Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

November 1, 1953 – Australia strikes oil

Seventy two years ago, on this day, November 1st, 1953,

“The year was 1953. Humanity was venting 6.65bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, of which Australia contributed 59.43m tonnes, and the very first hole drilled struck oil at a depth of 1100m. Temperatures had risen to 38C in the open air that day and it was 1pm in the afternoon on 1 November 1953 when it happened. The roughnecks working on the rig had stripped back to stay cool in the hot afternoon sun. Earlier in the morning they had run a test and it had taken them about an hour to raise, disconnect and stack each 30m section of pipe. It was heavy, time-consuming work, so no one noticed it at first. When they were done, someone found the floor of the rig was awash with a hot, waxy, kerosene-smelling, green-brown oil. Their find made geological history and William Walkley would go down a legend.”

From Slick by Royce Kurmelovs

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 312ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the second world war led to astonishing advances in transportation, ways of seeing (sonar, radar etc)  in all sorts of “production sciences”. Meanwhile, Australia’s elites were desperately looking for supplies of oil, in case of another (non-atomic) war…

The specific context was that Australia was in a hot war (Korea) and keen to find its own sources of energy.

What I think we can learn from this – is that Royce writes well!

What happened next – you’ll need to read Royce’s book! Hint – those atmospheric concentrations kept going up and up.

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: 

November 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published 

Categories
Australia

October 30, 2007 – Albanese grievance debate on Stern Review – “We simply cannot afford to wait any longer”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2007, 

Albanese grievance debate on climate on launch of Stern Review

Grievance Debate Climate Change

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (4.18 p.m.)—My grievance is against the Howard government for its failure to address the greatest challenge facing the global community: climate change.

Today Sir Nicholas Stern launches his report on the economics of climate change. It is a very clear warning that climate change will ruin our environment and our economy if we do not take action. Early action will be far cheaper—perhaps five, 10 or 20 times cheaper. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was the Australian Labor Party, having lost four federal elections on the trot (1996 1998, 2001, 2004) was looking for a bruise to punch. They’d found it in climate change, which had exploded onto the public’s consciousness in September or so of the previous year.

The specific context was– there was a federal election coming up, and Labor wanted to keep punching.

What I think we can learn from this – talk is cheap when you are in opposition.

What happened next. Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister in 2022 and Australia has become a beacon to the world with its clever, bold and aggressive action to tac…. Oh, look, I can’t, I can’t even…. There is a case to be made for Albo being a bigger climate criminal that John Howard, and that is saying something…

Albo or John Howard? Who is the bigger climate criminal? – All Our Yesterdays

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: 

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review publlshed.

Categories
Australia Business Responses Carbon Capture and Storage

October 30, 2009 – QRC bullshit about CCS – “first commercial scale CCS electricity generator by about 2015”

Sixteen years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2009 QRC hype report on Carbon Capture and Storage

“Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche told brisbanetimes.com.au he believed government and industry support would ensure the technology was put in place much sooner.

“I’m confident we will have our first commercial-scale carbon capture and storage electricity generator by about 2014 or 2015,” he said in a report that was published yesterday.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 401ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was the coal industry had decided that CCS was a card to play while increasing exports. As long as the taxpayer picked up the tab for research and development, of course. 

The specific context was that 2009 was peak CCS hype around the world. 

What I think we can learn from this – gangs of rich people (“Resource Coucils”) are going to say whatever is convenient for other people to believe. There are plenty of tame stenographers willing to report it dutifully and accurately. 

What happened next – CCS collapsed in a heap, of course.

Meanwhile, getting renewables projects going in Queensland just got much harder…

Queensland’s latest wind farm kill sends shockwaves through renewables industry | RenewEconomy

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: 

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review publlshed.

Categories
Australia New Zealand Science

October 26, 1994 – “Global warming is a global warning”

Thirty one years ago, on this day, October 26th, 1994,

Scientists, politicians and economists recently gathered in New Zealand for the Greenhouse 94 conference from October 10 to 14. Discussions at the conference confirmed that the heat is on: sea levels are rising, climate patterns are shifting, and the atmosphere is heating up. ZANNY BEGG reports on the implications of global warming.

Ben Elton, in his best-selling novel Stark, was able to describe the earth as a stinking trash can of multinational companies — with an ozone layer in tatters, sea temperatures rising and pollution transforming the air into a toxic soup — and keep it funny. But when straight-faced scientists begin to talk about the threat global warming poses to the planet there isn’t much to laugh about.

Two thousand five hundred scientists working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement on September 14 that told the world what we didn’t want to know: carbon dioxide levels are on the rise and the world’s climate is at a serious risk from human activity. This was confirmed by discussions at the Greenhouse 94 conference, convened by CSIRO, which concluded that sea levels and temperatures in the Oceania region have been rising steadily since the beginning of the century.

Elwin Jackson attended the Greenhouse 94 conference for Greenpeace. His prediction for the future, if no reduction of greenhouse gases occurs, is as stark as Ben Elton’s. “In the year 2040”, he explained to Green Left Weekly, “we could see famine stalking through South-East Asia. We could see more droughts, increased flooding, rapidly changing weather conditions and more pests. The conditions we see in many parts of Africa could come to this part of the world. The human cost of this would be horrific.

Anon, 1994. Greenhouse alert: global warming is a global warning. Green Left Weekly October 26, 1994

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greenhouse-alert-global-warming-global-warning

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 first “Greenhouse” conference, in 1987, had been crucial – an opportunity for scientists working in different domains to compare notes. For a few years the scientists were being sorta listened to (which is distinct from saying they had a lot of influence).

The specific context was by 1994 climate had disappeared from the front pages and into the boring bits where policies are combatted and not really explained. Yawnsville. Still, the grinding work of science goes on…

What I think we can learn from this – issue attention cycles are a thing. More people should know about them

What happened next – scientists kept sciencing. Emissions kept climbing.

See interview with the cartoonist 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.

Also on this day: 

October 26, 1975 – “The Endangered Atmosphere” conference begins… 

Categories
Activism Australia

October 23, 2006 – Climate Adverts “put heat on government”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, October 23rd, 2006,

Climate ads put heat on govt for action

A group of academics have taken out ads in major newspapers urging the government to press for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

A group of academics and professionals concerned about climate change has taken out ads in major newspapers urging the Australian government to press for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The advertising, funded by the Climate Institute, comes as the government prepares to announce new measures to tackle man-made climate change.

The ads include messages such as “Gas Emissions From Our Politicians Are Now At A Critical Level” and “It’s Time The Government Broke The Drought”.

“An effective and credible response requires Australia’s national greenhouse gas emissions go down, not up,” the institute’s chief executive Corin Millais said in a statement.

“The Australian government’s current policy has already increased emissions by 10 per cent over the last decade and is set to increase them by a further 17 per cent by 2020.”

The institute, chaired by former NSW premier Bob Carr, has released a five-point plan to reduce emissions, which it says is Australia’s greatest challenge.

“This commonsense national five-point plan shows that there is a way forward for Australia to address climate change and help stop the most severe impacts,” Mr Millais said.

“Climate change can be tackled with a five-point plan that legislates to make emissions go down, not up, sets a carbon price, implements clean energy technologies, delivers on energy savings and places Australia in a leading role to cut emissions worldwide.

“Measures that turn around emissions will also promote opportunities for Australia to become a part of the booming global clean energy market – worth $74 billion last year.

“There are a wide range of solutions like wind, solar and bio-fuels that could be put into place right now.”

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions which Australia has refused to sign, Australia was given a target of a 108 per cent increase on 1990 emission levels.

The government has repeatedly said it is on track to meet that target.

The Climate Institute of Australia has taken out national newspaper advertisements calling on the Federal Government to seriously address global warming.

The advertisements are published in 13 newspapers in every state and territory, with a total readership of more than 6.5 million Australians.

They call on the Federal Government to ensure greenhouse emissions go down, not up.

The institute’s chief executive, Corin Millias, says the Federal Government’s existing policies are not working, and emissions have increased by 10 per cent over the last decade.

“We’ve got a major challenge in front of us and we will never solve the problem if our emissions profile keeps rising,” he said.

The advertisements follow a TV campaign that was broadcast in rural Australia.

The Federal Government says it is on track to meet its target by 2010.

23 October 2006 AAP Bulletins CANBERRA

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 after years in the “meh, who cares, really?” zone, climate change had become, a month previously, the hot issue (bunch of different reasons). The Climate Institute, the brainchild of Clive Hamilton (who had set up the Australia Institute in the mid-1990s).

The specific context was that there was enormous pressure on John Howard, Prime Minister for ten years at this point, and an extremely effective stopper of climate action, to do a u-turn. This was part of that.

What I think we can learn from this – adverts and open letters have a certain utility – they can be a “shot across the bows” of a minister or government, reminding them that there are costs for the action (or inaction) they are currently undertaking.

What happened next – Prime Minister Howard did a u-turn in December, announcing an emissions trading taskforce (“The Shergold Report”). This did not help him burnish his image, and at the same time, Kevin Rudd toppled Kim Beasely to become leader of the opposition. Rudd had two sticks with which he planned to beat Howard – the Iraq War and climate change…

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: 

October 23, 1963 – JKF warns of actions “which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical environment on a global scale.”

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial United States of America

October 18, 1991 – American denialist in Australia….

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 18th, 1991,

Fred Singer The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Tasman Institute Seminar

Not his first rodeo…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 carbon dioxide build-up had broken through as an issue in 1988. By 1989 the George C Marshall Institute (set up to shill for Reagan’s Star Wars bullshit) had entered the fray and was enabling denialist efforts, alongside the Global Climate Coalition etc. Australia was one market for its shite.

Singer – Singer had been a semi-respected scientist and bureaucrat from the 1950s onward. But at some point he had jumped the shark. Here, he was fresh from warping the words of a dying Roger Revelle, who had known that many people did not think Singer was much of a scientist…

The specific context was that the Ecologically Sustainable Development process was coming to an end and the moment of maximum danger – where the government might actually take on some of its recommendations – was about now. If you were going to bring out some idiot not very good scientist (as per Roger Revelle) now would be a good time. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this – evil people aren’t necessarily stupid or incompetent. (And conversely, the “good” guys aren’t all smart and competent.)

What happened next – The ESD got thrown in the bin by Paul Keating, who toppled Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke a couple of months later. The Tasman Institute kept up with the tours, economic modelling etc.

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: 

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?” 

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

October 18, 1974 – Weinberg’s “Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy” published 

 October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

Categories
Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

Oct 15, 2009 – The Australian Conservation Foundation models back

On this day sixteen years ago the ACF tried to stop Kevin Rudd from giving away more and more “compensation” (i.e. taxpayers’ money) to polluters.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/13467/20120118-0823/www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/Financial_Impact_CPRS_151009.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 ACF had pushed as hard as it could for carbon pricing in 1994-5, and been defeated. Various carbon pricing schemes had been defeated in the subsequent decade and a half. What a horrible settler colony, with such contempt for everything.

The specific context was that business had been fighting hard, and winning all the time. The CPRS had already failed to get through parliament once, and a second go was coming up.

What I think we can learn from this – you can – and have to – try using your opponents’ tools, but don’t expect to get that much traction.

What happened next – Abbott toppled Turnbull as Leader of the Liberal Party/Opposition. Rudd’s dreadful scheme fell, but he lacked the spine to call a double dissolution election and Julia Gillard had to clean up his mess.

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: 

October 15, 1971 – “Man’s Impact on the Climate” published

October 15, 1985 – Villach meeting supercharges greenhouse concerns…

October 15, 1999- Australian economy headed for trouble because of carbon dioxide emissions, admits government through gritted teeth. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

October 12, 2011 – Carbon Pricing legislation passed

Fourteen years ago, on this day, October 12th, 2011,

“Carbon pricing (fixed for the first three years, then floating as part of an ETS) therefore passed the lower House of Representatives on 12 October 2011 with the support of Oakeshott, Windsor, Bandt and Wilkie with a vote of 74:72.” (Crowley, 2013: 377)

At 9.40am on 12 October, Gillard notches up a decisive victory with the passage through the Lower House of eighteen pieces of legislation making up the Clean Energy Future Bill which, inter alia, establishes the carbon price mechanism and its regulatory body.

(Walsh, 2013:87) Stalking of Julia Gillard

The day the carbon price bills passed the Parliament on 12 October 2011, journalist Annabel Crabb wrote for ABC The Drum online:

“Inside Rudd’s office, they used to speak of ‘kicking the can down the road’ – delaying decisions for a future date by which time conditions, it was hoped, would improve. Of all the criticisms that can validly be made of Julia Gillard’s Government, this is not one…

Julia Gillard is picking up the can that has been kicked down the road by John Howard, Kevin Rudd and, in his own way, Malcolm Turnbull…. There’s a compelling, almost cinematic quality to her determination; it’s like watching a slalom downhill skier deliberately hitting every peg.

(Cooney, 2015: 218)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 putting a price on carbon – either by a straightforward tax or an emissions trading scheme (the latter has more scope for loopholes and the enrichment of consultants, so guess which was considered more “efficient”) – had been pushed since the late 80s. And the fossil fuel lobby and its ideological henchmen had done an extremely effective job of stopping it, repeatedly, with help from John Howard on several notorious occasions.

The specific context was that Kevin Rudd’s cowardice and incompetence on carbon pricing had tanked his reputation, and in the end cost him his job. His replacement, Julia Gillard, was forced by the electoral mathematics of her minority government to push through a carbon price, in the face of an extraordinary campaign of vitriol (looking at you, Murdoch media minions and worms).

What I think we can learn from this – women have to clean up men’s messes.

What happened next – the next government, of Tony Abbott, abolished the pricing mechanism. God help us all. 

(To be clear, the pricing mechanism was utterly inadequate as a response).

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: 

October 13, 2005 – “Climate Change: Turning up the Heat” published 

Categories
Activism Australia

October 12, 2008 – the GetUp Climate Torch Relay…

Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 12th, 2008,

“The GetUp Climate Torch Relay reached its finale yesterday with a great event on the lawns in front of Parliament House.

While Messrs Rudd and Turnbull were otherwise occupied with the melting global financial system (as opposed to melting polar ice caps), Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown was on hand and spoke passionately, vehemently and inspirationally.

Can’t tell you too much about what he said as I was running around taking pics and helping people off-stage etc.

It was a brilliant day. It was short on political rhetoric and big on tips and traps for reducing, recycling and reusing. The GetUp theme was: Be a super hero for climate change, so there were orange capes for [people] to don to signify their will to reduce their use of precious natural resources.”

http://the-riotact.com/overheard-at-the-getup-climate-torch-relay-finale-sunday-12-october/9247

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 by now Australia was two years into its “omfg, climate change” spasm, and events were beginning to look a little tired.

The specific context was Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spent most of 2008 flying around having meetings with world leaders about the Global Financial Crisis. In the meantime, the policymaking process around a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” was descending into farce, with ever more giveaways to business.

What I think we can learn from this – repertoires get old. Politicians are slime, usually.

What happened next – Rudd’s CPRS was defeated twice, and he didn’t even have the guts to call a double dissolution election. Spineless twunt.

References

Torch relay to prompt alternative energy awareness – ABC News

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: 

October 12, 1976 – Jule Charney throws (private) shade on fellow climatologists… 

Categories
Australia France International processes

October 11, 2000 – Aussies want to mark their own homework

Twenty five years ago, on this day, October 11th, 2000,

“At a UN climate change conference in France in September, the Australian delegates argued that countries should monitor their own progress on greenhouse gas emissions rather than establishing an international monitoring body. An Australian delegate objected to a proposal to establish a consultative process to ensure continuity of information exchange, to facilitate international cooperation and to contribute to the assessment of demonstrable progress.

If such a body was established, Australian delegates argued, it should be prohibited from responding to questions about a country’s performance except for questions posed by the country in question.

An Australian delegate also opposed proposals for financial penalties, or any binding consequences whatsoever, for countries failing to meet their targets.”

Green, J. 2000. Greenhouse sceptics lose the plot. Green Left Weekly, 11 October.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greenhouse-sceptics-lose-plot

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 nakedly criminal on climate policy since 1996 (before that they tried to cloak it). Although they’d extorted a fantastically generous deal at the Kyoto Conference (COP 3) and then signed it, they had not ratified. And everyone knew that if he could avoid ratifying it, Prime Minister John Howard would.

The specific context was that Australia was once again trying to find ways to carve out even more generous conditions…

What I think we can learn from this is that once an untrustworthy and thieving asshole, always an untrustworthy and thieving asshole.

What happened next – in 2002 John Howard went public with the not ratifying Kyoto thing, to nobody’s surprise.

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: 

October 11, 2006 – “Climate Institute” begins tour of rural Victoria