Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

Why nuclear persists as a climate “solution” – with bonus timeline

or “The Australian nuclear lobby and fixing climate change”

The context is this

This morning, [Opposition Leader] Peter Dutton announced his alleged plans for an Australian nuclear energy industry and in so doing he has set a test for all Australian media: are they willing to do their job as a fourth estate and call this out for the nonsense it is, or they all going to play games until the next election pretending this is some sort of legitimate alternative that deserves to be taken seriously?

https://tdunlop.substack.com/p/duttons-atomic-lie?r=bhqa3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

[See also Simon Holmes a Court’s excellent thread about the 18 questions that should be asked about Dutton’s announcement.]

I thought about pitching something to The Conversation Australia – but I am out of favour with them and in any case, there’s this typically excellent piece by John Quiggin.  Also I should be doing other things (see disclaimer here and at foot of this post).

The short version is this – the Liberals and Nationals have struggled with the climate issue since 1990.  There was an effort to compete on the issue in the late 1980s – the Liberals went to the March 1990 Federal election with a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labor

But for various reasons (including a myth that the Australian Conservation Foundation had ‘stabbed them in the back’) the Liberals and Nationals quickly decided NOT to compete for ‘green’ votes, and not to take climate seriously.  Except when forced (2005 to 2009), they’ve held to that stance ever since.

The nuclear ca(na)rd never goes away, no matter how many times the objections to it are raised. There is always a new buzz phrase – fast-breeder, thorium pebbles, small modular – to roll off the tongues of those whose enthusiasm is ideological or cynical.  The buzzsaw of reality hits the buzzword … and a new buzzword replaces it.

The “nuclear” option is too useful to be discarded. It serves as 

  • as a non-answer to what many LNPers regard (secretly or openly) as a non-issue
  • as an invocation of Faith In Technology – it makes them feel modern/scientific/whatever, as distinct from the hysterical emotional greenies (who, dammit – and this must never ever be admitted – have a better track record of seeing what is coming)
  • as a wedge issue to split the environmentalists and give lazy/obedient journalists something to write about other than the sheer idiocy of the LNP’s “stance”, whatever it is this week.

Thus it is rolled out again and again.  It’s Groundhog Day, only for morons.

A timeline of nuclear power advocacy and use of the climate issue in Australia (always in beta, and more interested in the pre-1988 period than is healthy.)

Over time I will add to this, if I remember. Send me stuff, I guess.  

1970 Australian Atomic Energy Commission annual report

This is quoted by academics in presentations at academic conferences, e.g. ANZAAS in Brisbane, the following year

1971  Australia’s first nuclear power station – Jervis Bay–  cancelled, by a Liberal Prime Minister (Billy McMahon.

1972  The Stockholm Conference on the Environment.

1975 Institute of Engineers Australia (IEAust) creates an “Energy Task Force”

1977

As part of the debates about whether Australia should be mining and exporting Uranium…

April 21, 1977 – Australian Parliament debate on Uranium – C02 build up mentioned

In July – The IEAust’s Lance Endersbee comments (reported on the front page of the Canberra Times thus_

“Three or four” nuclear power stations were predicted for Australia within 25 years by the chairman of a task force that began its final discussions on a national energy policy in Canberra yesterday.

Professor Lance Endersbee, who is also chairman of the General College of the Institution of Engi neers, said the power stations were possibilities for Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. Victoria might have a fourth nuclear power station by the year 2000 – ironically because of the adverse environmental effects of mining its massive coal reserves. Professor Endersbee foresaw problems in the disruption of the State’s landscape and large discharges of carbon dioxide.”

July 27, 1977 – Pro-nuclear professor cites #climate concerns at Adelaide speech

1978 The Australian Mining Industry Council (later rebranded as MCA) publishes a propaganda tome  “Nuclear Electricity” with a glancing mention of the possible greenhouse effect

1979  Visit by American scientist and nuclear booster Alvin Weinberg (write up in Canberra Times). See here.

“Dr Weinberg’s case, in brief, was that though we really have not yet experienced an energy crisis, one is on the way. Apart from the fact that oil is running out globally, if we continue burning it and other fossil fuels, meaning mainly coal, we may push up the earth’s temperature (by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so creating a “greenhouse effect”) and thus disrupt the climate, at the very least.”

