Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

July 20, 1989 – New “Ambassador for the Environment” role makes greenies happy

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 20th, 1989, a nice new job is announced…

Major conservation groups believe that the new post of Ambassador for the Environment will be only as effective as Federal Government policy allows.

The new position – to be filled by the former Governor-General and High Court judge Sir Ninian Stephen – was announced by the Prime Minister this week as part of his major environmental statement.

Mr Hawke said that “no-one could better discharge that role for Australia”.

Speaking from Melbourne, Sir Ninian said he was not sure why he had been chosen but was delighted to accept when it was offered by Mr Hawke by telephone last weekend.

Bailey, P. 1989. All praise for our green envoy. Sydney Morning Herald, July 22, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Australia gets its first ambassador for the environment. A nice job for a superannuated civil servant in this case, Ninian Steven.

The context was that Prime Minister Bob Hawke had an eye on the next federal election, and needed to keep small-g green tinged voters onside, and needed to therefore do some harmless appointing of meaningless jobs to fly the flag and to keep the greenies happy. 

What we learn is that the sorts of gestures get made, you always have to ask for “What responsibilities does the person have?” “What rights do they have?” “How will they be funded?” “Will they be able to take names and embarrass anyone?” And if there aren’t good answers to those questions, then what you’re looking at is just more bullshit. 

What happened next. He had the job for a while, I forget who was next. Think it was a woman. The post degenerated to its natural state when the head of the Australian Coal Association, Ralph Hilman, was appointed by John Howard.

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: 

July 20, 1989 – Bob Hawke fumbles the green football…

July 20, 2014- the “Green Blob” blamed

Categories
Australia International processes Sweden UNFCCC

: July 18, 1996 – Australian Prime Minister snubs #climate talks

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, July 18th, 1996, John Howard showed his priorities…

Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:

1. Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);

2. Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;

3. Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.

AND

“PRIME Minister John Howard yesterday [18th] snubbed the international community, claiming Australia would continue to oppose reductions in greenhouse gases.

“Australia has drawn international condemnation for its refusal to accept legally binding reductions in greenhouse gases now accepted as causing global warming.”

Benson, S. 1996. Howard snubs world / Greenhouse gas call `hurts Australia’. Daily Telegraph, July 19, p.14.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard had come to power in March of that year and took the Keating government’s antipathy to all things climate, and dialled it up from a solid eight or nine to an 11. “This one goes up to 11”. 

What we learn is that the Australian political elite was extremely hostile to anything that would get between them and profits. For coal companies, they could see no other way of being in the world. And they didn’t see the need for that other way, because they didn’t accept 19th century physics {LINK}

What we learn is that we’ve already learned that John Howard is a contemptible climate criminal.

What happened next, Howard dialled up the ante – the international agreement campaign against Australia having to cut emissions was not an 11 but a 12. The following year, he sent diplomats all around the world to try to carve out a special deal for Australia and was spectacularly successful in doing so. 

And here we are almost 30 years later; acts of cosmic vandalism. And you need a heart of stone not to despair. 

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: 

July 18, 1979 – US Senators ask for synthetic fuel implications for greenhouse warming. Told.

July 18, 2005 – inconvenient energy targets scrapped

July 18, 2012: Climate Justice poem – “Tell Them” by Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner – hits the internet

Categories
Australia

July 17, 2014 – Australian elected idiot is highly visibly idiotic

Ten years ago, on this day, July 17th, 2014, a not so cunning stunt in Parliament… with someone cosplaying a Worker to support the substance that will (checks notes) kill all the workers, the non-workers and pretty much everything else except some sulphur-based life-forms in deep oceanic vents.

“Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald wearing the vest to show his support for the repeal of the mining tax, which passed the Senate with amendments and is returning to the House of Representatives for another vote. The vest, emblazoned with “australiansforcoal.com.au” and Macdonald’s name, was kindly provided to Macdonald by the Minerals Council of Australia” (Mackinnon, 2014)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the opponents of climate action were feeling particularly pleased with themselves. They had managed to destroy the carbon pricing mechanism that Julia Gillard’s government had instituted. And here we have a parliamentarian cosplaying, being working class, wearing the high-vis jacket in Parliament. 

What we learn is that the high-vis jacket is a potent, easy symbol of manual labour masculinity. And therefore the “authenticity” that comes from that. And people like to cosplay that. It makes them feel good. It enables them to enlist “salt of the earth” memes, and by extension accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being in an effete latte sipping liberal. 

