On this day, September 10, 2007, shiny declarations met grim reality.
“THE gap between doing something about climate change and talking about it was revealed yesterday. Before the ink was dry on the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum’s Sydney declaration on climate change calling for a boost in global energy efficiency, the NSW scheme designed to do just that was crashing.”
Wilkinson, M. 2007. Going global, crashing locally. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 September.
On this day in 1971, Billy McMahon – until recently regarded as one of the worst Prime Ministers Australia had endured – was being dismissive about Paul Ehrlich, the American biologist and prominent doomster (Ehrlich was, in the long-run, right).
Mr HURFORD – I address my question to the Prime Minister. Has he read and/or heard of the views of Professor Ehrlich, an eminent ecologist, that, with the present growth in world population and taking into consideration the present known incapacity of the world to produce the necessary protein food, energy, etc. to support this population, the world is set on a disaster course?
Does he realise that these views are causing great concern in the community? Will he use the vast resources of the Commonwealth Government to appraise these views and either contradict them or notify the House as to how he can appropriately alter Government policy, and Government leadership in the world, to take into account the views of Professor Ehrlich?
Mr McMAHON»– I have not closely studied Professor Ehrlich’s statements but I have read comments about them in the Press «and» seen resumes of what he has said. I must say that I was not attracted by what he has said publicly. I well remember in my very early days at the university when 1 was studying economics that there were many other people who made similar forecasts «and» who turned out to be just as wrong. Where would we have been if we had taken notice of a most distinguished professor at the University of Sydney who said that we could not have a population much in excess of 15 million? We now know that we can take a vastly larger population than that «and» provide better living standards for people provided only that the Liberal Country Party coalition remains in government. I think the honourable member being a thoughtful person and ready to accept what I have said will know the extent to which I disagree with Professor Ehrlich.
On this day, 8 September 1990 a climate denialist called John Daly was spouting his soothing nonsense.
The worsening of the greenhouse effect is not inevitable, according to the author of The Greenhouse Trap, John Daly. Sea levels may not be rising, the planet may not be warming and studies indicate that the real increase in carbon-dioxide emission world-wide since 1850 is not the commonly reported 80 per cent but about 25 per cent, he says.
Mr Daly, a marine electronics engineer, spoke in Canberra on Saturday night [8 September] on what he calls a program of misinformation.
His recent exposure of inaccuracies in a schools’ brochure issued by the Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, led to its withdrawal.
Mr Daly quotes several eminent Australian scientists and many American ones as having compiled
evidence casting doubt on the existence of the greenhouse effect.
“I just want people to realise that there is some doubt,” Mr Daly said.
He says that in 20 years’ study of weather and science, particularly during the greenhouse effect’s “fashionable” period, the ’80s, he has found little to prove its existence.
On this day, September 7, 1936, the last surviving member of the thylacine species, Benjamin, dies alone in its cage at the Hobart Zoo in Tasmania.
We are living through the sixth great extinction. And causing it. Hohum.
On this day the PPM was 310ish. Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
This is not a climate event, per se, but the same mentality that exterminated the tigers, and the Tasmanian Aborigines, is at play in the destruction of life on earth.
What happened next?
The extinctions have escalated.
And First Dog on the Moon had two excellent cartoons (the latter apologising for the former).
On this day, September 6, 2000, South Australian Senator Nick Minchin puts out a press release… I know, hold the front page, right…
But the context is that the first attempt to introduce a national level emissions trading scheme had just been defeated – with Nick Minchin largely responsible. This was the semi-gloating declaration of victory…
Below is a quote from the ever-reliable Jim Green, writing in “Green Left Weekly”
The federal Coalition government has taken a number of decisions to reassure big business that measures adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact.
Federal minister for industry, science and resources Nick Minchin outlined “specific commitments” to industry in a September 6 press release. They were:
● that a mandatory domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme will not be introduced “prematurely”;
● that the government “will involve industry from the inception through to the implementation phase of greenhouse gas abatement policies and strategies that impact on the industry”;
● that the government will work internationally “to get Australia the best possible greenhouse position”;
● that the government will assist in “minimising the burden of greenhouse measures on business through cost-effective actions”; and
● that the government will not “discriminate against particular projects or regions in greenhouse policies and programs”.