1982  Leslie Kemeny article (which he recycled in 1985 at an IEAust conference) (Kemeny a long-term enthusiastic nuclear bloviator – see Jim Green’s 2009 article in Crikey).

1984 Visit to Australia by Hans Blix

See here

“In Europe, demand for nuclear power was growing as concern mounted about the effects of acid rain on forests, the pollution of the oceans and the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” 

In 1988 the “Greenhouse Effect” finally broke through into mass public awareness.  There was plenty of denial, and also opportunistic “nuclear is the only answer” stuff.

July 26, 1988, – Australian uranium sellers foresee boom times…

1989

“While the concern to make a serious attempt to do something about the problem was widespread, it was not universal. The pro-uranium lobby launched a heavy-handed campaign to portray nuclear power as the answer to the greenhouse effect, with the support of an ‘expert committee’ of the Institution of Engineers.”

(Lowe, 1989: 7)

“…. There can be no credible case on economic grounds for the nuclear option.

An understandably upset member of the Institution of Engineers, Australia, recently sent me a copy of a “position paper”, prepared for the Institution by an expert committee. I read the paper with the interest of someone who might well have been a member of the Institution had it not been for a few chance turnings along the road: I actually earned an honest crust in Sydney as a cadet engineer in bygone days when beaches were clean and books were dirty. The document stated that, ‘It is clear Australia can improve living standards internationally and contribute to an amelioration of the Greenhouse Effect by providing uranium and uranium services’. While some of the rhetoric has been changed, much of the technical detail is eerily reminiscent of a 1977 report by the same body….”

(Lowe, 1989:92)

Various enthusiasms for nuclear, in ALP and LNP.  But climate issue dies by 1992 (with the coming of Keating and the UNFCCC) and over the next ten years or so, nuclear advocacy is relatively subdued….

2006 With pressure around the climate issue rising (Kyoto coming into force, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme etc), John Howard gets Ziggy Switowski to produce another report

May 15, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard spouting “nuclear to fix climate” nonsense

(see BBC report here) (read about this in Guy Pearse’s excellent “High and Dry”)

When the climate wars heat up, from 2006, you get more “nuclear is the Answer” stuff – e.g. the Brave New Climate people.

2010 As the emissions and concentrations climb, so do the “predictions” of imminent roll out of nuclear salvation.

April 7, 2010 – Ziggie tries to sprinkle Stardust – 50 nuclear reactors by 2050

And so it goes on, and on, and on.

References/further reading (will expand if remember)

Green, J. 2009. Leslie Kemeny a nuclear crusader in his own write. Crikey, November 11 https://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/11/leslie-kemeny-a-nuclear-crusader-in-his-own-write/

Lowe, I. 1989 Living in the Greenhouse. Scribe

Martin, B. 1980. Nuclear Knights:  https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/80nk/80nk.pdf

MacLeod, R. (1994) The atom comes to Australia: Reflections on the
Australian nuclear programme, 1953 and 1993, History and Technology, an International Journal, 11:2, 299-315, DOI: 10.1080/07341519408581868

Urwin, J. 2023. Better active today than radioactive tomorrow’: Environmentalism and the Australian anti-uranium movement, 1975–82. International Review of Environmental History, Volume 9, Issue 2

DISCLAIMER

I struggle (more than usually) to write in academese.  Or in that kind of academese to which I once aspired. Maybe I was never good enough, maybe I never tried hard enough or long enough. Whatever.

Categories
Australia

June 19 2012 – Abbott is more pro-climate than his kn,ucklehead backbenchers

Twelve years ago, on this day, June 19th, 2012, leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott had to herd some of the more lunatic cats.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

TENSIONS have erupted in the Coalition over a key climate change policy less than two weeks before the introduction of the carbon tax from July 1.

Tony Abbott was yesterday forced to stare down a backbench challenge to the party’s support for the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target as senior backbenchers blamed it for adding to electricity prices amid a backlash over last week’s 18 per cent price increases in NSW and South Australia.

Maher, S. 2012. Abbott forced to quell backbench climate rift. The Australian, 20 June, p.1.

