On this day (ish) in 1971, “Ecology Action” was formed in Sydney. There had been a series of campaigns about specific patches of nature that were about to be bulldozed or mined etc, and well, people decided to get together to take action on Ecology.
________________________________________
Ecology body is formed
SYDNEY : Ecology Action has been formed recently here by people wanting to “take action to prevent irreversible destruction of life on earth.”
It is working closely with the Society for Social Responsibility in Science (SRS) and other conservationist and anti-pollution groups. Ecology Action is calling a meeting tonight (Wednesday June 16) at 7.30 pm, at the Stephen Roberts Theatre, Sydney University, to hear Dr. Stephen Boyden of the ANU speak and to discuss action proposed by Ecology Action. Ecology Action, with SRS and the National Trust is holding a meeting on June 28, at the Sydney Town Hall at 8 pm to discuss and protest the proposed Clutha development on NSW South Coast. Ecology Action’s address is Box K404, P.O., Haymarket, NSW, 2000.
Tribune, Wednesday 16 June 1971, page 12
Except, well, it was about a month earlier – see this from The Bulletin, near the other end of the political spectrum (Tribune was communist).
Why this matters.
We’ve been here before! Repeatedly. And see below…
What happened next?
Ecology Action lasted until about 1980. I’ve looked at the material in the National Library – newsletters and so on. Climate is not mentioned (and understandably so – still too abstract) but it seems there was the usual pattern of a few committed folks begging others to get involved… And then, well, it just fizzled out, I think. I don’t know for sure. That is NOT a criticism of those involved. I am sure they spent countless hours trying to slow down the apocalypse. And here we are.
On this day, 15 June 1994 the Canberra Times publishes a frankly embarrassing piece by IPA operative Andrew McIntyre in “No proof of global warming” (Canberra Times, June 15, p.17).
A rebuttal by Greenpeace was published on 20th and tireless climate scientist Neville Nicholls had two letters published on 26th and 29th.
But the time taken to rebut nonsense is time you don’t spend advancing a positive agenda. As the great thinker Toni Morrison said of racism, part of its power is in distraction and exhaustion…
“The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and you spend twenty years proving that you do. Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly so you have scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says you have no art, so you dredge that up. Somebody says you have no kingdoms, so you dredge that up. None of this is necessary. There will always be one more thing.
Why this matters The denial and delay and stupidity rolls on and on and on.
What happened next?
McIntyre had another one – ahead of carbon tax decision, 30 November 1994
The Canberra Times has been much better than this, both before and since. Solid newspaper.
On this day, 12 June, 1992 (thirty years ago), the Australian Environment Minister ruled out a carbon tax. Again.
To quote a newspaper account of what was going on at the Rio Earth Summit –
“Economic instruments could also be used to reduce greenhouse emissions. Mrs Kelly said she had had discussions yesterday with Canada’s environment minister on the issue.
Australia’s options were limited, however, because the Government had declared its opposition to a carbon tax. Asked why the Government opposed a carbon tax, Mrs Kelly said it believed such a tax could introduce real social distortions because of Australia’s big distances.
“And it would obviously disadvantage rural communities, and those who could not afford to pay higher (fuel) prices.
The Australian community is not yet ready for a carbon tax. Even the European Community has passed a motion stating that it would not introduce a carbon tax until the US did so.
“It’s a question of who starts the ball rolling, Mrs Kelly said. “We won’t.””
O’Neill, G. 1992. Kelly Wants Action Over CO2 Emissions. The Age, 13 June, p.15.
One of the things you would have done – one of the first, but not the last or the biggest – if you gave a shit about future generations – was to put a tax on carbon dioxide. Not a huge one, and what you did with the money you got would have mattered (investing in renewables research, doing energy efficiency. Not rocket science).
We didn’t. And here we are.
What happened next?
Australia ratified the UNFCCC later that year, and created a meaningless “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” that was, um, none of those things. And then kept on as it had – building energy inefficient housing, building new coal-fired power stations etc etc.
On this day, 25 June, 1997, (25 years ago), the Clinton Administration was making life a little difficult for Prime Minister John Howard, who was sending emissaries around the world in an effort to find allies for his “Australia should get an opt out from this Kyoto thing” position.
According to Johnston and Stokes (1997)
“As late as June 1997, the US Ambassador to Australia, Ms Genta Hawkins Holmes, stated that the US would seek “binding, realistic and achievable” targets at Kyoto; she claimed that Australia should make greater use of renewable energy sources and improve its “relatively inefficient use of hydrocarbon energy.”
Johnston, W.R. and Stokes, G. 1997. Problems in Australian Foreign Policy: January- July 1997. Australian Journal of Politics and History, Vol.43(3), pp.293-300.
See also – “Shared Values Drive US-Australia Alliance”. The Australian, 12 June 1997:
“Ambassador Holmes Gives Elementary Warning on Warming”, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 June 1997.
