Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut)

Fifteen years ago, on this day, August 11th, 2009, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, famously fond of the sound of his own voice, is actually shut up…

“Giant metaphor strikes Parliament,” is how The Onion might have rendered the power outage that, thankfully, cut Kevin Rudd off mid-sentence on climate change in Question Time yesterday. It was the only interesting moment in a Question Time so boring as to be almost physically unendurable.

The Liberals are making a concerted effort to push the Frontier Economics modelling, and good on them. It’s very brave, because the instant response, not merely from Kevin Rudd but from assembled journalists, is why isn’t it policy, and if it isn’t, what is their policy. That’s a question that remains unresolved.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was in Parliament, preening and bleating. This was after his first attempt at legislating his wretched CPRS had failed, and before it was reintroduced in November. This is one of the few examples of Kevin Rudd actually being shut up. 

What we learn is we learn nothing, because we’re human. 

What happened next Rudd reintroduced the CPRS legislation, and it failed. Thanks to Tony Abbott. Kevin Rudd, the Greens possibly in that order? 

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: 

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe”

Categories
Australia

August 8, 1990 – ANZEC says “adopt Toronto target” of sharp carbon cuts.

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 8th, 1990, there’s another push for the Target to be adopted.

“One was launched by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council on August 8, and supports the Toronto target as an interim goal for planning purposes. This has been accepted by the Governments of NSW, Victoria and the ACT.” (Begbe, 1990, 10 Sept)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the climate negotiations were coming. Australia’s government was committed to Ecologically Sustainable Development because the green groups had extracted that as a promise for their sort of support in the recent federal election. Various state governments and the ACT, for example, had committed to the Toronto target (and in May 1989 Hawke’s Environment Secretary had floated it in Cabinet, to be shot down by Paul Keating, then Treasurer.). The Toronto Target proposed that industrialised nations should cut their emissions by 20% by the year 2005. The denialists were getting up on their hind legs too. 

And here was the Australian New Zealand Environment Council suggesting that Australia and presumably New Zealand, both say yes to Toronto.

What we learn is that invocations to targets have been with us for a very long time. You get such pleasure of announcing/campaigning for a target, but actually getting the people who say yes to do anything about hitting that target, well, that is somewhat more difficult. 

What happened next, in October 1990 the Hawke government did indeed make a promise for an “Interim Planning Target,” hedged with all sorts with caveats about economic costs and other developed nations taking similar action. So it was a non-promise promise, but it allowed Kelly to go off to the Second World Climate Conference with Australia’s reputation in sort of good standing.

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: 

August 8, 1975 – first academic paper to use term “global warming” published

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

Categories
Agriculture Australia

August 4, 2004 – Australian farmers nervous about climate change. Ignored

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 4th, 2004,

THE greatest risk facing farmers is climate change and global warming, National Farmers Federation president Peter Corish has warned.

Calling for a national blueprint on the long-term problems facing the bush, Mr Corish said the NFF had changed its position in the past 12 months and was now convinced of the threat of global warming.

“Twelve or 18 months ago, we would have said very strongly the jury is still out on climate change because we believed there had been a lack of research into assessment of how real climate change is and how far it is likely to go,” he told the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday.

Karvelas, P. 2004. Farmers chief warns on climate. The Australian, 5 August, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a drought going on. Australian farmers are always worrying about the weather, because the weather in the land is quite marginal a lot of the time. And of course, at this point, climate change had been an issue of public debate for 15 years. The broader context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard was doing everything in his power to avoid taking any substantive action on climate change, either domestically or internationally. And he was banging on about coal. The other context is that the National Farmers Association or whatever it’s called, had basically been captured and silenced. And you can read about it in Guy Pearse’s wonderful PhD thesis that was published two years later 2006 where he talks about the different sectoral trade associations, whether it’s agriculture, insurance, banking, tourism, whatever, as the missing inactions. 

