On this day, 2nd July 2007, the highly-principled Guy Pearse (not the actor) released his brilliant book “High and Dry”.
“A Liberal Party member and former ministerial speechwriter issues a book today which depicts the Prime Minister with a stranglehold on environmental policy, deliberately surrounding himself with climate change sceptics.”
Rudra, N. 2007. Liberal attacks PM on climate. Canberra TImes, 2 July.
The problem was that High and Dry was soon “outdated,” when the Liberals were swept from office in late 2007. Pearse wrote a cracking Quarterly Essay about what Labor was up to, published in 2009.
HOWEVER the book is well-written, well-researched and gives you names and tactics of the “Greenhouse Mafia.”
The book still stands as an example of how you
Do a PhD
Turn a PhD into a book (a different beast)
Make an impact, behave with integrity.
Why this matters.
Names are named, repertoires exposed. This is how you are supposed to do intellectual work.
On this day in 2000, the beserk but effective “Lavoisier Group” of Australian climate denialists schmoozed senior politicians (former Treasurer Peter Walsh, an ALP thumper, probably set this up).
The Lavoisier Group (named for a French chemist, because these groups are always – somewhat pathetically – trying to bolster their cred and signal their, ah, “erudition”) had been formed as a radical flank effort to try to stiffen John Howard’s resolve in keeping Australia from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. (Australia had, by various means, gotten a sweet sweet deal of an emissions “reduction” target of [checks notes] … a 10% INCREASE in emissions – see Clive Hamilton on this.]
“Last year, the Lavoisier Group held meetings around the country, including a June 27 dinner for a select group of federal parliamentarians in the House of Representatives’ dining room.”
Small groups of determined and well-connected people who are going to help other people stay rich can be surprisingly effective in blocking things. Who knew.
What happened next?
Lavoisier kept on being effective for as long as Howard was PM (though things got trickier for them by 2006 or so). They were an important building block for the climate denial “movement” that flourished from 2009 or so through to 2013 or so. They are still, bless them, publishing their idiocies.
On this day, June 26 in 1991, Australian journalist Maria Taylor gave a good example of how the wave of climate concern that had begun in 1988/9 was ending.(they always do).
STATE OF THE WORLD 1991. A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society. Allen and Unwin. $19.95.
Reviewer: MARIA TAYLOR
A SYDNEY marketing man and sometime advisor to the environmental movement told me recently that these days it’s hard to sell business on sponsoring environmental projectsbecause “environment is not the flavour of the month any more”.
While sheer survival may top many a corporate agenda at the moment, it’s still a breathtakingly quaint notion to suppose that “the environment” is a media beat-up begun a year or so ago and now about run its course.
The implication is that just as soon as we can get the economy to behave again, it will be back to business as usual. A lot of people also believe in fairy tales….
The “Issue Attention Cycle” is a thing. You can think it is stupid, but that doesn’t change its thing-ness, and your need to think carefully about what you do within it to be able to keep doing things after it.
What happened next?
Maria Taylor wrote a PhD thesis. A good one It became this book: Global warming and climate change: what Australia knew and buried. You can read it here
On this day, June 21 2007, in the midst of one of the periodic waves of public agitation about climate change, the Australian Broadcast Corporation launched “Carbon Cops.” No I haven’t watched it. This website is enough of a wrist-slasher to manage, without subjecting myself to this sort of futile censorious neoliberal Calvinistic horror.
“Carbon cops Lish Fejer and Sean Fitzgerald are on a mission to change habits of Australian families by measuring their carbon emissions.”
TV shows on global warming leave most viewers cold. Carbon Cops may change that, writes Michael Dwyer.
WHAT if our planet was under siege by some omnipotent celestial foe, but television stations were unable to acquire footage compelling enough to galvanise the required response?
That appears to be the inconvenient truth confronting green TV shows. In a medium that thrives on explosive hits, the merely smouldering issue of global warming is proving about as gripping as watching trees grow.
This year we’ve already seen two well-intentioned environmental awareness shows come and go – or rather we haven’t, judging by the ratings for SBS’ Eco House Challenge and Channel Ten’s Cool Aid: The National Carbon Test.
Now the ABC braves the precarious balance between worthy and watchable with a six-part domestic challenge series titled – with an admirable lunge for some of that hot, sci-fi/CSI intrigue – Carbon Cops.
God, this sort of preachy atomised and atomising scolding shite, that makes people feel guilty about relative trivialities, and hails them as consumers but never as citizens, is part of the reason we are so doomed. We need people who cut their own carbon footprints but who spend most of their time and energy expanding their political footprints and those of other people who give a damn. That requires functioning social movement organisations that don’t fall over (implode) the first time something goes wrong.
