Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

December 22, 1999 – Australian population growth and carbon reductions – not so easy…

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, December 22nd, 1999 the economics editor for the Fin, Alan Mitchell, came out with some truth bombs.

It is unfortunate that political considerations probably mean market-based policies will never play their full role, because the Productivity Commission was right.

Instead of mucking around with regulation and “education and awareness”, or fiddling at the edges with immigration, we should be slapping on a carbon tax.

Notwithstanding the claims of the Australian Industry Group, just jacking up the price of generating greenhouse gases is exactly what we should be doing.

Mitchell, A. 1999. Migrants, Kyoto don’t gel. The Australian Financial Review, December 22, p.16.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Institute then run by Clive Hamilton had weighed in on the question of Australia setting very high ambition net immigration targets as potentially a bad thing. There’s been an historical quandary over this for environmentalists. Because if they oppose lots of immigration, they can be accused of being racist and selfish. And if they point out that the main boosters for a big Australia are businesses who want to depress wages and at the same time, increase the market for their products they can be accused of being Marxists, or conspiracy theorists. So they’re in a bit of a cleft stick. 

What we learn – Anyway, what’s interesting here is that the Financial Review’s economics editor pointed out that business was bullshit on this and that a carbon tax was precisely the sort of thing be required if you were going to deal with climate change 

Twenty-five years ago, today, the sin was talking a certain amount of sense on the climate issue. 

What happened next? Mitchell is now at the Sydney Morning Herald.

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.

Also on this day: 

December 22, 1759 – “What have ye done?”

December 22, 1975 – “Scientist Warns of Great Floods if Earth’s Heat Rises” (surely “when”?)

December 22, 1978 – UK Energy Department chief scientist worries about CO2 levels and pressure to reduce them…

Categories
Australia

December 21, 1992 – Keating in Adelaide

Thirty two years ago, on this day, December 21st, 1992, Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating went to the provinces…

“Adopting clean production methods which minimise waste and pollution and maximise efficient use and recycling of resources is essential to the success of our manufacturing industry. The market is there for cleaner industries and cleaner products. It is also there for environmental management systems and technologies. Australians are developing those things. The drive for environmentally friendly industries and the protection of our natural environment is, in short, part of the economic drive, part of the international competitive drive in which Australia is engaged.” (Paul Keating: Statement on the Environment 21 December 1992) 

Also – The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, will announce today the ratification of two international treaties that will extend Federal Government powers over the environment.

Garran, R. 1992. Keating to flag new environmental leap. Australian Financial Review, December.21

And 

The Prime Minister’s Environment Statement, released in Adelaide on December 21, last year, was weighted heavily towards water and air quality.

It was noticeable for its lack of any of the most contentious of the pressing environmental problems, such as the setting of firm greenhouse-gas reduction targets; any attempt to implement the recommendations of the ecologically sustainable development working groups; the introduction of effective national endangered species legislation – to name just some. 

Toyne, P. 1993. Environment forgotten in the race to the Lodge. Canberra Times, March 8 p. 11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Keating had come to power exactly a year previously. He had inherited an Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process, which neither he nor the federal bureaucrats were at all fond of.

Keating had not gone to the Rio Earth Summit, the only one of the OECD leaders not to do so.

The bureaucrats had spent a year shoving it into 17 committees and just generally killing it off (though they were too blatant and caused a bit of a storm…See August 6, 1992 – Australian environmentalists and businesses united… in disgust at Federal bureaucrats)

There had been a National Greenhouse Response Strategy released a couple of weeks before early December

This was him, probably through gritted teeth, having to talk about stupid green issues. And as Toyne said, it was silent on the all-important question of greenhouse targets.

What we learn is that in the same way that in nature, you’ll find the cubs and babies of another father getting unceremonious killed by the new father (and this being genetically the smart thing to do) you’ll find policies – good, bad and indifferent – that were put forward by the previous person, whether they’re in your party or on the opposition party, unceremoniously wiped out and that’s what happened here. Though you can overgeneralise this, it was simply that Keating was in thrall to the neolibs, who had hated and still hated environmentalist issues which they regard as silly green irrelevant externalities and a Trojan horse for SOCIALISM.