“What we are saying to industry is that in any decisions we make on greenhouse, we will work to maintain their international competitiveness. This is a framework for the government’s greenhouse policy processes. These are all common sense measures that will allow Australian industry to grow and meet our Kyoto commitments. It’s good news for industry, which has warmly welcomed the government’s commitments”, Minchin said.
The government’s “specific commitments” are noticeably lacking in specifics. Canberra’s primary aim is simply to reassure business interests that measures to curb escalating greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact on their activities.
Green, J. 2000. Business warms to greenhouse ‘commitments’. Green Left Weekly, 13 September.
On this day the PPM was 367.15 Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
There is inertia in human systems, but that inertia is often helped on its way by intransigence. And that intransigence is not “stupid”. Underestimate the opponents of action at your peril…
What happened next?
Prime Minister John Howard got away with it for two more elections. Only in 2006-7 did this unravel for him.
On this day, September 5 1990, the new-ish Australian Environment Minister, Ros Kelly, was trying to finish the work that a male colleague had started with endless self-promotion but not a lot of guile (this is a pattern that will recur, 20 years later). Here are two newspaper accounts
Targets to reduce greenhouse gases would strengthen the Australian economy, not cripple it, according to the Minister for the Environment, Ms Kelly.
Speaking to a Metal Trades Industry Association seminar, Ms Kelly made a preliminary sortie in the battle she will fight with her Cabinet colleagues next Monday to try to persuade them to set targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Ms Kelly said a report for her department by Deni Greene Consulting Services showed that a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2005 is not only possible, it is pretty easy to obtain”.
Industry groups have been lobbying the Government hard in recent days against setting a target to reduce emissions, which they argue could dramatically increase costs.
Garran, R. 1990. Kelly sees big savings in cutting greenhouse gases. Australian Financial Review, 6 September, p. 5.
and
“In a speech yesterday (5th), Mrs Kelly called again for immediate action. She stressed the IPCC findings and said that “the sensible course of action is to do what we can, as soon as we can”.
A 20 per cent cut had been proved “not only possible (but) easy to obtain,” she said. “
Seccombe, M. 1990. Polluters put on the back-burner. Sydney Morning Herald, 6 September, p.1
On this day the PPM was 351.38. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
There was a time when – if you were optimistic (and perhaps naive?) you could imagine Federal politicians in Australia actually taking action that would have added up to a semi-adequate response to climate change. It was a brief time, one easily romanticised, but it did exist.
What happened next?
None of this came to pass. The fight back from the fossil lobby was supremely effective. Companies in Australia dug up and burnt/sold insane (I mean that literally) quantities of fossil fuels, with active and very enthusiastic support of the political classes and the bureaucrats. And here we are.
On this day, September 2nd 2002, Midnight Oil lead singer Peter Garrett gave a lecture at ANU, pointing to “community action” as the only real hope….
“In a time of change so fundamental that even the notion of humanity was not immune, being passive was to accept impending doom, Midnight Oil lead singer and environmental activist Peter Garrett said. Speaking at the Australian National University’s public lecture series yesterday, the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation decried the country’s environmental record, yet pointed to community action as the only real hope.”
Centenera, J. 2002. Garrett urges community to take action. Canberra Times, 3 September, p. 5.
On this day the PPM was 370.93 ppm Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
Community action was never going to be enough. And it is so hard to sustain…
What happened next?
Australians got agitated about climate change in large numbers a few years later (2006), but the politicians fucked it up (if your perspective is that they are there to serve current and future generations. If you think they are there to protect the rich and powerful in the short term, then….).
Julia Gillard did the best she could, got some legislation passed – inadequate, but passed. In an act of cosmic vandalism, the next Prime Minister, a deeply inadequate figure called Tony Abbott, repealed it.
Another wave of community action happened. And the atmospheric concentrations kept rising…
On this day 2nd-3rd September 1972 the then new Friends of the Earth Adelaide held a two day seminar in Adelaide asking the question “Is technology a blueprint for destruction”?