The context was that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Emissions Trading Scheme was about to take effect. Although the Liberals were riding high in the polls that must have bruised their self-love, and trigger-happy backbenchers were needing to feel strong. They were opposing renewables to such an extent that it was electrically damaging. And the human wrecking ball Tony Abbott, of all people, had to tell them to cool their jets.

What we learn is that in the midst of a culture war or legislative war, the red mist descends, and someone has to say “hey, cool it.” And on this occasion, believe it or not, it was Tony Abbott.

What happened next? Abbott took office in mid-2013. He managed to disappear the emissions trading scheme, but not the renewable support in ARENA and 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 19, 1997/2009 – children of colour used as propaganda tools by #climate wreckers/greens do “motherhood”

June 19, 2009 – Liberals warn ‘woke’ companies…

Categories
Australia

June 18,1972 – Patrick White becomes a reluctant greenie activist

Fifty two years ago, on this day, June 18th, 1972 Australian author Patrick White, who would next year win the Nobel Prize for Literature, got involved in politics, very very reluctantly.

“On 18 June 1972, Patrick White made his début as a public speaker from the back of a truck in Sydney’s Centennial Park. He was there to address a rally against the state government’s plan to turn the area into a sports centre, which would have ruined the ecology and amenity of the park.” 

Peter Ferguson “Patrick White, green bans and the rise of the Australian new left”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Sydney was in the grip of the developers who could only see dollar signs. The unions were trying to stop them. Civil society was trying to stop them. And even Patrick White, the intensely private, Australian writer who was about to win the Nobel Prize for Literature was reluctantly willing to use his status to help the cause.

What we learn is that social resistance to the megamachine/the Juggernaut requires a full court press from not just workers but artists. A popular front you could almost say. And even then, its victories will be partial, because greed is astonishingly motivating. You could almost say that capitalism is a form of acid eating away at institutions to coin a phrase entirely. De novo. 

What happened next, Patrick White won the Nobel. Sydney was not entirely paved over, but that’s no thanks to the politicians. What was saved was saved by popular pressure forcing them to be slightly less short-sighted, albeit briefly. 

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 18, 1976- UK Meteorological Office explains things to Cabinet Office

June 18, 2008 – Carbon Capture and Storage is going to save Australia. Oh yes.

June 18, 2013 – Feeble ’Wind Fraud’ rally in Canberra

Categories
Australia

June 13, 1989 – Engineers want greenhouse plan, immediate action required… #auspol

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 13th, 1989, engineers want to get cracking…,

The international community must take immediate steps to revise its energy strategies to ameliorate the greenhouse effect, the Institution of Engineers, Australia, warned yesterday.

Presenting its position paper, The Impact of Energy Use on the Greenhouse Effect, the association recommended action based on the premise that fossil fuels would continue to supply most of the world’s energy needs.

Lewis, S. 1989. Engineers want greenhouse plan. Australian Financial Review, 14 June.

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

The context was that everyone was running around talking about climate change and something must be done. World Environment Day had just happened. And there’d been a big global pop conference, with all the celebrities imploring us to save the earth. Because that’s what celebrities do. And here come the engineers. And the thing you’ve got to love about engineers, is they’re not much fussed with moral claims. They’re very fussed with numbers, blueprints, plans, actions, assessing whether the actions have worked, coming up with another action intervention. Because that’s how engineers, bless them, are trained to think it’s incredibly important. And we don’t think about it. We don’t think about infrastructure until it goes wrong. So the engineers wanted a plan and they wanted it now. 

 What we learn is that there was a time when there were demands from civil society for urgent action. The politicians had their own agenda. And we did not push them hard enough. 

What happened next? The whole awkward question of “what to do about climate change and environment” is shepherded into the Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process and then killed off by bureaucracy. And in the meantime, the issue of climate fell down the agenda. It always does because the media gets bored. And because a war or something comes along, in this case, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait…

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 13 1963 – Revelle, Von Braun and Teller talk futures

June 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say”

June 13, 2008 – activists stop coal train, throw coal

Categories
Australia

June 9, 1976 – ABC Perspectives shows “A change of climate” documentary

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, June 9th, 1976, a CSIRO film gets shown on telly in Sydney (I think).

It was shown a couple of weeks later in Melbourne – see listing here.

