Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing United States of America

April 22, 1993 – Clinton’s announcement used by anti-carbon pricing Aussies

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 22, 1993, Clinton’s announcement was used in the low-intensity conflict over carbon pricing…

A PLEDGE by the US President, Mr Clinton, to cut emissions of greenhouse gases will raise the pressure on Australia to take tougher action, according to a senior Australian bureaucrat and Australian business and environment groups.

A first assistant secretary of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Peter Core, told business lobbyists yesterday at a private seminar organised by the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, that Mr Clinton’s announcement would put renewed pressure on Australia’s stance on the issue.

And an assistant director of the Business Council of Australia, Ms Chris Burnup, said yesterday the move would dramatically change the complexion of talks on global climate change.

Garran, R. 1993. Clinton pledge cuts new key to the greenhouse. The Australian Financial Review, 23 April, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The business lobby and its proxies (including plenty in the Labor Party) had defeated the first attempt at a carbon tax during 1990-1991.  They knew it would be back soon-ish though.  This briefing to an AFR hack may have been an effort to smoke out proponents, force them to show their colours so they could be crushed. Alternatively, it might have been from a proponent, hoping to slowly raise the pressure, build a new normal…see the post from a few days ago about Keating…

What I think we can learn from this

You have to read newspaper articles thinking “which lying liar fed this to the hack, and what is the hack trying to push?” It’s exhausting to do this, and most of us most of the time just pretend that if it is in the paper (of our choice) it is ‘true.’ That’s nonsense, but there are rarely any personal consequences, so as an energy-saving habit, it persists.

What happened next

There was indeed another push for a carbon tax. It was defeated.  Australia didn’t get carbon pricing until 2012, and then only for a couple of years. To be clear – carbon pricing is one very small part of what you would do if you were trying to respond to the threats of climate change.  But it’s a brown M&M when it comes to how serious your government is..

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs

Categories
Australia

April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” revealed to be bullshit

Ten years ago, on this day, April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” was revealed to be nonsense.

18 April 2013:[ABC investigative television programme]  Lateline follows up with CSIRO on soil carbon and proves again that Greg Hunt’s soil carbon plan would require up to “two thirds of the land mass of Australia.”   

.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Liberal and National Party opposition had been hammering the Gillard government on the so-called “carbon tax” and proposing a so-called “direct action” scheme, despite pleadings from business.  “Direct Action” (nice name, shame about the science) was based on heroic (i.e. bullshit) assumptions about lots of things, including the ability of soil to absorb carbon….  So, Greg Hunt, Liberal opposition spokesman on climate (who had written an Honours thesis on carbon trading in 1990) was out there spouting all sorts of nonsense.  And getting pushback, but so what, eh?

What I think we can learn from this

Facts don’t matter, when there is a vast propaganda machine defending anyone spewing useful non-facts.

What happened next

On 19 April 2013: Climate Spectator points out mysteries, questions and problems after Greg Hunt’s address to ANU. The [Labor] Government also releases a detailed line by line rebuttal of Greg Hunt’s speech.

The Liberal National coalition became the government. “Direct Action” was “tried” – and guess what, to precisely nobody’s surprise, emissions went up.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

April 17, 1993 –  Paul Keating versus the idea of a carbon tax…

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 17, 1993, newly-re-elected Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating made another mental note to hate environmentalists….

The Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Simon Crean, have denied knowledge of alleged Treasury proposals for a $1.9 billion energy tax.

Mr Crean rejected reports in The Weekend Australian and The Age on Saturday [17 April] which suggested that a tax on the energy content or fuels and possibly carbon emissions, being discussed by Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, had drawn on studies by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy

Brough, J. 1993. Keating, Crean deny energy-tax proposal. Canberra Times, Monday 19 April, p.3. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/126983159

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The carbon tax idea had been around for quite a while, and in 1990-91 a combination of industry figures managed to defeat it.  Environment Minister Ros Kelly had said, at the Rio Earth Summit, that it wasn’t something that would be done, but the proposed “solution” did not, of course, go away. If Australia were to meet its “stabilisation target”, let alone its 20 per cent reduction by 2005 target, economic measures like a tax were going to be needed…

What I think we can learn from this

People inside bureaucracies leak, either to put pressure on politicians, or to kill an idea by prematurely releasing it. In this case, who knows?

What happened next

The push for a carbon tax came up again, in 1994, and was defeated by early 1995. There wouldn’t be a price on carbon dioxide until 2012, and that only lasted a couple of years. And the emissions climbed….

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Coal

April 16, 2008 – Aussie trades unions, greenies, companies tried to get CCS ‘moving.’

Fifteen years ago, on this day, April 16, 2008, trades unions and greenies and companies tried to get CCS ‘moving.’

