs. Not because they were students, but because it could have been so much better but wasn’t, for the usual reasons. We are so doomed.
There’s a scene in George Orwell’s masterpiece (imo, ymmv) Animal Farm. The animals – the chickens, cows, Boxer etc, have just received such a face slap that they can no longer lie to themselves about what has happened to “their” Farm and their beloved Revolution. They can no longer pretend to themselves that they have not exchanged the drunken boot of Mr Jones for the trotter and paws of the pigs and the dogs. They walk down to a meadow and they start to sing what was the revolutionary song, Beasts of England. This below is a very long quote, but I put it in because it captures what Orwell was aiming at so beautifully, and it is worth your time.
The animals huddled about Clover, not speaking. The knoll where they were lying gave them a wide prospect across the countryside. Most of Animal Farm was within their view–the long pasture stretching down to the main road, the hayfield, the spinney, the drinking pool, the ploughed fields where the young wheat was thick and green, and the red roofs of the farm buildings with the smoke curling from the chimneys. It was a clear spring evening. The grass and the bursting hedges were gilded by the level rays of the sun. Never had the farm–and with a kind of surprise they remembered that it was their own farm, every inch of it their own property–appeared to the animals so desirable a place. As Clover looked down the hillside her eyes filled with tears. If she could have spoken her thoughts, it would have been to say that this was not what they had aimed at when they had set themselves years ago to work for the overthrow of the human race. These scenes of terror and slaughter were not what they had looked forward to on that night when old Major first stirred them to rebellion. If she herself had had any picture of the future, it had been of a society of animals set free from hunger and the whip, all equal, each working according to his capacity, the strong protecting the weak, as she had protected the lost brood of ducklings with her foreleg on the night of Major’s speech. Instead–she did not know why–they had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes. There was no thought of rebellion or disobedience in her mind. She knew that, even as things were, they were far better off than they had been in the days of Jones, and that before all else it was needful to prevent the return of the human beings. Whatever happened she would remain faithful, work hard, carry out the orders that were given to her, and accept the leadership of Napoleon. But still, it was not for this that she and all the other animals had hoped and toiled. It was not for this that they had built the windmill and faced the bullets of Jones’s gun. Such were her thoughts, though she lacked the words to express them.
At last, feeling this to be in some way a substitute for the words she was unable to find, she began to sing Beasts of England. The other animals sitting round her took it up, and they sang it three times over–very tunefully, but slowly and mournfully, in a way they had never sung it before.
They had just finished singing it for the third time when Squealer, attended by two dogs, approached them with the air of having something important to say. He announced that, by a special decree of Comrade Napoleon, Beasts of England had been abolished. From now onwards it was forbidden to sing it.
The animals were taken aback.
“Why?” cried Muriel.
“It’s no longer needed, comrade,” said Squealer stiffly. “Beasts of England was the song of the Rebellion. But the Rebellion is now completed. The execution of the traitors this afternoon was the final act. The enemy both external and internal has been defeated. In Beasts of England we expressed our longing for a better society in days to come. But that society has now been established. Clearly this song has no longer any purpose.”
Frightened though they were, some of the animals might possibly have protested, but at this moment the sheep set up their usual bleating of “Four legs good, two legs bad,” which went on for several minutes and put an end to the discussion.
So Beasts of England was heard no more.
[end of chapter 7, since you ask].
I think about that scene a lot, whenever I attend (okay, hate-attend) meetings of groups that say they are undertaking the difficult task of unfucking the world. Last night I thought about that scene a lot. “What’s my scene?” as the Hoodoo Gurus used to sing (probably still do?)
”I’m a betting man, but it’s getting damn lonely…”
The meeting started late. While we waited there was no invocation to “turn to someone you don’t know (well) – firm allies once didn’t know each other once, and we need to thicken the webs of loose (and close) ties, because you may have skills and resources that someone else could really use.” Or something warmer. Who cares. Something. Anything.
There was no gentle way to bring silence and commence the meeting. What happened to the chair raising their arms above their head and then other people following? XR used to do that and it was good – far better than tentative and then-more forceful/desperate announcements/shouts, which is what we got.
