Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

March 20, 2014 – industry groups monster reef defenders

On this day in 2014 the Queensland Resources Council (a club for the miners etc) decides to try to smear… WWF. Why? Because WWF has the outright temerity to say all might not be well with the Great Barrier Reef and that it ought to be protected a bit more. And here we are.

On same day – Milman, O. 2014. Mining industry accuses WWF of lying about threat to Great Barrier Reef. Guardian, 20 March. The Queensland mining industry has launched a blistering attack on WWF, accusing it of running an untruthful Great Barrier Reef campaign that could jeopardise the reef’s world heritage status. Michael Roche, the chief executive of the Queensland Resources Council, said he has noticed a “dramatic change in approach” from WWF since it joined the Australian Marine Conservation Society to launch the Fight for the Reef campaign.

Classy.

What it all means – well, those with the money want to keep making money (doh). And they regard environmental regulations as unnecessary red tape. And they want to make it harder for civil society to advocate for these things. They’ll often pretend to be in favour of “protection” as long as it is vague and “balanced.” What makes this incident interesting is that the mining lobby isn’t just going after the “crazed hippies” but as establishment an outfit as WWF – albeit by insinuating that they’ve fallen under the spell of crazed hippies.

We can laugh, but this sort of attack has been, historically, a tremendously powerful tool in the armoury of those doing “predatory delay.”

So glad I did not breed. The second half of the twenty-first century is going to make the first half of the twentieth century look like a golden age of peace, love and understanding. If, in fact, we have another thirty years to begin to find out…

Categories
Australia

March 19, 1990 – Bob Hawke gives #climate speech

On this day in 1990, while up for re-election Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke spoke to scientists at the opening the CSIRO Atmospheric Research Building, Aspendale Victoria.

As Maria Taylor notes in her excellent “Global Warming and Climate Change: what Australia knew and buried”

“In the late 1980s, political leaders (Jones, Hawke and Richardson) publicly interacted with the CSIRO scientists and division advisory boards. From that advisory board, Bob Chynoweth personally briefed the prime minister, according to a Hawke speech to the division on 19 March 1990 (Hawke 1990).”

One of the ironies of that election campaign (which was the only time I voted, I think, in Australia) was that the Liberal National Party actually had a more ambitious carbon dioxide reduction target than the ALP….

Hawke was re-elected, with the help of small g-green votes (the Greens did not exist yet). He was making some of the right noises about climate and environment, but was toppled by his former Treasurer, Paul Keating, who most definitely did not care about “greenie” issues or votes…

And here we are.

Categories
Australia

March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

On this day in 1995, the Victorian government said it would spend taxpayers money on brown coal and trying to making power stations that used it 30% more efficient in a joint venture. 

“THE Victorian Government is to participate in the country’s largest research and development syndicate, a $100 million joint venture for research which could make the State’s four baseload brown coal power stations up to 30 per cent more efficient. The syndicate arranged by Bain and Company includes Perth entrepreneur Mr Kerry Stokes’ Australian Capital Equity as majority investor, with ABN Amro Australia , Mercantile Mutual , Babcock & Brown , and Deutsche Bank AG . The other investors are HRL Ltd – the former research arm of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, now 40 per cent owned by the State – and the SECV shell. The project announced yesterday by the Victorian Minister for Energy, Mr Jim Plowman, and HRL Ltd, to construct a 10 megawatt generation facility to test the commercial viability of new coal-burning technology, is funded under the Federal Government’s 150 per cent R&D tax concessions. The study will examine integrated drying, gasification and combined cycle (IDGCC) technology, which promises – by turning low-grade coal into coal gas – to cut electricity supply costs and reduce greenhouse gases by 25 per cent.” Pheasant, B. 1995. Vic takes stake in $100m coal R&D. The Australian Financial Review, 17 March, p.9.

The backstory is that Victoria has unimaginably vast reserves of brown coal. Brown coal is less pure than black coal. And when you burn it, you get a lot more mercury ash, C02 and general crap. This means that it’s a really poor thing to export as well. So Victoria has never been able to make a go of that, despite periodic speculative schemes.

