Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

November 16, 2009 – who is going to PAY for CCS? Well, you, obvs.

Sixteen years ago, on this day, November 16th, 2009,

A recently-released report by the World Coal Institute (WCI) on how to finance the experimental Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology for power stations, reminded me of a cartoon from years ago by the Australian cartoonist, Patrick Cook. In the cartoon, a huge bloated budgie (parakeet) with the letters “BHP” emblazoned on its chest, was holding a gun to its own head while proclaiming to a cowering politician, “Hand over the loot or the budgie gets it.” (At the time, BHP — which owned iron ore mines and steel mills — was haggling for government support for its ailing steel operations).

Burton. B. 2009. The Coal Industry Wants Your Cash to Save Them. PR Watch, 16 November.

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2009/11/8696/coal-industry-wants-your-cash-save-them

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there had been a brief flurry of interest in CCS in 1989-1990, but then people had realised how much it would cost and moved on to other schemes.  By 2000 the bandwagon was rolling again, not quickly, but rolling. 

The specific context was 2009 is kind of peak-CCS, because the Global Financial Crisis then wrecked the EU’s proposed funding model for it.

What I think we can learn from this – the rich are not going to dip into their own pockets. They’re gonna use the state to do the R&D…

What happened next – CCS fell in a heap. Has since been propped up, a bit like “Weekend at Bernie’s”, frankly.

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: 

November 16, 1982 – development aid and the greenhouse effect… – All Our Yesterdays

November 16, 1994 – Industry lobbyists trot out “sky will fall” argument against emissions cuts. Again. Of course. As ever.

November 16, 1995 – another skirmish in the IPCC war

November 16, 2021 – Chancellor cuddles up to oil bosses, of course.

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

November 14, 1997 – Aussies want WTO to scupper UNFCCC

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, November 14th, 1997,

The Federal Government is growing concerned about the threat of trade sanctions against Australia should it refuse to sign the global deal aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions at the world conference on climate change in Kyoto next month.

According to a confidential Australian Government briefing paper in the hands of The Australian Financial Review, the Government is seeking to have the World Trade Organisation treaty override any agreement reached by nations signing the United Nations’ Climate Change Convention that aims to significantly curb CO emissions, which many believe cause global warming.

“Australia’s proposed language also sends a message to parties that efforts to include trade measures against parties as possible penalties for non-compliance would be subject to strict disciplines,” the briefing paper says.

More specifically, the paper proposes that the Kyoto agreement should “not derogate from the rights and obligations of parties under existing international agreements and, in particular, shall not derogate from the provisions of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation or affect the rights and obligations of members of the WTO”.

An official has commented in handwriting beside Australia’s proposed text: “This is the most powerful safeguard we can devise to preclude or make it very difficult for parties to use the protocol to invoke trade sanctions on non-parties or non-complying parties who might very well be energy exporters [and] exporters of energy-intensive products.”

While the official Australian position is that it wants to play a leading role in the deliberations over the climate change convention, the briefing paper is a further sign that Australia is preparing the ground for opting out of the Kyoto agreement.

McCathie, A. 1997. Australia heating up over trade threat. The Australian Financial Review, November 14, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia had been a foot-dragger or worse on climate negotiations for several years now.

The specific context was Prime Minister John Howard was trying to get other nations to agree Australia was exceptional and should not be under the cosh for emissions reductions at the upcoming Kyoto conference.

Here he was clearly thinking about plan-B, in case things went wrong at Kyoto.

What I think we can learn from this – everyone “venue shops”.

What happened next – Australia got its sweet sweet deal at Kyoto. Still refused to ratify.  Meanwhile, the WTO became instrumental in climate policy in an unusual way –  In 2004 Russia agreed to ratify Kyoto in (tacit) exchange for membership of the WTO.

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: 

 November 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

November 14, 2005 – Downing St blocked with coal – All Our Yesterdays

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

November 13, 2000- Kyoto “would hardly make any difference.“

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 13th, 2000,

According to Graeme Pearman, Australia’s senior climate scientist and head of its greenhouse research effort, not much. On ABC `7.30 Report’ last night (13th) he concluded –

Dr Graeme Pearman: “The reality of the protocol as it is at the moment, is even if all of the nations were able to achieve those targets, it would hardly make any difference.”  

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the UN negotiating process around climate was, as had been predicted, a total clusterfuck. Targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries had been kept out of the initial treaty by the US threatening to boycott the Earth Summit.

Graeme Pearman, by this stage, had been studying C02 build-up for almost 30 years, and had advised Keating’s cabinet (in 1994).  