What happened next. The Millennium Drought broke in 2008/9. The farmers are still screwed by climate change because one-off events are temporary anomalies, like droughts, pulse disturbances in the system. The thing you really have to watch for are the press disturbances, like the CO2 build-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.

Also on this day: 

August 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

August 4, 2008 – Police pepper spray #climate campers

Categories
Australia

August 1, 2016 – Anti-wind idiots step on their own rake

Eight years ago, on this day, August 1st, 2016,

New minister Josh Frydenberg backs transition to renewables, despite campaign blaming them for price spikes

Slezak, M. 2016. How the campaign against South Australian wind farms backfired. Guardian Australia, 1 August.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that South Australia had been edging ahead in the amount of renewable energy in its electricity system because Premier Mike Rann had found a way whereby he made it extremely easy for already profitable (thanks to federal schemes) wind farms to get planning approval in the north of the state.

And this success was making the culture warriors agitated (though to be fair, Australian culture warriors are always finding something to be agitated about). But sometimes their agitation gets a bit much and they start scoring own goals; and so it came to pass.

What we learned is that culture warriors going to warrior.

What happened next is that the South Australian energy transition continued at pace. There was Elon Musk’s big battery and all the rest of it. It’s still unfolding, and you can read about it at places like 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: 

August 1, 1980 – Wall Street Journal does excellent #climate reporting

August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty.

Categories
Activism Australia

July 31, 2014 Ark hits rocks with forestry tie-in

Ten years ago, on this day, July 31st, 2014, an Australian eco-group got its reputation burned.

2014 Planet Ark on the receiving end of criticism about its tie-in with forestry outfit –

The founders of environment group Planet Ark are speaking out about the charity they say has lost its way.

Environmentalist Jon Dee and tennis great Pat Cash founded Planet Ark 20 years ago.

It soon forged a high profile, thanks in part to the backing of celebrities like Olivia Newton John, Kylie Minogue and Pierce Brosnan.

But times have been tough for Planet Ark lately.

It has made substantial losses for three years running, sold some major assets and offered redundancies to staff.

After National Tree Day at the weekend, Mr Dee and Mr Cash have told 7.30 they are particularly upset about Planet Ark’s links with the timber industry.

Planet Ark has allowed its logo to be used on advertisements for timber, paid for by Forest and Wood Products Australia (FWPA).

It is part of a sponsorship deal in which Planet Ark gets $700,000 from the timber industry [continues]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-31/planet-ark-founders-cut-ties-with-lost-organisation/4167146

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 Australian outfit Planet Ark had been going since 1992 (and set up its website in 1996). And they, like any NGO, needed money, and the people with the money said they didn’t want anything in return, but there’s always strings attached. 

What we learn. It suits the needs of organisations with environmental reputations that need a bit of polishing to partner with outfits that have some sort of credibility And so it comes to pass. This tension plays out again and again. Because it’s a market for reputation. There are buyers and sellers. 

What happened next? Planet Ark is still around.

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 31, 1981 – US politicians hold “carbon dioxide and climate” hearings.

July 31, 2008 – another day, another “Strategic Review”

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

July 25, 2001 – Australian Environment Minister says the quiet part out loud about Kyoto

Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2001, the truth is told about Australia’s climate change targets.,

2001 – Then-environment minister Robert Hill admitted on July 25, immediately after the Kyoto Protocol had been further weakened at the UN conference in Germany, that “it could well be possible to achieve our target with the measures we now have in place”.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/bush-threatens-worlds-climate

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC process was in deep shit. It has ended in acrimony without any closing statement or anything. In November/December, the previous year in The Hague(which is where the climate criminals belong, but, that’s another blog post).

 Bush had pulled out of Kyoto. And so, here, in Bonn, they were stitching the pieces back together again. And the Australian environment minister, Robert Hill, said the quiet part out loud when he admitted that Australia had basically carved out such an insanely generous deal in December 1997, that it was going to hit its targets without doing much of anything.

What we learn – if you listen closely, you can figure out what’s going on. It’s not rocket science.

