Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

April 1, 2001 – Lindsey Tanner warns the ALP…

On this day, April 1, 2001 an Australian Labor Party MP tries to explain the dangers ahead for his party.

In a speech yesterday, Tanner opined that middle class voters of both hues cared about the environment. “If Labor allows the distinction between the Greens and the Coalition to become the dominant point of environmental differentiation in Australian politics, we will lose a major advantage over the Liberal and National Parties,” he said.

Tanner was concerned that the government would slip through the environment net through advertising glossing over its record. The big one going now is TV celebrity Don Burke extolling the Coalition’s Greenhouse credentials. Funny that, since most of the cash comes courtesy of the Democrats, who insisted on real money going into alternative energy research and rail as part of its price for supporting the GST. The Democrats got $400 million in extra funding for greenhouse gas projects over four years. In retrospect, lucky for the Coalition.                                   

Kingston, M. 2001. Australia: green enough for Kyoto? Sydney Morning Herald, April 2 . http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/21/1069027322567.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that social democratic parties, based in productivism and unions, were always uneasy allies with greenies: the “environment issue” gets bolted on (the foot of) pre-existing shopping lists of demands. It’s easier done in opposition when you can criticise the ruling party, the governing party. Once you’re in power, it gets trickier (though Moss Cass, Whitlam’s Environment Minister had some successes). 

The specific context was that, after the failure and betrayal of the Hawk Keating governments on climate change, the greens (small g) had, on the second or third attempt, created a national political party. By 2001 they were beginning to win, warning that Labour could continue to bleed support.

What I think we can learn from this is that spotting dilemmas is easier than taking action to manage them.  

What happened next:  The Green vote has continued to grow (unevenly both spatially and temporally).  And Labor continues to have sooks when people they think they own vote otherwise. And the emissions continue to climb.  

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: 

April 1, 1857 – Bucharest gets oily illuminations

April 1, 1960 – TIROS satellite launched – All Our Yesterdays

April 1, 1970 – Eco-documentary shown on Melbourne TV, carbon dioxide build-up mentioned

April 1, 1979 – JASONs have their two cents on the greenhouse effect

Categories
Australia

 March 30, 2000 – Robert Hill “attacks” industry

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 30th, 2000. 

Industry has been slammed by Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill for its slowness to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“I’m not inclined to reward those companies who make Australia’s emission reduction task more difficult,” Senator Hill said yesterday.

The blunt message came at The Australian Financial Review’s Third Annual Emissions Forum, being held in Sydney. But industry wants the government to provide better incentives to reduce emissions.

Hordern, N. 2000. Hill attacks industry over gas emissions. The Australian Financial Review, 31 March, p27.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  that the Australian political elites, by 1994-95 had definitively decided that they were going to prioritise the coal industry over future generations of Australians and the ecosystems and you name it, because the money, the non-executive directorships, the prestige, etc, all came from the coal industry and its allies. In 1996 the Liberal National Party, or liberal and national parties, for most states, had won the 1996 election and Prime Minister John Howard had come to power. He was extremely hostile to all things environmental, but especially the problem of carbon dioxide build up. This was evident from the second COP in June of that year onwards.  

The specific context was that Howard had simply kept a wheeze created under Paul Keating (previous Prime Minister). The “Greenhouse Challenge” had been the booby prize after a carbon tax was defeated. And the Greenhouse Challenge was one of these, “voluntary schemes” where industry was supposed to show that it could do what was needed and wanted without the heavy hand of unnecessary regulation. And guess what? Industry didn’t. Who knew. What A Shock.

What I think we can learn from this is that.  So here we have the Environment Minister performatively “chiding” industry, and industry would largely take it on the chin. It’s all pretend. It’s all kayfabe. Everyone knows that only the terminally-naive think that anything is actually going to be done and that government is going to get up on its hind legs and challenge big business. I mean, come on, it’s not the 1970s anymore. 

What happened next

The Greenhouse Challenge was rebooted as Greenhouse Challenge Plus, but then, sort of by 2004 or five it became impossible for anyone to pretend and so the whole thing was quietly done away with. Then late the following year, 2006 the climate issue exploded onto the scene and has never really left. It’s just now a running open saw that no one knows what to do with. 

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: 

 March 30, 1948 – The Conservation Foundation founded

March 30, 1983-  EPA sea level rise conference

March 30, 1992 – Thelma and Louise could teach humans a thing or three….

March 30, 2005 – The Millennium Ecosystems  Report is launched.