What happened next? The guy was censured for bringing props into parliament. That didn’t seem to stop Scotty from marketing. Three years later, with this lump of stupidity, that was what he carried between his ears. There was also a lump of coal in his hand that had been provided to him by the Minerals Council of Australia. They had lacquered it so it didn’t smudge.

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

AAP. 2014. Senator asked to tone down high-vis effort. The Australian, July 17. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/senator-asked-to-tone-down-high-vis-effort/news-story/50968f280a9cd602a3e39813afbf069b

MacKinnon, A. 2014. This Idiot Senator Wore A Hi-Vis Mining Vest In Parliament And Got Torn To Bits By Everybody. Junkee.com, July 18

https://junkee.com/this-idiot-senator-wore-a-hi-vis-mining-vest-in-parliament-and-got-torn-to-bits-by-everybody/38235

Also on this day: 

July 17, 1912 – Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal on climate change

July 17, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister shits on renewables, blah blah “realistic”

Categories
Australia Energy

July 14, 2000 – Wind power providers want carbon labelling…

On this day 24 years ago, Wind Power Energy Association types tried to get some sensible stuff going.  Yeah, good luck with that.

CANBERRA, July 14, AAP – Labels telling consumers their electricity came from fossil fuel should be put on power bills, supporters of the wind energy industry said today. President of the Australian Wind Energy Association Grant Flynn said most consumers were unaware that most of their power was derived from the burning of fossil fuels.

Putting a sticker on power bills telling consumers the source of their electricity would go a long way to making the public more aware of greenhouse gas issues. “A lot of people don’t really understand that a significant proportion of their electricity, about 90 per cent of it, comes from burning fossil fuels,” he said.

Mr Flynn’s group was one of several to make submissions to a review of the government’s renewable energy bill.

2000 Wright, S. 2000. Fed – Labels should tell consumers where their power comes from. AAP, 14 July.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Federal government of John Howard was doing everything it could to renege on its 1997 promise of more renewables (made as a pre-Kyoto distraction). Evil evil people

What we learn – the hope that the mythical Ethical Consumer will save the day is a powerful one.

What happened next. John Howard kept being a climate criminal. Renewables eventually took off, but later than they could have. Oh well, nice planet while it lasted.

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: 

July 14, 2000 – Miners versus the ALP/ and climate action

July 14, 2011 – “Four Degrees or More: Australia in a Hot World” conference closes

Categories
Australia

July 13, 1974 – Adelaide hears about carbon dioxide build-up

Fifty years ago, on this day, July 13th, 1974,

Btw, Hare had been present for Guy Callendar’s presentation at the Royal Meteorological Society in 1938

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that scientists had been doing further study about CO2. It was definitely building up. No one disputes that. What impact that might have on our species as a whole remains to be seen. That’s not entirely surprising. 50 years ago, Kenneth Hare would cover this.

What we learn is that if you were paying any attention, you could see the threat coming. But then we’ve been paying attention since 1988, which is only two thirds of that time 50 years and we’ve done nothing. Actually, that’s not strictly accurate. We’ve made things worse.

What happened next? Every so often carbon dioxide would pop up as an issue in Australia. Further context is that there had been the 1972 Friends of the Earth seminar, the 1973 UNESCO-sponsored conference at Flinders University, and Senator Don Jessup had made his statements in Parliament. You know, it wasn’t unheard of…

What happened next; more news articles, more awareness, no action, and the emissions kept climbing.

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
Activism Australia

July 13, 2008 – Activists blockade coal port

Sixteen years ago, on this day, July 13th, 2008 some nice direct action (albeit symbolic) took place.

July 13 & 14, 2008: Newcastle, NSW, Australia Climate Camp stops coal trains at worlds’ largest coal export port

On July 13, 2008 approximately 1000 activists stopped three trains bound for export at the Carrington Coal Terminal for almost six hours. Dozens of protesters were able to board and chain themselves to the trains while others lay across the tracks. Hundreds were held back by mounted police. Police arrested 57.[19] Sunday 13th July 2008: 1000 people gathered at Islington Park in Newcastle for a rally and march to the Carrington Coal Terminal. It was a colourful and eclectic crowd of local residents, parents and children, percussionists, clowns, students, and concerned citizens from every state in Australia. Their message was simple and clear: let’s see renewables instead of more new coal.

http://www.greenpeace.org.au/blog/community-protest-stops-coal-trains-all-day 2008 Climate Camp Australia demo

Climate Camp Australia 2008

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that Newcastle is the biggest export terminal for Australian coal mined in the Hunter Valley. It had been growing and growing all through the 90s and noughties because Australia was selling more and more coal and screw the planet who cares. And I remember seeing just how long those cold frames were, filled to the brim. Anyway, this was the first Australian climate camp inspired by English Climate Camp in summer of 2006. Some people got arrested, some people got injured. The issue got flagged, some code was delayed. 