There was no gentle welcome, asking us to centre ourselves, to think about our responsibilities to make a better movement, and the opportunities the meeting held for that. Instead we were told things we knew, with jargon that would almost certainly alienate a ‘newbie’. Then we had two Zoom connections from interstate. These were mercifully not as long as anticipated, but neither were they in any way surprising. What was astonishing (to me – I am clearly old and out of touch) was that people responded to a guy on zoom who wanted them to repeat the second half of a (carefully chosen to avoid further legal imbroglios) chant. I did not know that was a thing, and – to quote another song – “I wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then.”
He left us with the hope that he would see us at a ‘big mobilisation in the future.’ Everyone’s happy place, I guess.
Then – and this still staggers me – it was over to ‘debating’ two motions to some upcoming student congress or conference basically ‘demanding’ (yeah, good luck with that) the Australian Government do x or y that they were plainly, obviously, never going to do. So, we were to debate things that
Nobody in the room was likely to have any disagreement with (certainly not one they show in public)
Were never going to be enacted.
And this is how you build an empowered, strategic and competent movement. Oh yes.
So, the speeches to the motion (nobody was asked to specify if they were speaking for or against – it was clear, man, that everyone was, you know, in favour) were all pure Dave Spart. As I said to a friend this morning, I had the fleeting thought that I was in some incredibly elaborate social psychology experiment where everyone else in the room was in on the gig – that this was playacting those scenes in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the People’s Front of Judea you know, like, debate important motions about the Roman, you know, Empire, man. There were, perhaps, people with clipboards and stop watches waiting to see how long I could stick it out (as per that early-ish episode of the TV show Community).
But no, it was all on the up and up. “build a movement”, “class politics” “expose it as a system” “full on orwellian um censorship.” “It’ really important, you know, strength of this movement”
It was mildly interesting that the entire first motion got ‘debated’ with only men delivering their pearls of wisdom. [Audience demographics – 50 people present, 45 under the age of 25, I’d guess. Male/female roughly 50/50. Overwhelmingly white] I wondered how long this would continue- the whole meeting? But then in motion 2 some women piped up. Matters did not improve. Who knew that women could be just as jargon-y and dreary as the menfolk? It’s almost as if it’s the human condition.
We’re so toast. As per Frank Turner
Well it was bad enough the feeling, on the first time it hit,
When you realised that your parents had let the world all go to shit,
And that the values and ideals for which many had fought and died
Had been killed off in the committees and left to die by the wayside.
But it was worse when we turned to the kids on the left,
And got let down again by some poor excuse for protest –
By idiot fucking hippies in fifty different factions
Who are locked inside some kind of Sixties battle re-enactment.
So I hung up my banner in disgust and I head for the door.
Have a gentle way of starting, of centering people.
Design the meeting not around (non)violent agreement with two shitty motions (lobbying the Labor government is no more ‘radical’ than lobbying the Labor Party, my Dave Spartolescent friend) but around a set of questions that can be answered by a mix of on-paper answers (means good ideas don’t get discarded because they come from Miss Triggs) and small group discussions) around
What are we doing that we need to do we need to more of and what skills/knowledge/relationships do we lack to do that?
What are we NOT doing that would be good to do that we are not doing because we lack skills/knowledge/relationships – where do we get those?
What are we doing that feels good, but actually doesn’t contribute to the likely success (or slower failure) of “our “movement” (‘man’) to like, you know, bring down, you know, the capitalist imperialist, you know, system, man.”
Shoot me. Shoot me now. NOW, dammit.
There is no hope
It won’t be done differently. We lack the absorptive capacity, the impetus to develop that. The incentive structures are all wrong.
These meetings are about managing our despair, about knowing that the pigs and their dogs have won, and that all we can do is soothe-sing to ourselves and each other. We sing Beasts of England. Some of the lyrics get banned, but the song remains the same.
We will never put ourselves under any pressure to innovate, because there is a stable system for the gaining of activist credibility tokens, and why upset it?