“In April 2008 the Australian Coal Association (ACA) proposed — in conjunction with WWF Australia, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Climate Institute in Australia — that the Rudd Labor government establish a National Carbon Capture and Storage Taskforce. The taskforce, they proposed, “would be charged with developing and implementing a nationally coordinated plan to oversee rapid demonstration and commercialisation of 10,000 GWh of carbon capture and storage (CCS) electricity per year by 2020.”

https://www.gem.wiki/The_Australian_Coal_Association%27s_Proposed_Carbon_Capture_and_Storage_Taskforce

Here’s a picture of the top of the press release

And here’s a link to a pdf – https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/b/b4/ACA_Media_Release_160408.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

While trying to become Australian Prime Minister, the Labor Party’s Kevin Rudd had used climate change as an issue with which to paint incumbent Prime Minister John Howard as an uncaring dinosaur. Rudd had also used “carbon capture and storage” as a way of calming the nerves of coalminers in vital states (Queensland and New South Wales).  Now a coalition of pro-coal types and “greenies” were trying to get some money.  And money they would get…

What I think we can learn from this

Wanna win elections? Make big promises. Whether they can be kept or not will depend…

Technological salvationism fantasies need institutional and organisational backing.  Lots of it.  Players know this, and get the taxpayer to fund it.

What happened next

Rudd threw 100 million Australian taxpayers’ dollars at the creation of a “Global Carbon Capture and Storage institute”.

Those projects all up and running by 2020, then twelve years in the future? Yeah, nah.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Australia

April 16, 1980 – Melbourne Age reports “world ecology endangered”

Forty three years ago, on this day, April 16, 1980, the Melbourne Age ran an article based on comments by US scientist William Kellogg and others at a US Senate energy and natural resources committee hearing the day before. 

“The world could face an ecological disaster unless the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere is controlled.”

It is a stone cold classic of the “we were warned earlier than you think” genre. It is based on a congressional hearing, led by a clued-up Democrat, Paul Tsongas. Many familiar names are there (including some less familiar ones).  And the warnings are entirely prescient.

And here we are.

Anon. 1980. World Ecology is endangered. The Age, April 16, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The big scientific push from the mid-1970s, in the aftermath of the 1972 Stockholm Conference, had left the scientists pretty clear on what was coming down the line. Their big challenge was to get politicians to see it.  Some (Tsongas, George Brown et al.) did…

What I think we can learn from this

The same dynamic has been playing out for ages – library shelves grown under the weight of books about the Science-Politics “interface”, with bromides about what is to be done…

What happened next

Work was already underway in Australia for an Australian Academy of Science conference about the topic.  Graeme Pearman and others (Barrie Pittock) were beavering away.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Australia Business Responses Economics of mitigation

April 12, 1993 – “environmental economics” gets a puff piece

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 12, 1993, “environmental economics” returned as one of those “win-win” myths we like to believe, in the pages of the Canberra Times.

Environmental issues hardly rated a mention during the recent election campaign. This should not be taken to suggest there is no interest in such issues, just that economics appears to have been the dominant issue of the day.

Nor should it be taken as suggesting that economics and the environment are separate and distinct issues; they are not. The interaction of economics and the environment is taking on increasing importance, with one indicator being the rethinking that is going on about the way environmental regulations are being administered, including greater thought being given to the use of market-based approaches to environmental regulation.

One of the most prominent of the market-based approaches involves the use of tradeable emission permits, in effect using market mechanisms to encourage business to reduce its pollution output.

Davis, B. 1993. Enviro-economics gathers respectability. Canberra Times, 12 April, p.11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The green ‘surge’ of 1988 to 1991 or so was a distant memory. But people like Brent Davis, director of trade and policy research with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, were still thinking about how the circle could be squared.

“Ecological modernisation” was not yet an academic buzzword, but it was coming….

What I think we can learn from this

We have various fairy stories of how  “we” can keep having everything we want without consequences (a form of cakeism).  These are very seductive and contagious stories

What happened next

A second attempt at a carbon tax was defeated in early 1995. Thereafter attention switched to tradeable emissions quotas and emissions trading schemes etc etc.  Which really achieved a lot, oh yes.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Australia Business Responses Greenwash Uncategorized

April 9, 1990 – Australian business launches “we’re green!” campaign

 Thirty three years ago, on this day, April 9, 1990, Australian business tried to get ahead of the ‘green debate’

1990  “Launching its first policy on the environment in Sydney yesterday, the Business Council of Australia lamented the standard of the green debate.”

Lane, B. 1990. Business hitches a ride with green bandwagon.  Australian Financial Review, 10 April.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Business had been caught flat-footed and/or complacent about resurgent interest in green issues. They had also perhaps thought that the Liberal National Party would be back in power in 1990 and take care of them, so why make a big effort?   It didn’t turn out like that  – Labor scraped back in at the March 1990 Federal Election.