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 the CSIRO had been making her educational films. And, of course, the Australian Academy of Science had just released its report on changing climate, which had said “nothing to see here”/”just a watching brief.” Even though the evidence of people like Hermann Flohn was a little bit more robust than that. 

What we learn is that if you were watching the ABC, i.e. was one of 4 or 5% of the population, you would have had a chance to learn the issues.

 What happened next? The documentary got shown elsewhere, elsewhen. In a few years, CSIRO would make more films around this topic, “What to do about CO2” directed by Russel 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: 

June 9, 1955 – Royal Society misses the point (tbf, easily done)

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate

Categories
Australia

June 8, 1958 – Australian Sunday Telegraph on climate and weather

Sixty five years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1958, another of those ‘the world is warming’ articles…,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian newspapers were fond of articles about the changing climate and droughts because Australia is a land of scorching droughts, or whatever the Dorothea Mackellar poem goes. And of course, the International Geophysical Year was just behind us, so everyone was able to have an opinion about the weather. It fills column inches. 

 What we learn is that the idea of ice caps melting, for whatever cause, was not new. And it wasn’t new in 1958. As we’ve shown here, the great deluge in 1932 in The New York Times, “is the world warming?” and Time and so forth in 1950.

What happened next? Various little mentions of carbon dioxide build up. In Australia press, possibly notably the cartoon in 1965 in the Sydney Morning Herald, and two years later, Canberra Times. It’s fairly niche, though, it’s got to be said. 

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 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973. 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury forced to acknowledge carbon dioxide…

June 8, 1993 – Clinton defeated on his “BTU” tax.

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet

Categories
Australia Business Responses

June 7, 1989 – Money to be made from the Greenhouse, says the Fin

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 7th, 1989, the Australian Financial Review (piss-poor, compared to the Financial Times) was talking about the money to be made…

For all the worry that the greenhouse effect is causing around the world there is, perhaps, a bright side.

The greenhouse effect has opened up a number of potentially profitable opportunities for industry. It has created a number of niche markets for environmentally safe products or new strands of vegetable.

The South Australian Government has already taken steps to help industry identify these new niche markets. It has established a council to examine the implications of the greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer on the future direction of industry, agriculture and the economy of the State.

McLachlan, C. 1989. Hot chances for coping with greenhouse effect. Australian Financial Review, 7 June.

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

The context was everyone was talking about the greenhouse effect and what was to be done. Including the business press. And thanks, thank our lucky stars, it turns out there was money to be made. Because otherwise, you know, why would we act? 

What we can learn from this is that every media outlet has its frames: the Hobbesian frame for the Mail and the Telegraph and the slightly more refined but still Hobbesian view for the Times. The bleeding heart Jean Jacques Rousseau, frame for The Guardian. And “let’s make loads of money” and “let’s identify anyone who can stop us making loads of money and squash them like a bug” frames for the business press. 

What happened next? Everyone went on about how much money might be made. But then it turned out that there would be taxes and regulation in order to create new markets and the status quo actors, i.e. the incumbents, were able to squash those markets for a very long time. Until it was too late for anything to actually matter. And here 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: 

June 7, 1959 – another letter about carbon dioxide build up in the Times of India

June 7, 1971 – Australians warned, on television, about ecological breakdown. #ABC

June 7, 1984 – UK diplomat pushes for more environmental action

Categories
Australia

June 4, 1981 – Sydney Morning Herald reprints CSIRO material about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty three years ago, on this day, June 4th, 1981, the Sydney Morning Herald ran some nice factual stuff about carbon dioxide.

4 June 1981 Sydney Morning Herald reporting on CSIRO, Ecos magazine

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JIZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=n-YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1170%2C681961

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ecos, the CSIRO magazine had done a feature on CO2 build up and that made for a good cheap syndication section in the Sydney Morning Herald. Remember that by this point the occasional article about the changing climate and CO2 buildup was not unheard of. And in late 1978, for example, there had even been a television news item on the subject.

What we learn is that there is a recognised pathway: from the specialist press to the mainstream press, articles get picked up. Because there is space between the adverts that has to be filled. And the more cheaply you can do that, the more your profits. 

