With the benefit of hindsight, this closing sentences are amusing.
“The report said there was no cause for panic. But Mr Revelle said, “We have to be prepared to go to other sources than coal in about 50 years”.”
Why this matters.
The Canberra Times is one of the newspapers for the big decision makers in Australia. “We knew.” But the lurer of coal was too strong…
What happened next?
Four years later the Office of National Information (a spy/analyst outfit) wrote about the Greenhouse effect. Speedy, huh? Another four years or so and we got the Greenhouse Project, courtesy of Barry Jones’ “Commission for the Future.” But I am getting ahead of myself…
On this day, July 25, 1989, the Australian Minister for the Environment, Graham Richardson, gave a speech at the National Press Club. He admitted he had been blocked by Treasury in his bid to announce on a strong target for Australian emissions reductions.
“As the Minister for the Environment, Senator Richardson, yesterday [25 July 1989] talked tough to the States about using constitutional powers to override their decisions, he admitted he had been defeated by his Cabinet colleagues on a stronger federal environmental statement.
He confirmed that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, had been a prime mover in defeating his proposal that Australia aim to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 per cent by 2005….
His frank comments at the National Press Club were clearly aimed at shielding himself against criticism from the conservation movement and the public that he did not fight hard enough for the environment.
But they might also add to tensions between himself and Mr Keating.
Referring to a report by Michelle Grattan, The Age newspaper’s chief political correspondent, that he had been rolled, Senator Richardson said that she had not been aware that a meeting between “Paul Keating and myself was to take place the morning after the Cabinet meeting to settle the wording of the statement of this issue”.
In Senator Richardson’s view this had resulted in considerable improvement –
“None the less, my old cobber was right in suggesting I was rolled on the setting of a target for a reduction of greenhouse gases,” he said.
“I had asked Cabinet to agree to the target agreed upon by the Toronto Conference, i.e. 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2005.
“… When I put this target to our Cabinet, I came under close questioning by the economic ministers. I couldn’t sustain my argument with sufficient science.”
“I haven’t yet learnt how to lose gracefully so I was angry. I delved into the department’s records so that I could write to my Cabinet colleagues and demand a reconsideration. The cupboard, however was bare, and the letter was never written.”
Dunn, R. 1989. Cabinet reduces greenhouse target. Australian Financial Review, 26 July.
Why this matters.
So. Many. Missed. Opportunities.
What happened next?
Australia got a carefully hedged announcement about emissions reductions, so the next Federal Environment Minister could go to the Second World Climate Conference – which was the starting gun for the international negotiations for a treaty – with something in her hand.
On this day, July 21, 1991, a three-day international conference “Greenhouse Action for the Nineties”, co-hosted by UNEP, The Climate Institute (the US version) and the short-livedNGO “Greenhouse Action Australia” began in Melbourne. At the end of it, a declaration. It gives you a sense of the earnestness and the technological primitivism (by today’s standards) that this
“was approved at the final plenary… constructed by a consensus process, using computer projection of wordings drafted in workshops conducted throughout the conference.”
The declaration called on
Australian governments at all levels to accelerate the development of programmes to convert interim planning targets into action, with priority funding for implementation;
local government authorities to participate more actively in the global climate debate and develop sustainable cities and living areas;
industries to seize opportunities afforded in the development of new and environmentally sound technologies to meet the global climate challenge; and
individuals to take personal responsibility for life-style changes that would lead to climate stabilisation and ecological sustainability.
Specifically on energy, there was this –
The context is that, around the world – and especially in Australia (thanks to the ground-laying work of Barry Jones (Hawke’s Science Minister 1983-1990), the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO Atmospheric Research Division (Graeme Pearman, Barrie Pittock and others) – people were taking “the greenhouse effect” seriously. Greenhouse Action Australia was part of that –
People thought something could and would be done about the problem. They saw it was, unless dealt with, going to lead to horror. They started groups, they held conferences, they made declarations….
Looking back, it’s “obvious” that they underestimated
a) the difficulty of keeping an issue (and groups) “live” and vibrant.
b) the sheer ferocity and skill of the industry-led pushback and the way that it would lead to a “culture war.”
That wasn’t their fault, on the whole. The reason we are in this godawful mess is not the fault of the people who tried (though they could have tried harder, smarter – but you can always say that). The fault – and the indictments at the Hague – though we had best hurry on that score – lay elsewhere.
Why this matters.
We need to (try to) learn from past mistakes (but remember that Hegel jibe too).