So, led by the at-that-time newish and dominant “Business Council of Australia”, industry said all the right platitudes about ecologically sustainable development etc.

What I think we can learn from this

Business is often slow off the mark when facing a new threat, because so many new threats evaporate on their own, (or rather, the problem is real but isn’t turned into an issue.)  Combatting advocates of an issue at an early stage may only help turn it into an issue. Better to watch greenies exhaust themselves even getting an issue onto the agenda, and then rely on structural “luck” to contain/constrain/corral it, no?

What happened next

The Hawke Government tried to keep everyone happy, through the promised “Ecologically Sustainable Development” process, with its working groups etc.  But in the end, push coming to shove, the ESD was watered down and watered down to the point of nothingness (see here and here and 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.

Categories
Australia

April 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

Fifty three years ago, on this day, April 8, 1970, Australian academic Charles Birch had an article in the Australian National University publication Woroni about “Pollution.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 328.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

This was all part of the huge rise in awareness of pollution/environment issues from the late 1960s… Birch was an interesting character.

 “Louis Charles Birch FAA (1918–2009) was an Australian geneticist specialising in population ecology and was also well known as a theologian, writing widely on the topic of science and religion, winning the Templeton Prize in 1990. The prize recognised his work ascribing intrinsic value to all life.“

What I think we can learn from this

Again, we knew. The people who run the countries of the world, the elites who attend the elite universities and go on to jobs in finance, industry, politics, academia, they were told about this, and that information has continued to be ‘out there’.

What happened next

Birch kept teaching his students about this problem, and writing about it.  When I was writing for The Conversation about Australia, people would occasionally leave comments to the effect that he had switched them on to the issue 45 years previously…, 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Australia

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Twenty three years ago, on this day, April 3, 2000, Australian diplomats once again spread bullshit rather than truth about climate change.

At the  Pacific Islands Conference on Climate Change, Climate Variability and Sea Level Rise, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, well, see a contemporary account…

Mr Hare said he had recently been to a Pacific greenhouse conference in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, [3-7 April – where Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials had tried to play down the impact of the greenhouse effect. He said they had put up arguments that sea level rises were not as high as had been reported and might not necessarily be a result of global warming. Senator Hill said if the department’s officials were mounting that argument, it might be on the basis of scientific uncertainty in the area.. 

Clennel, A. 2000. Greenhouse Gas Conference `stacked’. Sydney Morning Herald, 15 April, p.15 

See here too.

 [Compare with Australian diplomats rumoured behaviour at the first IPCC report meeting in Sundsvall in August 1990]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Howard Government had bludgeoned its way into a sweet sweet deal at Kyoto, but it was obvious they would not ratify unless the Americans did (vanishingly small chance of that).  Meanwhile, the Australian diplomatic corps(e) was continuing its minimisation techniques (as per the Sundsvall meeting in 1990). 

What I think we can learn from this

Bureaucrats have their own views, and run their own games.  To think of them as merely passive lackeys of elected politicians is very naive.

What happened next

The oceans have kept on rising. Australia has kept on being a villain. The small island states have kept pointing out that in the absence of serious action, they are screwed (they are screwed).

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

John Howard sucks up to George Bush on climate wrecking – April 1, 2001

2001 On 1 April 2001 Prime Minister Howard wrote to President Bush and supported the United States’ position. He stated:

“I have long shared your view, and Australia has consistently argued, that a workable international framework to address climate change needs to be economically manageable and include developing countries, whose emissions will exceed those of OECD countries within this decade.

“In my view an effective global framework to address climate change needs to include commitments from all major emitters; unrestricted market-based mechanisms, including emissions trading; an approach to carbon sinks that captures both economic and environmental opportunities; a facilitative, rather than punitive, compliance system; and assistance for the most vulnerable countries to adapt to climate change.

“This will require that we engage developing countries, and seek firm commitments from them on future annual emissions. We will also need to encourage the European Union to re-think its opposition to market mechanisms and sinks, key issues for a cost-effective response to climate change.”

Letter from Prime Minister John Howard to United States President George W. Bush, see http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Howardletter.html [dead link]

Cited in NSW Parliamentary Library publiication 2002 – The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change: An Update By Stewart Smith

Clennell, A. 2001. Lead The World On Greenhouse Treaty, PM Urges Bush. Sydney Morning Herald, 16 April. p.2.

Hill revealed letter’s existence on 15 April. Greens Senator Bob Brown said yesterday the letter was mostly a public relations exercise for “domestic consumption”.

The context was

Bush had pulled out of Kyoto (despite campaign promises to regulate carbon dioxide) and this  was music to little Johnnie’s ears.

What I think we can learn from this

Those in power at the time were cretins. Thank goodness we know have giants in charge…

What happened next

Lots of technobabble and false promises. And climbing emissions.

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