If you want to know about the guy who brought coal to Melbourne as it were, that’d be John Monash (to simplify matters somewhat). 

The backstory here is that in 1989, the State Electricity Commission of Victoria came up with a plan about how to deal with greenhouse, but then was privatised, and all of that went out the window.

Why this matters. 

We should know that there have been promises of technological salvation, going back a very long time. This is neither a particularly old nor particularly recent one. But it is, to use a phrase that was popularised in Victoria, for another purpose, “a dumb way to die”.

What happened next?

Brown coal continued to be burnt and burnt. And the co2 continued to accumulate, which is of course how I finish most of these blog posts.

Categories
Australia

March 14, 2007 – Top Australian bureaucrat admits “frankly bad” #climate and water policies

On this day in  2007, Senior Australian bureaucrat Ken Henry gave a private speech to his staff, pointing out that Australia’s climate policy was a complete mess. Laura Tingle for the Australian Financial Review. got hold of this and published it as a front page story on 4th April

2007 Tingle, L. 2007. Revealed: Treasury chief’s blast at government policy. The Australian Financial Review, 4 April, p.1.

The country’s most senior economic bureaucrat has delivered a scathing assessment of the federal government’s water and climate-change policies and warned his department to be vigilant against the “greater than usual risk of the development of policy proposals that are, frankly, bad” in the lead-up to the federal election.

In a speech to an internal Treasury forum, obtained by The Australian Financial Review, Treasury Secretary Ken Henry confirmed his department had little influence in the development of the government’s recent $10 billion water package, and expressed his regret that its advice both on water and climate change had not been followed in recent years.

The revelations came as the government was on the defensive yesterday about its failure to address climate change in its latest intergenerational report.

Dr Henry’s speech, in which he reviewed Treasury’s achievements and challenges, was given to an internal biannual departmental forum at Canberra’s Hyatt Hotel on March 14.

He noted that the department had “worked hard to develop frameworks for the consideration of water reform and climate-change policy”.

“All of us would wish that we had been listened to more attentively over the past several years in both of these areas. There is no doubt that policy outcomes would have been far superior had our views been more influential,” he said.

The context is that under Prime Minister Bob Hawke there had been some noises about doing something on climate. Under Keating that had been tossed aside thanks to a wildly successful set of campaigns co-ordinated by the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network Howard had been successful resistance on multiple occasions to any action whatsoever that wasn’t symbolic and shambolic. 

But Henry was probably specifically speaking about two efforts to get emissions trading schemes in Australia in 2000 and 2003. These were discussed in federal cabinet, and on both occasions, defeated on the second occasion, by Howard on his own

Why this matters. 

We need to know that there are people in the bureaucracy of the state with their eyes open who do not agree with what their political masters are doing. And they try to keep the policy streams alive (even if the policies are neoliberal tosh).

What happened next?

Howard lost the 2007 election. Kevin Rudd came in with all sorts of promises. And then, in 2010, revealed himself to be unwilling to stick his neck out in defence of climate action, i.e. call a double dissolution election.

And that betrayal has made people think of politicians as untrustworthy on climate, and the climate issue has been rendered incredibly toxic (to be clear – the toxification was more than just Rudd’s fault – it was a clear-eyed and cynical attempt to create a culture war).

Categories
Australia

March 9, 2005- Albanese says “ecological decline is accelerating and many of the world’s ecosystems are reaching dangerous thresholds.” #auspol

On this day in 2005, Australian politician Anthony Albanese said the following in parliament.

At the beginning of this century, we are at a crossroad. The science is clear and compelling: ecological decline is accelerating and many of the world’s ecosystems are reaching dangerous thresholds. Overexploitation of our natural resources, habitat loss from urbanisation and the clearing of forests for farmland, competition from introduced animals and plants, and climate change induced by a 30 per cent increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are threatening the world’s diversity. The facts are these: since the industrial revolution average global surface temperatures have risen by one degree Celsius, the most dramatic rise for over 1,000 years; the five hottest years on record have occurred in the last seven years, the 10 hottest in the last 14; snow cover has decreased 10 per cent since the 1960s; and glaciers that have not retreated since the last ice age 12,000 years ago are now doing so.