What happened next
The “greenhouse effect” became old news (pushed out by the first Western military action against Iraq, and by the sense that an international treaty, signed in Rio in 1992, had ‘solved’ the problem.
But the industry figures knew it would come back, as an issue, and they made sure they were ready. By then, most of the groups that had sprung up – like Greenhouse Action Australia – had died, so the industry figures had a much easier time spreading their lies. And with the 1996 arrival of the Howard government, it got easier still. The rest is “history”…
A friend and supporter of this project has asked me to write about “carbon credits,” which are right now a ‘hot topic’ (sorry) in Australian climate politics.
What follows is not a comprehensive history, and only partly references posts that have already gone up (more are lurking in the near future). The second half is given over more to – well, why the big focus on ‘carbon credits’ – what is allowed and disallowed by that focus?
Comments very welcome, but not about the existence or severity of climate change – the time between now and the Actual Fricking Apocalypse (AFA) is short, and I don’t intend to waste even a minute of it on trolls, bots and poster-children for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Australia and economic instruments around climate change.
In 1973 (not 1971 as the Tweet says!) Treasury, responding to concerns about the “diseconomies” of economic growth, released a report.
On this day 8 June, 1971, the Australian Treasury released a report "Economic Growth: Is it Worth Having?" On page 11 and 12, it considers… “the greenhouse effect” and the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.https://t.co/8SiRbmAEVa 🧵 1/6 pic.twitter.com/8Q3Rbt3Doi
— All Our Yesterdays (@our_yesterdays) June 7, 2022
It basically wasn’t that bothered. And with hyper-inflation and all sorts of other economic mayhem, the Whitlam Government seems not to have paid attention.
So, let’s skip forward to the coming of the “Greenhouse Effect” in the late 80s – and we should always remember that thanks in part to Barry Jones (Hawke’s Science Minister) Australians were well-informed (Commission for the Future, Phillip Adams, The Greenhouse Project, Greenhouse 87, Greenhouse 88, Stephen Schneider, Barrie Pittock, Graeme Pearman etc).
In 1988, Barry Jones pointed out that a price on carbon dioxide was a reasonable economic measure. Other people were saying the same – this is uncontroversial – Pigou etc etc – you want to discourage something, you make it more expensive. “The market” then finds a way. So the story goes.
But in Australia, on climate, until 1995, the major focus was on a carbon tax rather than emissions trading. And it had advocates, beyond the Australian Conservation Foundation. And they pushed it within the “Environmentally Sustainable Development” process of 1990-91. And they lost. Or rather, the determined efforts of a growing “greenhouse mafia” (to shoot Guy Pearse’s useful formulation back before the existence of the AIGN) were successful in defeating a carbon tax. Ros Kelly, Hawke and then Keating’s Environment Minister, explicitly ruled out any price on carbon, both before and AT the Rio Earth Summit-
And was defeated, by an even more determined and sophisticated resistance.
And after this, for various reasons (mostly to do with what the Americans wanted/were willing to countenance) taxes fell away (Clinton, don’t forget, had been defeated on his BTU tax in 1994) and “emissions trading became the flavour of the month. You can see it in various Australian Treasury documents, in conferences, speeches etc.
The basic idea is you create a “market” and so its magic then… reduces emissions. Meanwhile, certifiers, bankers, lawyers all get rich.
There were two big efforts under Howard to get a national Emissions Trading Scheme going. Both were defeated – the 2000 one by Nick Minchin, the 2003 one by Howard himself. Check out Guy Pearse’s High and Dry for gory details, and also Marian Wilkinson’s The Carbon Club. And there is the work of Clive Hamilton too (esp Scorcher).
Advocates of emissions trading soldiered on. One key entrepreneur was Bob Carr (there are blog posts on this site about him coming up). At a time when all states had Labor governments, they were co-ordinating on a bottom-up emissions trading scheme. Howard was not happy.
Then, when climate change “took off” in the second half of 2006 in Australia, Kevin “I’m from Queensland, I’m here to help” Rudd latched onto climate as a wedge issue.
BUT he had to go carefully, not to scare Queensland voters.
some sort of carbon trading (he put Ross Garnaut in charge of that, while in opposition).
Howard tried to come back against this, saying he WOULD now introduce a carbon trading scheme if re-elected. But too little too late etc etc
What do we learn here? That carbon trading, carbon credits etc, are regarded as “common sense” (read Tony Gramsci on this!) as normal, reasonable and the best respectable position. Despite zero evidence that they would actually “work” at reducing emissions.
