Category: Australia

Categories
Australia

October 7, 2010 – Gillard scraps assembly, goes for “MPCCC”

Fourteen years ago, on this day, October 7th, 2010,

Gillard scraps climate assembly
By Paul Osborne

October 7, 2010 — 5.12pm

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has scrapped her election promise of a citizens’ assembly to deal with climate change, a scheme the opposition described as a dud anyway.

Ms Gillard said other aspects of the party’s election platform – including subsidising the replacement of older cars, rolling out renewable energy projects linked to $1 billion of new transmission lines and improving energy efficiency – would still go ahead.

Ms Gillard on Thursday chaired the first meeting of the multi-party climate change committee – one of the promises made to the Australian Greens and independents to gain support to form minority government.

In a communique released after the meeting, the committee confirmed its intention to “work co-operatively across party lines

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Julia Gillard had challenged Kevin Rudd for the leadership at the Labor Party in July, having had enough of his bullshit. There are some quite interesting and plausible accounts of what happened and how it happened. Then she’d gone to an early election. It had been going okay. Mostly, it’s gonna be tight, but Labor looked like they were going to win. Then some leaks started happening from within the cabinet. Funny that. So it was a hung parliament and Gillard had to negotiate with independents like Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott, and the Greens to form a minority government. And therefore, her idea of a climate assembly – having 150 people to talk about the issue for a year, which she had been persuaded by some Blairite advisor – was now a non-starter, because the Independents wouldn’t wear it. The Independents wanted action. And so therefore, there was the Multi Party Committee on Climate Change, which she invited the Liberals and the Nationals to join (while knowing full well that they wouldn’t).

What we learn is that the climate assembly idea might have worked, if Rudd had come up with it (see Rudd’s “2020” event in 2008). But these processes always get dominated by the loudest, most cashed up and determined. They’re rarely particularly deliberative, especially if the stakes are high. And anyway, by 2010, the timing was all wrong. What could have looked like a sensible circuit breaker now just looked like weakness.

What happened next? How long have you got? MPCCC had its meetings, advised by Ross Garneau, etc. It came up with some legislation. Gillard put that through Parliament. It did an advertising campaign. But by then, Tony Abbott had successfully framed it as “a great big tax on everything” and had also fatally wounded Gillard in public perception. I think Gillard was a successful Prime Minister in terms of the amount of legislation she got through. She was a steady hand on the tiller. But then she also lacks certain things. For example, a penis and children. Therefore, awful, awful woman. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

October 7, 1989 – Alexander Downer says mining lobby”weak and gutless”, too soft on greenies

October 7, 2010 – Julia Gillard scraps the “Climate Assembly” idea

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

October 6, 1997 – Australia says nope to uniform emissions 5% cut. Assholes.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 6th, 1997,

Senator Robert Hill, the federal Minister for the Environment, rejected Japan’s proposal of a 5% uniform reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2012 on the basis that it would result in unacceptable job losses in Australia (ABC television 7.00 pm news 6.10.97)

(Duncan, 1997:10)

Same day President Bill Clinton hosts pre-Kyoto climate conference at the White House… (see New York Times coverage here).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard as prime minister had taken hostility of Australian political elites to the climate treaty from a solid eight through to 11. (“This one goes up to 11.”) And he had sent diplomats around the world over the course of 1997 to try and convince everyone that Australia deserved special treatment at the impending Kyoto meeting, without much success, it has to be said. The Americans were mocking him. Anyway, this above one attempt to break the logjam by the hosts. The Japanese posed an across the board 5% cut from everyone. Now this wouldn’t have been in keeping with the science but it was a bid worth making. The fact that Australia just turned round with a flat rejection tells you plenty.

What we learn is that Australian political elites just don’t give a shit about the future. All they care about is filling their own pockets with loot in the here and now. This is not uncommon, of course.

