Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Canada

July 2, 1988 – Scientists warn of devastation…

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 2nd, 1988, scientists called it, and people in Australia’s capital were warned.

TORONTO, Friday (KRD).—Toronto scientists and policymakers from 46 nations say global damage from “greenhouse” warming and other man-made atmospheric changes may ultimately be second in magnitude only to the devastation of a nuclear war.

They also called on industrialised countries to tax fossil-fuel consumption to finance a fund to protect the atmosphere and drastically cut carbon-dioxide emissions.

Anon, 1988. Scientists warn of devastation. The Canberra Times, 2 July, p.6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Changing Atmosphere conference had happened in Toronto, the days before.

The Canberra Times had been banging on about environmental issues for a long time. See, for example, a book review as far back as 1967, which mentioned the possible impacts of carbon dioxide. And already by this stage, the Greenhouse Project had launched and Greenhouse 87 had happened and Greenhouse 88 was well advanced in its planning. 

What we learn is that none of this was a state secret. Even before Bush and Thatcher got hold of it, it was all out there for anyone who wanted to pay attention. Of course, there are incentives not to pay attention. Very big incentives indeed. And most of us go for those incentives. Why wouldn’t we? And to be clear, those incentives are both internal and external, and can be dialled up or dialled down. We, as a species, have chosen to dial them down, and dial up the incentives to not pay attention. 

 What happened next? Greenhouse 88, with US scientist Stephen Schneider coming over, local scientists saying the same. And here we are 36 years later, having failed to act and having actually made things a lot worse. It is somewhat depressing, I’ll admit, if you’re attached to the idea of humans as an even potentially rational species. If you let go of that illusion, I suppose it becomes more explicable and forgivable. But think of all the other species we’re taking down with us. What a shitshow. 

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 2, 1952 – Rachel Carson says Arctic warming

July 2, 1993. Denialists versus the facts, again.

July 2, 2007 – Australia learns it has been left “High & Dry” on #climate change

July 2, 2013 – Ignorant man who became prime minister disses wind farms

July 2, 2013 – Boris Johnson, expert on energy systems, attacks windfarms

Categories
Australia

July 1, 1984 – CSIRO film “What to do about C02?”

Forty years ago today, (July 1st, 1984) a CSIRO film came out,

What to do About CO2? (1984)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 345ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian scientists had been trying to raise the alarm since the late 70s. The CSIRO had worked with the ABC and in 1976 released a documentary called “A Change in Climate”,which had looked at both concern over a new Ice Age and carbon-induced warming.

And in 1980, the Australian Academy of Science had held a two day conference in Canberra in 1981. CSIRO had released a monograph by Brian Tucker, about the so-called “Carbon Dioxide problem.” Unbeknownst to the public had also been the Office of National assessments. Greenhouse Effect report and of course, the CSIRO in the mid 70s had made a documentary called a Change of Climate. 

What we learn – the simple fact is that we knew but we couldn’t see a way to do anything. 

What happened next. The film was well-received, circulated in schools etc. See interview with Russell Porter.

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 1, 1950 – “Is the World Getting Warmer?” asks Saturday Evening Post

July 1, 1957- A key “year” in climate science begins…

July 1, 1983 – Australian High Court “saves” Franklin River (it woz the activists wot won it)

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

June 30, 2006 – Australian CCS inquiry launched

Eighteen years ago, on this day, June 30th, 2006, the fantasy technology gets an investigation,

Friday 30 June 2006 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation announced an inquiry into the science and application of geosequestration technology in Australia

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that since the Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Industry Council in 1999, geo sequestration in Australia had been in favour. The Coal 21 plan, Coal 21 conferences and so forth. And so, some senators decided it was time to start taking a closer look at what CCS might in fact, be able to achieve if everything went swimmingly. 

What we learn is that give them enough time and – bless ‘em – Parliamentarians will start demanding that the right questions are asked. 

What happened next? The report was delivered a year later. CCS died in 2010, but has since been revived – it’s too useful a fantasy to stay dead…

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: 

June 30, 2008 – Judge stops a coal-burning power plant getting built.

June 30, 2010 – CCS will be at 5GW by 2020. (nope).