(The word “blueprint” was on everyone’s lips because of the Blueprint for Survival published by The Ecologist.in January of the same year.)
In his opening address, Professor G.M. Badger, Vice-Chancellor of the host institution – University of Adelaide – (and Professor of Organic Chemistry from 1954) had this to say
“I mentioned inevitable pollution, by which I particularly meant carbon dioxide, because when any fossil fuel is burnt, carbon dioxide is an inevitable product of it. Carbon dioxide is not usually considered a pollutant, but it is well to remember that it can be extremely serious for mankind. It plays an important part in the photosynthesis of plants, but its concentration in the atmosphere has increased over the last 70 years from 290 parts/million in the 19th century to 320 parts/million today, and it is still increasing by 0.7 parts/million/annum.
The significance of this increase lies in what is called the glasshouse effect… If this persists, the consequences could be extremely serious. It does not require a great increase in the mean world temperature to start melting the ice-floes and to change the world’s climate.”
The theme was also taken up by at least one of the speakers, Professor Bockris.
“
On this day the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 324.84 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
We knew. Fifty years ago we knew enough to be worried. By forty years ago we knew enough to start taking serious action.
What happened next?
The warnings continued. And so did the behaviours that led to the warnings.
“protesters besieged the Marrickville office of Labor MHR and minister, Anthony Albanese. News reports record that ‘angry’ demonstrators jeered and booed: one ‘female protester grabbed Mr Albanese by the tie and called him “gutless” and a “maggot”’ (AAP 2011). This was one of a series of anti-carbon tax protests held during 2011–12.”
(Ward, 2015: 225) See also – Lentini, R. 2011. Democracy-is-dead mob takes its anger to Anthony Albanese’s door. Daily Telegraph 2 September.
On this day the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was 390.33ppm. Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
We need to remember that this happened, that there are people who will scream blue murder at the smallest effort to do anything about climate change
What happened next?
The legislation got through. Then it was repealed by the Liberal-National Party government. Albanese… dunno what he did next..
On this day August 30 1990, the IPCC’s meeting in Sundsvall, Sweden featured attempts by the USA and Australia to water down policy findings.
The IPCC had been set up in 1988, in part to stop climate scientists being too independent and making a repeat of what happened over ozone less likely (The Reagan Administration had felt ‘bounced’). It had delivered its first report ahead of the Second World Climate Conference (which had been pushed back a few months so that it could also serve as the starting point for international negotiations for the impending climate treaty).
Some nations (but not – at this point – Australia) had said, with varying degrees of sincerity/seriousness, that they would try to cut their emissions by 20 per cent by 2005. This target had been agreed at a conference in June 1988, and so was known as the “Toronto Target” (Some NGOs at Toronto had been pitching even higher, btw).
The Australian Federal Labor Government was wrestling over this – The previous Environment Minister, Graham Richardson, had lost a Cabinet battle over it in May 1989. HIs successor, Roz Kelly, was still trying to get it through, in the face of opposition – e..g. A “Labor Party’s caucus primary industries and resources committee report, [chaired by] Brian Courtice (Qld). The report said the Government had been conned by green groups and would risk future electoral success if it continued to “appease” them.”
So, anyway, against that backdrop, this is entertaining –
“Mrs Kelly said reports last week that the Australian delegation to the International Panel on Climate Change in Sweden [IPCC 4th Session SUNDSVALL 27-30 August 1990] had supported moves by the United States to water down its policy findings were being investigated. The delegates had been told before leaving for the meeting to support the Toronto targets.”
My Conversation piece about the Sundsvall meeting here.
[The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 353 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.]
Why this matters.
There are no “pure” processes from which we fall. Everything is messy, contested. Organisations (states, corporations etc) defend their interests, try to shape narratives.
What happened next?
A weak weak treaty was agreed in 1992.
Since 1990, human emissions have gone up by about 67% per cent. The age of consequences is here for some (ironically mostly those least to blame) and is imminent for everyone.