The specific context was Australia had extorted an astonishingly generous deal, and had signed, but was still not moving to ratify, and it was pretty obvious (see leak from September 1998) that it would only do so if the US ratified.

What I think we can learn from this – international climate “policy” is basically make-believe, kayfabe.

What happened next – Australia finally ratified Kyoto, under Kevin Rudd, who then refused to set ambitious targets for further action.

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: 

November 13, 1963 – Ritchie Calder warns of trouble ahead because of carbon dioxide…

November 13, 1975 – climate testimony to House of Reps committee

November 13, 1995 – no Aussie savings of greenhouse gases so far – All Our Yesterdays

November 13, 2008 – Coal industry tries to get some ‘love’

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

November 9, 1994 – interdepartmental bunfight in Australia

Thirty one years ago, on this day, November 9th, 1994,

A DOCUMENT leaked from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has revealed the department’s strongly critical view of business and farm lobby concerns over international environment treaties now being negotiated by the Government.

The document, a minute written by First Assistant Secretary, Mr W.N. Fisher, to the department head, Mr Michael Costello, reveals a DFAT institutional view that is highly critical and dismissive of business and farm lobbies.

The minute will gravely embarrass the Federal Government, which has undertaken to improve consultation with business and farm groups over treaty negotiations. The minute reveals DFAT’s conviction that consultations are a waste of time because, ultimately, the Government knows what is best for business.

In it, he calls DFAT contacts with business “despairing” and “pretty appalling”. He says Mt Isa Mines Ltd salesmen are “incompetently briefed” by the company on a climate change convention now being negotiated.

“You would think that MIM, with a multi-million dollar export contract at stake, would at least have the wit to brief its salesmen on the contents of the framework convention so that if they have to confront these arguments they would know what they are talking about.”

“Too much to hope for, apparently. MIM salesmen must be a pushover for the Germans and the Japanese to deal with,” the minute says.

Barker, G. 1994. Govt leak scorns business lobby. The Australian Financial Review, 9 November.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there had already been fierce fights within the federal policymaking machinery about climate change.  Problem was, the bad guys were winning.

See this great piece by Royce Kurmelovs on ABARE…

The specific context was – the first COP was coming up (Berlin, March-April 1995) and Australia wanted to get its position straight. Meanwhile, there was a fierce campaign for (and a fiercer campaign against) a carbon tax.

What I think we can learn from this – states are not monoliths. There are all sorts of fights going on about turf, but also direction of travel. And industry has its meatpuppets within the official bureaucracy, as well as lots of zombie think tanks etc.

What happened next – the Department of Climate Criminality and Assholeness continued to win all the important fights.

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: 

November 9, 1988 – Tolba gives “Warming Warning” speech at first IPCC meeting

November 9, 1991 – Australian TV station SBS shows demented ‘”Greenhouse Conspiracy” ‘documentary’

November 9, 1992 – Ark sails on, Downunder – All Our Yesterdays

November 9, 2000 – Tyndall Centre launched

November 9, 2009 – Senior Liberal says CCS won’t work – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

November 8, 1989 – somebody suggests the polluters pay….

Thirty six years ago, on this day, November 8th, 1989,

SYDNEY: The Federal Government should consider introducing a “polluter-pays” tax on companies which add to the greenhouse effect, the Minister for Science, Barry Jones, said yesterday.

Anon. 1989. Polluter-pays’ taxation suggested by minister. Canberra Times, November 9, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was the idea of pollution taxes had been around in the early 1970s, including in Australia. Barry Jones, who is pretty smart, will have known all about that. I mean, it’s not a controversial position, is it?

The specific context was – thanks to Barry Jones’ “Commission for the Future”, working with the CSIRO on “The Greenhouse Project” in 1987, Australians were pretty well-informed about the problems that they would face.  By late 1988 the issue was hot hot hot.

What I think we can learn from this – putting a price on something “bad” to discourage it is not controversial sometimes. Other times, it is made controversial.

What happened next – There were ferocious campaigns against any form of carbon pricing (tax or emissions trading scheme) that ebbed and flowed. Finally, albeit briefly, a carbon price was in place from 2012, but was then abolished in 2013-4.

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: 

November 8, 1989 – ALP Minister says environmentalism a “middle-class fad” – “greenies” respond…

 November 8, 1989 – Thatcher gives climate speech to UN General Assembly – All Our Yesterdays

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Categories
Australia

November 8, 2011 – Australian polluters are going to have to pay (briefly)

Fourteen years ago, on this day, November 8th, 2011,

The Clean Energy Package (CEP) passed the Senate on 8 November 2011 with the support of the Greens and a vote of 36:32, becoming law on 1 July 2012.57

(Crowley, 2013: 377)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was – as per November 8, 1989 – the general principle of a price on carbon had been around for over two decades.