What happened next? Howard was rewarded for his efforts. Australia managed to get not only 108% so called reductions target, i.e. they got to increase their emissions. But also just through sheer trickery and nastiness they managed to get a land clearing clause backdated to 1990. So that in effect, the emissions reduction target was 130% essentially, de facto if not the jure. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

October 6, 1988 – coal lobby says greenhouse effect “greatly exaggerated”

October 6, 1989 – Hawke Government given climate heads up by top scientist

October 6, 2005 – carbon capture is doable…

Categories
Australia

October 5, 1989 – Enviro minister “Richo” warns Hawkie to save “Kakadu”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, October 5th, 1989, Australian Federal Environment Minister Graham Richardson warns Prime Minister Bob Hawke that he will have to save Kakadu (i.e. ban mining) to win the election, because green-minded voters will accept nothing less. (See Paul Kelly’s The End of Certainty for details)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had been digging up and exporting minerals for good 25 years in large quantities. And the whole concept of Aboriginal land rights and sacred sites was nothing important back then. Not to the white people anyway. But by the mid-late 80s, that was changing. And the idea for an expansion of the uranium mine at Kakadu that would damage the National Park was a vote loser in the marginal inner city constituencies where Labor hoped it would be able to cling on to power at the next federal election. This had to happen early in 1990 and therefore Graeme Richardson, who was Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s very effective environment minister, was telling Hawke that he was going to have to save Kakadu even though this was going to seriously piss off the mining lobby. The mining lobby feared that it was the beginning of serious restrictions on their ability to plunder, sorry to “develop”, Australia’s resources for their own benefit. And Hawke took that on board; he delayed the decision and took the credit for that.

What we learn is that these seemingly tangential issues are important to understand if you want to understand how climate policy works

What happened next Labor did in fact squeak home in the March 1990 election, and then had a quid pro quo debt to keep the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

October 5, 1988 – Vice Presidential Debate and ‘the Greenhouse Effect’

October 5, 1992 – Ignoreland hits the airwaves. #Neoliberalism

October 5, 2006 – Greenpeace sues Blair Government over shonky energy “consultation”

Categories
Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Uncategorized

October 2, 1994 – twenty years of boredom, for trying to change the system from within (Phillip Toyne becomes civil servant)

Thirty years ago, on this day, October 2nd, 1994, as the battle for a carbon tax heats up…

THE FRIENDS and enemies of Phillip Toyne, acquired during years of very public struggle over Aboriginal land rights and the environment, were in a stunned state at the ALP’s national conference in Hobart this week.

The news that one of the hardest nosed and most controversial among Australian activists had joined, of all things, the Commonwealth’s environment bureaucracy (at deputy secretary, level, no less), delighted and appalled in equal measure.. …..

Brough, J. 1994. What kind of pudding will Toyne make? Canberra Times, 2 October, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Phillip Toyne had been a thorn in the side of the Hawke government. He, as the chair of the Australian Conservation Foundation, had also done really useful work on Aboriginal land rights. And now he was tempted to try to change the system from within by becoming a senior bureaucrat for John Faulkner, the Federal Environment Minister, who was publicly toying with the idea of introducing a carbon tax. 

What we learn is that people who try to change the system from within get sentenced to 20 months or years of boredom. And sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. 

What happened next. Toyne was unsuccessful. I don’t know when he quit, but it was pretty clear after February 10 1995, that no meaningful action was going to happen on climate change in Australia, at least not at the federal level. Toyne died in 2015. Having fought the good fight. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs

Also on this day: 

 October 2, 1927/64 – Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar die.

October 2, 1942 – Spaceflight!!

October 2, 2014 – Low emission technologies on their way, says Minerals Council of Australia

Categories
Australia

September 27, 1995 – Greenhouse progress in Australia? None. Zip. Zero. 

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, September 27th, 1995, the government has to admit that there has been no progress on reducing emissions.

The Keating Government’s action plan to curb emissions of harmful greenhouse gases has failed to produce any significant benefits in the almost three years since it was endorsed by the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments.

Despite the plan, and a further commitment for action in this year’s Greenhouse 21C, independent analysts can find no evidence that any measure is working.

Six months after the launch of Greenhouse 21C, no director has been appointed to run its key initiative. Interviews were held only last week.

The director’s position carries only a middle-management grade in the Public Service, even though that person’s task will be to hammer out voluntary agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions with the heads of some of Australia’s biggest companies.