On this day, June 18, 2008, the Australian Federal Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, introduced a Carbon Capture and Storage bill into the Australian parliament. [The draft legislation had been unveiled in May 2008]. See here for a good account of the introduced legislation.
Because, you know, carbon capture and storage is definitely a real response to a real problem, not a fantasy of techno-salvationism that will keep us from doing what we actually need to do.
The context is that the previous government, of John Howard, had tolerated loose talk of carbon capture and storage as a way of deflecting concerns about climate change. With the arrival of Kevin Rudd, from Queensland (where they dig up and burn a lotta coal), the CCS thing kicked into higher gear, with an alliance of the producers, the coal union (the CFMEU) and even a couple of NGOs (looking at you, WWF and the now-defunct Climate Institute).
Some of my earliest Conversation articles were about this stuff. This one, co-written with the wonderful Christopher Wright, is worth a look –
Time and money we spend on CCS is time and money we don’t spend on retooling an economy and a society to use a LOT less.
But, also, CCS was our only shot, given that the world is going to continue to burn absurd amounts of fossil fuels. Both these statements can be true at the same time. We’re toast.
What happened next?
CCS fell in a heap in Australia by the end of 2010. It gets reheated occasionally, for political reasons. Chevron’s Gorgon facility is not working. Did I mention we’re toast?
On this day, 17 June 2009, as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was playing parliamentary and political games with his “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme,” Tasmanian Greens Senator Christine Milne gave a blistering and prescient speech at the National Press Club
“Would you put your son or daughter on an aeroplane if you knew that it had a 50-90% chance of crashing? If not, why would you take that risk with the whole planet?”
Fortunately, sections like this below are now completely irrelevant.
“In Australia, the dominant economic, social and therefore Labor and Coalition view, is that resource extraction underpins wealth, power and influence — always has and always will. Regardless of the physical capacity of the Earth to sustain it, regardless of the collapse of the Murray Darling or the climate impact of burning more coal or logging more forests, nothing will stand in the way of that extraction continuing. All policies to address climate change are seen through that cultural lens.
“It is why, when people hear the climate science telling us that, if we do not act swiftly and decisively, the world we hand on to our children will be a very different, much poorer world, so many jump through hoops to deny it, to explain it away, or to pretend that we can compromise with the laws of physics and chemistry to suit own imperatives. It is no wonder, as Ian Dunlop observed recently, “climate policy and climate science are like ships passing in the night.”
And this too.
The truth is the climate nightmare is real and happening now. We are destroying the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and the snow caps. We are eroding our beaches, and our coastal cities will face managed retreat due to sea level rise. We are drying our food bowl, the Murray Darling, beyond repair, jeopardising rural communities and our food security.
Many of our Asia Pacific neighbours are struggling with rising seas and extreme weather which threatens a refugee crisis beyond anything we’ve ever seen.
Read it. Read it and weep.
Why this matters.
People get written out of history. Oddly, this seems to happen more to women than men. It’s a puzzle why, and I am sure our best scientists (meaning, of course, the males) might eventually come up with some explanation.
We knew. We were warned, again and again and again. And the glib, slick careerists (more males than females, but females can do that too you know) just kept on keeping on.
What happened next?
Rudd’s CPRS never got through because the evil wicked awful Greens voted against it. (And the ALP then refused to countenance the Greens’ proposal for a temporary carbon tax, though the ALP goons never mention that). After the 2010 Federal election, the Greens and the independents forced the ALP government to do something about climate legislation. Milne then sat on the MPCCC (Multiparty committee on climate change). And we got an ETS, CEFC, ARENA. The ETS got killed off by Abbott, day one.
On 19 February 2013 Senator Christine Milne, as Leader of the Greens, returned to the Press Club and gave the following speech – “Australian Democracy at the Crossroads: the mining industry and the quarry past versus the people and the innovative future”,
On this day (ish) in 1971, “Ecology Action” was formed in Sydney. There had been a series of campaigns about specific patches of nature that were about to be bulldozed or mined etc, and well, people decided to get together to take action on Ecology.
________________________________________
Ecology body is formed
SYDNEY : Ecology Action has been formed recently here by people wanting to “take action to prevent irreversible destruction of life on earth.”