The specific context was – Julia Gillard was only Prime Minister because after the 2010 election she had managed to cut deals with enough independent MPs (and a Green) for a minority government. Those independents and the Green insisted that she legislate a carbon price. There followed an extraordinarily intense campaign of fear-mongering and character assassination, but eventually Gillard got the legislation through.

What I think we can learn from this – Australia is a quarry with a state attached. It’s a settler colony riven with white supremacism, petro-masculinity and anti-reflexivity. There is resistance to this, of course.

What happened next – the carbon price was abolished in 2014.  Since then climate and energy policy has been a festering sore.

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: 

November 8, 1989 – ALP Minister says environmentalism a “middle-class fad” – “greenies” respond…

 November 8, 1989 – Thatcher gives climate speech to UN General Assembly – All Our Yesterdays

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Categories
Activism Australia Kyoto Protocol

November 7, 2001 – Australian Conservation Foundation bluffs in support of Kyoto ratification

Twenty four years ago, on this day, November 7th, 2001, ACF tries to say the rest of the world is raring to go…

“What is clear is that the rest of the world is not waiting around for the US and is getting on with the changes to their economies that are necessary to cut greenhouse pollution. Unless Australia ratifies we will not be able to benefit from international markets emerging in environmental technologies and greenhouse pollution reduction. Australia must get on with the job and join other nations committing to ratify the protocol.”

Australian Conservation Foundation, Media Release, Australia loses out as world moves closer to Kyoto, 7 November 2001.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia had been asshole-ish on climate from 1991 to 1995, but that ramped up once the Liberal National Party government of John Howard came along in March 1996.  They’d managed to extort a fantastically generous deal at the third COP, in Kyoto, in December of 1997, which meant Australia could increase its emissions.  But still Howard was refusing to ratify. 

The specific context was that in March 2001 President George W Bush, gifted the presidency by his dad’s Supreme Court picks, had pulled the US out of Kyoto, despite having said on the campaign trail the previous year that C02 from power plants would need regulating.

What I think we can learn from this – Conservation/Environment groups are forced to use the language of economic growth and “more technology” in order to seem responsible and have any chance to exert even the tiniest of pressures.

What happened next – it would be 2007 before Australia ratified Kyoto, under Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

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 and further reading

The Veil of Kyoto

Also on this day: 

November 7, 1973 – Energy security avant la Ukraine: Nixon announces “Project Independence”

 November 7, 1997 – Australian governments bang heads in pre-Kyoto bash 

November 7, 2000 – Australian “The Heat is on” report released

November 7, 2022 – journalist covering JSO protest arrested

Categories
Activism Australia Coal

November 3, 2007 – Second Rising Tide Australia boat blockade

Eighteen years ago, on this day, November 3rd, 2007, there was a  second “Rising Tide Australia” boat blockade of Newcastle Port,

On June 5, 2006, in a Rising Tide Australia action, 70 people used small boats to blockade the port of Newcastle, Australia, which exports 80 million tons of coal each year. The protest aimed to call attention to a planned expansion that would allow the port to export twice that amount.[1] The action was repeated by 100 people on Nov. 3, 2007: at this second action, participants attempted to block ships from entering the port for four hours, but police boats managed to escort three ships into the port. At one point, a police jetski rammed one woman’s kayak, resulting in her hospitalization.[2][3]

Protestors block coal ships in Newcastle

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Citizen_action_and_protests_against_coal_in_Australia#June_5.2C_2006.2C_and_Nov._3.2C_2007:_Rising_Tide_boat_blockades_of_Newcastle_port

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that climate change had exploded onto the Australian political scene in September 2006.

The specific context was Rising Tide folks were willing to put their bodies on the line.

What I think we can learn from this – we have known for a long long time what is necessary (but see also Marshall Berman’s great essay about trying to levitate the Pentagon and the sixties…).