Gilchrist, G. 1995. Greenhouse Project Fails To Curb Gases. Sydney Morning Herald, 27 September, p11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian governments had been making big promises about climate action, for some years. The most notable had been the “Interim Planning Target” in October 1990. And here we were five years later, with the carbon tax defeated in February, with new coal-fired power stations, new freeways. It was totally clear that the Australian Government was not pressing industry, and that the upward trajectory and emissions would continue. 

What we learn is that getting governments to make promises is not actually that difficult. Getting them to keep those promises is. 

What happened next? Well, two months after this story in December of 1995, the Keating government started promulgating ridiculous ABARE modelling on the global level to try and be more aggressive against the Berlin Mandate. In March of 1996, John Howard took office. And then the fun and games on climate delay and denial really kicked in. 

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: 

September 27, 1962 – “Silent Spring” published as a book

September 27, 1988 – Margaret Thatcher comes out as a lentil-eating greenie…

September 27, 1988 – UNEP should become world eco-regime

Categories
Australia

September 26, 2007 – GetUp spoof Howard’s climate greenwash

Seventeen years ago, on this day, September 26th, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard gets mocked for his climate change “position.”

FANS watching Saturday’s grand final can be sure of a political hit with their footy.

Activist group GetUp! is spending $70,000 on a 30-second advertisement sending up the Government’s Climate Clever ads.

Grattan, M. 2007. Spoof sinks the boot into climate clever ads. The Age, 26 September

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had spent 10 years being a complete douche on many issues, including climate change. Now, there was a federal election pending and he had released some ridiculous television adverts. A then new and exciting-ish group called Get Up dd spoof adverts. It’s easy to look powerful when kicking a man when he’s down. What’s more interesting with Get Up is how its model has fallen over since 2019. But there you have it. 

What we learn is that satire could look powerful against a weak and wounded politician. When they’re in their pomp, it seems to bounce off. Maybe it does, maybe it suddenly undermines them. There’s that line in Somerset Morton’s Then and Now (an account of an ageing Machiavelli), where people can survive any hatred but they can’t survive mockery. 

What happened next Howard not only lost government, but he lost his own seat as an MP. First time in 70 years. Labor’s Kevin Rudd became prime minister and screwed the pooch on many things, especially climate change. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

September 26, 1989 – Australian Union body tries to add green to red…

September 26, 1998 – Howard decision only to ratify Kyoto if US does leaks.

Categories
Australia Scientists

September 19 1969 – ABC Radio warns listeners about carbon dioxide

Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 19th, 1969, ABC Radio has the following programme, starring Professor Frank Fenner… Scroll down to the bold bit…

title:A MAN & HIS SCIENCE, 3

Subject Person: MACFARLANE BURNET, CHAIRMAN THE COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION 1966-69, PRESIDENT AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 1965-69

Description:

TALK BY PROFESSOR FRANK FENNER ON SIR MACFARLANE BURNET – HIS CONCERNS.

Descriptive Log:

00:00:00, Log, JOHN CHALLIS: FENNER WORKED FOR SOME YEARS WITH BURNET AND CURRENTLY BOTH ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH ECOLOGY. PARTICULARLY THE WAY CHANGES IN THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECT LIVING SPECIES. DRAWS URGENT ATTENTION TO POSSIBILITY OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY COMPLETELY DESTROYING MAN’S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

PROFESSOR FRANK FENNER: WITH DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE 10,000 YEARS AGO MAN INITIATED PROGRESSIVE AND INESCAPABLE CHANGES IN ECOSYSTEMS. IMPACT BECAME DRAMATIC WHEN MAN TECHNICISED. NUMBERS AND DEMANDS INCREASED. ENERGY USAGE, PRODUCTS OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY. APART FROM POSSIBLE EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH, CHEMICAL PRODUCTS HAD REPERCUSSIONS BEYOND THE ECOSYSTEM TO WHICH THEY WERE APPLIED.

EXPERIENCE WITH IONISING RADIATION AND CIGARETTE SMOKING MADE IT CLEAR THAT MANY EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION VERY SLOW IN DEVELOPING, SO DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH LINKS BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT.

