Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 13, 1995 – Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner runs up the white flag on a carbon tax.

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 13th, 1995

CANBERRA, Feb 14 (Reuter) – Australian Environment Minister John Faulkner said the government had decided not to go ahead with a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, known as an environment levy.

“I’ve indicated that it’s just not going to go forward,” Faulkner told 2GB Sydney radio. “As far as I’m concerned a greenhouse levy is off the agenda.”

Australia govt drops plans for carbon tax-minister. Reuters, 14 February 1995

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a fierce and ultimately successful resistance to the first serious proposal for a carbon tax in Australia. It was on this day that John Faulkner had to admit he just wouldn’t have the numbers to get it through Keating’s cabinet. Australia was already muttering about finding loopholes in the UNFCCC or exploiting them, of course, John Howard, who by this time, was Liberal leader would, shortly after this, say that Australia should never have signed the UNFCCC climate treaty. 

What I think we can learn from this is that 30 years ago, there was an effort to get a small, sensible economic measure going. It would have been grossly inadequate, but it would have been a start. 

What happened next is the proponents of the carbon tax switched to an emissions trading scheme proposal, hoping that would suit neoliberalism a bit better. And of course, that was also the prevailing wind from the United States in its attempt to water down any international action. And eventually, Australia did get a carbon price in 2012 and it was very quickly abolished. 

And the emissions rise, as do the concentrations.

Categories
Australia

February 10, 2006 – The Australian Conservation Foundation tries to get governments to take climate seriously…

Nineteen years ago, on this day, February 10th, 2006,

COAG meeting a chance for real progress on climate change

Date: 9-Feb-2006

The Australian Conservation Foundation has urged Commonwealth, State and Territory leaders to use tomorrow’s Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting in Canberra to craft a consistent, national approach to climate change.

“A global problem requires a global solution,” said ACF Executive Director Don Henry. “It’s vital we get Commonwealth, State and Territory leaders pulling in the same direction on this.”

“It’s good to see COAG talking about climate change. They can make some real progress on measures that will make a difference.”

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/13467/20120118-0823/www.acfonline.org.au/articles/newse312.html?news_id=712

[COAG Working group had been set up previous late may/early June, according to this – “ACF calls for national deep cuts target on greenhouse”-11-Jun-2005]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change still had not quite broken through in public awareness, not for want of trying by Australian Conservation Foundation and others, and what we see is ACS trying to work with the state governments, most of which at this point were labor and one. To use climate as a stick to beat John Howard with. And ACF, if it has an affinity, it is with Labor. They’re probably less so now, 

What I think we can learn from this is that policy entrepreneurs have to try and try and try and they will not get what they want.

What happened next

by the end of the year the ACF, sorry, the climate issue was on the agenda thanks to Millennium drought, Al Gore, Lord Stern, and this was exemplified by the huge walk against warming that year, September of thereabouts.

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

February 7, 1995 – Australian Treasurer claims UNFCCC treaty contains loopholes and get-out clauses

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 7th, 1995,

Treasurer Ralph Willis stated that the UNFCCC contained ‘let-out clauses’ and that the government might decide that a less ambitious target was appropriate Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 7

February 1995, 582 (Ralph Willis, Treasurer).

The Government also confirmed yesterday that it would be forced to renege on international targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the turn of the century.

The Treasurer, Mr Willis, told Parliament the Government would examine the “let-out clauses” of the United Nations agreement to stabilise greenhouse gas emission levels to 1990 levels by 2000.

“Those are not unimportant clauses (and) they have to be taken into account when considering whether we need absolutely to tie ourselves to achieving the (targets),” he said. “(But) we are concerned with ensuring that Australia does everything in its power to try to live up to its obligations to the convention.”

The backdown would be highly embarrassing for the Government in the lead-up to the International Convention on Climate Change in Berlin next month

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that very day, there was a round table about a carbon tax. Ralph Willison was in Parliament and was busy saying that there were get out clauses in the UNFCCC document that Australia would investigate and, if necessary, exploit so much for Australia as a middle power. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there is no bit of paper that anyone will sign that won’t be ignored if it becomes inconvenient to them.