March 30, 2007 – Climate as “the great moral challenge of our generation” #auspol

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

March 27, 1990 – Greenweek on carbon capture

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 27th, 1990,

On this day, the publication Greenweek has a news article titled

“Radical way to take carbon dioxide from power stations”

“A dramatic fall in greenhouse gas emissions in the industrialised Hunter Valley in NSW could come about if the Hunter Technology Group can proceed with studies of a radical method of removing carbon dioxide emissions from power stations.

“The group is seeking $150,000 from the NSW Government to study a proposal whereby carbon dioxide emissions would be pumped along ground-level pipelines to rural and forest areas, rather than be sent through smokestacks into the atmosphere.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Green Week had been set up by an enterprising journalist, I think in the beginning of 1989  and was doing exactly what it said, publicising events and policy discussions, etc. And here we see discussion in its early stages of quote, carbon capture and storage a fantasy, if ever there were one. 

The specific context was that all sorts of bullshit was being bullshitted at this time.

What I think we can learn from this is that the carbon capture and storage thing, which had started in the mid 1970s as a putative solution to CO2 build up, was there in the undergrowth in the 90s.

What happened next

The fantasy technology staggers on. The amount of CO2 actually captured is pitiful, especially if you take out the stuff that is used for enhanced oil recovery. 

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: 

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27, 1971 – Norwegian Tabloid talks about the climate threat 

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

March 27, 1995 – former Nature editor John Maddox admits was wrong on Greenhouse, without, er, admitting it.

March 27, 2008 – James Hansen writes a letter to Kevin Rudd

Categories
Australia

March 24, 1995 –  Australian scientists release report

Thirty one years ago, on this day, March 24th, 1995,  

AUSTRALIA’S top science bodies say much uncertainty remains over greenhouse warming predictions despite claims by Argentinian researchers that Antarctica’s ice shelf has begun cracking up.

Current increases in global temperature cannot be linked with certainty to human action, the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering caution in a joint report released yesterday.

Cribb, Julian, 1995. Greenhouse theory ‘still uncertain’. The Australian 25/03/95 Page 10

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that climate change from carbon dioxide build up began to be talked of seriously by Australian scientists in 1977, after Graeme Pearman came back from a trip to the US and Europe. There had been conferences in 1980 and 1987, and monographs, articles etc etc.

The specific context was that the IPCC had already released its first report, and its second assessment report was nearing completion. Presumably, this report was designed to be released to inform the COP to take place in Berlin. It’s hard to know what the lead times were, but I can’t imagine. It’s much of a coincidence. Maybe it is. 

Meanwhile, the Australian was and is still SUCH a reliable source of information about what scientists are saying. Oh yes.

What I think we can learn from this is that is that any scientific report can be massaged in any direction you like, pretty much, and if it can’t be massaged in the direction you like, well, you can simply fucking ignore it or suppress it. 

What happened next. More reports, more suppression, more reports, more emissions, higher concentrations, more impacts, more despair and the window closes.

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: 

March 24, 1989 – Exxon Valdez vs Alaska. (EV wins)

March 24, 1990 – Labor politician has dummy spit on election night about needing small g-green votes

March 24, 2004 – Launch of Coal21 National Plan

March 24, 2010 – Scientists explain another bad thing on the horizon, this time on soil

Categories
Australia

March 23,  1991 and 1992 – Ninian Stephen and Barry Jones speeches on World Meteorological Day

Thirty five and thirty four years ago, on this day, March 23rd, 1991/2,

“Climate change and policy change : the nexus”  World Meteorological Day address 1991 / by Sir Ninian Stephen

And one by Barry Jones too, dropping truth bombs.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355/6ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was this was World Meteorological Day – I don’t know if this is still commemorated or celebrated. The climate issue had exploded in 1988 and by now people were probably getting a bit of fatigue, attention fatigue. Ninian Stephen had been appointed ambassador on the environment after a scandal of him as Governor General,   

Barry Jones had been Minister of Science from 1983 to 1990 and had done a brilliant job, even though he was not necessarily well-liked, but that’s not important. And they both gave speeches.

What I think we can learn from this is that the attempt to “embed” climate issues, via things like World Meteorological Day, has, largely, failed. We don’t like to look at confronting facts. We turn away…

What happened next I don’t think World Meteorological day is really still much of a thing. The caravan has moved on.  

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: 

March 23, 1969 – US TV network CBS asks “What are we doing to our World?”

March 23, 1989 – cold fusion!!

March 23, 1993 – UK “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper published.

 March 23, 2011 – Ditch the Witch rally in Canberra

Categories
Australia

March 21,  1990 – Hawke’s final campaign appearance

Thirty six years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1990, 

Some Labour spokesmen have forecast that the government could lose at least six seats from its last parliamentary majority of 22, and scrape back in several doubtful seats only with green preferences. Mr Hawke showed his worry about the impact of protest votes when he made his final campaign appearance yesterday [ 21 March]  at the National Press Club in Canberra. He called on young and disaffected voters not to vote green but, if they did so, to direct their second preferences to Labour. “When you wake up on 25 March,” he said, “there won’t be a Democrat government or a green independent government.”