INCREASING COMBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUELS MEANS ADDING MORE CARBON DIOXIDE TO THE ATMOSPHERE FASTER THAN OCEANS CAN ASSIMILATE IT. POSSIBILITY OF MELTING POLAR ICECAP OR CREATING ICE AGE.

WAYS AUSTRALIA POLLUTING ENVIRONMENT. VULNERABLE TO EFFECTS OF LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BECAUSE THE DRIEST CONTINENT, NATURAL RESOURCES LIMITED, AND CLIMATE LESS DEPENDABLE THAN AMERICA’S, BUT STILL SUFFICIENTLY EMPTY TO PLAN IF PERSONAL GREED AND SOCIAL APATHY DON’T CONTINUE TO DOMINATE OUR LAWMAKERS. CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF ‘GROWTH’ MYTH NEEDED. MINERAL RESOURCES OF AUSTRALIA.

SCIENCE ALONE CAN’T SOLVE PROBLEMS IT HAS LARGELY CREATED. UNLESS THE RIGHT STEPS ARE TAKEN QUICKLY MAN ON EARTH HAS TO FACE A FUTURE OF INCREASING MISERY.

Depicts Person:

FRANK FENNER, PROFESSOR, DIRECTOR JOHN CURTIN SCHOOL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, ANU 1967-1973

JOHN CHALLIS, ABC EXECUTIVE PRODUCER SCIENCE UNIT

Miscellaneous:

RECORDED AT THE MACFARLANE BURNET BIRTHDAY SYMPOSIUM.

BROADCAST 19.10.1969 AT 10.45am ON 2nd NETWORK

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that MacFarlane Burnett had already been talking about this to an Australian Conservation Foundation seminar in Melbourne. (This is back when ACF was still very much an establishment outfit.) And so we have ABC radio talking about CO2 buildup as well. This is a good five years before the Science Show’s first episode where Richie Calderr talked about it. This is a year after the BBC Radio 4 people whatever it was called, in 1968 were talking about it as per Ritchie Calder and his the UNESCO sponsored series “Science Peace and Survival”.

What we learn is that by the late 60s (and certainly by ‘68). people knew that this was a possible long term threat. You didn’t have to be a genius. You didn’t even have to have paid a lot of attention to it. The Senate Air Pollution committee, Harry Bloom nine months earlier had told them where things were going.

What happened next? There was the two to three year period of everyone freaking out about all forms of pollution (including climate change caused by carbon dioxide build-up) and then gone away because people can only bear so much reality. And also, the oil shock.

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: 

September 19, 1997 – John Howard condemns the South Pacific to hell. Again.

September 19, 1998 – Public Health Association calls for “life-saving green taxes”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 18, 2004 – Australian States back ETS plan

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 18th, 2004, the Melbourne Age had the following report on page 3

The Victorian Government and other states are close to finalising a plan for a groundbreaking greenhouse gas emissions trading system to curb pollution caused by industry.

Flagging a major Government focus on the environment, renewable energy and sustainability over the next five years, Premier Steve Bracks said Victoria would take a leadership role in pushing the model.

While the plan is yet to be finalised, it is likely that it would cap companies’ greenhouse gases. If companies exceeded their cap, they would have to buy credits from other companies….

Gray, D. 2004. States Push Emissions Trading Plan. The Age, 18 September, p. 3

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after the defeat of a straightforward Carbon Tax in 1995, attention had turned to various emissions trading schemes, which had the added benefit of helping banks get rich. And economists could argue about which particular iteration was the most “efficient”, all the while ignoring the fact that these systems will be gamed. There’ll be loopholes, there will be grandfathering clauses, etc. Anyway, there have been two efforts to get the federal Emissions Trading Scheme and Prime Minister John Howard had successfully defeated two proposals for an emissions trading scheme. In 2000, Nick Minchin had been his point man, and then 2003 he had done it literally all by himself. So it was fairly obvious that if you wanted an emissions trading scheme, you’re gonna have to do it so-called “bottom up” with each state, coming up with its own, but then there being transferability and interoperability. And one of the champions for this was Bob Carr, who was still the New South Wales premier (had been since 1995). And here, they were saying that they were going to make it happen. [I don’t know why they didn’t. Did the Federales step in and tell them to go up themselves? That would be a good question to try and answer.] 

