Category: Australia

Categories
Australia International processes

March 1, 1989 – “Environment pact backed” by Australian government

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, March 1st, 1989,

Federal Cabinet is set to back calls for an international treaty to protect the environment, a move which could drastically alter the nation’s future pattern of trade and the development of its resources.

Australia would support an international treaty to guard against potentially dangerous shifts in the earth’s climate and atmosphere, under a submission expected to go before Cabinet’s structural adjustment committee today.

[The Hague]

Dunn, R. 1989. Environmental pact backed. Australian Financial Review, 1 March.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  that Australia had been warned about climate change build up repeatedly by scientists, the CSIRO had been beavering away on it since the early 70s. There had been a secret report called Fossil Fuels and The Greenhouse Effect in, or done by the Office of National Assessments in 1981. There had been Barry Jones, Minister of Science, organising the Greenhouse Project between the CSIRO’s atmospheric physics division and the Commission for the Future. And the issue had exploded into public awareness. In ‘88 there had been the “greenhouse 88” conference, linked by satellite to 10 towns and cities in Australia, everyone was holding hands and saying, “We will deal with this problem.”

The specific context is that the idea of an international treaty to deal with climate was high on the agenda because the ozone problem had had an international treaty, and then protocols were underway, So there was a meeting at The Hague without the big beasts deliberately. I should look into why the Dutch called it. Anyway, Australia, under Bob Hawke, was going to take a positive and proactive role. 

What I think we can learn from this is that Australia, at the outset, was not what it is now. And this is in part because I think the business groups were caught on the back foot, as they often are at the beginning of a window of concern, and just assumed that it would all blow over – they weren’t pushing hard back. And so the pro action forces had kind of an open goal. 

What happened next is that business did indeed wake up, and the pushback against any meaningful climate policy kicked into gear in late 1989 early 1990. Perhaps business had thought that they didn’t need to do much because a Liberal government was coming back, and despite the fine words of people like Chris Puplick, a business friendly Liberal government could be relied on to prevent meaningful climate action. That’s just speculation on my part. 

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: 

March 1, 1954 – Lucky Dragon incident gives the world the word “fall out”

March 1, 1967 – Carbon dioxide as important waste problem

March 1, 1970 – so many tribes, so few common interests – All Our Yesterdays

March 1st 2010 – scientist grilled over nothing burger…

Categories
Australia

February 26, 2016 – Australian Defence White Paper useless on climate

Ten years ago, on this day, February 26, 2016,

Former Chief of the Australian Defence Force Chris Barrie recently argued that ‘Australia’s defence force is lagging significantly behind its US and UK counterparts in preparing to deal with the challenges created by a changing climate.’

Maclellan, N. 2016. Defence White Paper fails on climate change. Lowy Interpreter, 26 February.

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/02/26/Defence-White-Paper-fails-on-climate-change.aspx

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian Defence and intelligence forces had had some sort of an eye on climate change since at least 1981 when the Office of National Assessments had produced a report which you can now read because I paid for it to be scanned and declassified.

The specific context was that by 2016 climate change was horrendously politicised, an exhausting and exhausted topic of debate. It had been almost exactly 10 years, sort of September 2006, since the issue had (re)burst onto the public scene, and John Howard had been forced into a kind of U turn.  What followed this was the carbon pricing wars of 2007 to 2011 and whatever you said about climate change, someone was gonna leap on you. So the best thing, the safest thing to do was make various anodyne, vague statements and kick the issue into the next poor bugger’s in-tray. And so it came to pass,

What I think we can learn from this is as per the 2004 Pentagon study, just because it’s the military doesn’t mean it’s intelligent, and in fact, the very concept of military intelligence might sometimes be considered a misnomer. 

What happened next: The issue hasn’t gone away. It never will. Everyone who’s alive will have climate change as the background noise getting louder and louder for the rest of their lives, however long that might be. 

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: 

Feb 26, 1981 – Science writer warns readers about the greenhouse in the Guardian….

February 26, 1988 – Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman warns of “Dramatic Warming”

 Feb 26, 1998 – Australian “clean coal” is on the way (again).

February 26, 2014 – Advanced Propaganda for Morons

Categories
2003 Australia Carbon Pricing Finance Capital Kyoto Protocol Westpac

 February 17, 2003 – A bank wants to make money, and “save the planet”

Twenty three years ago, on this day, February 17, 2003,

SYDNEY, Feb 17, AAP – One of Australia’s big four banks has indicated its support for an international treaty to cut greenhouse gases.