Milliken, R. 1990. Green vote emerges as crucial factor in election. The Independent – London, 22 March, p.14. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the ALP had come to power in 1983, helped massively by a promise to protect the Franklin river from yet another damned dam.  They’d done a bit on environment – their record was not actively terrible the way it has become.

The specific context was that the Liberals had proposed a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labour. The Liberals had also convinced themselves that they could have lunch with the head of the Australian Conservation Foundation and he and the ACF would then “tell” all the greenies how to vote.  They didn’t really get it, did they?

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians lie and prevaricate (this will come as a shock, I know).

What happened next – Labor squeaked back in. Because of the green vote, they had to institute an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process. This went on through 1990-1 and then got totally kneecapped by the Labor government of Paul Keating.

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:

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

March 21,  1995 – Labor versus Berlin agreements

Thirty one years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1995, the Fin reports, 

FEDERAL Cabinet is today expected to endorse Australia taking a tough stand – at a ministerial meeting on climate change in Berlin next week – against new measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s stance against the creation of a new protocol on greenhouse gas reduction was given a strong boost by the failure of a last-minute meeting of 26 countries held in Bonn 10 days ago to reach consensus on the issue.

Dwyer, M. 1995. Australia takes strong line against greenhouse rules.  The Australian Financial Review,  21 March. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  that six years previously, Australia had made all the right noises at an international conference in The Hague, but six years and a couple of 100 extra miles make all the difference.

What actually happened?

The specific context was that by 1995 the resources lobby had won all the battles on climate policy, and Australia was the Labour Party was going to fight tooth and nail against any reduction commitments. 

What I think we can learn from this is that a week is a long time in politics and six years is an eternity.

What happened next.  Well, it’s interesting because John Faulkner must have been sent to the Berlin COP with a set of instructions, but ultimately, for whatever reason, he agreed to the Berlin mandate. It would be fascinating to see the cables back and forth between the Australian embassy and Keating’s government and to see what Keating et al said to Faulkner when he returned.  

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: 

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 18, 2008  Guy Pearse submission to Garnaut review

Fifty years ago, on this day, March 18th 2008, Guy Pearse made his submission to the Garnaut Review, “Protecting Australia’s new climate change response from the Climate mafia”.

Reading the fine print on emissions trading

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australian political elites have been receiving warnings about carbon dioxide build up, really, since 1986, which would be a good date to start. 

I mean, obviously there’s also stuff in the late 1970s and the Office of National Assessments fossil fuels in the greenhouse, though it’s not clear to me how that was distributed and who talked about it.   

National Party senators were also talking about the carbon dioxide problem as well in the early 1980s…

Then, to understand this story, you have to understand that Guy Pearse, (not the actor), had been a young Liberal staffer and speech writer who had gone to the States and then ended up working on briefly, on the Al Gore campaign rather than Republicans in ‘88 because he was switched on to environment and especially climate.

But the Liberal Party was not welcoming place for people concerned about environment and climate, in part, because of the Dolchstuss myth, the stab in the back from 1990. 

Pearse had then been working as a lobbyist, and realised that lots of his friends were busy undermining climate policy, in the agriculture, tourism, et cetera, positions.

He had then done a PhD part time where he basically interviewed his friends and constructed a really brilliant PhD about this. He had done this PhD at Australian National University and with Clive Hamilton as one of his supervisors. Hamilton had already written a book called Running from the Storm about climate policy. 

And Pearse’s work had been exposed to the public in 2006 thanks to an ABC Four Corners documentary on the greenhouse mafia.

The specific context was that alongside all of this in late 2006 partly with thanks to things like the Four Corners documentary, the climate issue had exploded into public consciousness and the new Labor leader of the opposition, Kevin Rudd was using Iraq and a scandal about grain supplies and climate change as his two principal sticks with which to beat long-serving Prime Minister John Howard. 

And one of Rudd’s stunts was to ask economist Ross Garnaut to write a report about the economics of climate change to inform whatever policy degree the Rudd Government, if it were to happen, would put in place. So this was called the Garnaut Review, and here we see Guy Pearse trying to drop some truth bombs.

But “you people can’t handle the truth,” etc, etc.  

What I think we can learn from this is that if you really want to understand a document like this, you have to understand the back story. That takes time and there’s only so many hours in the day. But enough whining about methodology!

What else we learn is that Australian policy elites have been grappling with the climate problem with some success. If your success metric is how to make it look like you’re taking action without taking action.