I don’t intend to go through the insane gory details of the period 2007 to 2012 (and onwards) – you have not bought me enough Cooper’s for that. But I will say this.
In early 2010, after Rudd’s “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” had failed twice, and while Rudd was being too spineless to call a double dissolution election on the “great moral challenge of our generation” the Greens proposed an interim solution, a … carbon tax. Labor ignored the proposal (hi Penny!).
So, let’s skip over the last 10 years of “carbon pricing.” Except this, from the Turnbull-Frydenberg era, may amuse…
By getting into carbon credits, you can give the appearance of wanting to do something/doing something, and getting everyone focussed on a very small/technical issue which few understand. Perfect! It makes it virtually impossible for civil society actors, with their pesky legitimacy and demands for morality and far-sightedness and courageous decisions, to be involved.
It means you don’t have to piss off those very rich people who are funding you.
That’s the political purpose/attractiveness of carbon credits, over and above any actual “efficiency”.
Two final things. What I am saying is not new, or profound. Check out
Compare it with a so-called “inefficient” tax. Which is easier to collect, offers far fewer opportunities for evasion, gaming, arbitrage, get-rich-quick-scamming. Funny how the complex stuff always wins out, eh?
What is to be done?
Oh, god, I have written about that so much. Try this.
On this day,July 20, 1989, Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke, keen to surf the “environmental wave “all the way to the 1990 Federal Election, gave a much-hyped environmental statement in Wentworth, New South Wales. His wife planted a tree (it died). More importantly, the “world’s most comprehensive environmental” statement was… utterly silent on “the greenhouse effect.” Oops.
The Federal Government yesterday left the way open for Australia to become a new centre for energy-efficient processing industries but refused to give a commitment to reducing greenhouse gases through specific targets.
This was a major point of interest for Australian industry and a source of anger for the conservation movement ….
Earlier in the week, it was reported that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, had “rolled” the Minister for the Environment, Senator Richardson, over a bid to commit Australia to target reductions in greenhouse gases. ‘[by Michelle Grattan, in The Age!]
It was reported that Senator Richardson wanted the environment statement to include that Australia would aim to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2005.
The Australian Conservation Foundation’s director, Mr Phillip Toyne, said: “The most crucial failing of the Commonwealth’s statement is in the area of global climatic change.”
“Instead of setting firm targets for reduction of greenhouse gases, the Commonwealth has adopted an expedient and self-interested approach which advocates that Australia may even need to increase (greenhouse gases) to accommodate growth of internationally competitive export industries.”
Dunn, R. 1989. Hawke environment statement leaves conservationists fuming.. Australian Financial Review, 21 July, p. 5.
So, on the back foot, Hawke had further fence-mending to do, and this alienated some of the anti-green Labor sorts (of which there were many).
,
Why this matters.
It’s all here – the grand-standing, the refusal to commit to cuts, the self-interested and delusional spin about increasing emissions to reduce emissions. Under Labor, and less than a year into the greenhouse issue.
What happened next?
Labor cultivated the “greenies”, dangling the prospect of an “Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process” were they to be returned to office. They were, by a very slender margin. THE ESD process happened, was trashed by the bureaucracy and is the source of some longing and regret by those who were involved.
“in a keynote speech to business leaders [to CEDA], the Prime Minister, John Howard called for ‘realism’ on renewables. He said, ‘Renewables will play an increasing role in Australia’s energy mix, but pragmatism, rationality and flexibility also call for realistic expectations about this role for the foreseeable future. The cost of delivering low-emission electricity from renewables remains very high, with difficulties surrounding baseload power demands.’”
(Prest, 2007: 254)
Ah yes, starve renewables of funding (MRET watered down, 2004 Energy White Paper) while throwing money at fossil fuels, make the business environment so toxic for wind power that Vestas pulls out) and then hold up your hands and then say “well, renewables can’t compete with fossil fuels” (which you’ve been busy subsidising and encouraging.
Genius. )
Why this matters.
This word “realism,” eh? It’s like the word “practical”.
According to an incredibly brave anti-Nazi German, who parachuted behind the German lines in 1944 to gather intelligence and then get captured by advancing Allied troops, this is what praktisch actually means
“… the word praktisch had been a two-syllable club he’d been beaten with by fellow students and teachers and businessmen and clergy all through the nightmare years. “Stop being such a god-damned idealist! Be practical!”“Practical means I know right from wrong but I’m too fucking scared to do what’s right so I commit crimes or permit crimes and I say I’m only being practical. Practical means coward. Practical frequently means stupid. Someone is too goddamn dumb to realize the consequences of what he’s doing and he hides under practical. It also means corrupt: I know what I ought to do but I’m being paid to do something different so I call it practical. Practical is an umbrella for everything lousy people do.”
