Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Business Responses United States of America

June 11, 2003 – US and Australian think tanks conspire vs (pluralist) democracy 

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 11, 2003, AEI + IPA vs, well, life on earth.

On June 11, 2003, AEI and an Australian think tank, Institute for Public Affairs (IPA), cosponsored a conference titled “Non-governmental Organizations: The Growing Power of an Unelected Few,” held at the AEI offices in Washington, D.C. The conference laid the ground for the launch of “NGO Watch” – a website and political campaign cosponsored by AEI and The Federalist Society.

(Hardistry and Furdon 2004)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Public Affairs were both long-lived think tanks which had been captured by the neoliberals in the 70s and 80s. And were now launching a full frontal assault on civil society and NGOs. In order to get the ignorant rabble in line. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a never-ending war for public perception and the power struggle to make sure that the state is insulated from popular pressure and can be a trough for favoured industries and research and development, and also function to continue to batter the proles until they submit.

And the “DDT is good for you” myth never goes away. 

What happened next

As you’d have predicted, the IPA then set about trying to attack and smother civil society organisations in the United in Australia. It set up a fake environmental group in 2005 in order to try to confuse people, because that’s who these scum buckets are.

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

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury forced to acknowledge carbon dioxide…

Fifty years ago, on this day, June 8, 1973, the Australian Treasury, in a paper about the environment, even mentioned climate change.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was this – Australia and the climate issue – it goes back to 1969, MacFarlane Burnett, Nugget Coombs and so forth. By 1970 the issue was popping up in newspapers and in books. Coombs was looking at Steady state economy.

What I think we can learn from this. 

The. Problem. Is. Not. Information. The. Problem. Is. Power.

What happened next

Treasury kept pretty schtum, as best I can tell. By the late 1980s they were muttering about potential carbon pricing. This morphed into emissions trading in the mid-late 1990s. And we all know how THAT ended…

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 Kyoto Protocol

June 5, 2002 – John Howard says Australia won’t ratify Kyoto Protocol

Twenty one years ago, on this day, June 5, 2002, climate thug (among other kinds of thug) John Howard told parliament he would not be submitting the Kyoto Protocol for ratification

‘It is not in Australia’s interests to ratify. The protocol would cost us jobs and damage our industry.’

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Howard had long been hostile to environmental and especially global warming issues. Since taking office, he had expended a lot of diplomatic energy and capital in 1997 to carve out an absurdly generous deal for Australia. It had already been leaked in September 1988, that the Cabinet had agreed not to ratify Kyoto, unless the United States did. So Howard’s announcement came as no surprise to anyone. But it was a colourful insouciant arrogant kick in the teeth to do it on World Environment Day, the kind of thing that makes Howard the turd that he is. 

What I think we can learn from this is that these sorts of announcements are timed, in part, to throw red meat to supporters, but also to demoralise those who are pushing for stronger action. Because if you can demoralise them if they don’t turn up to the next battle, it’s easier for you to win. And hopefully you can set up a virtuous circle where they are forced from the field. That’s the theory. And often it works – but on climate, there’s always new people waking up and getting frantically concerned because well, the issue is frantically concerning (although most of them burn out quick, and retreat to lick their wounds, because there aren’t the groups that can help them sustain themselves).

What happened next

Howard continued to cause mayhem and irreparable damage.

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

Veil of Kyoto rather good on “gesture politics”

Haworth and Foxall, 2010. The Veil of Kyoto and the politics of greenhouse gas mitigation in Australia. Political Geography Volume 29, Issue 3, March 2010, Pages 167-176.
Categories
Australia

June 5, 1990 – The Australian Capital Territory adopts the “Toronto Target”

 Thirty two years ago, on this day, June 5, 1990, the ACT government said yes to a 20 per cent cut in emissions by 2005…

“The target was part of the ACT Strategy to respond to the Greenhouse Effect launched by the ACT Chief Minister, Trevor Kaine, on June 5.

Mr Kaine said yesterday that the Commonwealth had been “dragging their feet a little” on the issue. “But it’s important that they’ve now done it and the issue, now that they’ve made the decision and set the targets, is: are they in fact going to put it into effect,” Mr Kaine said. The Federal Government would be watched closely to ensure that it did not attempt to withdraw from the decision, he said.”

Lamberton, 1990,13 October Canberra Times

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1988, the “Toronto target” had been proposed at a conference called “The Changing Climate.” It was for a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2005. The ACT has no industry, just lots of hot air from federal politicians. 

What I think we can learn from this

So a critic could say that it’s relatively straightforward to make cuts, if you don’t have coal-fired power plants with all factories within your borders, because you simply do efficiency gains, insulation, etc. And that’s true. But what else is a service economy supposed to do? Say “Oh, nothing to do with us.” And then you can call them hypocrites if they don’t do anything. So the ACT government pursued this. I think they were successful.

