Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

August 11, 1999 – Australian Senate calls for a report on climate

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, August 11th, 1999,

On 11 August 1999 the Senate referred the following matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in August 2000 (which was later extended to 8 November 2000): (what became Nov 2000 “The Heat is On” report

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2026, 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 if you were paying attention, you could see that the domestic and international policies around climate change were heading in a bad direction. Although the Kyoto Protocol had been signed, and even by various nations, its actual ratification and passage into international law was looking shaky, and scientists were saying it wouldn’t be enough. By this time, you had Green senators and the Democrats in the Australian Senate whowere also on the case and they used the usual procedures to get a report to be written. Sometimes senate reports can be really consequential and influential, especially when an issue is new – for example, the 1968-69 Senate Standing Committee on Air Pollution and also the one on Water Pollution; they were influential. This one not so much, but what do you expect, it’s a crowded field by now.

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians do what politicians can within parliament. If you really want to see social change, it’s parliament yes, but it’s Parliament Plus, it’s all of the social movements and the civil society groups. But they can rarely get their game faces on for any length of time, and anyway, they’re up against incredibly powerful, clever, determined, well-resourced incumbency actors. And so it came to pass. 

What happened next it would be 2006 before climate change became “an issue” in Australian politics. Not that this helped particularly.

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 11, 2005 – Bob Brown in the Senate 

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut) 

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe” 

Categories
Australia

August 10, 2001 – Major Australian parties tell OECD, future generations to get fucked

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 10th, 2001,

CANBERRA, Aug 9 AAP – An OECD call for Australia to introduce environment taxes was today ruled out by the government and opposition despite support from rural backbenchers.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s latest report showed that Australia’s economy was faring well, and that a carbon tax would be a cost-effective way to benefit the environment.

“Setting up a trading scheme or a carbon tax of broad sectoral coverage is the most cost-effective way to achieve emissions reductions,” the OECD report said.

Environment Minister Robert Hill branded the call Eurocentric, saying the government was instead focused on building economic growth with a low-tax environment.

“We’re not going to impose another tax,” Senator Hill said.

The government wanted strong economic growth built on a low tax environment, low interest rates and low inflation, he said.

A business/environmental roundtable comprising the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Southcorp, Elders Ltd, ABN Amro, Berri Ltd and CSIRO today called for tax breaks to encourage investment in the environment.

McSweeny, L. 2001. Fed – Major parties reject OECD call for environment tax. Australian Associated Press, 10 August

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. As of 2026, 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 very briefly in 1988 to say 1990 professed to take a positive proactive position as a middle power on environmental issues, including climate. But that was never deep seated, and by 1991 the tune coming out of Canberra and state capitals was changing, because well, Who pays the piper calls the tune, and who pays the piper are the extractive industries.

The specific context was that in 1997 the Australian federal government had extorted a very generous deal at the climate conference in Kyoto. And it was looking like they would still not ratify it, and it was looking like they still wouldn’t have anything approaching an emissions trading scheme or any price on carbon dioxide. There had already been one cabinet proposal in 2000 defeated thanks to the machinations of South Australian Senator Nick Minchin. So the OECD had said, “look, you guys really need a carbon tax to incentivise energy efficiency and technological innovation and so forth” and both the major political parties turned around and said the OECD and future generations can get fucked. In essence that’s what they said, and they meant it, and they still mean it. 

What I think we can learn from this is that democracy only works if you have an educated population that is capable of forming its own groups, which cannot be co-opted, repressed, and exhausted by the state and the corporate sector. And in the absence of an educated populace that can do that, in the absence of a genuinely independent and inexhaustible civil society, you end up with “demonstration elections” and a more or less rapid descent into the maelstrom in the Edgar Allan Poe sense of it, but without the happy ending.