Greenpeace today said initial findings of its survey of Business Council of Australia (BCA) members revealed Westpac supported the aims and objectives of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

AAP. 2003. Westpac supports Kyoto Protocol – Greenpeace. Australian Associated Press Financial News Wire, 17 Feb

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the idea of rich countries having to reduce emissions was there from the beginning of public international climate concern in 1988, but the administration of George HW Bush had, using its diplomatic muscle, prevented targets and timetables for reductions being in the UNFCCC’s text at that point, Australia was playing, and I mean that in every sense, the role of a “responsible middle power”. However, the domestic forces arrayed against emissions reductions and policy instruments like a price on carbon dioxide to make reductions happen were extremely strong. 

The specific context was that in 1997 the Kyoto Protocol had been agreed, Australia had managed to get an extremely generous increase in its reductions. De jure 108% but de facto, once you took into account the land clearing clause, 130%.

In September 1998 the Canberra Times reported that Cabinet had decided it would not ratify Kyoto unless the Americans did. In March 2001 the Bush administration pulled the US out of Kyoto, and in June of 2002 Howard had followed through on that, choosing to make the announcement on World Environment Day, primarily, I assume, to own the libs. 

But business had seen value in Kyoto ratification. New South Wales had lots of forests and could get so-called carbon credits, but only if Australia ratified. Meanwhile, carbon trading was going to enable nice fat fees for consultants and bankers in lots of loopholes, but Howard was opposed. Therefore it’s not particularly surprising to see Westpac coming out in favour.

What I think we can learn from this is that “capital” is not unitary, not a monolith. There are competing, overlapping, conflicting interests, all of which need managing, usually within and between trade associations, but sometimes just the big beasts – the really big beasts – doing it behind closed doors.

What happened next: later on in that year, Howard blocked an emissions trading scheme for Australia that all his Cabinet wanted, and he went on to win another election. Westpac kept on talking, and in 2006 combined with the Australian Conservation Foundation, the biggest green group to push the case for “Early action on climate change” in April of 2006.

Meanwhile, during all this, the emissions kept climbing, the concentrations kept climbing, and the chances of humans, humanity, civilization, whatever label you want to stick on it, avoiding the absolute worst consequences of its own behaviour, shrank.

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: 

February 17, 1993 – President Clinton proposes an Energy Tax.

February 17, 2003 – “please ratify Kyoto Protocol” advisory group begs John Howard

February 17, 2003 – Bob Carr says John Howard showing poor leadership (too generous!)

Feb 17, 2004 – Zero Emissions Technology Conference in Australia. At peak excitement of tech solutions

February 17, 2013 – celebrities arrested at Whitehouse, protesting Keystone XL

Categories
Australia

February 12, 1991 – “Rescue the Future” report released

Thirty five years ago, on this day, February 12, 1991 a report about 

“Reducing the Impact of the Greenhouse Effect.” by the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (CA 6703).

See the committee details, contents of the report, terms of reference and Chapter 1 overview here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that various Australian parliamentarians (the smarter ones) had been warning about carbon dioxide build-up since the 1970s. In the late 1980s the issue finally hit the headlines, and the obvious question was “well, what do we DO about it?”

The specific context was that the Senate report was trying to add to the pressure to actually get something done. However, it was released, inevitably, after the military effort to push Iraq’s armed forces out of Kuwait was underway, and anyway, the Greenhouse issue was booooring by then.

What I think we can learn from this is that detailed reports take time, and by then something else has come along and distracted everyone. I don’t know what to do about this, beyond having really resilient social movement organisations that understand the dynamics of issue-attention cycles.

What happened next: The issue went away, and then got reduced to “ratify Kyoto or not”? It finally returned in 2006, twenty long long years ago. Meanwhile, the emissions kept climbing and the concentrations kept climbing. Fafocene.

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: 

February 12 1968 – The Motherfuckers do their motherfucking thing, with garbage in New York.

February 12, 1979 – First World Climate Conference opens

February 12, 1992 – John Hewson plots to cut the green crap

Categories
Australia Science

February 11, 2006 – Nice report on CSIRO (Australian science body) getting gutted by idiots.

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 11, 2006,

FRED Prata was flicking through some satellite pictures one day when he saw a “funny looking cloud”. It got him thinking. A few years later, that train of thought produced a piece of technology worth tens of millions of dollars — possibly hundreds of millions — every year to the international airline industry.

Chandler, J. 2006. Discarded scientists fail to grasp CSIRO logic. The Age, 11 February.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/10/1139542406240.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since the permanent invasion in 1788 Australia has always been a set of settler colonies keen to exploit natural resources for short term gain. Great god development and all that… this required knowledge, science (production and, inevitably, impact science). The CSIRO was born.

The specific context was that CSIRO scientists had been at the forefront of investigating climate change impacts, from the early 1970s onwards. By the 2000s, they were under the cosh.