What happened next

There was no carbon tax. There was finally a carbon price in 2012 that didn’t last very long. Tiny Abbott abolished it. The emissions kept climbing, and we’re absolutely doomed. 

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

February 6, 1969 – Senate Select Committee warned about CO2 build up by Professor Harry Bloom

The text below is from Royce Kurmelovs’ book Slick. You can read more about Bloom (and also the South Australian politician Richard Gun, who was the first parliamentarian to raise the question of C02 build-up, in early 1970), here.

Fifty six years ago, on this day, February 6th, 1969, Australian senators investigating air quality were warned about the carbon dioxide build-up problem by a Tasmanian chemistry professor, Harry Bloom..

But it was 6 February 1969, at a hearing in Hobart, when they heard from University of Tasmania professor Harry Bloom.

Prof Bloom was a man cursed with unique foresight. He would later carry out the first tests showing the Derwent River was contaminated by heavy metals but would largely be ignored until independent testing confirmed his assessment. It was an experience he would unfortunately be familiar with when he called attention to the catastrophic risk posed by climate change.

“Carbon dioxide build-up in the world has been calculated to be such as to be able to produce serious changes, not only in climatic conditions but also in health conditions all over the world in not too many years, say 50 to 100 years. I think the whole situation is one which needs very desperate and immediate action. I think we have to know what is at present in the atmosphere, and one ought to do something about it.”

Kurmelovs, R. (2024) Slick

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Senate Committee on Air Pollution had been agreed against the backdrop of growing concern about air quality in cities and awareness of issues both local and global.

What we can learn is that intelligent people and academics – the two are not always the same – were paying attention to the scientific literature and becoming informed about the carbon dioxide build up problem in the late 1960s, which is earlier than many think.

What happened next. In September ‘69 the air pollution report was released. It included significant mention of carbon dioxide as a problem. There was no serious legislative action – well that’s possibly a little unfair – there was on some things. And over the coming year or two departments of environment were set up, ministers appointed – you know, the usual stuff…

More about Bloom –

Source – https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/261606396

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: 

February 6, 1995 – Australian business versus a carbon tax

February 6, 2001: ExxonMobil Lobbyist Calls on White House to Remove Certain Government Climate Scientists

Categories
Australia Economics of mitigation

February 4, 1998 – Ombudsman on ABARE and its dodgy af #climate modelling

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, February 4th, 1998, greenies ‘win’ – an admission that a state-funded outfit shouldn’t have excluded them (which it did so it could push out economic modelling bullshit unfettered).

Ombudsman releases ABARE investigation report

Commonwealth Ombudsman Philippa Smith said the ACF complaint about ABARE raised important issues about how government agencies developed and consulted on public policy. 

In June 1997, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) complained to the Ombudsman because the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) refused to waive the $50,000 per annum fee required to join a steering committee it convened to provide a ‘sounding board’ and data and technical advice for its GIGABARE climate change model.

GIGABARE and MEGABARE are climate change economic models which analyse the economic effects of greenhouse gas emission policy.

Ms Smith said: ‘In my opinion ABARE’s climate change modelling is best characterised as a public good and relates to important public policy issues.

‘Any Steering Committee or consultative process with these responsibilities should strive for a balance of interests and technical skills rather than being a mechanism for fund raising.’

Ms Smith said the case also highlighted the importance of planning and protocols in the receipt, acknowledgment and use of external funding or sponsorship by agencies allowing outside involvement in developing important public policy issues.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics (ABARE) had been putting out bullshit numbers about the cost of climate mitigation thanks to its ridiculous MEGABARE economic model, the Australian Conservation Foundation had tried to get on the board overseeing mega bar without paying the 50k a bar had said no. ACF had complained to the ombudsman, and the report came out on this day. 

What I think we can learn from this is that economic modeling exists to make astrology look respectable, as per, John Kenneth Galbraith, these are just made up bullshit numbers, but once they are in an official report and then spouted by the minister or the Prime Minister, they take on a solidity that they do not deserve, and the people trying to stop anything from happening know this, which is why it’s one of their favorite techniques.

What happened next ABARE and other outfits kept peddling utter fucking Tosh, and the newspapers kept publicizing it because it was good, cheap, free copy.

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 Carbon Pricing

February 3, 1995 – Senator McMullan sows the CEDA of our doom..