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

June 29, 2006 – “Wind farms don’t live up to the hype”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, June 29th, 2004 another Liberal talks nonsense about renewables.

’ Mr Peter McGauran MP, the federal Minister for Agriculture and member for Gippsland, went further in June 2006, saying ‘Wind farms don’t live up to the hype that they’re the environmental saviour and a serious alternative energy source.

ABC, 2006. Pete McGauran says wind farms a fraud. AM Program, 29 June. 2006

(Prest, 2007: 254)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that the Howard government was doing its absolute best to suppress the rise of renewables. It had been forced or it had in 1997, chosen to announce a renewables target As part of its, “this is why we won’t sign Kyoto” campaign.

 And then it had been forced to eventually create a mandatory renewable energy target that came into effect in April of 2001. By this time, the Howard Government had called a meeting of the Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group, a bunch of fossil fuel majors, asking for their help in suppressing renewables. So this is arguing that there is hype around renewables. But that very accurate critique of hype and unrealistic expectations around a new technology, oddly, never gets applied to carbon capture and storage or god forbid nuclear. 

What we learn is that Liberal Party, people call themselves conservative, but they’re not conserving the planet, ecosystems, quality of life for anyone. What they’re conserving is their own position, relative power and importance by cuddling up to the status quo act as they are conserving a poisonous deadly status quo. 

 What happened next? The investment environment for renewables in Australia became so hostile that Vestas the Danish wind turbine manufacturer, ended up closing its factory in Tasmania/ It would only be from 2012-13 that renewables really took off in Australia, in part, thanks to international factors, but also don’t underestimate ARENA and the CEFC. 

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: 

June 29, 1956 – Just DRIVE, she said…

June 29, 1979 – G7 says climate change matters. Yes, 1979.

June 29, 1979 – Thatcher uses carbon dioxide build-up to shill for nuclear power

Categories
Australia UNFCCC

June 28, 1994 – Australian Foreign Minister says “then again, maybe we won’t” on carbon cuts

Thirty years ago, on this day, June 28th, 1994, Gareth Evans mutters about leaving the UNFCCC

 AUSTRALIA may refuse to take on greenhouse gas reduction commitments if the economic impact on Australia was too high, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Evans, has warned.

Senator Evans told The Australian Financial Review that the option of Australia not accepting climate change commitments had been endorsed by Cabinet.

Gill, P. 1994. Australia may refuse to cut greenhouse gas levels: Evans. Australian Financial Review, 29 June, p.7.

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 is that the headbangers and idiots could talk a good game where it mattered. But ultimately when push came to shove, they were all about fossil fuel extraction, selling, burning, getting rich. And Gareth Evans, the day after John Coulter gave Faulkner advice, was telling the Senate that Australia might well not honour the spirit of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, because it had perceived loopholes for itself. 

What we learn is that any political party will have at least two factions. These change membership and focus over time and they can be traced if you can be bothered to make the effort, though it’s really not worth the effort. Depends if you’re being paid to do it I guess. 

What happened next – the Keating government pushed the “we’re a special case” line quietly. When the Howard gang came in, in March 1996, that got dialled up to 11.

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: 

June 28, 1982 – Secretary of State for Energy justifies flogging off public assets

June 28, 1988 – Greenies want deep emissions cuts. Doesn’t happen. #TorontoTarget

Categories
Australia

June 26, 1986 – Australian Environment Council schooled on climate

Thirty-eight years ago, on this day, June 26th, 1986, the penny starts to drop.

The 18th Meeting of the Australian Environment Council on 25 June heard a special address on the environmental consequences for Australia of probable global climatic change.

The address, by the Chief of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, Dr. G. B. Tucker, was arranged so that Ministers could hear a first-hand account of recent studies of the effects of carbon dioxide and other trace gases on the atmosphere (the ‘greenhouse’ effect). Dr Tucker told the meeting of findings from measurements made at the Commonwealth baseline air monitoring stations at Cape Grim, Tasmania, which indicate the concentrations of key gases associated with climate change. He demonstrated the global effect which could take place within fifty years and said that the changes could not only take place in such a relatively short time, but “There is nothing we can do about it.” For instance, in Australia there is likely to be a 2 degree C rise in mean summer temperatures by 2030.

