Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Business Responses United Kingdom

March 31, 1998 – two business-friendly climate events in UK and Australia

Twenty years ago, on this day, March 31, 1998, there were two climate events on opposite sides of the world about just how business was going to save us all.

In the UK there was the launch of the Marshall Report

Climate change : a strategic issue for business : report presented to the Prime Minister, 31 March 1998 / Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment

In Australia there was  “Greenhouse Beyond Kyoto: Issues, Opportunities and Challenges” Bureau of Resource Sciences, 31 March – 1st April 1998

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 367.ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

There are two events on either side of the planet worth mentioning in the same blog post. 

The first is the release of a Blair government-era report. Treasurer Gordon Brown had commissioned Bob Marshall to talk to fellow business people about climate and climate policy. This process had been dominated, of course, by BP. Early proposals for carbon pricing had been minimised – more “death of a thousand cuts” until eventually you end up merely with a levy that is easily gamed and supplies ideological cover without driving any change. 

On the other side of the planet, you have the beginning of a three day conference about Kyoto and beyond in Australia. And there’s a similar dynamic really, if we think about it. Business is hoping to shape and minimise what is happening and the government in Australia is more nakedly on their side than it In the UK, partly because Australia is a quarry with the state attached. And partly because Prime Minister John Howard is such a prick. 

What I think we can learn from this

Business never sleeps, it is always in the words of Adam Smith, him what wrote the Wealth of Nations ‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices‘.

What happened next

UK climate policy staggered on. Between 2003 and 2009 Climate and Energy Policy were kind of knitted together for various reasons and have stayed entangled. In Australia, they haven’t been entangled nearly as well, imho. There has been enormous tumult and heat, but not much light for various reasons. 

And the emissions have 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.

Categories
Australia

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Ten years ago, on this day, March 25, 2013, the Australian federal government killed off the Department of Climate Change, now that the “carbon tax” (actually a carbon price) was in situ, and the whole issue was unbelievably toxified.

Department of Climate Change is disbanded:

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is abolished. Most of its functions are moved to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, with responsibility for energy efficiency transferred to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The context was that the Gillard government had expended enormous amounts of capital and had sustained, enormous reputational damage to push through a carbon price mechanism. That one that, if Kevin Rudd hadn’t been useless, would have happened on his watch. The Gillard government was by this time, intensely allergic to climate issues, understandably so. Disbanding the department wasn’t going to send a signal to anyone about anything, though it probably was a bad move, because the expertise is then scattered. But then the people were probably already shattered. Morale is always an issue for civil servants trying to construct decent policy while an idiotic culture war happens around them.

What I think we can learn from this

As an historian or political historian, it’s always interesting to see when, why Departments of State are created combined or abolished and whether the commentary and expectations at the time turn out to be accurate. So the best example I can think of is that in 2016, the assumption that the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK was going to be absorbed into the business department. Environmentalists were understandably fearful that climate would be subsumed within energy, and would be off the agenda. And that wasn’t the case. That’s not to say that BEIS has played a blinder every single day.

What happened next

Gillard got toppled by Rudd, who then lost the election to Tony Abbott, who was a wrecking ball. The emissions trading scheme was abolished, the earth salted. And here we are…

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

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 19, 1998, the Australian business press reported that industry might be okay with carbon trading…

A proposal to reduce greenhouse gases by trading emissions was greeted cautiously by industry yesterday, with some concern about whether the scheme was premature.

The proposal came in a report by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), which argues that a trading scheme could help Australia reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels set down in the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change agreed last December.

The report was given to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment inquiry into trading in greenhouse gases.

Hordern, N. (1998) The Australian Financial Review 20th March

NB IMAGE BELOW IS WRONG – it was 1998

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australia had signed up to the Kyoto Protocol, or was about to. But ratification was still a ways away (and never happened!). However, the idea of having national trading schemes that then linked up with each other was, again, not sorry for the pun “in the air.”, and tradable emissions quotas were going to somehow magically reduce emissions. Carbon tax was definitely off the table second defeat in 1995. So ABARE, under attack for the clunkiness and shonkiness of its MEGABARE model and the use to which it was put [LINK TO AOY POST), was trying to get in front and put a positive spin on what it was doing.

What I think we can learn from this

Organisations try to repair their reputation, to get more funding, to get invites to events, to get quoted in the media. All the bread and butter of green confucians and technocrats everywhere. That doesn’t mean that we have to take them seriously. But of course, if you are public in your disdain, other people equally deserving of the same disdain will get nervous that you might soon turn your attention to them. So the nakedness of the Emperor must only be whispered. 

What happened next

A proposal for a National Emissions Trading scheme went to Howard’s Cabinet in 2000. And it was successfully killed by Nick Minchin. And then there was another effort in 2003 that was only finally killed because John Howard consulted one or two of his handpicked business mates and then came back and said, “no, we’re not doing this.”