 What happened next is that a couple of years later climate change got another boost because of the US Environmental Protection Agency report that was front page in the Australian. And of course a few months after this article in November of 1981 the Office of National Assessments did its secret report…

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 4 , 1989, 1992, 1996 – from frantic concern to contempt for everyone’s future…

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

Categories
Australia

May 31, 1995 – newly-minted MCA meets with Keating…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, May 31st, 1995, the rebranded peak mining body meets with Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating.

Leaders of AMIC, now the Minerals Council of Australia, met with the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, for three hours on Wednesday [31 May] to discuss regional relations, trade liberalisation and relations with Japan and Indonesia. 

In line with the recommendations of a report by the Allen Consulting Group, the MCA is putting increased emphasis on lobbying rather than public campaigning.

Mr Buckingham said the way the industry had helped persuade the Government to drop the proposed carbon tax and increase the  diesel excise showed the benefits of its approach. “Where access [to senior levels of Government] is required there is confidence that that access will be given.”

Davis, I. 1995. New name, image for industry group. Canberra Times, 2 June, p.12

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Mining Industry Council had been vehemently opposed to climate action. But more significantly for this particular blog post even more vehemently opposed to Aboriginal land rights. And the crucial dilemma for any trade association is how hard to fight, how publicly: because if you lose and you’ve punched some politicians in the face, they tend to remember it. So AMIC had hired Geoff Allen, who was a venerable business fixer, abd who had set up the BCA in 1983. Allen had suggested a change of leadership. So out with Lachlan McIntosh, and a name change, to complete the rebranding and maybe toning down all the anti Mabo bullshit. And they managed to engineer a meeting with Paul Keating that apparently was three hours. Keating, whatever he thought, had to be in a mood of reconciliation, and if not all is forgiven and forgotten. Let’s move forward. Because if you want to be a successful leader, you can’t really hold those sorts of grudges. 

What we learn, these trade associations have to be careful. There are limits to what they can do. And if they overstep those limits, there are consequences just because they’re made up of powerful individual companies or sectors. Doesn’t mean they have total carte blanche.

What happened next? Well, the Australian Mining Industry Council/MCA and the BCA had been beavering away and they created a really effective group called the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, which was massively successful for over a decade in combating both domestic policy, e.g., the 1994/5  carbon tax battle, but also the international stuff keeping Australia from making any sane commitments for Kyoto, and for ratifying it once they’ve extracted that victory. And you’ve got to hand it to them, they’re really really good at what they did. 

And, you know Guy Pearse and Clive Hamilton chart that success in their books High and Dry and Scorcher respectively. And see also the Carbon Club by Marian Wilkinson. 

But never forget that the picture of Labor as sweet and innocent is complete bullshit. Because if you look at the period especially from 1990 to 1996 they were making sure that no serious action on climate change happened. 

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: 

May 31, 1977 – “4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise by 2027” predicts #climate scientist Wally Broecker

May 31 1996 – Rocket Scientist Charlie Sheen uncovers warmist alien conspiracy!!

May 31, 2012, an Australian climate minister makes a song and dance

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

May 30, 2007 – Kevin Rudd pledges to ratify Kyoto, set emissions target and create an ETS

Seventeen years ago, on this day, May 30th, 2007, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said he’d take climate action, oh yes.

“The Labor Party, led by Kevin Rudd, promised a more progressive approach. It pledged to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, establish a target of reducing Australia’s emissions by 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2050 and create an emissions trading scheme by 2010.” Macintosh, 2008 Page 52

K. Rudd An Action Agenda for Climate Change, Annual Fraser Lecture, Belconnen Labor Club, Canberra, 30 May 2007 (Australian Labor Party, Canberra: 2007).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Rudd had been using climate change as a stick to beat John Howard with, very successfully and this was another punishment beating that he issued with great success. Sadly, because he raised expectations of morality, decency, seriousness, and then dashed them. 

What we learn is that talk is very cheap. And seductive if you’re sick of the current vandal.

What happened next

Rudd became Prime Minister, then fannied about rather than getting the job done. And crashed his chance to be a Labor leader for the ages. Oh well.

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: 

May 30, 1990 – Midnight Oil do a gig outside Exxon’s HQ in New York

May 30, 1996 – Denialist goons smear scientist