Dr Tucker said that the effect of a two degree rise in temperatures brought about by the greenhouse effect could seriously diminish rainfall in the grain growing areas of the northern hemisphere. In Australia it could cause increased rainfall in northern areas and some grain growing areas. A two degree rise could drastically alter the snowfield climate to that of an area 300 metres lower. Dr Tucker said he had used these examples to illustrate some of the problems which Australia would have to begin planning for.

The Chairman of the AEC, Dr Don Hopgood, (Deputy Premier of South Australia and Minister for Environment and Planning) said Dr Tucker had foreshadowed a complex of problems which would have to be faced in the coming years. The issue was of global and regional significance and Australia should continue to play an active role in scientific studies on climatic change and its implications.

Vol 6 (2) October 1986, page 5

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 348ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that five years previously, the Australian Environment Council had been told that climate change was a real issue and that it needed looking at and then there had been utter silence for five years, which is fascinating. Had orders come down from on high? Possibly. Possibly not? I think, probably not; I think it’s just too big an issue, and no one can think about it. And what to do about it. And it was only after Villach in 85, that they were forced to reluctantly remove their heads from the sand. 

What we can learn is that some issues – and greenhouse gases build-up is number one – are simply too profound. And we say that we’re going to look at them. And then we look away, we change the subject, whether we’re an NGO like thAustralian Conservation Foundation in the mid 80s, or we are Australian Environment Council, anyone really.

And we’re still doing it. Instead of looking at the horror, we talk about more renewables as if that’s the solution. Because we can’t look into the goddamn abyss. 

What happened next was that the Greenhouse Project got going, culminating in December 1988 with a big conference, held in cities across Australia.

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: 

June 26, 1986 – “our children will grow old in a world that fragmenting and disintegrating.”

June 26, 1988 – it’s SHOWTIME for climate…

June 26, 1991 “environment is not flavor of the month any more”

Categories
Australia

June 25, 1990 – Ecologically Sustainable Development paper released

Thirty-four years ago, on this day, June 25th, 1990, the Australian Federal Government is forced to keep a promise made to win the last election.

CANBERRA: The Federal Government gave assurances yesterday there would be no freeze on development applications for resource-based projects over the next year while it formulates its final policy on ecologically sustainable development.

It also undertook that the future of the proposed Coronation Hill mine in the Northern Territory – delayed by a review by the Resources Assessment Commission – would not be further delayed while the policy is being settled. The commitments were given by the Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, and the Minister for Primary Industry and Energy, Mr Kerin, when releasing the Government’s discussion paper, Ecologically Sustainable Development

Cockburn, M. 1990. Pledges on ecology review. Sydney Morning Herald, 26 June. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in order to win the 1990 federal election, Australian Labor Party had had to schmooze the environment movement and promise it further deeper involvement in policymaking. This was the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. And a paper was released on that day with relatively weak climate stuff, but you know, everything’s allegedly “up for debate”. The other context is that the Liberals felt that they had been shafted by the Australian Conservation Foundation, had snubbed it, and would continue to snub it. 

What we learn is that betrayal Dolchstoss is a strong narrative.

 What happened next? The ESD process launched, the environmentalists were better-informed and more committed and ran rings around industry who just thought they could turn up and get what they wanted and that their vague prognostications of economic doom would be a conversation ender. They didn’t expect anything else, why would they? So therefore, the ESD had to be defeated. Not through argument, but through politics watering down.

It was watered down significantly by bureaucrats, it dribbled out in the final versions in December 1991. And then a couple of weeks later, Bob Hawke was toppled as prime minister. And that really was the end of it as evidenced by the infamous meeting, in the middle of 1992 where everyone was extremely fed up with the bureaucrats (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: 

June 25, 2003 – the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum is created

June 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds

Categories
Australia

June 22, 1976 – climate truth reaches the provinces (i.e. Adelaide)

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, June 22nd, 1976, sleepy Adelaide warned of possible trouble ahead, when the CSIRO-made documentary “A climate of change” is shown on ABC in Adelaide 22 June 1976

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by this stage Australian elites were at least dimly aware of the possible problem of climate change there, most of them probably still thought it was going to be a new ice age. The World Meteorological Organisation was really looking at CO2 and saying “uh oh.”. Kenneth Hare was in Adelaide.