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 3rd, 1995, a Labor Senator – and I hope you are sitting down when you read this – assures business-types that “the economy” [i.e. corporate profits] is a higher priority than reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

 In a largely unreported speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in Melbourne on Friday [3rd February 1995] , Senator McMullan said: “The levy will be dealt with on the basis of its appropriateness as a measure to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rather than on the amount of revenue it might raise.” “What we need to avoid is any situation where we unilaterally place a wide range of export and import-competing industries at a competitive disadvantage without actually contributing effectively to reducing global or domestic greenhouse emissions,” he added.

Gill, P. 1995. Official warns of small cut in gas with carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 7 February, p.3. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was an almighty battle going on within the Keating government about a carbon tax and the opponents of said tax were trying to ally shop and venue shop and water down and weaken as much as they could. This speech to an economics business think tank/talking shop called CEDA should be seen in that context.

What I think we can learn from this is that introducing a new order of things, as per Machiavelli, is extremely difficult, even if it’s urgent and important. Perhaps especially if it’s urgent and important. 

What happened next: The carbon tax was defeated. Emissions trading schemes were defeated. Finally, Julia Gillard in 2011 got one through. But oh my, what a shitshow. 

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: 

February 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
Activism Australia

January 31, 2009 – Climate Action Summit

Sixteen years ago, on this day, January 31st, 2009,

 From January 31 to February 3, 2009, over 150 community based climate action groups and more than 500 people came together in Canberra to talk, debate, strategise and take action on climate change at Australia’s Climate Action Summit. 

http://www.foe.org.au/australias-climate-action-summit

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from late 2006 onwards, there had been a great deal of awareness/alarm about climate change and its impacts in Australia and various actions in various places. By late 2008 it was obvious that the Rudd Government was doing a tremendous amount of backsliding and caving in to vested interests. 

And so the Climate Action Summit was held in a period where there was a fragile elite consensus that wasn’t really worth a bucket of warm spit, and citizens were trying to do it for themselves. 

What I think we can learn from this is that citizens can’t do it for themselves. They have to somehow create irresistible pressure on elected representatives, on states, on bureaucracies. But this is much easier said than actually done. 

What happened next

Climate change, oddly, continued to be an open sore, kind of permanently, but especially until the end of 2011 when Julia Gillard managed to get climate legislation through the parliament.

Various climate action summits and efforts at NVDA and efforts at public pressure have continued ever since, and here we are – fubarred. 

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: 

January 31, 1979 – Alvin Weinberg’s “nukes to fix climate change” speech reported

January 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

January 31, 1990 – Environmental Racism – then and now… Guest post by @SakshiAravind

Categories
Australia

 January 25, 2007 – John Howard proclaims himself as a “climate realist”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, January 25th, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard tries to explain away his late-2006 U-turn.

 “I regard myself as a climate change realist. That means looking at the evidence as it emerges and responding with policies that preserve Australia’s competitiveness and play to her strengths.” John Howard, Address to the National press Club, 25 January 2007

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a few months earlier John Howard had been forced to begin to pretend that he cared about the possibility of climate change from carbon dioxide build up. This was because of a whole sequence of events, including the ongoing Millennium drought, the release of Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and The Stern Review into the economics of climate change by Her Majesty’s Treasury. And so Howard had created the Shergold Group to look into the possibility of an emissions trading scheme. And this was, of course, stacked with the usual suspects and left out people who might have different, stronger opinions. But Howard wasn’t really convincing anyone. And so Howard was using words like “realism” in his  National Press Club speech. And anyone who knows or has been around for any length of time knows that “realism” and “realistic” are code words that people use trying to frame themselves as the “sensible center” and their opponents as either wild eyed fanatics or dreamers. 

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians will always try and do U-turns if cornered. Of course they will, but these may not work. 

What happened next  Howard became only the second Australian Prime Minister to lose his own seat at a Federal election. In November of 2007 the world got Kevin, “I’m from Queensland, and here to help” Rudd, who said he was going to sort out the climate issue. And he did as much on that as he did on the wheat to Iraq scandal and many others- that is to say, fuck all. 