What we learn is that putting your bodies in the gears of the machine is very painful. And really fruit to work. You’d need a bigger boat load of people.As per Chief Brody, “we’re gonna need a bigger boat.”

What happened next? It’s a repertoire that the Australian coal protesters have returned to again, because it gets news coverage because it reminds them of their own power because it’s the right thing to do. But I refer you to yesterday’s rant about how doomed we 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.

Also on this day: 

July 13, 1971 – Stephen Schneider “predicts” an ice age (so the myth goes)

July 13, 2013 – future Australian PM ridiculed for #climate idiocy

Categories
Activism Australia

July 12, 2009 – NGO vs NGO – Al Gore asked to be umpire…

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 12th,2009 there was a spat that Al Gore was expected to referee.

WHEN climate change guru Al Gore arrives in Melbourne today, he will find a conservation movement in vitriolic disagreement with itself.

A split has developed between the country’s preeminent environmental organisation, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), and a bloc of other green lobbyists over the foundation’s public support for the Rudd Government’s carbon trading scheme. 

Bachelard, M. 2009. Feuding climate camps seek Gore blessing. Sunday Age, 12 July , p.8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Rudd Government had been trying to get support for its ridiculous Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. And they’d found it at least with the so-called Southern Crust coalition, led by the ACTU, and the Australian Conservation Foundation. But all the other green groups thought that this was an outrageous sell out. Ambition was too low. And that Rudd should be resisted. It was your fairly standard. NGO fight between people who are determined to keep their place in the room where the decisions are made, and are willing to carry water and get out and defend the indefensible versus those who weren’t in the inside of the room or didn’t want to be on the inside of the room, or were willing to be on the inside of the room as long as they weren’t being used as fig leaves. It’s a pattern you see over and over again. Anyway, apparently, Al Gore was being expected to resolve the dispute. I don’t know if he did.

What we learn from this is that the same patterns over and over again, for understandable reasons. It’s mildly entertaining that Gore should be regarded as a fair actor. I guess he had prestige. And he didn’t have skin in the game instantly. But to expect Gore to come on down on the side of people pushing for higher ambition or maybe. I mean, this was only three years after An Inconvenient Truth, after all. 

What happened next? Rudd’s legislation was introduced for a second time in November 2009. It fell thanks to Tony Abbott, Kevin Rudd and the Greens possibly in that order, and then had to be introduced again in 2011 by Julia Gillard, the far superior parliamentarian but everything was in pieces and it all went tits up. Not that it would have mattered, I guess, really? I mean, we’re doomed. We have been doomed for a long time. It’s just taking us a while to catch up with that fact. 

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: 

July 12, 1953 – “The Weather is Really Changing” says New York Times

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

July 12, 2007 – #Australia gets swindled on #climate change…

Categories
Australia International processes Swtizerland

July 12, 1996 – medics slam energy companies for outright denial and obstruction

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, July 12th, 1996, COP2 

GENEVA, July 12 (Reuter) – Top specialists on the effects of global warming on human health on Friday accused energy corporations of working to undermine international efforts to halt climate change.

The attack came amid growing controversy at a two-week United Nations conference on how far to limit “greenhouse gas” emissions, mainly from burning of oil and coal, blamed by key scientists for rising world temperatures.

“The fossil fuel lobby is beginning to behave like the tobacco industry did 30 years ago, as adverse health effects of smoking first emerged,” Anthony McMichael of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said.

“It is using a typical rearguard action, through attempts at distortion, delaying tactics and making enough noise to drown out the arguments for strong moves by the world’s political leaders to cut emissions,” he told a news conference.

1996 – Evans, R. 1996 Doctors hit energy groups over global warming. Reuters News 12th July

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that COP1 had finished with the so-called Berlin Mandate, which meant rich nations were going to have to come to Kyoto with an agreement to reduce their emissions. The new federal government in Australia was distinctly unimpressed. And so was industry, which had seen off a domestic carbon tax and had it replaced with a meaningless Greenhouse Challenge probably saw no reason why that same victory couldn’t be repeated on the international stage. Yes, you’d have to ignore brown people living in low lying countries and islands. But that was hardly difficult. 

What we learn is that fossil fuel interests had had successes domestically, and had every confidence that they could repeat that internationally. And it turns out, sadly, for our species, and all the other species on this beautiful planet, that their confidence was well-founded. They managed to gut the ambition and the Kyoto Protocol. And they’ve managed to keep winning. Now, they were joined in this by inertia, complacency, neoliberalism, whatever set of explanations, nouns you want to use. But they were a key factor in making sure nothing significant got done. And they were very, very good at doing that.