What happened next – Australia got a carbon tax – after astonishingly bloody political battles – for a year and a bit (2012-2013) until the next government that came along axed it.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends

August 10, 1978 – Ford Pinto deaths spark class action lawsuit 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2000 – States’ greenhouse gas failure 

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles… 

August 10, 2021- climate protest with burning pram… 

Categories
Australia

August 5, 1980 – carbon dioxide build-up discussed in the South Australian parliament

Forty six years ago, on this day, August 6th, 1980, a South Australian MP shows he knows.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 338ppm. As of 2026, 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 a large deposit of uranium had been discovered in South Australia, and there was debate about whether to start digging it up and exporting it. The Labor government of the day, under Don Dunstan, was somewhat split. The Liberal Party was all for it, and once they took power in 1979, they were banging on about the benefits of Roxby Downs economically, and so forth, and they were also using the argument that only nuclear power could deal with carbon dioxide build up, and that’s what you see here. 

What I think we can learn from this is that awareness of ecological problems is not the preserve of hippies, but ecological problems have various possible solutions, and some of those solutions are extremely technocratic. But we should also be careful about this word “technocratic” as a slur and a swear word, because you have to ask yourself, are vaccines technocratic? Is solar power technocratic? Then, of course, you can slap adjectives on in front of technocratic, but I’m not sure that really always helps so much, but I digress. 

What happened next. Roxby started exporting in 1987.

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens

August 5, 1997 – “Climate Change Policies in Australia” briefing 

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af 

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight 

Categories
Australia Denial

August 3, 2013- How commentators and the blogosphere treat climate sceptics

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 3rd, 2013,

Robyn Williams: Did you hear Tom Griffiths the historian on Late Night Live last Tuesday on those who deny climate change? As if it’s a matter of belief.

Tom Griffiths: Yes, isn’t that a very interesting way of undermining understanding of what is a scientific theory. Scientific theory is not a matter of negotiation, it’s not a matter of voting, it’s not a matter of belief. Dissent is only credible if it’s founded on testable evidence and has an alternative holistic theory. And I believe that the IPCC has probably made a mistake in using the word ‘consensus’, which we hear a lot, because consensus sounds like politics, not science. It evokes compromise and negotiation, it suggests somehow the majorities are instrumental and possibly temporary. And it seems to allow space for contrary or dissenting opinions without need for new evidence, that you can have a political stance or an emotional stance or a stance on belief. And sceptics and contrarians will often use those terms about belief, about dissent, about being an agnostic on this issue, as if it is a matter for personal belief.

Redfearn, G. 2013. How commentators and the blogosphere treat climate sceptics, 3 August. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/how-commentators-and-the-blogosphere-treat-climate-sceptics/4858714#transcript

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 397ppm. As of 2026, 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 denial had not gone away, and was continuing to be funded where necessary. But also we should never forget there are just people who have resolutely decided that 19th century physics must be some gigantic conspiracy, and that if a problem involves collective action via states, then it must automatically be a hoax. 

The specific context was that journalists and academics always like to have something to write articles about, because published articles is how you keep score, how you get grants, how you get professorships, how you get corner officers, and PhD students you can bully/steal from, and so forth. 

What I think we can learn from this: sceptics, like the poor, will always be with us

What happened next. Well, the bullshit just keeps on bullshitting, doesn’t it? And the academics keep on scribbling.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 3,1958 – under the pole goes the Nautilus 

August 3, 1970 – Nixon warned about climate change and icecaps melting 

August 3, 1988 – Exxon tries to downplay “the greenhouse effect.” Again. 

August 3, 2019 – another eco-fascist massacre 

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 1, 1992 – ACF reviews carbon tax studies

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 1st, 1992,

 (NB approximate date – sometime in August 1992, almost certainly not 1st August.)

1992 Peter Kinrade “Review of Recent Carbon Tax Studies” for Australian Conservation Foundation

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 “woken up” to climate change from the late 1980s onwards, and there had been proposals for a carbon tax. These were met with a flurry of so-called “independent” and “scientific” reports based on economic modelling that a carbon tax would destroy the Australian economy. These reports – as if by magic – found their way to the front pages of newspapers and then into the mouths of politicians and columnists. Gramsci would laugh.