Why this matters.
Australian federal governments have usually played a spoiling role in international negotiations (at the behest of powerful fossil fuel companies)
What happened next?
Australia, although diplomatically isolated, got a sweet sweet deal at Kyoto (via good luck and dummy spits).
And then refused to ratify. It was helped in this, enormously, by the selection of George W. Bush as President in 2000.
On this day, June 8, 1973, the Australian Treasury released a report on economics and growth that even mentioned… climate change. Here’s a newspaper report first.
“The other difficulty in assessing resources policy is that the term first appeared in Australian Government circles last year from the Department of Foreign Affairs and was based on the assumption that resources were finite and therefore somebody should be thinking about the implications for the future and producing policies on development, use and sales.
“The Treasury Economic Paper No 2, ‘Economic Growth: Is it Worth Having?’, published today, pours a bucket of cold water on that ‘assumption, arguing that resources are not finite, that they are dynamic, growing in line with technology and demand. As an example it points out that back in the ’30s the iron ore at Pilbara was known, but it was not a resource because there was not the technology to mine it economically.
Davidson, G. 1973. Planning ahead for wise use of Australia’s resources. Canberra Times, 8 June, p.2. [Trove]
On this day, 7th June 1971, South Australian John Coulter appeared on the ABC discussion programme “the Monday Conference.”
“It all started in 1970, when Dr John Coulter, later a Senator and leader of the Australian Democrats, met with eminent gynaecologist Derek Llewellyn Jones to establish ZPG in Australia. Over the next six months they met with leading scientists to formulate a full page open letter in the Australian newspaper in 1971 entitled “To Those Who Shape Australia’s Destiny”. It urged the Australian Government to investigate not only the population that Australia could support over the long term but also the details of a balanced economic system, that is, a system in which economic productivity is balanced against the capacity of the environment to maintain itself.”
“As a consequence of this open letter, John and others were invited to a debate on population on the new and influential ABC TV program Monday Conference in 1971. This led to Paul Ehrlich being invited to appear on a later program. Paul’s appearance there and subsequent lectures around Australia had a tremendous impact.”
Here’s a couple of grabs of what Coulter said, 51 years ago.
and
Why this matters.
There was knowledge for those who wanted it. Our problem has not been, since then, one of information, but ability to “maintain the rage” at an individual and collective level.
(“Maintain the rage” is a mid-70s slogan, that only decrepit Australians would know)
What happened next?
We ignored the warnings, went back to sleep. Woke periodically, as the house burned to the ground. So it goes.
On this day, 5 June, 1993, Green Groups tried to keep the show on the road, despite the evident contempt of Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating for all matters green (because, well, what else can they do?)
Anon. 1993. Top Green Group plans March for the Future. Green Week, May 25, p.3.
The Australian Conservation Foundation public launch of Environment Week at Darling Harbour will feature a March for the Future through city streets on June 5, World Environment Day.
And 18 years later in 2011, on the same day of the year,, Green Groups try to keep the show on the road, because, well, what else can they do. Already sold down the river by one Labor Prime Minister, they try to get behind another minimalist technocratic approach (because, well, what else can they do?)
For more about this, see this news report, from which I grabbed the image above..
Why this matters.
We’re caught in some traps, that are not entirely “our fault,” but we don’t even recognise them as traps. We just see them as normal, inevitable, like a goldfish (is capable of) seeing water…
What happened next?
The people who had to Say Yes – MPs, said yes later in 2011. Then a new bunch of MPs said “No,” and the Emissions Trading Scheme was ended.
So, a slightly different take on “All Our Yesterdays” – I will look at three events that occurred on June 4, but, as per the title, across seven years. These nicely summarise the arc of concern, hedging to effective resistance to action.
First up – in the first flush of newfound concern about The Environment, a “get together” when such satellite link-ups were relatively rare (but by no means unheard of).
Anon, 1989. Environment focus of global TV show. Canberra Times, 4 June p. 3.
SYDNEY: Australians play a part in a television program on the environment to be seen live in almost 100 countries today. Our Common Future, based in New York, will bring celebrities and world leaders together to spearhead the push towards environmental awareness.
The New York Times was lukewarm at best –
The oddest, most incoherent global television broadcast since the 1989 Academy Awards took place on Saturday afternoon. ”Our Common Future,” a five-hour program relayed to about 100 countries, was intended to create awareness of environmental problems and to urge global cooperation. For five hours, broadcast live from Avery Fisher Hall with material from the Soviet Union, England, Australia, Poland, Norway and Brazil, the program mixed musical performances with pro-environmental statements, a format akin to Live Aid, with which it shared a producer (Hal Uplinger) and director (Tony Verna).
Unlike Live Aid, the program was not a benefit, and it was less a live concert than a staged event; the audience was largely an invited one, and many of the performances were on tape. It was also considerably lower in star power than Live Aid, with Sting, Stevie Wonder, Elton John, Diana Ross, Joni Mitchell, R.E.M. and Kenny Loggins as its best-known names – although an African tawny eagle stole the show when it flew from the stage to roost on the second balcony.