That has become more difficult over time, because people get wise, get – you can call it “cynical”, – but I would call it sensible.

What happened next

Garnaut produced his report, but it was sidelined because he was going to demand too much of Rudd, who didn’t want to upset rich donors, etc. Rudd got toppled and Garnaut got brought back to inform Gillard’s climate policy process. Pearse kept writing about it for a while, but I think eventually realised that it was a lost cause.

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: 

March 18, 1958 – Military man spots carbon dioxide problem

March 18, 1968 – Bobby Kennedy vs Gross National Product

March 18, 1970 – Ministry of Transport says “exhaust emission is a minor pollution problem not warranting public expenditure“

 March 18, 1971 – “Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn”

March 18, 2010 – “Solar” by Ian McEwan released.

March 18, 2022 – Antarctic has a day 38.5 degrees above seasonal average

Categories
Australia Coal

March 16, 1988- Coal strategy, no mention of climate

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1988, a coal industry apparatchik produces a strategy.

Ritchie, J. 1988. Development of a Strategy for the Australian Coal Industry.  Australian Coal Association, paper to the Petroleum & Minerals Review Conference, Canberra, 16 March.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian coal industry had been experiencing boom times in the 1980s and became the world’s biggest coal exporter in 1984.

There were still, of course, major problems in terms of modernization of equipment, working practices, infrastructure, all the usual stuff. 

The specific context was. What’s fascinating about this proposed coal strategy does not mention climate change at all, March of 1988. If it had been published a year later, even six months later, it would have had to so.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is like one of those nice little digs into the fossil record, where you can see when the asteroid hit fairly exactly. 

What happened next By the end of 1988 climate change was everywhere thanks to the long, hot summer in the States, James Hansen’s testimony, the Changing Atmosphere conference, but also in Australia, there had been lots of activity. In September of 1987 the Greenhouse Project had been launched. This was a co-production of the CSIRO’s division of atmospheric physics and the “Commission for the Future.” They held an academic conference in 1987 and then connected public conferences in 1988 in November. So that’s really when you can date the coming of the greenhouse issue in Australia.

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: 

March 16, 1973 –  North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)

March 16, 1993 – VAT to be imposed on domestic energy, called a “climate measure”

 March 16, 1994 – “We could bail from Rio” says former Environment Minister

March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

Categories
Australia

March 14,  2001 – the Australian Federal Government gifts taxpayer money to gas project

Twenty five years ago, on this day, March 14th, 2001,

The Commonwealth Government has offered Sydney Gas Company N/L research and development grant totalling $4.1 million for a coal gas project that will provide Australia with a major environmentally friendly and clean energy source close to its most populous area, Industry Minister Nick Minchin said today.

The project, funded under the R&D Start Program, will exploit the gas resources trapped in the coal beds in the Sydney Basin. It will result in a supply that could have significant economic benefits for the population base on the Eastern seaboard.

It will also generate export earnings if the technology used can be licensed to other sites around the world where trapped gas has to be extracted at great cost.

The $4.1 million grant offer was made by the Industry Research and Development Board and the Commonwealth Government’s business unit, AusIndustry, which administers the Program.

Senator Minchin said the project, when successful, would see significant amounts of clean coal bed methane gas fed directly into the NSW gas supply system.

“There will undoubtedly be major benefits flowing to the consumers because NSW has the largest potential market and at the moment there is no natural gas production in the State,” Senator Minchin said.

“The 1997 Australian Gas Association demand forecast for the eastern States of Australia shows that natural gas will be Australia’s fastest growing energy source. The coal bed methane project in the Sydney Basin will help Australia meet its domestic demand.

“The cleaner gas would also have an impact on the Kyoto Protocol commitments which seeks world-wide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

Anon. 2001. $4.1m commonwealth grant offer for NSW R&D gas project. M2 Presswire.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that after pushing (with violence) the existing populations off the land, Australian settlers (or invaders, from another perspective) set about accumulating wealth from various activities – agriculture and then mining.  But this all requires extraction technologies and infrastructure, none of which is cheap. Individual companies aren’t gonna have deep enough pockets, or the appetite for risk. That’s where the state (i.e. the taxpayer) comes in…

The specific context was that the mining booms for export had really kicked in from the late 1960s.  And the state (taxpayer) had been there every step of the way.

What I think we can learn from this is that all the talk of “free markets” is just public relations and fairy tales for the hard-of-thinking.

What happened next  – the infrastructure keeps getting built, regardless of Labor or LNP in charge.  And the emissions keep 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 14, 1988 – Reagan mouths pieties about international scientific cooperation

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

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

 March 14, 2007 – Australian Treasury eyeroll about politicians on #climate, (scoop by Laura Tingle).