The specific context was that a carbon tax had been defeated as a policy proposal during the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process. The Rio Earth Summit had happened, Australia had signed, and would inevitably ratify. Here we see the Australian Conservation Foundation, which had pushed for a carbon tax, analysing the recent studies and showing that they were basically bullshit. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the economic modelling by so-called independent think tanks and tame academics against progressive policy proposals are indeed usually bullshit. That’s not the point. They are a sophisticated form of propaganda and policing of possibilities, and you can analyse them after you’ve lost the battle, and that’s maybe good if it helps you understand the next battle. 

What happened next In 1994 the Australian Conservation Foundation succeeded in getting a proposal for a carbon tax back on the policy agenda, and when then defeated again, partly by economic modelling and partly by tactical innovations on the part of the opponents of carbon pricing. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 1, 1964 – Popular Mechanics says the air around us is changing 

August 1, 1976 – Oak Ridge report on “The Global Carbon Dioxide Problem” released 

August 1, 1980 – Wall Street Journal does excellent #climate reporting 

August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty. 

August 1, 2016 – Anti-wind idiots step on their own rake

Categories
Australia

July 27, 1976 – a South Australian Hudson speaks out on climate change!!

Fifty years ago, on this day, July 27, 1976, South Australian Labor minister Hugh Hudson (no relation) has this to say during a Parliamentary debate – 

“I have heard over the past few weeks environmental arguments against any form of providing energy. It is argued that, even if we use up our existing fossil fuel reserves, we are running serious environmental dangers through the excess emission of carbon dioxide, which may or may not increase the temperature of the earth. Of course, I believe it can be demonstrated that if the temperature of the earth rises by as much as one degree or two degrees, the ice caps will start to melt and cities such as Adelaide will turn out to be inappropriately located. It is important, in this energy debate, to recognise that we cannot discuss one form of energy in isolation.

Every form of energy creation has advantages and disadvantages, and a balance must be struck.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 332ppm. As of 2026, 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 a huge uranium deposit had been discovered in South Australia’s mid-north and there was a lot of debate about whether uranium should be exported or not (fears of proliferation, safety etc etc).

What I think we can learn from this – carbon dioxide build-up was being spoken of even in the provinces (Hudson was no relation, btw).

What happened next. In 1982 a Labor politician switched sides on the vote, the legislation to let Roxby Downs get established passed, and the Opposition leader (John Bannon) flagged that a Bannon administration would not try to turn the clock back… 

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 27, 1977 – Pro-nuclear professor cites #climate concerns at Adelaide speech 

July 27, 1979 – Thatcher’s Cabinet ponders burying climate report 

July 27, 1988 – The greenback effect 

July 27, 2001 – COP6-bis ends – the show is back on the road 

July 27, 2001 – Minerals Council of Australia versus the Kyoto Protocol 

Categories
Australia

July 26, 1988 –  Government officials start to feel the climate of change.

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, July  26, 1988,

CLIMATE

The greenhouse effect took priority when representatives of Australia’s Federal, State and Territory governments met yesterday at World Expo ’88 to discuss water resources.

Although the Australian Water Resources Council decided only to “maintain a watching brief”, the educative process among political and administrative leaders is nevertheless gathering pace.

The Queensland Premier, Mr Ahern, has now established a government departmental committee in an attempt to identify the issues of the global warm-up.

Massey, M. 1988. Government officials start to feel the climate of change.  Australian Financial Review,  July 27.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2026, 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 warnings (ignored) all through the 1970s and 1980s about what was coming. Finally, after the Villach meeting in 1985, the pressure had built until, in 1988 the issue began to break through.  There had been a drought in the US, James Hansen’s testimony and then the Changing Atmosphere conference in Toronto.

The specific context was the Australian government was being kept informed, thanks in part to the work of Barry Jones, Science Minister.

What I think we can learn from this – this was the very small window of ‘we will take positive action’ before, from 1990 or so, the shutters came down.