In 1994 Keating would chide environmentalists for their focus on the “amorphous” issue of greenhouse gases. https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/08/01/august-2-1994-australian-prime-minister-paul-keating-says-greenies-should-ignore-amorphous-issue-of-greenhouse/

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.

Also on this day: 

December 21, 1993 – European Union agrees to ratify UNFCCC

December 21, 2005 – US activist William Rodgers commits suicide

Categories
Australia Industry Associations

December 19, 2017 – BHP exits World Coal Association. 

Seven years ago, on this day, December 19th, 2017,

Australian mining company BHP releases review of industry associations report, pulls out of World Coal Association and puts Minerals Council of Australia “on notice.” (See this report in Financial Times (paywalled).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 407ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the World Coal Association had been trying to talk up high emissions, low efficiency coal, (or maybe the other way around, it’s hard to tell) and generally being pugnacious in the culture wars. BHP no longer needed that because frankly, it had gotten out of thermal coal. And so, quitting a toxic trade association makes you look responsible. Especially since you can wag your finger at the Minerals Council, and hopefully get some of the activists off your back or at least pointing somewhere else for a little while. 

What we learn is this is pretty standard behaviour of individual companies to try to signal their virtue by leaving especially toxic trade associations. They usually don’t do it till they’ve divested. 

What happened next? As of December 2024, BHP is still a member of the MCA.

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.

Also on this day: 

December 19, 1988 – the launch of “Ark”

December 19, 1991- Will UN negotiations go as usual and “commit us to global catastrophe”?

December 19, 2010 – CCS dies in Queensland

Categories
Australia

December 18, 1996 – Australian greenhouse emissions sharply UP.

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, December 18th, 1996,

AUSTRALIA’s greenhouse gas emissions will blow out by almost 50 per cent by next century, according to a Federal Government report to be released today.

The document, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, reveals that a 42 per cent increase in energy demand by Australians by 2020 will result in a similar increase in carbon dioxide emissions.

Benson, S. (1996) Power surge to hit greenhouse. Daily Telegraph, December 18.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that despite the so-called National Greenhouse Response Strategy and the Greenhouse Challenge and all the other piss-weak national announcements, coal-fired power stations were still getting approved, built, expanded and extended. And therefore you could see that any hope of hitting carbon targets around reduction would be blown out of the water. It was a relatively simple set of mathematics.

What we learn is that coal has been enormously beneficial to some people and is going to destroy us all because as of 2024 coal use is still expanding. (see here).

What happened next. The report had precisely zero impact. The lies and bullshit around the greenhouse kept going. 

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.

Also on this day: 

December 18, 1970 – Science article about “Man-Made Climatic Changes”

December 18, 2008 – Tim DeChristopher does his auction action

Categories
Australia

December 12, 1990 – Paul Keating refers greenhouse issue to Industry Commission

Thirty four years ago, on this day, December 12th, 1990,

The Federal Government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2005 will be investigated by its main advisory body of micro-economic reform.

Treasurer Paul Keating announced on Wednesday[12th] he has referred the plan to the Industry Commission, which must report by September 30 next year.

The inquiry will cover “the costs and benefits for Australian industry of an international consensus in favour of a stabilisation of emissions of greenhouse gases and a reduction in those emissions by 20 percent by the year 2005.”

It will also look at what new opportunities may arise for Australian industry as a result of the reduction, and how Australia could best prepare to respond to the costs and benefits of the plan.

Some scientists believe Australia could become a world leader in environmentally-friendly technology as a result of added research flowing from the government decision.

Anon,1990. Paul Keating refers greenhouse to Industry Commission. Green Week, December 18,p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that as part of the quid pro quo for accepting the Interim Planning Target through Cabinet in October 1990, Keating had managed to extract permission to send the greenhouse issue to one of the pet neo-liberal outposts, the Industry Commission. 

What we learn is that if you want to get anything through a group, there’s always going to be compromises. Some of them consequential, some of them not. It can be hard to tell beforehand. 

What happened next. In September of 1991, the Industry Commission released its report, but basically gave loads of ammunition to the denialists and the delayers saying “nothing to see here shouldn’t take action cheaper not to do anything,” etc, etc. And this was another nail in the climate issue’s coffin. By this time, it was getting harder and harder to sustain interest. There was the Ecologically Sustainable Development process coming to an end, the backwash of the Gulf War, people preparing for Rio. 

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.