The fact that various state governments and territory governments said yes to the Toronto target, put additional pressure on the federal government, which is another reason why you would do one of these things. The problem was not the targets. The problem is whether you’re going to take action to make it happen.

What happened next

ACT is aiming for net zero by 2045

https://yoursayconversations.act.gov.au/zero-emissions

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

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 4, 1998, NSW premier Bob Carr puts pen to paper. As per Hansard –

“It is amazing how up to the mark the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is. This very day, Thursday, 4 June, the New South Wales Premier, the Hon. Bob Carr, signed the first carbon credit trade in Australia as part of an innovative program tackling greenhouse gas emissions and creating new jobs in New South Wales. Today the international finance company Bankers Trust and resource consultants Margules Groome Poyry certified the trade. This is the first time in Australia that major players in the finance and resource sectors have backed a carbon sink plantation in Australia.”

http://23.101.218.132/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC19980604025

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bob Carr as New South Wales Prime Minister premier was wanting to put New South Wales on the map for carbon trading. Global carbon trading looked like it was going to be a “thing”, and NSW has a lot of trees… Carr had been aware of the problem of climate change since 1971, because he saw Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich on an Australian TV show. 

What I think we can learn from this

Within the system, we have smart people who are willing to see the system as basically reformable and tweakable. Will with luck and skill gain promotion. And they will try to implement various (neoliberal market based) wheezes. Sometimes they succeed in bringing the schemes to fruition, but the schemes never will (or “have not yet” if you are a true believer) delivered on their promise.

What happened next

The whole question of a carbon trading scheme fell over. But Carr persisted. And it was his attempt to stitch together all of the states having emissions trading schemes that would then combine that forced John Howard’s hand in 2005/6. Carr stepped down as New South Wales premier in 2005, and was briefly a senator in the federal parliament, and Julia Gillard’s Foreign Minister

And the emissions? Well, they have kept increasing and the atmospheric concentrations have kept increasing. Obviously.

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

May 31, 2012, an Australian climate minister makes a song and dance

Eleven years ago, on this day, May 31, 2012, Australian climate minister Greg Combet mocks Opposition Leader Tony Abbott over the latter’s idiotic claims of the costs of a carbon “tax”.

“At which point Combet burst into song: ‘Cabramatta Parramatta, Wangaratta, Coolangatta-” but the punchline is: “Everywhere is doomed, man”.’  Paul Keating and Peter Costello would have been proud.”

Oakes, L. 2012. Abbott is the high priest of pessimism. The Australian, 2 June. 

And some audio here – 

https://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3515530.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that all through the climate wars of 2010-11 Tony Abbott had made outlandish and unsupported claims about the economic costs to citizens and businesses of the Gillard Emissions Trading Scheme. Abbot claimed that various regional centres would be “wiped off the map,” that would be $150 pot roast, at cetera, et cetera. 

These sorts of the sky-will-fall pronouncements, while ludicrous, will lend credibility simply by the fact that he was – God help us – Leader of the Opposition. And they were, of course, amplified by the deeply irresponsible, and in fact, malicious Murdoch media, who will now clutch their pearls,saying “nothing to do with us gov”. So Combet wanted to have a little fun. 

What I think we can learn from this

What we learn is that lies and bullshit in the service of capital are always okay. God help you if you make one error of fact, or exaggeration, when trying to reduce the damage of industrial civilization, if and when that impinges on rich people’s ability to make more profit. 

What happened next

Nowhere was wiped off the map. But the ALP did get wiped out, and Abbot became Prime Minister. That went well…

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

May 26, 1993 – more “green jobs” mush

Thirty years ago, on this day, May 26, 1993, there was more hold-hands-and-sing kumbaya stuff about green jobs.

This report arises from the growing recognition by governments, industry and the community that ecologically sustainable development offers many opportunities for profitable investment and therefore for employment growth, as well as being essential for ecological survival. The community is also faced with the pressing task of finding opportunities to create more jobs and the environment industry is an obvious place to look.

The inquiry was proposed to the then Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories [Ros Kelly] by the Committee and the Minister then formally referred the matter for inquiry to the Committee on 26 May 1993.

 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Labor government of Paul Keating was extremely hostile to environmentalists, and environmentalism. One way of kind of sort of squaring the circle and giving the least radical greenies something to do, and keep them from making common cause with the radicals, was to set up things like Green Jobs Inits and have Parliamentary processes and investigations. This gets people busy giving evidence and it gives them the frisson of addressing a politician. And basically just keeps them out of mischief. 