(Quote from Brendan Phibbs amazing book The Other Side of Time: a Combat Surgeon in World War II Little Brown & Co, New York (1987)
On this day, July 16, 1992, an American scientist was invited to pour scorn on the carbon dioxide theory of climate change….
CANBERRA, July 16, Reuter – An American scientist said on Thursday that there was no firm evidence of global warming or that the phenomenon was caused by humans.
Fear of global warming was being manipulated by politicians, Professor Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told Australia’s National Press Club.
Reuters, 1992. US expert attacks global warming theories. Reuters News, 16 July.
Lindzen had been brought out by Brian Tucker, then the head of the CSIRO Atmospheric Research Division. Tucker had written a decent monograph for popular consumption about the “Carbon Dioxide Problem” in 1981, but was by this time jumping the shark, and after he retired would pen unhinged denialist tracts for the IPA (a particularly obnoxious Australian “think” tank).
Lindzen was not the only figure brought out in this period, by the way – the IPA and Tasman Institute were also importing “credible” Americans, in their battle against a carbon tax, and any environmental regulation.
Why this matters.
It’s that Toni Morrison line about racism as distraction, isn’t it?
What happened next?
Tucker jumped the shark. Australia didn’t get a carbon price until 2012, and then only very briefly (Thanks Tony, I bet you’re proud). Lindzen is still around, so libel laws constrain me… Here are some “third party characterisations” via Wikipedia –
A sequel (the body count is always higher, the deaths more elaborate) to a 2009 scientific conference, it came as the fractious public debate about an emissions trading scheme (dubbed, brilliantly, “the great big tax on everything” by the wrecking ball disguised as an Opposition Leader that was Tony Abbott) was coming to a head.
The conference was briefly marred by some Lndon La Rouche nutjobs who brandished a noose and called Hans Joachim Schellnhuber a “Nazi.” Yeah, you keep being you, guys.
“On July 12 ABC TV in Australia aired “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. This followed saturation promotion in days leading up to the broadcast, including items in various current affairs and news programs. They followed the broadcast with an interview with the film maker, and then a panel discussion of “experts”. It was one of their highest-rating programs for the year, but altogether it was an uninspiring two hours of television.” [source]
(There’s a nice account of David Karoly versus Ray Evans in Mark Davis’ Land of Plenty page 190)
In 1990 there had been a similar imported schlockumentary, called “The Greenhouse Conspiracy.” – we will come back to that later. The ABC had not shown it, despite the IPA’s best efforts. Instead it ended up on SBS.
Why this matters.
Pseudo controversy like this helps slow debate. That’s the point of it. There’s even a recent (April 2022) academic article that shows this effect –
The Swindle served its purpose – creating demoralisation, confusion and, well “fear uncertainty and doubt.” Bravo! Pity about the planet and all its creatures, but hey, what can you do?
On this day, 11 July 1996, at the second “Conference of the Parties”, the fossil fuel lobby started to get up front about being perfectly happy for future generations to fry.
GENEVA, July 11 (Reuter) – Heavy industry groups from around the world Thursday pressed a major campaign to stop moves to cut the amount of carbon dioxide, widely blamed for global warming, pumped into the atmosphere by rich countries.
The focus of the drive, which is getting its major impetus from U.S. energy producers but was strongly backed by an Australian grouping, are warnings that economic disaster would hit developed and developing countries alike if cuts were mandated. The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network — which includes coal, aluminum and gas industry associations — is also lobbying hard among delegates, who at the end of next week will be joined by ministers at the key stage of the conference.
The AIGN is distributing a study arguing that cuts in “greenhouse gas” emissions would bring a trade slump to all the countries of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Its stand is backed by the Australian government, whose delegation is opposing agreement on any uniform carbon reduction targets for the developed world alone — the main purpose of the gathering.
Evans, R. 1996. Energy industry fights to block cuts in coal, oil use. Reuters, 11 July.
Why this matters.
The Hague won’t be above water forever, and trials for crimes against humanity and the biosphere really ought to get going sooner rather than later….
What happened next?
Everybody knows the war is over, everybody knows the good guys lost.
The fossil fuels kept getting burnt, in increasing quantities. The burning of them left a residue in the atmosphere. This was not an accident.