What happened next? 

In June of 2002, finally, to nobody’s surprise, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said no to Kyoto, I think simply because he enjoyed “owning the libs.” There was no upside in it for him really. And it would mean that Australia was beholden to future stuff, and he could much more easily stay pals with George W. Bush. I guess ratifying Kyoto would have annoyed Bush since it would have isolated the US even further. So they didn’t do it. Kyoto was only finally ratified by Australia in December 2007 by Kevin Rudd.

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 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia

July 24, 2001 – Running from the Storm? Nah, we’re slouching towards it

Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 24th, 2001 the first book about Australia’s climate policy is published.

Broadcast: 24/7/2001 A small step for climate change

Tony Jones speaks with Cathy Zoi, a former environmental adviser to president Bill Clinton and Dr Clive Hamilton, executive director of the Australia Institute, a public policy research body, and author of a new book on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions called Running from the Storm. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Clive Hamilton had returned from Indonesia in 1993 or 1994. He’d set up The Australia Institute. And one of the topics of conversation was writing about climate policy. And he had written the first book about climate policy and Australia. There had been articles, there had been chapters in edited volumes – but this was the first book “Running from the Storm.” 

What we learn is that back in the 90s nobody was really paying a lot of attention to climate. It was one of many issues that hadn’t fully emerged for environmentalists aside from a few.

What happened next, Hamilton kept fighting the good fight, naming the tactics and the names. He basically cannibalised that book. And it formed the first few chapters of Scorcher six years later. Both of them are well worth your time.

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 24, 1977 – Climate change as red light? “No, but flashing yellow.”

July 24, 1980 – “Global 2000” report released.

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol United States of America

July 23, 1997 – US climate envoy wonders what Australian leaders are smoking…

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, July 23rd, 1997, Tim Wirth called out the Australians for being bonkers.

Asked about the economic modelling by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) on which the Howard Government’s stance is based, he said he had not seen it.

But he was generally sceptical of industry-funded models and said the US Administration believed modelling around the world showed green-house gases could be stabilised at either no economic cost or an economic benefit – a finding strongly at odds with ABARE’s work.

“I think there are some people who plug their own assumptions into models and then they flog those models as if they are the things that are going to define and predict the future of the world,” Mr Wirth said.

“Anybody who believes that an economic model is going to be able to predict to points of percentage of increase or decrease, I’d raise an eyebrow . . . or look at what those people have been smoking, because I don’t believe there’s any way in the world you are going to get that sort of accuracy.”

The ABARE modelling draws such conclusions and was partially funded by industry. “Industry groups . . . have points of view that they are paid to advocate,” he said.

Taylor, L. 1997. US rejects Aust `differentiated’ greenhouse goal. Australian Financial Review, 24 July, p3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at COP1 in Berlin in 1995, the rich nations had agreed that they would come to the third meeting with plans for their own emissions reductions. That meeting was to be held in Kyoto. International capital, especially oil and gas and coal, had mobilised ferociously against the science – see the attacks on the IPCC’s. second assessment report. And there were also campaigns in the US against Kyoto, Australia’s government, under that thug John Howard, trying to carve out the sweetest deal they could. And that’s what led Clinton’s climate envoy Senator Tim Wirth to say that he wanted to know what the Australians were smoking because he felt that the claims for special treatment were unjustified and demeaning.

What we learn – you can laugh at denialists and obstructors all you like. That doesn’t make them less formidable.

What happened next well, Australia wore down the other nations, it not only got the 108% so-called “reduction” target. But it also managed to insert a so-called “land clearing” clause, which meant in effect, their emissions reduction target was 130%. So, while Tim Wirth’s jibe was a good one, The Last Laugh belongs to 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 23, 1979 – Charney Report people meet – will conclude “yep, global warming is ‘A Thing’.”

July 23, 1987 – Calvin (and Hobbes) versus climate change!

July 23, 1998 – denialists stopping climate action. Again.

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