The report when it comes out, if it’s one that you can live with, you do a press release, and the speech and the “grip and grin” with the author. If it’s not, you release it on a Friday afternoon, ahead of a bank holiday or a big sporting event. And you play a dead bat in the media. More generally, it’s a win win.

What I think we can learn from this

The game is the game and the system (“man”) has ways of coping with potential upsets.

What happened next

The Green Jobs unit went nowhere. Keating had two big significant events on the environment in 1994/5. One was the loggers’ blockade of Canberra and the other was the carbon tax being defeated and the economic modelling of ABARE being used to block ambition for Australia at the international negotiations. 

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
Agnotology Australia Denial

May 24, 2000- Australian denialist nutjobs have nutjob jamboree

Twenty three years ago, on this day, May 24, 2000, a bunch of silly old white men who were arm’s-length useful to powerful old white men had a meeting.

“Dinosaur business group is an embarrassment”

Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace Australia

Media release – May 24, 2000

Australian environment groups have united in condemnation of a greenhouse meeting in Melbourne today, labelling it an embarrassment to Australia.

The meeting of the newly established “Lavoisier Group” is a move to discredit climate change science and bring together business groups in opposition to limiting greenhouse pollution.

These ‘climate sceptics’ fly in the face of the hundreds of global business players who gathered at the World Economic Forum’s Annual meeting in Davos this January. This business group resolved that climate change is the greatest challenge facing the world at the beginning of the century.

Speaking from the meeting today, Greenpeace Political Liaison Officer, Shane Rattenbury said; “This is an embarrassment for Australian industry. These people are five years behind the facts.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate denialists had, in Australia, been working to make sure that the Howard Government didn’t weaken in its opposition to Kyoto, and had succeeded in that. They wanted to pal around with each other under an official title. And so was born the Lavoisier Group. They had not been successful in getting any big corporates to sponsor them because they were a major reputational risk. By the mid 90s, Australian business had decided, with one or two very partial exceptions, that denying the science around climate change was simply not worth it. They would instead emphasise the costs to business via dodgy economic modelling from both within and beyond the Australian state.

What’s interesting here was that the launch of the Lavoisier Group did get the environmentalists outraged. This is an example of what has recently been called “owning the libs” at least in the United States.

What I think we can learn from this

Denialists are losers who ‘won’.

What happened next

Howard kept scuppering even the smallest and most inadequate responses to climate change, for another seven years.

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

May 21, 1998 – “Emissions Trading: Harnessing the Power of the Market”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, May 21, 1998, Australian politicians danced around the idea of “emissions trading.

Ladies and gentlemen.

I am pleased to be here with you today to share with you my assessment of the opportunities and far-reaching role that international emissions trading will play in the successful implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. International emissions trading provides the means of harnessing the power of the market to provide cost effective solutions to emission abatement.

Emissions Trading: Harnessing the Power of the Market

Address by the Hon Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the ABARE International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading, Sydney, 21 May 1998

http://foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/1998/abare21may98.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by this stage the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide – especially one way you could start trading trees, as New South Wales premier Bob Carr was keen to do – was the kind of market environmentalism that “rational” “capital L”  liberals might go for. It was therefore relatively painless for Alexander Downer to give a hedged speech in his capacity as Foreign Affairs Minister.

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians like this stuff because it makes it look like they’re doing something when they absolutely are not.

What happened next

Well, an emissions trading scheme was put in front of the cabinet in 2000 and killed off by Senator Nick Minchin.. And then in 2003 the scheme got killed off by Howard. Meanwhile, the Sydney Futures Trading idea had been aborted by 1999.

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

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese, eco-warrior…

Eighteen years ago, on this day, May 16, 2005, the Australian Labor Party tried to pretend it wasn’t also a meat puppet for extractive industries.

MEDIA RELEASE: Anthony Albanese – 16 May 2005

http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/senate-slams-howards-energy-white-elephant

The Howard Government’s Energy White Paper is an energy white elephant.

The Senate Inquiry into the Energy White Paper has concluded the Energy White Paper will delay critical action on climate change for another twenty years.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Anthony Albanese had an interest in the environmental issues and Labor were trying to use Howard’s recalcitrance and opposition to climate action as a stick to beat him with. The energy white paper in 2004 had been a gift to the fossil fuel lobby, there had been a Senate report about the White Paper and this is what Albanese was using.

What I think we can learn from this is that in any parliamentary system, there are games and counter-games between the government of the day and the opposition. And there are various scrutiny and watchdog outfits that can produce reports which are useful both to researchers but also politicians and NGOs who are contesting the government’s actions.

What happened next

Howard brushed it all off. Eventually the climate issue, in the second half of 2006, became an issue that he couldn’t brush off.

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.