What I think we can learn from this is that the distinction between production science and impact science is crucial, and under-understood. And that our lords and masters are basically morons who kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

What happened next: The attacks on scientists producing inconvenient truths have continued, regardless of the party in charge. Because the parties are there to keep the “show” (or relentless extraction and accumulation) on the road.

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: 

February 11, 1970 – Prince Phillip, Prince Charles and the Shell/BP “Environment in the Balance” film…
Feb 11, 1970 – Prince Charles attends “Environment in the Balance” film premiere
February 11, 1993 – Liberal Party plans would not meet climate goals, says expert
Categories
Australia

February 9, 1990 – “in the end the rain comes down”? (Blue Sky Mining released)

Thirty six years ago, on this day, February 9, 1990

Blue Sky Mining is the seventh studio album by Australian alternative rock band Midnight Oil, released on 9 February 1990 under the Columbia Records label.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Oils had been around since the mid-1970s, doing extremely exciting (ymmv) music and lyrics. 10 to 1 is a stunner, and they kept it up.

The specific context was that well, they were on a roll. You can read about it (see what I did there?) here.

What I think we can learn from this is that good music is part of the “map” you need. Certainly a big part of my map.

What happened next: The Oils did a gig outside Exxon’s HQ.

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

See also my piece on the album track “Shakers and Movers”

Midnight Oil’s “Shakers and Movers” – a profound beautiful gem of a song

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: 

February 9, 1956 – Scientists puzzle over where the carbon dioxide is going….

 February 9, 1970 – HRH Prince of Netherlands points to carbon dioxide build-up

February 9, 2007 – Virgin on the ridiculous

Categories
Australia Denial

 February 8, 2017 –  Morrison brings lump of lacquered coal into Parliament 

Nine years ago, on this day, February 8, 2017, Australian Treasurer (and soon to be Prime Minister) Scott Morrison brings lump of lacquered coal into Parliament  as part of his demented culture war.

To quote myself

A couple of years later, in the quarry-with-a-state-attached some people persist in calling “Australia”, the then-Treasurer (who would become Prime Minister), Scotty Morrison brandished a lump of coal in Parliament.  Some points to note: It was in the middle of a heatwave. He handed it on to one of the most absurd politicians of all time, Barnaby Joyce, who mimicked (?) wide-eyed joy at the gift.  The lump of dead matter (the coal, I mean) was provided by the Minerals Council of Australia, the industry lobby group that has done probably more than any other to stop meaningful climate action in Australia.  The lump was lacquered, so it wouldn’t smudge anyone’s hands – that’s the cleanest coal ever gets.

“Snowballs and morons and coal lumps, oh my”: on the hysterical materiality of old white men – All Our Yesterdays

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 406ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Liberal National Party had gone to the 1990 Federal Election target with an emissions reduction target for the year 2000 that was MORE ambitious than that of the Australian Labor Party.  But they didn’t win that election, and quickly decided they’d been stabbed in the back by the green movement. Since then, and especially under the leadership of John Howard from 1995, the party has been astonishingly evil on climate change.

The specific context was that the climate issue had become a tangled mess of bullshit, bringing down prime minister after prime minister.  And the fact that there was a heatwave gave Morrison no pause for thought, because thought isn’t really what Morrison does.

Also, he very probably believes that if climate change is “real” then it is god sorting out the sheep and goats – he’s a religious nutjob.

What I think we can learn from this is that the “leadership” on climate change is, well, absent.

What happened next:  Morrison toppled Turnbull, won the 2019 election (thanks, Queensland, love ya) and continued his shit-fuckery. The emissions kept climbing and the bill came due. As I write this, heatwaves are baking southern 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: 

February 8, 1956 – Roger Revelle sexes up the dossier to House Committee on Appropriations 

February 8, 1973 –  American ecologist explains carbon build-up to politicians

February 8, 1988 – BBC Horizon on The Greenhouse Effect

Categories
Australia Denial

February 3, 2010 – Tony Abbott and the lunatic fringe

Sixteen years ago, on this day, February 3 2010 newly-minted Opposition Leader Tony Abbott was being his true self.

Tony Abbott’s decision to meet Lord Monckton was contemptible — but smart politics. Abbott is just doing what he has been hired to do: dog-whistle to the extreme right of the party.

Tony Abbott met with conspiracy theorist Chris Monckton yesterday at lunchtime, but Abbott wouldn’t allow photographers to record the meeting or publicly comment on what was discussed.

Keane, B. 2010. Abbott to the lunatic fringe: it’s OK, I’m one of you. Crikey, 4 February.

