Category: Australia

Categories
Activism Australia

September 24, 1989 – Petra Kelly disses the Australian Prime Minister

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 24, 1989, German activist and member of parliament Petra Kelly opined on Australian government policy

WHEN BOB HAWKE cried at a press conference in 1984, his face was plastered all over German newspapers.

That was about the last time matters of any relevance to Australian domestic politics rated even a centimetre of German news space.

That is, until Bob Brown and his team of green independents made it on to the Tasmanian Government benches in May.

According to the founder of the West German Green Party, Petra Kelly, the greens’ success in Tasmania was widely reported – even in the smallest German village.

“I think Bob Brown is probably the most well-known Australian in Europe,” Ms Kelly said from her hotel in Adelaide last week.

“He’s much more widely known than Mr Hawke.”

In Australia for an “ecopolitics” conference at the University of Adelaide, Petra Kelly has attracted media attention for describing Bob Hawke’s moves to capture the environment vote as just “green cosmetic surgery”.

Mealey, E. 1989. Petra sees green over Aussie Politics. Sun Herald, 24 September.

(Petra – the diminutive name – wouldn’t be used for Bob or Andrew. But tbf, has been used for “Boris”)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Petra Kelly was a big star from the German environmental movement and antinuclear movement. Adelaide was a good place to do this stuff and I totally missed it. I was not plugged into those networks and it pisses me off but it is what it is. At that time, btw, everyone in Australia was running around talking about the “greenhouse effect.”

What I think we can learn from this is that the mass media will use diminutive names, first names for women, in a way that they would not for men 

That there were linkages between German and Australian movements and learning; see Christopher Rootes’ article about this which appeared in Environmental Politics.

What happened next is that Petra Kelly died in 1992 – it was probably murder-suicide or possibly an agreed pact we can never know. And Hawke made grand promises about climate action that, well, never got kept. 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 Denial

September 23, 2013 – Media Watch versus climate denialists …

Ten years ago, on this day, September 23, 2013, the Australian state broadcaster explained – for the umpteenth time – the dreadful lies the radio shock jocks were peddling.

On 23 September 2013 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) program Media Watch explored a textbook example of why too many Australians and their politicians continue to stumble through a fog of confusion and doubt in regard to climate change. The case under the microscope typified irresponsible journalism. 

Media Watch host Paul Barry, with trademark irony, announced: ‘Yes it’s official at last … those stupid scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] got it wrong’, in their latest assessment report. He quoted 2GB breakfast jock Chris Smith from a week earlier saying the IPCC had ‘fessed up’ that its computers had drastically overestimated rising temperatures. ‘That’s a relief,’ said Barry, and how do we know this? ‘Because Chris Smith read it on the front page of last Monday’s Australian newspaper. When it comes to rubbishing the dangers of man-made global warming the shock jocks certainly know who they can trust.’

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had been going through a very high pitch culture war on climate policy since 2006, positions had hardened even further and climate denial became “acceptable” (i.e. had lower social and political costs than had been assumed) again from about 2010 onwards. And various so cold shock jocks wallowed in it

What I think we can learn from this is that it is easy to create an echo-chamber of mutually reinforcing bullshit that gets published in newspapers then commentated on, then reported then there is reportage on the commentating of the reportage of the commentating. It is all cheap, it is easy, and it does not need to connect to anything actually scientific.

What happened next

After becoming Prime Minister later in 2013, Tony Abbott proved that he was not a fit leader for the Liberal Party let alone by country. He was turfed by his own party after only narrowly beating an empty chair in a January 2015 vote.

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

September 22, 1971 – Australian communist talks about climate change

Fifty two years ago, on this day, September 22, 1971, (in)famous Australian activist Maurice Crow wrote about the climate crisis …

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone in Australia was running around like a headless chicken saying the apocalypse was at hand from business to mainstream NGOs to the communists. And they had been importing American radical commentary in their International Socialist magazine etc. Maurice Crowe just put an effort at a local spin on it.

What I think we can learn from this is that calls for “system change” were around 50 years ago. And as per a recent article in Environmental Politics, what is meant by system change is a moveable feast.

What happened next

The environmental movement ran aground a bit but as late as 1975 there was a “radical ecology” conference in Melbourne and Crow was part of 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

September 21, 1990 – Ministers call for Toronto Target to be federal policy …

Thirty three years ago, on this day, September 21, 1990, various state ministers urged Bob Hawke’s Federal Government to do what it had declined to do in May 1989 – agree to decent emissions cuts …

CANBERRA: A meeting of all Australian and New Zealand environment ministers increased pressure on the Federal Cabinet yesterday to commit itself to a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The meeting of the Australia and New Zealand Environment Council (ANZEC) in Alice Springs also urged the Government to push for the target at the Second World Climate Conference, to be held in about six weeks.

Seccombe, 1990. Gas Emission Cut Urged. Sydney Morning Herald, 22 September, p.6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various state governments had made a commitment to the Toronto target but the Australian Federal Government had not. The second World climate conference was due to begin in Geneva shortly (it had been pushed back by four months in order to be a staging post for the incipient international climate negotiations). The Toronto target was one that had been suggested at a conference in June of 1988. Environmentals had wanted a 50% cut by 2015 ceiling. This had been watered down to 20% by 2005.