The Howard government’s most significant failure is its decision to pursue an isolationist position on climate change….

You can read the full whack here.

The context is this – Australian civil society was still not up on its hindlegs about climate change, despite the country’s exquisite vulnerability, shameful international record and largely derisory domestic response. By the end of the following year, that would change….

What happened next

Well, “Albo” is now leader of the opposition. And there is an election coming. Watch this space.

Categories
Australia Energy Ignored Warnings

March 3, 1990 – ” “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

On this day in 1990, a report was released showing that Australia could reduce its carbon dioxide emissions markedly and save a lot of money through energy efficiency measures. The report was written for the Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, by Deni Greene, an American consultant who had moved to Australia. 

The broader context was that Australia was discussing what emissions reductions it would commit to. Prominent among these was the so-called “Toronto target” from a June 1988 Conference, which proposed that industrialised nations go for a 20% cut on a 1988 baseline by the year 2005. This was vigorously resisted of course, by industry. Greene’s report was part of a back-and-forth set of reports trying to create/close down support for the target.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that energy efficiency has been talked about and not done for decades. If you are interested in Australian energy efficiency, you cannot go past the tireless and pain-staking work of Alan Pears. 

What happened next?

In October of that year, just ahead of the Second World Climate Climate conference, the Federal Government did commit to the Toronto Target, but with caveats so big that they rendered the whole thing pointless. Other targets have met similar fates. And here we are.

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

Feb 28, 2003- Australian business lobby switches from opposition to “no position” on Kyoto ratification #auspol

On the 28th of February 2003, the Business Council of Australia announces that it no longer have a position on whether Kyoto should be ratified on it or not [see here]. There has been a vicious fight within the Business Council of Australia. And the insurgents, people like BP’s Greg Bourne, have been unable to change position but are too big to ignore.

The broader context was the Commonwealth Government of Australia, led by John Howard, had, extracted a sweet deal for Australia at the December 1997 conference in Kyoto, but then failed to ratify it. This meant carbon trading was off the agenda for Australia forestry outfits and banks. It also was a source of frustration and anger for “progressive” business.  Part of Howard’s argument was that business was united behind him. This BCA fight showed it was not.

Why this matters

You get these fights behind closed doors, within business associations – indeed, one of the roles of business associations is to be a venue for these sorts of spats, so they don’t take place devant les enfants. (Business associations have many other roles, providing information to members, lobbying, governments, etc. Providing training, standards, voluntary schemes, but as a venue, they’re pretty cool.) Now, one of the problems for researchers is that you can’t use freedom of information. You can’t interview people while they’re there in the thick of it, probably. And then, of course, when you do get hold of them afterwards. they’re telling you their version, their memories have faded, et cetera. But now I’m getting into methodology and epistemology, which were not, I suspect, why you came to this website

What happened next

It would be another three years before the cracks properly started showing in the Howard regime’s defence. By then Howard had scuppered another attempt at an Emissions Trading Scheme (2004). By April 2006 though, Westpac (a bank) and others formed one of a series of short-lived issue-specific groupings that would release a glossy report, lobby a bit and then fade away…

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

Feb 25, 2007 – “Clean Coal Initiative” as move in game of one-dimensional electoral chess #auspol

On 25th of February 2007, with the Australian –  yes back to Australia – federal election, a matter of months away. newly-minted opposition leader Kevin Rudd and his shadow Environment Minister Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil are out there spruiking “A National Clean Coal Initiative.”

This the ALP needed because otherwise they couldn’t win Queensland, a major coal exporter. Clean coal had been a persistent theme or trend or meme – or bullshit, to use the Anglo-Saxon terminology – for 10 years. Nine years minus a day earlier, a clean coal CRC had been set up. 

“Anon. 1998. Tests for green coal. Daily Telegraph, 26 February.

RESEARCH laboratories where scientists will work to make Australian coal the “cleanest” in the world, will be opened by Premier Bob Carr today. The Ian Stewart Wing of the chemical engineering laboratories at Newcastle University form part of the co-operative research centre for black coal utilisation. The centre, partially government funded, was established in 1995 to carry out world class research to maximise the value and performance of Australian black coal resources.”