Abbott to the lunatic fringe: it’s OK, I’m one of you

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since 1990 the Liberal and National party had been terrible on climate change (they had gone to the March Federal election with a more ambitious carbon dioxide reduction target than the ALP, and felt betrayed by the greenies).

The specific context was that Abbott, a manifestly unfit and overpromoted idiot, had become Liberal Leader the previous November, toppling Malcolm Turnbull.

What I think we can learn from this is that Abbott and his goons were brilliant at opposition. Running anything? That’s a different skillset.

What happened next:  Oh, the soap opera. Abbott became Prime Minister in 2013. He was toppled two years later, by Turnbull, who was then in turn toppled by… I can’t type this.
Meanwhile, the coal exports continued, the impacts grew.  Australia is now on the frontline of the Fafocene.

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: 

February 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
Australia Denial

January 24, 2002 – Ray Evans says global warming scam is “the most audacious”

Twenty four years ago, on this day, January 24th, 2002, a well-connected idiot spouts his usual shite.

Writing in the Canberra Times on January 24 (2002), [Ray] Evans stated: “Of all the political scams of the post-war period, the global warming scam … is the most audacious.” https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/wmcs-hypocrisy-greenhouse-emissions 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context is that you will always find people willing to deny impact science, who are willing to say that smoking is safe, asbestos is safe, etc, because, well, they’re being paid to and they regard “impact science” as somehow a betrayal of human ingenuity. Well, it’s absolutely not.

The specific context was that Ray Evans had been the heavy, the thug, for particular mining interest, led by Hugh Morgan, around a whole bunch of issues, Aboriginal land rights, work, worker safety, you name it.

Evans, in the mid-90s had been an important go-between with American denialists, such the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Australian climate denial lobby. That’s not to say there weren’t already relationships with various American denialists being invited down to give talks at the Tasman Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, et cetera.

By 2002 the third IPCC report had come out, the Kyoto negotiations were bogged down. But crucially, in Australia, there was a fierce battle about whether to ratify Kyoto or not. Prime Minister John Howard, a stupid but cunning climate denier, had not yet said he wouldn’t, and outfits like  the Business Council of Australia were suffering internal dissension over Kyoto ratification. The people who wanted Kyoto ratification wanted carbon trading, etc, etc, 

Those who didn’t, thought it was all a scam, and Evans was one of their champions. By this time as well the ludicrous Lavoisier group was a thing.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is always a henchman – and you can waste time thinking too much about them and too little about those they represent.

What happened next  Ray Evans faded and then died. Good riddance. Mad denial continues.

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: 

January 24, 1967 – Senior British scientist says “by no means can (C02) report be dismissed as science fiction”…

January 24, 1984 – Canadian TV documentary and discussion about #climate 

January 24, 2017 – Climate activist is court in the act

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 18, 2006 – Carbon tax 2 (Peter Costello in Los Angeles)

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 18th, 2006 Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello gave a speech in Los Angeles. (In August, Anthony Albanese would use it, to punch the bruise).

On 18 January 2006, in a speech in Los Angeles supporting price signals for energy, Peter Costello stated that:

“A market based solution will give the right signal to producers and to consumers. It will make clear the opportunity cost of using energy resources, thereby encouraging more and better investment in additional sources of supply and improving the efficiency with which they are used. That has to be good for both producers and consumers and better for the environment.

“It is not surprising Peter Costello made this statement as in August 2003 a Cabinet submission to establish a national emissions trading scheme was co-sponsored by four Departments – Treasury, Environment, Industry & Foreign Affairs.

“Unfortunately, the joint Cabinet submission was scuttled by the Prime Minister who is stuck in the past and unable to embrace the future. 

MEDIA RELEASE – ANTHONY ALBANESE MP 16 August 2006

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian elites had been pretending they would act on climate change for almost 20 years by this stage.

The specific context was that John Howard, Costello’s boss, had squashed an emissions trading proposal in August 2003, in the face of a united cabinet.

What I think we can learn from this is they (Costello, Albanese etc) are weasels serving their own interests and those of their rich rich mates, who simply don’t care that hell will rain down.

What happened next 

In April 2006 business and environment groups (ACF) called for an emissions trading scheme.

At the end of the year new Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd started using the issue as a stick to beat Howard with.

The climate issue exploded into view before then, and at the end of the year, Howard did a kind-of-U-turn, which didn’t save him.

See also

Albo or John Howard? Who is the bigger climate criminal? – All Our Yesterdays

August 21, 2004 – The Australian reports on Howard cabinet split over ETS – All Our Yesterdays

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: 

January 18, 1964 – Nature mentions atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up

January 18, 1993 – Australian unions and greenies launch first “Green Jobs” campaign

January 18, 1993 – Job’s not a good un. “Green Jobs in Industry Plan” achieves … nothing. #auspol