What I think we can learn from this – there was a time when when politicians were seriously ambitious though perhaps not entirely aware of the actual costs of what they were proposing. Or to be fair they read the reports by people like Demi Greene (see March 1990) and decided it wasn’t too ambitious or too difficult.

What happened next

In October 1990s the Australian Federal Government made a very hedged commitment to Toronto rendering the promise basically meaningless.

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

September 19, 1998 – Public Health Association calls for “life-saving green taxes”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 19, 1998, the Australian Public Health Association calls for “life-saving green taxes”

A LEADING health advocacy group has called on main political parties to include ecological levies in their taxation plans to stem environmental degradation and its ill-effects on humans.

The Public Health Association, in warning that mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever and Murray Valley encephalitis could spread as far south as Sydney in the next 20 years, accused the Government and Opposition of ignoring “a most serious health issue”. In a resolution passed at its annual conference in Hobart on Wednesday, the PHA said the Australian electorate deserved tax reform that would contribute to a sustainable future, advocating “ecotaxes” such as on carbon, which have been implemented in many European countries.

PHA spokesman and director of the National Centre in Epidemiology and Population Health Bob Douglas, who moved the resolution, says there was already evidence that climate change was affecting human health.

Ross River fever has been increasing substantially over the past five or six years; outbreaks of Japanese encephalitis have occurred in northern Australia; while multiple sub-types of dengue fever have emerged in Townsville over the past few years.

Malaria also threatens to again become endemic.

“There are very serious concerns that in a worst case scenario the survival of humans is under threat,” Professor Douglas says. “If we go on having rising temperatures with changes in the level of the sea, increased susceptibility to immune paralysis by ultraviolet radiation and if the temperatures make less our food sustainability, we are in some danger of an ecological collapse.”

The proposed eco-taxes would be on activities releasing pollutants such as fossil fuels, for a carbon tax, or nitrogen and sulphur oxides, the components of acid rain.

“We believe most Australians are concerned at the need to constrain greenhouse emissions, which, if they continue at their current rate, will result in ecological changes profoundly damaging to human health,” the resolution says.

Anon. 1998. Association calls for life-saving green taxes. The Australian, September 19, 1998 Page: 044

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that 25 years ago it was patently obvious what was coming. This was before the creation of Environmental Doctors for Australia or whatever it’s called. It was also obvious that John Howard was not interested in doing anything about environmental issues. There was an election coming which he was to win …

What I think we can learn from this is that, again, the ideas to fix the problems are all around us but they are rendered politically impossible by powerful organised vested interests.

What happened next – no eco taxes were brought in. We have squandered the past quarter of a century and are not prepared for the amplifying concatenating public health crisis and this my friends is why I’m very glad that I did not breed.

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

September 17, 1987 – report on “The Greenhouse Project” launch

Thirty six years ago, on this day, September 17, 1987, a novel effort between the CSIRO Atmospheric Physics people and the Australian government’s Commission for the Future was reported on (the launch happened on the 16th). Known as “The Greenhouse Project”

The greenhouse effect is not just another disaster story but a real phenomenon that is likely to have far-reaching economic and social impacts within considerably less than a human lifetime, according to a CSIRO scientist.

Dr Graeme Pearman was speaking at a press conference launching the Greenhouse Project, a national campaign organised jointly by the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO to alert Australians and Australian industry to the possible consequences of the effect.

A rapid build-up of “greenhouse gases” could cause sea levels to rise by up to one metre in the next 40 years and global temperatures to rise by up to 4 degrees Celsius.

A one-metre rise in sea level would put the main street of Cairns underwater and result in the disappearance of large areas of beaches around the coast, Dr Pearman warned.

Anon (1987) Launch of Greenhouse Effect plan. Sydney Morning Herald, September 17

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly pp348.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.

 

The context was that CSIRO 1986 realised that climate change was going to be a real problem. This was after 5 years of silence pretty much among the Australian Environment council folks. Science Minister Barry Jones had managed to create a foresight organisation called “The Commission for the Future,” and the greenhouse project was its first effort and very successful one at that.

What I think we can learn from this is that scientists and policymakers were aware of the climate problem and trying to do something about it before the 1988 breakthrough. And the momentum was ultimately lost because the issues are complex, and because business fought back (but everyone knew that business would fight back.)

What happened next – the Greenhouse Project gave us a scientific meeting in December 1987 but then also Greenhouse 88 – a satellite linked up conference in the capital cities of Australia that have passed into a kind of folklore.

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

September 16, 2015 – Turns out big companies are ‘climate hypocrites’?

Eight years ago, on this day, September 16, 2015, a survey shows companies and trade associations are saying one thing and doing another … (shocked, shocked to find …)

BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and the Business Council of Australia are among the world’s largest companies and industry groups holding back action on climate change, according to a new survey.

The research, based on methodology developed by the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists and applied by UK-based non-profit group InfluenceMap, found 45 per cent of the 100 biggest industrial companies were “climate hypocrites” that obstruct action on global warming.