It is working closely with the Society for Social Responsibility in Science (SRS) and other conservationist and anti-pollution groups. Ecology Action is calling a meeting tonight (Wednesday June 16) at 7.30 pm, at the Stephen Roberts Theatre, Sydney University, to hear Dr. Stephen Boyden of the ANU speak and to discuss action proposed by Ecology Action. Ecology Action, with SRS and the National Trust is holding a meeting on June 28, at the Sydney Town Hall at 8 pm to discuss and protest the proposed Clutha development on NSW South Coast. Ecology Action’s address is Box K404, P.O., Haymarket, NSW, 2000.
Tribune, Wednesday 16 June 1971, page 12
Except, well, it was about a month earlier – see this from The Bulletin, near the other end of the political spectrum (Tribune was communist).
Why this matters.
We’ve been here before! Repeatedly. And see below…
What happened next?
Ecology Action lasted until about 1980. I’ve looked at the material in the National Library – newsletters and so on. Climate is not mentioned (and understandably so – still too abstract) but it seems there was the usual pattern of a few committed folks begging others to get involved… And then, well, it just fizzled out, I think. I don’t know for sure. That is NOT a criticism of those involved. I am sure they spent countless hours trying to slow down the apocalypse. And here we are.
On this day, 15 June 1994 the Canberra Times publishes a frankly embarrassing piece by IPA operative Andrew McIntyre in “No proof of global warming” (Canberra Times, June 15, p.17).
A rebuttal by Greenpeace was published on 20th and tireless climate scientist Neville Nicholls had two letters published on 26th and 29th.
But the time taken to rebut nonsense is time you don’t spend advancing a positive agenda. As the great thinker Toni Morrison said of racism, part of its power is in distraction and exhaustion…
“The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and you spend twenty years proving that you do. Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly so you have scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says you have no art, so you dredge that up. Somebody says you have no kingdoms, so you dredge that up. None of this is necessary. There will always be one more thing.
Why this matters The denial and delay and stupidity rolls on and on and on.
What happened next?
McIntyre had another one – ahead of carbon tax decision, 30 November 1994
The Canberra Times has been much better than this, both before and since. Solid newspaper.
On this day, 12 June, 1992 (thirty years ago), the Australian Environment Minister ruled out a carbon tax. Again.
To quote a newspaper account of what was going on at the Rio Earth Summit –
“Economic instruments could also be used to reduce greenhouse emissions. Mrs Kelly said she had had discussions yesterday with Canada’s environment minister on the issue.
Australia’s options were limited, however, because the Government had declared its opposition to a carbon tax. Asked why the Government opposed a carbon tax, Mrs Kelly said it believed such a tax could introduce real social distortions because of Australia’s big distances.
“And it would obviously disadvantage rural communities, and those who could not afford to pay higher (fuel) prices.
The Australian community is not yet ready for a carbon tax. Even the European Community has passed a motion stating that it would not introduce a carbon tax until the US did so.
“It’s a question of who starts the ball rolling, Mrs Kelly said. “We won’t.””
O’Neill, G. 1992. Kelly Wants Action Over CO2 Emissions. The Age, 13 June, p.15.
One of the things you would have done – one of the first, but not the last or the biggest – if you gave a shit about future generations – was to put a tax on carbon dioxide. Not a huge one, and what you did with the money you got would have mattered (investing in renewables research, doing energy efficiency. Not rocket science).
We didn’t. And here we are.
What happened next?
Australia ratified the UNFCCC later that year, and created a meaningless “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” that was, um, none of those things. And then kept on as it had – building energy inefficient housing, building new coal-fired power stations etc etc.
On this day, 25 June, 1997, (25 years ago), the Clinton Administration was making life a little difficult for Prime Minister John Howard, who was sending emissaries around the world in an effort to find allies for his “Australia should get an opt out from this Kyoto thing” position.
According to Johnston and Stokes (1997)
“As late as June 1997, the US Ambassador to Australia, Ms Genta Hawkins Holmes, stated that the US would seek “binding, realistic and achievable” targets at Kyoto; she claimed that Australia should make greater use of renewable energy sources and improve its “relatively inefficient use of hydrocarbon energy.”
Johnston, W.R. and Stokes, G. 1997. Problems in Australian Foreign Policy: January- July 1997. Australian Journal of Politics and History, Vol.43(3), pp.293-300.
See also – “Shared Values Drive US-Australia Alliance”. The Australian, 12 June 1997:
“Ambassador Holmes Gives Elementary Warning on Warming”, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 June 1997.
Why this matters.
Australian federal governments have usually played a spoiling role in international negotiations (at the behest of powerful fossil fuel companies)
What happened next?
Australia, although diplomatically isolated, got a sweet sweet deal at Kyoto (via good luck and dummy spits).
And then refused to ratify. It was helped in this, enormously, by the selection of George W. Bush as President in 2000.
