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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 brokethrough. 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.
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.
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.
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
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?
[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).
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…
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.”
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).
“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.
“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
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.
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.