What we learn – we knew enough by the late 1970s to be seriously worried.

What happened next – it would be another 12 years before the issue properly finally broke through. And even then, most everyone went back to sleep…

Fun fact Hare had been there in 1938 when Guy Callendar had given his presentation to the Royal Meteorological Society.

[It would be fun to look at the Royal Meteorological Society archives for that moment] You could do a book about moments in climate history, specific events, and then you could link it with what else happened. So Calendar plus PLAs at AGU and 53. Maybe Conservation Foundation meeting in 63. Keeling speech in 69. Maybe Smic meeting in 71 Luxenberg in 78, Villach in 85. 

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: 

June 22, 1970 – US Congressman talks about ‘the Imperilled Environment,’ including C02 build-up

June 22, 1976 – Times reports “World’s temperature likely to rise”

June 22 ,1988 – Roger Rabbit on forced consumption (and so on to #climate apocalypse)

Categories
Australia

June 21, 1994 – “National Greenhouse Advisory Panel” established. Hilarity ensues.

Thirty years ago, on this day, June 21st, 1994, the Federal Government sets up an advisory body.

“Federal Environment Minister Senator John Faulkner announced the appointment of a panel to advise on greenhouse strategies amid growing friction between business and conservation groups. The panel was headed by Professor Paul Greenfield of Queensland University with representatives from consumer, conservationist, union, business and industry bodies.” 

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 that the National Greenhouse Advisory Panel was set up because greenhouse policy was a mess. The National Greenhouse Response Strategy had been published in December 1992, an immensely-watered down version replacement for the Ecologically Sustainable Development process, and it was clear that NGRS was a dead duck and irrelevant duck. Labor set this up, there was also the issue of the more immediate challenge of a carbon tax battle that was impending; a panel might provide useful ammunition and at worst case scenario it could be a Macmillan manoeuvre 

What we learn is that the birth of these sorts of panels usually has a backstory which is worth knowing – who set them up, why, what are the short term motivations? 

 What happened next The NGAP staggered on for a couple of years and then was basically dissolved without Howard even writing them a thank you letter because he is just a prick. Just a rude, stupid, destructive prick. 

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: 

June 21, 1958 – Washington Post reports ‘world turning into a ‘greenhouse’

June 21, 2007 – ABC unleashes “Carbon Cops” on the world. ACAB – All Climate Activists Barf…

Categories
Australia

June 20, 1994 – MunichRe is worried about its business model

Thirty years ago, on this day, June 20th 1994, insurers do the sums and begin to wonder…

Interestingly, big business, led by the $1.4 trillion dollar insurance industry, is becoming increasingly worried about global warming. After a global record loss of SUS27.1 billion in 1992.

Munich Reinsurance, the largest reinsurance company in the world, stated, “Action is now required first and foremost from politics and business: the imminent change in our climate makes speedy, radical counter-measures unavoidable.”

Jackson, E. and Goldsworthy, L. 1994. No doubt about global warming. Canberra Times, June 20, p.16.

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 is again, that the COP1 meeting is pending in the not too distant future. But the denialist lobby the Global Climate Coalition is riding high and is taking the oxygen and seemingly speaking on behalf of “all business.” But reinsurers need to look at the future. And they also understand that if, once in 100 year events start happening every 10 years, then their business model of insuring insurance basically falls over. So they really ought to do something. The dilemma facing them is that nobody cares; they’re only reinsurers. Yawnsville. 

What we learn is that factions of capitalism were, from the mid 90s, looking ahead and saying in the words of that shuttle pilot “uh oh.”

What happened next a whole bunch of insurers turned up to day 1 of COP1 and then went home. The fossil fuel lobbyists stayed there for the whole thing. How do I know? I read the Carbon War by Jeremy Leggett. 

See also Greenpeace talking about the “climate time bomb” the previous week

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: 

June 20, 1977- “Alternative Three” – An early Climate Hoax 

June 20, 1979 – Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House

June 20, 2000 – Australian business writes the rules.