The unions were in favour of clean coal, certain elite business, environmental NGOs like WWF were at least making the right noises. Because otherwise you can’t make the numbers add up. Apparently, you can’t unless you radically reduce emissions in the first place which is going to cause economic pain and dislocation and interrupt the “we can have our cake and eat it story” that politicians need to tell. 

What happened next

Well, Rudd got elected. Garrett was a minister in his government before having to take the blame for pink bats. Garrett wrote a very good book about his time blue sky something and then returned to being the lead singer of Midnight Oil. I won’t repeat what Kevin Rudd got up to.

Categories
Australia International processes Predatory delay UNFCCC United Nations United States of America

Feb 25 1992- business groups predict economic chaos if action is taken on #climate

On 25th of February 1992 20 business associations from nine different countries try to slow down progress towards the impending Rio Earth Summit agreements by predicting economic calamity and doom: the same old story. 

1992 On 25 February at UN headquarters (New York City, USA), 20 business associations from 9 countries released a joint statement to the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change….

Anon. 1992. International Business Associations Issue Statement on Climate Negotiations. Global Environmental Change. Vol. 4, No. 5 13 March.

You will be shocked, shocked to learn that Australian business interests were in that mix – “The business associations, nearly half of which are from Australia, are in the fields of fossil fuel and energy production, manufacturing, and metals.”

Why this matters

We need to remember that whenever governments and state institutions are forced to consider the long-term well-being of constituents/future generations, there will be short termist vested interests pushing in the opposite direction. That’s just the way it is. 

What happened next

A weakened Earth Summit. Treaty text was put forward, not entirely due to business interest, but also the US administration of George HW Bush in June of 1992. This was then ratified and then gave us the COPs for climate and biodiversity. Meanwhile, the carbon dioxide accumulates, the biodiversity collapse accelerates. And to young folk out there, I’m sorry. We old fuckers, we blew it. You have every right to feel betrayed and gaslit let down by your parents and your grandparents

The business associations? They’re singing differently, but the song remains the same…

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

Feb 23, 2009 Penny Wong flubs the CSPR… The CPSR..  THE PCRS. Oh, hell. #auspol

On the day 23rd of February 2009, Australia’s climate minister, Senator Penny Wong – full disclosure, I knew her when we were both at Adelaide University – confused the policy that she was advocating the carbon pollution reduction scheme.

“Under pressure from the mounting criticisms about how the CPRS cancels out the benefits from individual emissions reductions, Wong responded on the ABC’s 7.30 Report on February 23 that individual reductions will allow the government to increase carbon targets in subsequent years. This prompted an incredulous response from Andrew Macintosh, associate director of the Australian National University Centre for Climate Law and Policy. “Either Wong doesn’t understand her own scheme or she is deliberately lying”, he wrote on Crikey.com.au on February 24.”

The context is this. The Howard Government, 1996 to 2007 had successfully resisted all calls to meaningful action and climate change and even meaningless stuff like an ETS, even from within its own cabinet. Kevin Rudd used this uselessness on climate change – or rather, this defence of fossil fuel interests, which is not useless to fossil fuel interests – as part of his branding, to become prime minister. And in 2008, a torturous, confused, complex, complicated and ultimately corrupted process to create a carbon pollution reduction scheme had unfolded. 2009 was to be the year when the legislation was pushed through and what Wong was doing was trying to sell it. But the CPRS was insanely complex and hard to explain. And I for one, taken with the idea of a very simple carbon tax which might be less “efficient”, but more effective and hard to game was the way forward. It was not to be… 

Why this matters 

Because when politicians make complicated proposals, they lose the public and the public thinks this is going to be unfair, there are going to be loopholes, the rich will get their way and the public is usually right. “And the policies are planned, which we won’t understand” as TV Smith sings…

What happened next 

The CPRS failed to get through first time in the middle of the year, as was expected, and then didn’t get through again in November, December. And therein lies a story….