What we learn is that good ideas and semi-good ideas and wretched ideas are hard to kill off. Especially if they go with the grain of neoliberalism and are going to make some people very rich.

What happened next. The states’ scheme came to nothing. Kevin Rudd, as Labor Opposition Leader, started talking up an ETS, forcing Howard to do the same. Then the horrors of 2008 to 2012…

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: 

September 18, 2013 – Greenpeace try to occupy the “Arctic Sunrise.”

September 18, 2013 – Feeble denialists launch feeble denialist “report”

Categories
Australia

September 16, 1969 – Aussies warned about carbon dioxide build-up by top scientist

Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 16th, 1969,

Call to keep world at 2,000m

MELBOURNE, Monday. — The world population should be adjusted and maintained at perhaps 2,000 million, distinguished scientist Sir Macfarlane Burnet said today.

It was one of five minimum requirements that he set down for a “stable human eco-system” or an harmonious world.

Sir Macfarlane was delivering a paper at the Felton Bequests Symposium at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in Melbourne.

Sir Macfarlane said the other requirements included a stabilisation of the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to avoid the possibility of disastrous climatic change.

The theme of the symposium was the influence of scientific advances on the future of mankind. It was arranged by the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in honour of Sir Macfarlanc’s 70th birthday.

Anon, 1969. Call to keep world at 2000m. Canberra Times, 16 September, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Burnet and other Australian scientists were obviously extremely well plugged into the international networks especially around UNESCO which was acting as a key scientific source of information. Burnett was giving a talk to the great and the good because he was one of the great and the good. 

What we learn is that the great and the good heard it from the horse’s mouth. They heard it from a responsible extremely high status source. And were still able to dismiss it as “nothing to worry about.” Well, that’s not entirely fair. Some of them did freak out, like the Commonwealth Bank guy in Adelaide in 1970. 

What happened next. The scientific warnings got stronger. The CO2 emissions kept going up. The atmospheric concentrations went up. The temperatures went 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: 

September 16, 1969 – Nobel-prize winning Australian scientist warns about carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1969

September 16, 2015 – Turns out big companies are ‘climate hypocrites’?

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 14, 1994 – Business told to brace for climate regulation/tax (which it then handily defeats)

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 14th, 1994

CANBERRA NOTEBOOK

Industry can expect tougher government action as a result of publication in the past week of Australia’s first inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. The Environment Minister, Senator John Faulkner, says he is working on a range of measures to take to Cabinet by December to help cut Australia’s gas emissions in line with international obligations.

Hooper, N. 1994. Greenhouse Action. BRW, 19 September, p.14.

and

A carbon tax, which could have a significant impact on Australia’s resources sector, will be examined as part of the Federal Government’s business tax reforms.

While it is not one of the Ralph report recommendations, a paper has been prepared by Treasury that is expected to be used by the Government when it begins negotiations with the Australian Democrats on the business tax reform package.

In negotiations to secure approval for the Government’s landmark business tax reforms, the Democrats are expected to push for a more systematic approach to Australia’s commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions under the Kyoto targets. This might involve a tax on emissions or other measures, such as greenhouse credits for tree plantations.

Dodson, L. and Lewis, S. 1999. Government puts carbon tax on agenda. The Australian Financial Review, 14 September, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Businesses told that they can expect regulation, that they should brace for it. 

The context was that the carbon tax idea that had been promulgated, put forward in the late 80s, early 90s And then defeated was on its way back. It seemed John Faulkner who was the Environment Minister for Keating was proposing attacks that would raise some funds, needed funds for Treasury and also pay for a little bit of research and development of solar power. Business knew that business groups would fight very hard; but they were realistic that things could go wrong and that they might end up with regulation or taxation. This of course might also have been a warning in order to whip up more interest and finance from potentially affected groups, so the troops were energised; who can say. 

What we can learn is that business fights dirty and hard, obvs.

What happened next Business won that round, and almost all of the rounds to follow. 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.

Also on this day: 

 September 14, 1993 – scientists suffer backlash (not outa thin air though)

September 14, 2004 – Blair “shocked” by scientists warnings – “time is running out for tackling climate change”