“I felt then, and I still believe today, that this was one of the great moments of the ’60s, a moment of communal self-awareness and courage and initiative and growth. But it was a moment of collective failure and pathetic inadequacy as well. Our ritual, in order to strengthen us for the struggle, assured us that we possessed the power to overcome the destructive forces we faced—that we could be, to use another phrase of Mailer’s, “revolutionary alchemists.” And yet, alas, the more seriously we took our confrontation with these demonic powers, the more futile and hollow we were bound to feel—for we knew, after all, that our magic could not work. Even as we closed in on the Pentagon, we knew that computers were being programmed and orders given inside, and bombs were being dropped a half a world away, and people were being killed, and we had no power to stop it. For an hour or so, thousands of us played running games with soldiers and police, trying to outflank them or break through their lines, to make it up the stairs to the building’s front door. (Many succeeded—they would get beaten up savagely later that night—but many more failed, including me: I got teargassed, along with a few hundred other people, and we all tumbled and got pushed down a hill.) Soon it was cold and dark, and the Pentagon became an enormous solid implacable malevolent mass slumbering above and around us, and we stopped running and threw draft cards into piles, and lit them to start small bonfires. And gathered around, still shaky and oddly stoned from the gas, and tried to come to terms with what we had done. We had faced up to some of the black terrors of the night, and called them by their real name; and our deed, like our campfire, had brought us a little light and warmth; but it had done nothing to bring the dawn.”

What happened next – the blockades have continued. So have the exports. So has the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

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: 

November 3, 1916 -measurement of ice flow shows climate change 

November 3, 1990 – money for independent climate scientists? Yeah, nah

November 3, 1990 – more smears about the IPCC, in the Financial Times 

November 3, 2000 – Australian denialists get American scientist to testify about Kyoto Protocol, smear IPCC

Categories
Australia

November 3, 1988 – priorities revealed via adverts

Thirty-seven years ago, on this day, November 3rd, 1988 –

The Melbourne Age, at bottom of page 20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was climate change (then called “the Greenhouse Effect”) was on the cusp of blowing up as a public policy issue in Australia, thanks to both international events (the Villach meeting and its aftermath, James Hansen’s testimony in 1988) and local factors and efforts (especially the CSIRO/Commission for the Future “Greenhouse Project”).

The specific context was that the big public meetings, linked by satellite (then novel) were to be held very soon.

What I think we can learn from this – the juxtaposition of climate and car adverts? It continues. We can be an asshole species.

What happened next – the meetings were held. The promises were made. The cars kept being sold, bigger and bigger, more and more. The emissions climbed.

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: 

SEE October 27, 1988 – Guardian self-censorship story.

November 3, 1916 -measurement of ice flow shows climate change 

November 3, 1990 – money for independent climate scientists? Yeah, nah

November 3, 1990 – more smears about the IPCC, in the Financial Times 

November 3, 2000 – Australian denialists get American scientist to testify about Kyoto Protocol, smear IPCC

Categories
Australia

November 2, 2006 – throwing shade at the Great Barrier Reef

Nineteen years ago, on this day, November 2nd, 2006,

Federal Tourism Minister Fran Bailey says using “shade cloth” over parts of the Great Barrier Reef off Queensland could protect it from the harmful effects of global warming.

Earlier this week, Britain’s Stern report said climate change could cause a global economic downturn and bleach the reef.

Ms Bailey says the shade cloth idea came from a scientist who found that coral in natural shade was healthier than that in direct sunlight.

“One part of the reef the coral had vibrant colours and another part of the reef the colours weren’t as vibrant, and he was trying to find the scientific reason for this,” she said.

“And [he] discovered upon coming up to the surface, that that part of the reef that had vibrant colours was actually being given natural shade.”

One of the suggestions is to attach the shade cloth to pontoons, which is an idea Ms Bailey says is worth considering if it will help protect the reef.

“We’re very concerned because this is a $5.8 billion tourist industry on the reef, employing 33,000 people,” she said.

“So obviously we’re tackling this problem from both ends – the cause of the problem and also trying to find practical ways to mitigate the problem.”

November 2, 2006 Fran Bailey shade cloth and Great Barrier Reef

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-11-03/minister-suggests-shade-cloth-to-protect-great/1300248

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the Howard government had, from 1996, done everything it could to slow domestic and international action on climate change.

The specific context was that in September 1996 the climate issue had broken through into public consciousness in Australia, and questions were being asked.  Also, as per the article, the Stern Review had been published.

What I think we can learn from this – hairless murder apes have murdered the biosphere. 

What happened next – the Reef keeps bleaching.  And bleaching.  Oh Gaia, what have we done?

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: 

November 2, 1957 – “Our Coal Fires are melting the poles” Birmingham Post 

November 2, 1972 – “Eco-pornography … Advertising owns Ecology”…

November 2, 1994 – Greenpeace vs climate risk for corporates… 

November 2, 2006 – “RIP C02” says New Scientist

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock