Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

 December 11, 1966- “Science and Survival” reviewed in Sydney Morning Herald

Fifty nine years ago, on this day, December 11th, 1966,

Peter Finley (presumably Times?) reviewing Science and Survival. 

Reprinted in Sydney Morning Herald 11 December 1966

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LqEpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7-cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1390%2C4487624

And he cites examples to show that it is.

“We are burning fuel at such a rate that by AD2000 the amount of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be sufficient to raise the temperature of the earth to the point that the Antarctic ice cap begins to melt.

Carbon dioxide has a “greenhouse” effect – allowing sunlight to reach the earth’s surface but limiting the reradiation of heat to space.

Each ton of wood, coal, petrol or natural gas burned sends several tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Between 1860 and 1960, the burning of fuels added 14 per cent extra carbon dioxide to our air – which had remained stable for centuries.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 321ppm. 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 from the 1950s newspaper articles, and some books about the weather/future etc had been mentioning carbon dioxide build-up. 

The specific context was that Barry Commoner’s book had come out in mid-1966 and been approvingly reviewed in UK papers. This above is a reprint in the Sydney Morning Herald of a review in The Times.

What I think we can learn from this – it’s almost sixty years, isn’t it?

What happened next

A similar review was published in 1967 in the Canberra Times. LINK

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: 

December 11, 1895 – Arrhenius reads his “Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air” paper to Swedish Academy of Science…

December 11, 1969 – Harold Wilson says “let’s have a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution” – All Our Yesterdays

December 11, 1975 – German scientist gives stark climate warning in Melbourne

December 11, 1979 – conference on “Environmental Effects of utilising more coal” in London

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol United States of America

December 8, 1997 – Gore and Hill at Kyoto

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, December 8th, 1997,

Al Gore, then Vice-President of the United States, there at Kyoto. And on the same day

“Senator Hill’s entrance was a bit rockier, with a smaller Australian demonstration led by Greens’ Senator Dee Margetts jostling him on his entrance to the main summit hall. Two hours after Mr Gore, Senator Hill rushed through his speech – the 16th out of 67 – in front of a half-empty hall.”

Lunn, S. 1997. US juggernaut swamps small beer at Kyoto. The Australian, December 9, p.8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 UNFCCC had been kneecapped at birth by the US refusing to allow targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries into the treaty’s text. George HW Bush said he’d boycott the Earth Summit if they weren’t removed from the draft text – and the French blinked. Everything since then has been an attempt to get some targets in. The Paris farce is the latest and the last (presumably).

The specific context was in the run up to Kyoto there were fierce public campaigns, funded by the oil companies etc, against Kyoto. Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister John Howard had been trying to get people to accept the ridiculous position that Australia deserved special treatment (he succeeded).

What I think we can learn from this – we were doomed a long time ago.

What happened next – The US pulled out of Kyoto negotiations at the beginning of 2001. Australia followed the next year, despite having extorted an insanely generous deal. 

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: 

December 8, 1976 – IIASA holds a workshop on climate and solar energy conversion 

December 8, 1981 – Thames TV shows “Warming Warning” documentary

December 8, 2003 – Chief Scientific Advisor under microscope for Rio Tinto role

Categories
Australia

December 7, 1975 – Climate and Australia meeting

Fifty years ago, on this day, December 7th, 1975 “Climate and Australia” academic conference began in Melbourne.

On the 11th, at the conference, Herman Flohn gave a warning… December 11, 1975 – German scientist gives stark climate warning in Melbourne

A book was published based on the conference – 

“Climatic change and variability : a Southern perspective : based on a conference at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 7-12 December, 1975, which was co-sponsored by the Australian Academy of Science and Royal Meteorological Society (Great Britain). Australian Branch.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 331ppm. 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 there had been increased concern in the early 1970s, in US, UK and Australia (and elsewhere no doubt) about disruptions to weather patterns and its implications for security (food supplies etc).

The specific context was that in 1974 Whitlam’s Minister for Science had been persuaded by Nugget Coombs (legendary and recently retired public servant) to set up an inquiry. Mind you, by the time the conference happened, Whitlam had been sacked by the Governor-General (with a little help from our friends at Langley?).

What I think we can learn from this – the debates have been there for fifty years. This inquiry was about two years too early to have a strong “carbon dioxide is the problem” theme.

What happened next – a report was produced, but sank without trace. Meanwhile, the CSIRO kept beavering away. There was a conference on Philip Island in 1978, and an academic conference in Canberra in 1980, a monograph in 1981. Plenty of warnings. Ignored, 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.

Also on this day: 

December 7, 1928 – Noam Chomsky born

December 7, 1967: Towards Tomorrow “Assault on Life”

December 7, 1967 – Swedish “Monitor” program talks environmental crisis

December 7, 2011 – a CCS network is launched

Categories
Australia

December 7, 1989 and 1992 – “Ecologically Sustainable Development” goes from hero to zero

Thirty-six/thirty-three years ago, on this day, December 7th, 1989/1992, ESD went from hero to zero.

CANBERRA: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, won approval yesterday from industry, union, farm and green groups in aiming to achieve the “ecological sustainability” of all Australia’s major resource industries within a year.

Seccombe, M. 1989. Hawke backed in bid to gain ecology-industry harmony. Sydney Morning Herald, December 8, p.4.

and

ESD and greenhouse agreement COAG, Perth Council of Australian Governments (COAG), Communique, ‘Environment – ESD and greenhouse’, COAG Meeting, Perth, 7 December 1992,

(By this time Keating and his gang had obliterated all concern for environment, and especially greenhouse gas reduction hopes).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353-356ppm. 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 there had been a previous wave of eco-concern from the late 1960s to the early 1970s. It had run into the buffers, thanks to industry lobbying, state resistance and civil society exhaustion. From 1987 or so, first with the ozone layer and then the “greenhouse effect”, demands for actual action had grown.

The specific context was that these two events mark the beginning of hope and the triumph of experience.

What I think we can learn from this – the defeat then shaped the battlespace forever after.

What happened next – failure and defeat piled upon failure and defeat, as the scale of the problems grew beyond wicked to, well, existential and impossible. And yet we breed…

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: 

December 7, 1928 – Noam Chomsky born

December 7, 1967: Towards Tomorrow “Assault on Life”

December 7, 1967 – Swedish “Monitor” program talks environmental crisis

December 7, 2011 – a CCS network is launched

Categories
Activism Australia Coal

December 5, 1994 – direct action against Yallourn coal power station, in Victoria

Thirty one years ago, on this day, December 5th, 1994,

“Conservation groups yesterday stepped up pressure on the Federal Government to adopt tougher measures to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Federal Cabinet will consider the issue tomorrow.

In Yallourn, Greenpeace activists chained themselves across railway tracks used by coal trains which feed the Yallourn W power station.

They also unfurled a huge banner down the side of one of the station’s smoke stacks.”

 Birnbauer, B. 1994. Greenies Mount Campaign For Greenhouse Tax. The Age, December 6, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 Greenpeace Australia had had a boom and bust cycle in the late 1980s early 1990s, and had almost gone bankrupt. But it survived, and people wanted to take action…

The specific context was there were plans afoot to expand coal burning (and even exports of brown coal – I mean, wtaf?). Meanwhile, there was a carbon tax debate underway in Canberra.

What I think we can learn from this – direct action (albeit symbolic) against fossil fuel infrastructure has been going on for a generation.

What happened next – Greenpeace kept doing blockades, occupations etc. There was also a trend to protests in Melbourne (LINK).

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: 

December 5, 1952 & 2009 London sees climatic pollution events

December 5, 1994 – Taxing times for Australia, maybe… – All Our Yesterdays

December 5, 2002 – Australian Government CCS support begins…

Categories
Activism Australia

December 2, 2015 – Parliament sit-in

Ten years ago, on this day, December 2nd, 2015, Australian climate protesters held a Parliament House sit-in. 

Climate Change: Sit-In Protesters Dragged Out Of The Australian Parliament

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 401ppm. 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 parliament has proved itself to be largely stuffed with mental or moral defectives (the two are not mutually exclusive, obvs) with the smartest being venal corporate meat-puppets. This is part of the overall assault on civil society by both corporate and state interests, a phenomenon that is going on around the world, with dire consequences. Oh well.

The specific context was – oh, I don’t know. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull being useless.

What I think we can learn from this – we are fubarred. 

What happened next – protests continued. Emissions continued to climb. But then, thank goodness, a Labor government came to power in 2022 and there began a stark improvement in climate policy. Oh yes.

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

December 2, 1964 – Mario Savio’s “bodies on the gears” speech at Berkeley..

December 2, 1981 – “Is the world getting warmer?” (YES)

December 2, 1991 – “Ecologically Sustainable Development” bites the dust…

December 2, 2023 – Exxon’s boss vs IEA, planet – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

December 2, 1994 – “Canberra fiddles as environment burns”

Thirty years ago, on this day, December 2nd, 1994,

When it comes to protecting the environment and meeting Australia’s international greenhouse commitments, the Prime Minister and his Government” lack vision and direction”, claims a leading solar scientist.

Dr David Mills, a physicist at the University of Sydney, said Mr Keating’s Government offered $150 million “to take down an expressway in Sydney as an aesthetic eyesore, but puts a pittance into development of new technologies to alleviate future environmental and balance of payments disasters. Canberra fiddles while the environment burns.”

Dr Mills will present his critique of Federal renewable energy policy in Sydney today at Solar ’94, the Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy Society annual conference.

Dayton, L. 1994. ‘Canberra fiddles as environment burns’. Sydney Morning Herald, 2 December, p.5. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 Australia’s policy elites had been shitting on all things climate since about 1990, upping the speed of this from 1991.

The specific context was that a modest carbon tax was on the table. It would have provided reliable and significant funding for renewables. It was defeated.

What I think we can learn from this – Australia is a lucky country led by tenth-rate assholes.

What happened next – the carbon tax was, of course, defeated. Emissions climbed. People got rich and will in all likelihood escape any punishment for their grievous crimes not just against humanity, but against life itself. 

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

December 2, 1964 – Mario Savio’s “bodies on the gears” speech at Berkeley..

December 2, 1981 – “Is the world getting warmer?” (YES)

December 2, 1991 – “Ecologically Sustainable Development” bites the dust…

December 2, 2023 – Exxon’s boss vs IEA, planet – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

December 1, 1995 – Air Pollution causing climate chaos, front page story in Sydney Morning Herald

Thirty years ago, on this day, December 1st, 1995,

There is now proof that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect has begun to change the weather, the world’s leading climate scientists have concluded.

The findings of the United Nations-sponsored panel of scientists mean that the world’s present freakish weather patterns can no longer be put down to random natural forces only.

Air pollution, the scientists believe, has begun to transform weather patterns.

After a three-day conference in Madrid, the 200 scientists from more than 100 countries concluded yesterday: “The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernable human influence on global climate.”

1995 Gilchrist, G. 1995. Official: Air Pollution Causing Climate Chaos. Sydney Morning Herald, December. 1 p1. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 Australia is a quarry with a state attached, an extractivist settler-colony with some nice flora and fauna.

The specific context was that Australia’s policy elites had the opportunity to introduce a modest, sensible carbon tax in 1994-5, one that would have funded research and development of wind and solar. Meanwhile, with the international negotiations heating up, lobbyists, fresh from defeating the carbon tax, were upping their support for a state-owned outfit- “ABARE” – and funding its exceptionally dodgy economic modelling.

What I think we can learn from this – we had our chance to do something (we probably never would have done enough, because, well, humans) and we blew it. Now we are at the very beginning of the Fafocene

Also on this day

December 1, 1984 – they’re talking about CCS already… – All Our Yesterdays

December 1, 1995 – bullshit modelling put out by Keating Government – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

November 29, 1995 – Australian power company boss is silent on climate, obvs

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 30th, 1995,

Two days ago, Fred Hilmer, the chairman of Australia’s worst atmospheric polluter, Pacific Power, gave a talk at the University of NSW on the rationale behind the Carr Government’s changes to the electricity industry.

Professor Hilmer gave an impressive, enthusiastic sales job. The crowded room was hot as hell that afternoon and at the end of his 45-minute talk he was sweating profusely.

Even though Pacific Power is our biggest producer of greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect and global warming were not mentioned. It was an extraordinary omission.

1995 Gilchrist, G. 1995. Just The Shock Power Industry Needs. Sydney Morning Herald.  December 1, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 Australia’s leaders had by this time had 7 years of having to pretend they gave a damn about “the greenhouse effect”.  But the public pressure was off a bit by now…

The specific context was – a carbon tax proposal had been defeated earlier in the year, and maybe Hilmer couldn’t be bothered to pretend to give a shit?

What I think we can learn from this – they will ignore an issue if they think they can get away with it.

What happened next – John Howard became Prime Minister of Australia in March 1996 and climate policy went from incredibly bad to even worse.

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: 

November 29, 1973 – Australian politician warns of climate change

NOVEMBER 29, 1974 – SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER SAYS “RISK OF A CHANGED CLIMATE DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES … [IS] OF UTTER IMPORTANCE”

November 29, 1988 – Australian parliamentarians taught climate

November 29, 1990 and 1994 – Australian denial fools (Fred Singer and Brian Tucker) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Denial

November 28, 1988 – early doubt-casting

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, November 28th, 1988, a doubt-casting paper from Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy paper discussed at first “National Energy Consultative Council”

Clear answers on the climatic impact on Australia of the greenhouse effect will not be achieved for at least 10 years because of limited scientific knowledge, according to a Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy paper.

The paper cautions against attributing some existing climatic conditions, like the drought in the United States and floods in Bangladesh, to the greenhouse effect.

Gill, P. 1988. Paper cautious on greenhouse effect. Australian Financial Review, November 30

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 352ppm. 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 warnings about carbon dioxide build-up had been coming since the early 1980s (ONA report, Tucker’s monograph). But in 1984, Australia had become the world’s largest coal exporter, so, there’s that.

The specific context was by mid-1988 the question of “the greenhouse effect” was one that could no longer be simply ignored.  Denial and doubt-casting became part of the mix.

What I think we can learn from this – from the beginning, the Australian state was keen to defend exporters from scrutiny, challenges.

What happened next – nothing substantive has changed in the intervening 4 decades.  Except the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

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: 

November 28, 1976 – climate modelling workshop in USA

November 28, 2001 – “Stellar team for sun-powered debate” in Adelaide –

November 28, 2008 – somebody shuts down a coal plant, solo