And three years later, after a global treaty was “negotiated”, we have this –
“Australian signs the UNFCCC Roz Kelly (Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories), Australia signs UNCED climate change convention, media release, 4 June 1992.
Australia’s new Prime Minister, Paul Keating couldn’t be arsed to go (almost all other world leaders attended). Meanwhile, the Liberal National Party were already throwing shade –
“The opposition’s delegate to UNCED in 1992, for example, had criticized the Labor Government’s willingness to give away Australia’s sovereign rights and had emphasized the debilitative economic costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions”.48
CPD, Senate, 4 June 1992, p. 3350.Matt McDonald, 2005 Fair Weather Friend
And, sure enough, once they were in charge again, this –
Australian industry has applauded the Federal Cabinet’s decision yesterday to oppose a targets and timetables approach to international climate change negotiations, made on the eve of World Environment Day today.
The Howard Government’s position effectively reaffirms that taken by the Keating government and its minister for the Environment, Senator John Faulkner.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, the Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, and the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Warwick Parer, said in a joint statement: “Australia will insist that the outcome of current international negotiations on climate change safeguards Australia’s particular economic and trade interests.”
Mr John Hannagan, chairman of the Australian Aluminium Council’s major policy group, said industry welcomed this statement, “reinforcing its no-regrets position as its negotiating stand at the forthcoming Geneva talks”.
Callick, R. 1996. Coalition backs industry on climate change. The Australian Financial Review, 5 June, p.2.
Why this matters.
These things follow a pattern – excited/exuberant “we can fix this,” (1989) then some sort of legislation (usually quite weak – 1992), then the pushback even from that…
What happened next?
We went through more waves of excitement, legislation, pushback. On a couple of occasions (2006-2009, 2018-2021). It is connected to what I call “the emotaycle.”
On this day, June 3 1989 the Australian Liberal Party’s environment spokesman told reporters about their ambitious environmental policies for the upcoming Federal election.
THE Federal Opposition is preparing a separate “climate policy” bringing together all issues relating to world climate change.
The document, compiled by a climate policy task force, is expected to be released within a fortnight after endorsement by shadow cabinet.
The Opposition Environment spokesman, Senator Chris Puplick, said yesterday: “The policy will take in the greenhouse effect, the ozone layer, industrial pollution, recycling, tree-planting and climate research.
“At the moment these issues are scattered over a number of policies and it’s an attempt to integrate them and find out where there might be any gaps. Obviously, it will also update things in the light of new standards being set and new technology being introduced.”
Senator Puplick criticised the proposal by the Federal Environment Minister, Senator Graham Richardson, for a referendum to increase the Commonwealth’s powers to override the States on environmental issues.
“I think it is just a bit of very silly kite-flying in the sense that firstly you would have enormous problems in actually drawing up a piece of legislation to amend the Constitution,” he said.
Jones, B. 1989. Libs endorse ‘Climate Policy’. Sun Herald, 4 June, p.5.
The context was that ozone hole/the greenhouse effect had exploded onto the scene the year before. The European elections – and the Tasmanian state elections – of May 1989 had made politicians think that votes were to be had in the green… It did not last very long, of course.
Why this matters.
We need to remember that there was a brief moment of “competitive consensus” way back at the beginning of the climate issue, but it did not last. The pressures pulling apart “right-wing” parties are still there – the need for votes, and the need also to protect continued capital accumulation in the same vein…
What happened next?
The incumbent Australian Labor Party squeaked home at the March 1990 Federal Election, thanks to small-g green voters (the Green Party did not exist yet) preferencing them over the Liberals, despite the Liberal Party’s more ambitious targets. Puplick’s career was toast, and the Liberals decided they had been stitched up by the Australian Conservation Foundation (the largest green group), leading to decades of suspicion and animosity.
(For an account, see Paul Kelly’s “The End of Certainty”)
See also (and thanks to the person who tweeted it! this I wrote for The Conversation.
On this day, May 30, 1990, Australian band “Midnight Oil” held an impromptu concert in New York, outside Exxon’s HQ. You can see the footage here
Exxon were villain du jour because of a certain carelessness the previous spring in Alaska.
We didn’t know then, but Exxon already had a solid ten years of climate knowledge under its belt – they knew that their product would wreck the planet, but why, erm, rock the boat?
You might also like this song, by “Max Q”
Why this matters.
Culturally, we can resist. Economically, persistently, strategically? Not so easy.
What happened next?
Midnight Oil kept burning. They stopped while Peter Garrett, lead singer tried to change the system from within. Have since resumed.
Exxon? Oh, Exxon kept up their boundless love and generosity for future generations by, you know, funding denialist outfits, getting IPCC chairs sacked – the usual.