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 Denial Uncategorized

 March 14, 1997 – Australian senator predicts climate issue will be gone in ten years…

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 14, 1997, a Liberal senator spews his usual nonsense.

Senator Parer seems to be an exception. For instance, at the Australasian Institute of Minerals and Metallurgy Annual Conference at Ballarat Senator Warwick Parer said: “I don’t have any figures to back this up, but I think people will say in 10 years that it [greenhouse] was the Club of Rome” and “The attitude of this government is to look for ways to allow projects to go ahead.” The SMH (14.3.97 ‘Greenhouse effect? No worries says Parer’.).

(Duncan, 1997:83)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Warwick Parer – and I can say this because he’s dead – was a shonk and he caused political problems for Howard. He was the kind of old white man who wants to believe that physics doesn’t exist. And so he came out with that idiotic line about in 10 years, dot, dot dot. And Howard was busy, by this time, trying to do nothing or commit Australia to nothing around the Kyoto Protocol.

What I think we can learn from this

Old white men who don’t like the consequences of industrialization will try to wish it away. And they will predict that the whole fad will die. And it hasn’t, and it won’t

The basic question of how we’re supposed to survive the 21st century behaving as we do, has not yet been answered. 

What happened next

Parer was sacked as Minister in 1998. He produced an anti renewables report in 2002. He died in 2014. 

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..

References

Transcript of Kerry  O’Brien and John Howard –https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-10644

Categories
Australia Energy

March 13, 1992 – Australian climate advocates try to get government to see sense… (fail, obvs).

Thirty one years ago, on this day, March 13, 1992, advocates of climate action made one last plea to the (Labor) government to take climate change seriously as both a threat and an opportunity. 

A study [“Energy Futures: Efficient Energy Scenarios to 2020” ] by the Commission for the Future to examine the cost of reducing greenhouse gases found that Australia can break even if it enters the market for energy-efficiency equipment.

Announcing the findings last Friday [13th], commission director Archbishop Peter Hollingworth said, “The report highlights the urgent need for Australia to find a way through the difficult problem of maintaining economic growth and protecting the environment.

Anon, 1992.  How Australia can break even on greenhouse. Greenweek, March 17,  p.3.

The report is online, on Googlebooks.

Also, see here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context

This one of the last desperate attempts by the pro climate action people in Australia to influence Australian Government thinking before the Rio Earth Summit.

The Commission for the Future had been set up when Barry Jones was still Science Minister. It had played a blinder in the late 1980s, relatively speaking, but by now was a shadow of its former self.  It released a report that said energy efficiency would at least allow a breakeven on hitting the Toronto target.  Paul Keating had become prime minister in December 1991, and had made sure that all of the previous (Hawke) administration’s environment policies were buried in 17 committees and left to rot. And this was among them. 

If you were even more of a geek than me (not possible) you could do a comparison of the rhetoric and argument in the Feb 4 1990 document I wrote about here [LINK] 

I suspect that it was commissioned before the end of 1991. Because otherwise they wouldn’t have wasted their breath.

What I think we can learn from this

Policy Windows close. Not necessarily because there’s been an election, just because there are new people at the top saying what is and what is not important.

What happened next

The Tasman Institute  – rightwing “think” tank set up in 1990 to combat green groups – came out with a rapid rebuttal. Over the past year they had become quite good at doing rapid rebuttal reports. The Tasman Institute was wound up a victim of its own success by 1998. 

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
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial Media

March 10, 2010 – ABC chairman gives stupid speech to staff

Thirteen years ago, on this day, March 10, 2010, Maurice Newman, a neoliberal warrior from the 1970s onwards, gave a climate denial speech to senior ABC staff. Prime Minister John Howard had appointed him as chair in January 2007.

 In a speech to senior ABC staff on 10 March 2010 he said climate change was an example of “group-think”. According to an ABC PM account of the speech: “Contrary views had not been tolerated, and those who expressed them had been labelled and mocked. Mr Newman has doubts about climate change himself and says he’s waiting for proof either way.”

(wikipedia Maurice Newman)

and

“The media hasn’t been good at picking these things up and it’s really been the question of what is conventional wisdom and consensus rather than listening perhaps to other points of view that may be sceptical.

“And I brought in as well in that vain what’s been going on in climate change where there’s been clearly a point of view which has been prevailing in the mainstream media, and the fact that again perhaps consensus and conventional wisdom may not always stand us in good stead.”

https://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2842177.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

People like Maurice Newman, long time neoliberal soldier, want to be within the commanding organisations such as universities and media, for obvious reasons. And he did what he (was) set out to do….

What I think we can learn from this

What’s interesting, what we can learn is that these terms like “groupthink” gets thrown around as if there’s some sort of profound statement. And they’re a shortcut for avoiding actually engaging with the fact that the science around the basics of climate change has been settled for a very long time. Unable to combat that. Newman and his ilk resort to name-calling and pseudo profound smears.  But it’s quite effective…

What happened next

In an article in The Australian on May 8, 2015, Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister’s business advisory council, said that the United Nations is behind the global warming hoax. The real agenda of the UN “is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook,” Newman said. “This is not about facts or logic,” he added. “It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

James Powell Could Scientists Be Wrong

http://jamespowell.org/resources/CouldScientistsBeWrong.pdf

The ABC has continued to be a site of struggle, and has been almost entirely hollowed out by the neoliberals and their chums. You can always track individual journalists and stack the board with non entities and lackeys and if they persist in being independent, reduce their funding until they get the message. 

See also organisational decay.

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
anti-reflexivity Australia Carbon Pricing Denial

March 5, 2011 – Australian “wingnuts are coming out of the woodwork”

Twelve years ago, on this day, March 5, 2011 veteran Australian political commentator Laurie Oakes nailed the climate denialist nutters.

“Wingnuts are coming out of the woodwork. The mad and menacing phone calls to independent MP Tony Windsor are just one indication. There are plenty of others online. The carbon tax and Tony Abbott’s call for a people’s revolt have crazies foaming at the mouth. You see it on the ‘Revolt Against the Carbon Tax’ Facebook page, for example. Like this message from a Gillard-hater about a rally in front of Parliament House being planned for March 23: ‘Just like Egypt we stay there and protest continuously until she and her cronies, Bob Brown Greens etc are ousted! We have got to get rid of this Godless mistress of deceit.”’

Oakes, L. 2011. Loonies latch on to the politics of hate. The Australian, 5 March.

Oakes, 2013: 86

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was an incredibly heated culture war that had been constructed around the question of having a price on carbon emissions. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had had multiple positions on carbon pricing and climate change (the Howard government had gone to the 2007 election with such a policy). Abbott admitted to being a weather vane n the issue

By March 2011 he had seen off Kevin Rudd and had been reportedly willing to sell his ass to become Prime Minister. In February 2011 Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard had announced that there would be an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price for two years. And as oaks puts it, all the wingnuts came out to play…

What I think we can learn from this

That settler colonies don’t deal well with the notion of environmental limits especially if someone who is only a woman is in charge.

That it is partly possible to import culture war techniques from the United States. They won’t work perfectly in other countries, but for a while, they give the appearance of effectiveness. 

You also want to think about McCright and Dunlap 2011, anti reflexivity as part of the picture underneath all of this.

What happened next

Well, on the 23rd of March, there was the infamous rally with Abbott being photographed next to placards that talked about “Bob Brown’s Bitch” and “Ditch the Witch ”. The wingnuts kept coming out to play but with less than less efficacy. It’s not just left wing groups that suffer from burnout and emotacycles.

Abbott got the opportunity to show the world what a smart and effective leader he could be from September 2013.  “Oops” doesn’t begin to cover it.

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

March 4, 1998 – The Australian Greenhouse Office gets a boss…

Twenty five  years ago, on this day, March 4, 1998, Gwen Andrews became the first boss of the “Australian Greenhouse Office”

“With a bureaucratic background in the Department of Finance and an unassuming manner, Andrews was probably useful early on in allaying concern in industry at the creation of the new office. However, as the AGO suffered one Cabinet defeat after another, the hopes of the staff to be part of Australia’s response to the world’s biggest environmental threat were deflated and morale fell. Andrews resigned in 2002 and later said that over her four years in the job she was not once asked to brief the Prime Minister on the issue.

(Hamilton, 2007: 99)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 367.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context for the creation of the Australian Greenhouse Office, was that John Howard had been desperate to minimise the political damage that would accrue from not making a deal or not signing on to a deal at Kyoto. 

In late 1997, before the Kyoto conference, in order to get his version of the narrative installed as insurance, he had announced the creation of the Australian Greenhouse Office. As was pointed out by Clive Hamilton, the funding for this was derisory, and it was likely to achieve nothing. 

And so it came to pass. Gwen Andrews was the appointed CE.

What I think we can learn from this

It’s easy for naive radicals and for liberals to think that the creation of an office or a task force is somehow progress. It is not. It is at best potential progress, the outcome of which will rely on sustained radical non co-opted action. But this is tremendously difficult because for NGOs in need of easy wins such taskforces are pure catnip, and middle-class people who have mortgages to pay, kids to educate and so forth go and get medium to well paid jobs in such structures. You see it all the time. – see the end of this report about Manchester event about airports and public hearings as a redemption ritual – https://manchesterclimatemonthly.net/2013/07/09/event-report-airports-commission-talks-climate-in-manchester-redemptionritual/

What happened next

The Australian Greenhouse office staggered on as a less and less convincing thing, fig leaf, until it was in the manner of these things discarded in 2003 or 2004.

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..

References

Hamilton, C. (2007) Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change. Black Inc.

Categories
Australia

March 3, 1990 – Energy efficiency could save billions a year, Australian government told (says ‘whatevs’).

Thirty three years ago, on this day, March 3, 1990, a report on energy efficiency, commissioned by Australia’s Federal Government, was launched

AUSTRALIA could save money and drastically reduce emissions of greenhouse gas if it became energy efficient, a report released yesterday revealed.

The report, A Greenhouse Energy Strategy, commissioned by the Federal Environment Department, found that by the year 2005, Australia could reduce its carbon dioxide output by almost 19 per cent on 1988 levels, resulting in annual savings of $6.5 billion.

Mealey, E. 1990. Energy cuts could save $6.5bn a year. Sun Herald, 4 March, p. 37

And

In the year 2005, greenhouse gas emissions could be cut by 18.8 per cent below the 1988 levels, and at the same time, Australia could save $6.5 billion a year, Federal Environment Minister Graham Richardson said on March 3. He was presenting the Greenhouse Energy Strategy report by Deni Green Consulting Services. “An annual saving on that scale has the potential to turn Australia’s economy around,” said Senator Richardson.

Anon, 1990.  How energy efficiency could save money, cut greenhouse gases.  Green Week,  March  13 , p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia and other nations were holding various meetings, The Hague (March 1989) Nordwijk (November 1989), etc. around a climate treaty. The US and UK were both trying to slow it down. And in these various nations, environmentalists were trying to get strong policies about greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In Australia the environment department (DASETT) paid for a study by an expat American economist called Deni Green. 

And on this day, a report was released, written by her, saying that energy efficiency measures would make achieving a putative 20% reduction in emissions by 2005 very, very doable. 

Various states were already talking about the Toronto target adoption, the Federal Government was holding out. Treasurer Paul Keating had stopped the push for one for such an announcement in 1989.

And of course, all of this was happening in the context of a federal election to be held later the same month.

What I think we can learn from this

We need to remember that people have been talking about the value of energy efficiency as a greenhouse gas reduction measure for literally decades. And yet, not nearly as much progress has been made as they would have expected that the time or could have been. And it’s worth exploring why. One simple reason is that efficiency is not sexy, it doesn’t mean that the politician can stand there with a big hardhat and a high vis jacket. It also speaks to having to be limited. And modern humans hate that idea, hate having to live within limits. Or rather, the capitalists hate the idea that we would have to…  see Hudson 2017 for more on this

What happened next

The Friends of Coal won all the big battles, and the idea of energy efficiency on steroids got sidelined again, of course.

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..

See also – I wrote about this report last year!

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

February 28, 2010 – Australian Prime Minister says won’t walk away from climate. (Then does, obvs.)

Thirteen  years ago, on this day, February 28, 2010, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was on a then-quite-good ABC TV program called “Insiders.”

He said this: “When our kids look back in 20 years and ask the question of this generation, ‘were they fair dinkum or did they walk away from it?’, I’d rather say that I threw everything at it, threw absolutely everything at it, to try and make it work, and to try and deliver an outcome at home and abroad.

“We think we’ve got to act, and act appropriately. That’s why we don’t walk away from this one bit.”

Then two months later, he walked away from the whole issue of climate change, trying to pin it all on Tony Abbott.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-24/rudds-downfall-he-never-really-got-it/880258  and https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-17085

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Kevin Rudd had skilfully come to power in late 2007 by using climate change as a wedge against his political opponents – first Prime Minister John Howard, and then, once he got the top job, against opposition leaders Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull.  But then, in 2009, he came up against junkyard dog Tony Abbott, and he lost his nerve.  He was advised to call an election (see December 23 blog post from last year). He didn’t, and then didn’t figure out a way of climbing down from his climate position.  He dismissed a proposal from the Greens for an interim carbon tax. He … ah, I could go on. 

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians who talk about “great moral challenge” without showing skill or guts are worse than useless, because they encourage cynicism and fatalism, making it that much harder for those who come after them.

What happened next

Rudd bailed on climate.  This tanked his previously high approval ratings (which were already taking a dent, it’s true)  Rudd then ran off on a Mining Tax crusade. That came to an end, almost by accident, when his long-suffering and until-then loyal deputy Julia Gillard challenged for the leadership in June 2010.   Gillard got some carbon pricing legislation through, but at the cost of, well, everything.

This was all unnecessary. If Rudd had had skill or guts….

NB, for any ALPers – nope, never been a member of the Greens, and when you focus on their actions during the CPRS vote, you reveal that you are unwilling to admit that your guy was not as smart or courageous as he thought, or as he needed to be.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.