Also on this day: 

December 12, 1977 – UK Government launches energy efficiency scheme, because Jimmy Carter had visited…

December 12, 2007 – Canada leaves Kyoto Protocol as Australia joins

December 12, 2007 – RIP William Kellogg

Categories
Australia Denial

 December 10, 1991 – denialist hosted by the “Tasman Institute”

Thirty three years ago, on this day, December 10th, 1991,

10 December 1991 Professor Robert Balling “Global Warming: The Facts behind the Heat” Tasman Institute seminar.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

denialists douchebag, carefully might still be alive at a think tank that was explicitly created to combat greenhouse issues. 

The context was that the Rio Earth Summit was coming up in June of 1992. And therefore, the spreading of bullshit lies and doubt among concerned political elites. And of course, the Tasman Institute gives these people a place to congregate, and they can then exchange notes and feel like they matter.

What we learn is that it matters to create doubt and confusion among elites. And it takes money.

What happened next, the denial-spewing of the Tasman Institute was important during the carbon tax battle of 1994-95, or noisy if not necessarily important; it was at least busy setting up rapid rebuttals of what was being proposed. The Tasman Institute was abandoned in 1997, because it was no longer needed, frankly.

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.

Also on this day: 

December 10, 1978 – Academic workshop on “Climate/Society Interface” begins in Toronto…

December 10, 1985 – Carl Sagan testified to US Senators on #climate danger

December 10, 2006 – Shergold Group announced

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

December 5, 1994 – Taxing times for Australia, maybe…

Thirty years ago, on this day, December 5th, 1994, Keating’s government was supposed to discuss a carbon tax (but it got bumped).

“Conservation groups yesterday stepped up pressure on the Federal Government to adopt tougher measures to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Cabinet will consider the issue tomorrow.

In Yallourn, Greenpeace activists chained themselves across railway tracks used by coal trains which feed the Yallourn W power station.

They also unfurled a huge banner down the side of one of the station’s smoke stacks.

 Birnbauer, B. 1994. Greenies Mount Campaign For Greenhouse Tax. The Age, 6 December, p.3.

AND 

LOCAL coal prices would double and the $8 billion export coal industry would be rendered unprofitable if Federal Cabinet introduced a new carbon levy to help reduce greenhouse gas, according to a major study released yesterday.“… But the Australian Conservation Foundation also released a new report yesterday (5 December), prepared for the ACF as a submission to the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.

“On both a per capita basis and in terms of emissions per unit of GDP, Australia now has by far the highest level of all greenhouse gas emissions in the industrialised world,” said ACF executive director, Ms Tricia Caswell”.

1994 Dwyer, M. 1994. Coal fire on carbon levy. The Australian Financial Review, 6 December, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Greenpeace had been launching court cases to try to stop coal-fired power stations. They’ve not been successful, sadly, no fault of their own. And also there was a carbon tax proposed by Labor Environment Minister John Faulkner (with the campaign to get this happening spear-headed by ACF). So this protest can be seen as two birds one stone sort of.

[It’d be fun to get hold of Greenpeace newsletters magazines from 1994 to ‘95. See what they had to say.]

What we learn is that nonviolent direct action against coal-fired power stations has been going on for a long time. Sadly without much success. 

What happened next? Australia kept building coal-fired power stations. The carbon tax was defeated and the emissions kept climbing. We are all going to die. 

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.

Also on this day: 

December 5, 1952 & 2009 London sees climatic pollution events

December 5, 2002 – Australian Government CCS support begins…

Categories
Australia Economics of mitigation

December 1, 1995 – bullshit modelling put out by Keating Government

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, December 1st, 1995, bullshit “ABARE” climate modelling put out by Australian government, as part of its push for special treatment internationally.

1995 Release of “Global Climate Change” report by Keating Government, based on ABARE AND DFAT “modelling”.

This was hardly a surprise. At the beginning of the year a front page story on The Australian (back when it was still almost a newspaper) had said as much. From January 18, 1995.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first Conference of the Parties (COP1) had happened in Berlin in March. Australia was one of the nations that, thanks to the Berlin Mandate, was expected to turn up a couple of years later, with a plan for emissions reductions. But Australia had already comprehensively failed to take any action towards its first proposed target, the Interim Planning Target of October 1990. And so it was going to need other ways of responding to the challenge, as in denying the challenge and trying to push it on to other people. ABARE had already done some idiotic plant modelling and now the Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade were happy to take ABARE’s modelling and create an argument that said Australia shouldn’t have to x. In essence, this was not under that wicked, wicked man, Liberal John Howard. It was under St. Paul Keating. 