What happened next  The Liberal Party went to the 1990 Federal election with a more ambitious emissions target than Labor, but lost the election and blamed the big green organisations (especially the Australian Conservation Foundation) for ‘betraying’ them.  Climate change became part of the culture wars, and Labor then completely bollocksed it all up from 2007 to 2010. The well has been poisoned ever since, not that they give a rat’s arse, clearly.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 26, 1967 – Allen Ginsberg tells Gary Snyder it’s “a general lemming situation” 

July 26, 1977 – Australians warned about cities being flooded #CanberraTimes 

July 26, 1988, – Australian uranium sellers foresee boom times… 

July 26, 2006 – Costello versus wind farms 

July 26, 2008 – Reggae festival for climate protection in New York 

Categories
Australia

 July 26, 1956 –  Melbourne Age and climate change

Seventy years ago, on this day, July  11st, 1956,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 314ppm. As of 2026, 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 in May 1953, Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass, building on the work of Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar, had catalyzed the world (well, a few scientists) into wondering and working on the question of carbon dioxide build-up.

Roger Revelle was already a Big Fish by this time, and was in the process of getting serious money out of the US government for the International Geophysical Year.

The specific context was the Australians were an integral part of the IGY.  I suspect someone in the IGY press team planted this story with the journo, or gave him access.

What I think we can learn from this – by 1956, carbon dioxide stories were appearing in the Australian press

xxx

What happened next. The IGY happened from 1957 to the end of 1958. Huge amounts of data were gathered.

Through the 1960s and 1970s Revelle would return to the theme of carbon dioxide build-up, but as one of the ‘cautious’ commentators (too cautious, we now know).

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 26, 1967 – Allen Ginsberg tells Gary Snyder it’s “a general lemming situation” 

July 26, 1977 – Australians warned about cities being flooded #CanberraTimes 

July 26, 1988, – Australian uranium sellers foresee boom times… 

July 26, 2006 – Costello versus wind farms 

July 26, 2008 – Reggae festival for climate protection in New York 

Categories
Australia

July 25,  1933 – lecture in Melbourne –  “Carbon Dioxide Could Change World”.   

On this day, July 25, 1933, a Queensland newspaper reports that WJ Chamberlain has given a lecture to students in Melbourne about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 307ppm. As of 2026, 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 in the 19th century it had been established that carbonic acid/carbon dioxide acted as a greenhouse gas (by Eunice Foote – though nobody remembered this, and by John Tyndall). In the 1890s Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius had calculated that a doubling of CO2 would raise temperatures, but thought this would be fine – it would take thousands of years.

The specific context was that although Arrhenius’s calculations had been (wrongly) discounted, the idea was still there.

What I think we can learn from this – the story of carbon dioxide awareness is more complex than we think.  

What happened next – Chamberlain took to the airwaves the following month.  

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 24, 1977 – Climate change as red light? “No, but flashing yellow.” 

July 24, 1980 – “Global 2000” report released. 

July 24, 2001 – Running from the Storm? Nah, we’re slouching towards it 

July 24, 2011 – Rubbery numbers about Gillard’s carbon pricing proposal are disputed… 

Categories
Australia

July 25, 1969 – “Frontiers of Science” cartoon on carbon dioxide build-up… – 

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, July  25th, 1969, the Frontiers of Science people – not for the first time – tackled climate change from carbon dioxide build-up.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was xxxppm. As of 2026, 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 “Frontiers of Science” cartoon series had been running in Fairfax newspapers for a few years. In January 1965 there had been a remarkably good strip about carbon dioxide build-up.

The specific context was that by mid-1969 carbon dioxide build-up was being mentioned in articles about air pollution, global problems. It was not a state secret.

What I think we can learn from this – by the late 1960s, we knew to watch out. We then did NOT watch out.

What happened next  – in September 1969 carbon dioxide build-up was mentioned in a Senate Report on Air Pollution, by various scientific luminaries on ABC radio and at an Australian Conservation Foundation seminar in Melbourne. The issue had arrived.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1989 – “Mineral Fuel Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect” 

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

July 25, 2001 – Australian Environment Minister says the quiet part out loud about Kyoto 

July 25, 2008 – More economic “modelling” against an emissions trading scheme – All Our Yesterdays