What happened next? Australia carved out an incredibly generous deal at Kyoto in 1997. And then, still refused to ratify. When they finally did in 2007 it was a meaningless gesture. The sort of thing that Kevin Rudd excelled at. Actually doing policy and implementation, he found somewhat more challenging.

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: 

July 12, 1953 – “The Weather is Really Changing” says New York Times

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

July 12, 2007 – #Australia gets swindled on #climate change…

Categories
Australia

July 11, 1994 – Australian Environment Minister admits not clear if Australia hitting targets (spoilers, it wasn’t)

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 11th, 1994, it turns out promises are easier than delivery

Environment Minister John Faulkner says the Federal Government won’t be able to tell if it can meet its targets on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions until August….

On Monday’s ABC Lateline program, Senator Faulkner said the government will have a better idea when statistics on levels of greenhouse gas emissions are released in August.

Anon. 1994. Greenhouse performance uncertain. Green Week, July 15, p.5. [Lateline show will have been Monday 11th July]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Faulkner hadn’t been in his post long. And Australian climate policy was a complete freaking mess. Anyway, there wasn’t one, except for the meaningless National Greenhouse Response Strategy, which was a watered down consolation prize for the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. 

What we learn is that even on the most important issue of all time, there was an incredibly lackadaisical “yeah, whatever doesn’t matter” attitude. And this really is the fault of Paul Keating. As prime minister, that’s where the buck stops. 

What happened next is when the first emissions report did come out, it showed that surprise, surprise, emissions had not gone down, but continued to go up. And this was a problem both for the Rio stabilisation target of returning emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. But also, there was still supposed to be the “minus 20% by 2005” of the Toronto target, agreed in October 1990. Faulkner, then, proposed a carbon tax which was defeated. 

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: 

July 11, 1989 – Australia says “sure, we’ll take #climate refugees.” Yeah, nah.

July 11, 1996 – Celebrity Death Match: Australian fossil fuels industry versus The World (Spoiler: world lost)

July 11, 2013- “don’t be evil” my fat arse….

Categories
Australia

July 10, 1996 – National Greenhouse Advisory Panel cops a serve

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, July 10th, 1996, the Sydney Morning Herald ran a story about the NGAP report, saying it had ignored the tricky issue of climate change.

The day before, the Australian had had this –

FUEL and power subsidies, poor planning and political inaction have slowed Australia’s drive to cut its greenhouse emissions, a government advisory panel has warned.

The National Greenhouse Advisory Panel, representing industry, conservation, science and community sectors, has advised the Federal and State governments to consider imposing firm targets for greenhouse reductions in the manufacturing, agriculture, transport and household sectors.

It has urged governments to start planning for the effects of higher temperatures and rising sea levels caused by global warming next century.

NGAP’s chairman, Professor Paul Greenfield of the University of Queensland, yesterday said the panel’s two-year review of Australia’s official greenhouse policy had identified “shortfalls”. “There needs to be a bit of revitalisation in the response,” he told The Australian, on the eve of United Nations negotiations in Geneva for a new climate change treaty.

“I think it has slowed down a bit. It’s not that it’s all been totally a disaster, but it’s fair to say not a lot has happened.”

Statistics due to be released today show that Australia’s greenhouse emissions rose 3 per cent last year – in breach of an international target to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide to 1990 levels by 2000.

Bita, N. 1996. Subsidies slow greenhouse drive. The Australian, 9 July, p.2. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the NGAP was set up in June 1994, when Labor Environment Minister John Faulkner was trying to show he ‘got it’ and gave a damn. The Howard Government had come in, in March, and had taken a chainsaw with it to COP-2 in Switzerland and the National Greenhouse Advisory Panel, which, to be fair, was merely advisory, not statutory and so could be (and was) easily ignored.

What we learn is that there’s a real risk to you if you get involved in these advisory panels that you’ll be used as a fig leaf and then presented with a choice of “shut up and be still be in the room with the big powerful people, but lose all credibility beyond” or “walk and be accused of spitting the dummy and not understanding how politics is done,” when in actual fact you understand all too well; you have the brains but not the stomach for the lies and evasions and bullshit. 

What happened next? The National Greenhouse Advisory Panel was killed off a few years later and was not mourned or missed.

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: 

July 10, 1985 – French state commits terrorist act

July 10, 2008 – first Australian #Climate Camp begins, near Newcastle

July 10, 2010 – Rio Tinto amplifies the message…