Some 95 per cent of the delaying firms were also members of trade associations that demonstrated “the same obstructionist behaviour”. 

BHP Billiton was rated a “D”,

Hannam, P. (2015) Rio Tinto, Business Council of Australia among ‘climate hypocrites’, survey says. Sydney Morning Herald, September 16.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the national and international climate wars were ongoing. The Paris meeting was coming up, and the Union of Concerned Scientists was trying to weaken the status of corporates and especially business associations lobbying against climate action. One way of doing this was by showing the functions of the business associations were not only to present a united front but also for these business associations to do things with dirty hands that individual companies would find too risky.

What I think we can learn from this is a better understanding of the relationship between business associations and their individual members, and how there is an interplay of blame-shifting and collective spreading of risk that trade associations can do. Sometimes pressure groups go too far and become more trouble than they’re worth.

What happened next

Last time I looked, BHP was still a member of these outfits. It finds them useful and not being a member would be tricky. I guess see also Alex Carey “Taking the Risk out of Democracy.”

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

September 15, 2008- business splits over what to extort from Rudd…

Fifteen years ago, on this day, September 15, 2008, Australian business interests were fighting over how hard to squeeze Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and for what….

ELEANOR HALL: The Australian Government knows it’ll be no easy task to design an emissions trading scheme that’ll satisfy both business and the environment lobby.

Business is largely urging caution and warning of job losses if energy guzzling industries aren’t properly compensated.

But not every Australian blue chip company is as conservative.

The Westpac Bank is today urging the Government to keep the scheme it adopts as pure as possible and not to shelter businesses from the impact of putting a price on carbon.

Santow, S. (2008) Split in business ranks on carbon scheme “The World Today – 15th September , 2008” http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2364852.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Rudd government had made big promises about dealing with climate change which … amounted to introducing an emissions trading scheme. Westpac had had its calculators out about this for years (in April 2006 it had lobbied as part of a business environmentalist roundtable).

What I think we can learn from this is that obviously if there is a trading scheme the banks stand to make a lot of money. It’s also a good way for them to polish their mostly terrible reputation.

What happened next is that Rudd continued to give ground on the policy, weakening it and weakening it more, and more concessions. By the time it got to Parliament for the second attempt at getting it through, in November 2019, it was at best useless, at worst, worse than useless.

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 Coal

 September 12, 2003 – Newcastle Herald thinks the future of coal looks ‘cleaner’…

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 12, 2003, the Newspaper Herald, in the heart of New South Wales coal country, reports on coal industry leaders promising cleaner coal…

ANY “sunset” scenario for the Hunter’s coal industry would be a cleaner one, industry leaders said yesterday.

Using Coal21, a paper put together by the state and federal governments as a starting point, panellists looked at whether the billion dollar industry had a use-by date a “sunset”.

NSW Minerals Council executive director John Tucker said many in the industry believed the move to more diverse energy sources would start to occur in big numbers in 40 to 50 years.

Hennessy, C. 2003. Future Of Coal Looks `cleaner’. The Newcastle Herald,13 September

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia was in the middle of an enormous minerals boom  and becoming very wealthy indeed. Mind you not everyone – the Gini Coefficient was going up and up the minerals boom included coal exports. The fear that eventually there would be restrictions on coal use meant that there were all kind of wheezes about “clean coal” and forums were being carried out. This was one of them.

What I think we can learn from this is that a lipstick will always be found if the pig is particularly valuable. That is to say people will always try to slap the word clean or green or sustainable on whatever on very unclean ungreen unsustainable crap that they are doing. Partly so they can sleep at night, partly so they can recruit more people into the industry, get investors. And partly to make it harder to regulate them.

And there are entire industries made up of individuals and companies who will assist in this lipsticking. And we want to believe those lies, because then we don’t have to do anything particularly difficult or uncomfortable, we can just go with the flow and still get what we want.

What happened next

Twenty years later they are still selling coal from the Hunter. And we’re all going to die. Why? Because these coal mines are death factories.

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 Nuclear Power

September 7, 2005 – “rule out nuclear” say Aussie green outfits.

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 7, 2005, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Greens call on the gov to rule out nuclear energy and release a report “Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Howard government had asked a pro-nuclear scientist to do a review of nuclear power. This was after Howard and Bush had had one of their periodic meetings. The review made the same point that nuclear power was not going to be economic for Australia, and take too long to develop.

But it was also a useful “dead cat” strategy for Howard because he could wedge greens – he knew that some of them are pronuclear. Further, he knew it will take up time, energy and bandwidth and therefore distract from what he was (not) doing on climate.

But this is tricksy, and eventually the magician plays the same trick so many times that people spot how he does it and stop being impressed or even amused. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this is that nuclear is always a good “go to” if you want to avoid talking about what needs doing in the here and right now. And allow you to keep doing what you’re doing.

What happened next

Nuclear was not developed. It will not be developed in Australia because the population is not big enough and there aren’t enough big electricity consumers and anyway everyone has got wind and solar and the nuclear boat has sailed (and I don’t think the nuclear submarines will sail either. But who knows.)

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..