Meanwhile, the bodies pile up and the emissions pile up. I wonder what those in the majority world, on the receiving end of the slow violence and fast violence dished out by the Empire and its proxies would think of events like the one I went to last night. Nothing printable. “Building a movement” my very fat arse. No more hate-attending for me, methinks.
Twenty five years ago, on this day, May 3rd, 2001,
The executive director of the GCP said in a Senate estimates hearing on May 3, 2001 that only one in 10 companies had met their emission reduction targets. (See also Report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, “The Heat Is On: Australia’s Greenhouse Future”, chapter 8.)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Australian political elites had been made aware of climate change as a threat in the 1970s; you had the Australian Academy for the Advancement of Science, Australian Academy of Science Symposium in September of 1980 you had the monograph that came out of that on the CO2 problem. You had the Office of National Assessments report. And, of course, from 1987 onwards, you had the CSIRO etc, banging the drum. Oh, you’d also had the Australian Environment Council, in 1986
Business had defeated a couple of proposals to put a price on carbon dioxide, (which is the only language they understand), first during the ESD ecologically sustainable development process, and then in 1994-95 they had defeated the carbon tax, and instead the Keating government had created a worse-than-useless “greenhouse challenge” voluntary scheme.
The specific context was that the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had come out, and George W Bush had pulled the US out of negotiating the Kyoto Protocol. It was pretty clear that if Howard were to win the upcoming election, he would do the same, whereas Labor would ratify.
What I think we can learn from this. This talk of “waking up” or “being woken up” has been going on for so long, and we prefer to be asleep.. And here we learn that, of the companies that had set emissions reductions targets, which was not all of them, by any means, only one in 10 were hitting those targets. So an adult government that gave a shit about more than its own comfort and power would change course. It would say, “we’ve tried the voluntary approach, it didn’t work,” and would legislate. That is, of course, reader, not what happened, and John Howard and his gang of fuckwits have condemned us all to hell.
What happened next. The Greenhouse Challenge was rebooted with very similar effects and finally basically ignored. There was a fierce battle over a carbon price between 2006 and 2012 and then in 2014 the carbon price was abolished by Tony Abbott, the thug disguised as a prime 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.
Twenty nine years ago, on this day, April 29th, 1997,
“The challenge for Australia on global climate change”, 29-30 April 1997: summary of proceedings
One of those chin-stroking talkfests organised by
National Academies Forum, Australian Academy of Science, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Australian Academy of the Humanities, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Australian Academy of Science, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Australian Academy of the Humanities, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, 1997.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the Australian political elite had been warned about carbon dioxide through the 70s and 80s, and had chosen to ignore it until it couldn’t really be ignored any more, in ‘88. After an initial signal of willingness to be proactive and constructive, they had fairly quickly retreated into the asshole position that they hold today.
In 1995 they had grudgingly signed on to the Berlin mandate – meaning they would come to the third COP (in 1997) with some plan for emissions reductions, and then had decided that they were not going to do that under new Prime Minister, John Howard. And most of 1997 was taken up with the Howard Government, sending diplomats around the place to try and get “differentiation” (an exemption for Australia).
Anyway, these sorts of conferences and seminars and events were happening because middle class people and so-called intellectuals want to believe that they are contributing to the betterment of the species and of its future. This is how they sleep at night, because having to admit that they were passengers on a train straight to hell would offend their amour-propre.
The specific context was that it was obvious that the Prime Minister (John Howard) was scientifically illiterate and a climate denier who was doing everything he could (which was a lot) to fuck shit up (to use a technical term). “Awks” as the kids used to say.
What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been doing yakkety yak on climate for a very long time, and we will continue to do yakkety yak.
What happened next: Australia got an insanely generous deal at the Kyoto conference, an emissions reduction quote, in quotes of 108% actually closer to 130 once you took into account the land clearing clause, the emissions kept climbing. Australia’s fossil fuel exports kept climbing. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 kept climbing. And after a certain delay, the despair and the fear of people who can read the Keeling Curve began climbing as well.
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.