The National Press Club has hosted all sorts of climate talks, of course, in its long and illustrious life. Here is an incomplete precis- https://marchudson.net/2017/01/29/turnbull-climate-and-the-national-press-club-auspol/

, 

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: 

January 25, 1994: UK government releases “Sustainable Development Strategy

January 25, 1995 – Australian electricity reforms mean more greenhouse gases…

January 25, 2013 – Lord Stern admits #climate “worse than I thought”

Categories
Australia

January 24, 1989 – Minister for Resources tell the truth – ““The greenhouse effect is an environmental issue of global dimensions…. It is not simply an energy issue.”

Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 24th, 1989, an Australian Federal Minister calls it like it is.

“Weather fluctuations and the greenhouse are topics of current real concern as media coverage demonstrates. For example, in The Australian of 24 January 1989, the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, was reported to have called for active co-operation among Asian countries in developing practical ways to minimize the threatening greenhouse effect. He said: “The greenhouse effect is an environmental issue of global dimensions…. It is not simply an energy issue. The challenge for energy policy makers is to assess the range of possibilities that would make an appropriate contribution to reducing the greenhouse effect.”

(Henderson-Sellers and Blong, 1989:3)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that since late 1988 Australian society had been talking up “the Greenhouse Effect”, thanks in large part to a Commission for the Future/CSIRO effort (Greenhouse 87 and Greenhouse 88).  The Hawke Government had been making the right noises too, while also, obviously, seeking to flog more coal overseas.

What I think we can learn from this is that governments are always a bunch of cats in a sack, with motivations pulling in all directions.

What happened next 

By early 1990 the fossil interests had decided this wasn’t a passing fad, and that they had better bring their A-game. Their A-game wasn’t all that good, but it was enough, in large part because Paul Keating became Prime Minister in December 1991.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 24, 1967 – Senior British scientist says “by no means can (C02) report be dismissed as science fiction”…

January 24, 1984 – Canadian TV documentary and discussion about #climate 

January 24, 2017 – Climate activist is court in the act

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 20, 1995 – ACF says a carbon tax would be really helpful

Thirty years ago, on this day, January 20th, 1995, ACFto get the ALP to be less crap.

The Federal Government should increase its spending on the environment by $3.3 billion in the May Budget to repair damage to the nation’s land, water and air, the Australian Conservation Foundation said yesterday. Government spending on the environment was paltry, the foundation’s 1995 Budget submission said. About $820 million was spent nationally last year, which amounted to 0.2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. A carbon tax would fund about one third of the foundation’s proposed $3.3 billion spending increase on energy efficiency, public transport, clean industry production and sustainable agriculture. The tax levied at $2.20 a tonne of carbon dioxide among fossil fuel suppliers would raise $850 million, the submission said. Other revenue-raising measures included the elimination of some diesel rebates, an agricultural water-use levy, increases to personal income taxes and wealth and capital gains taxes. Industry and farming groups are opposed to a carbon tax.

Milburn, C. 1995. ACF Calls For $3.3b On Environment. The Age, 21 January, p.7. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was ACF put out it’s all singing, all dancing “gee it would be great if we get a carbon tax” submission ahead of a couple of round tables to be held two weeks later, (the green performance at the pro-round table was not good, and this  would spell the death for the carbon tax. 

What we learn is that good ideas can very easily get shot down, and usually do, Thirty years, Thirty years. ACF did its best, but there wasn’t that engaged, enraged civil society willing to march into the policy spaces and bang on the table, because that never really happens. That’s not how our societies are currently built. 

That’s not inevitable. You can imagine a different way of governing ourselves, besides technocratic neoliberal capitalism. But we don’t have it at present, and we won’t, because as the disasters pile up, people will become more and more frustrated and disenchanted with messiness and complexity, and they will seek a Savior. And there are always narcissists out there willing to say that they will save the situation, if not the individuals. 

What happened next

Instead of a carbon tax there was a feeble voluntary “Greenhouse Challenge 21C”. And other laughable palaver. Once a carbon price finally came into existence, it was then quickly repealed.

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: 

January 20, 1992 – Gambling on climate… and losing #auspol

January 20, 2011 – Shell tries to change the subject from its own emissions   

January 20, 2014 – Gummer sledges “green extremists”