What we learn is that the Australian political elites’ mendacious and rapacious hostility towards climate ambition is essentially bi-partisan and has been going on for 30 however many years and here we are, 

What happened next? Keating lost office in March of 1996. Howard simply turbo-charged the hostility to all things environmental and especially climate. 

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

December 1, 1976 – Met Office boss still saying carbon dioxide build-up a non-issue

December 1, 2005 – David Cameron says “low carbon living should not be a weird or worthy obligation”

December 1, 2008 – Climate Change Committee fanboys carbon capture

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Denial

November 30, 1994 – Another denialist dolt – “Global warming a clouded issue”

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 30th, 1994,

ANDREW McINTYRE finds that the gap is just getting wider between the politicians and the scientists.

Greenpeace has just made a submission to Federal Cabinet claiming greenhouse gases should be subjected to the same stringent regulations as other damaging materials. Cabinet will make a decision early in December, and is likely to consider measures including the introduction of a carbon tax. But will it base its decisions on the facts or the fictions?

McIntyre, A. 1994. Global warming a clouded issue. Canberra Times, 30 November, p.16.

and

Meanwhile, the BCA has eschewed the denial angle, and sends a letter to Keating-

The brief introduction explains the purpose of the letter. The Business Council presents its argument in the next five paragraph and refutes [well, maybe] the view of pro-carbon tax lobbyists in the following seven paragraphs. (Worden, 1998, p133)

It concludes “Costly policies such as a unilateral carbon tax or an environmental levy are not necessary for Australia to make an equitable contribution to global emission abatement. On the other hand we believe that complementary industry and government action within a no regrets framework provide good scope for further emission abatement.” (cited Worden 1998, p130)

Letter to the MP from BCA 30 November 1994 (Wordern, 1998, ch 6)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the day before the IPA had had GB Tucker writing gibberish, and now the Canberra Times was running a denialist screed. It was the second time that year, at least, by an IPA hanger-on. 

What we learn is that even a fundamentally okay newspaper like the Canberra Times was still running denialist tripe out of a misplaced sense of “balance” (See also Boykoff and Boykoff article about bias as balance). 

What happened next? The carbon tax was defeated. The IPA is still with us. The Tasman Institute was abolished – surplus to requirements, job done, mission accomplished. And then Prime Minister John Howard delivered everything that the fossil fuel lobby could expect. 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.

Also on this day: 

November 30, 1978 – House of Lords debate on Atmospheric Changes…

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

Categories
Australia Denial Uncategorized

November 29, 1990 and 1994 – Australian denial fools (Fred Singer and Brian Tucker)

Thirty-four and thirty years ago, on this day, November 29th, 1990/1994, two climate denialists who really ought to have known better (and did, before idiocy overtook them) were spouting their nonsens.

29 November 1990 Fred Singer The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Tasman Institute Seminar

and

29 November 1994 – Canberra Times piece IPA whining about greenhouse, wheeling out Brian Tucker, who had been head of the CSIRO’s Atmospheric Sciences Division.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm/359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is this: We have two examples of high status dickheads, one American, one Australian, denying the reality of climate change. What were both sort of relatively crucial moments in history. So in 1990, Ros Kelly had just come back from the Second World Climate Conference. The negotiations for a climate treaty were about to begin in earnest within a couple of months. In the second case, there was a battle going on about whether to have a carbon tax. And in both cases, the denialists will have said, “Oh, it’s all a scare. It’s all hysteria. Nothing should be done, needs to be done. And any action that is taken is merely rent seeking and appealing to silly ill informed portions of the electorate.” 

Gee, that went well didn’t it? And I want to say this again. Fuck you, and burn in hell you pricks. 

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.

Also on this day: 

November 29, 1973 – Australian politician warns of climate change

NOVEMBER 29, 1974 – SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER SAYS “RISK OF A CHANGED CLIMATE DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES … [IS] OF UTTER IMPORTANCE”

November 29, 1988 – Australian parliamentarians taught climate