Category: Australia

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial United States of America

October 18, 1991 – American denialist in Australia….

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 18th, 1991,

Fred Singer The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Tasman Institute Seminar

Not his first rodeo…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that carbon dioxide build-up had broken through as an issue in 1988. By 1989 the George C Marshall Institute (set up to shill for Reagan’s Star Wars bullshit) had entered the fray and was enabling denialist efforts, alongside the Global Climate Coalition etc. Australia was one market for its shite.

Singer – Singer had been a semi-respected scientist and bureaucrat from the 1950s onward. But at some point he had jumped the shark. Here, he was fresh from warping the words of a dying Roger Revelle, who had known that many people did not think Singer was much of a scientist…

The specific context was that the Ecologically Sustainable Development process was coming to an end and the moment of maximum danger – where the government might actually take on some of its recommendations – was about now. If you were going to bring out some idiot not very good scientist (as per Roger Revelle) now would be a good time. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this – evil people aren’t necessarily stupid or incompetent. (And conversely, the “good” guys aren’t all smart and competent.)

What happened next – The ESD got thrown in the bin by Paul Keating, who toppled Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke a couple of months later. The Tasman Institute kept up with the tours, economic modelling etc.

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 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?” 

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

October 18, 1974 – Weinberg’s “Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy” published 

 October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

Categories
Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

Oct 15, 2009 – The Australian Conservation Foundation models back

On this day sixteen years ago the ACF tried to stop Kevin Rudd from giving away more and more “compensation” (i.e. taxpayers’ money) to polluters.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/13467/20120118-0823/www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/Financial_Impact_CPRS_151009.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the ACF had pushed as hard as it could for carbon pricing in 1994-5, and been defeated. Various carbon pricing schemes had been defeated in the subsequent decade and a half. What a horrible settler colony, with such contempt for everything.

The specific context was that business had been fighting hard, and winning all the time. The CPRS had already failed to get through parliament once, and a second go was coming up.

What I think we can learn from this – you can – and have to – try using your opponents’ tools, but don’t expect to get that much traction.

What happened next – Abbott toppled Turnbull as Leader of the Liberal Party/Opposition. Rudd’s dreadful scheme fell, but he lacked the spine to call a double dissolution election and Julia Gillard had to clean up his mess.

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 15, 1971 – “Man’s Impact on the Climate” published

October 15, 1985 – Villach meeting supercharges greenhouse concerns…

October 15, 1999- Australian economy headed for trouble because of carbon dioxide emissions, admits government through gritted teeth. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

October 12, 2011 – Carbon Pricing legislation passed

Fourteen years ago, on this day, October 12th, 2011,

“Carbon pricing (fixed for the first three years, then floating as part of an ETS) therefore passed the lower House of Representatives on 12 October 2011 with the support of Oakeshott, Windsor, Bandt and Wilkie with a vote of 74:72.” (Crowley, 2013: 377)

At 9.40am on 12 October, Gillard notches up a decisive victory with the passage through the Lower House of eighteen pieces of legislation making up the Clean Energy Future Bill which, inter alia, establishes the carbon price mechanism and its regulatory body.

(Walsh, 2013:87) Stalking of Julia Gillard

The day the carbon price bills passed the Parliament on 12 October 2011, journalist Annabel Crabb wrote for ABC The Drum online:

“Inside Rudd’s office, they used to speak of ‘kicking the can down the road’ – delaying decisions for a future date by which time conditions, it was hoped, would improve. Of all the criticisms that can validly be made of Julia Gillard’s Government, this is not one…

Julia Gillard is picking up the can that has been kicked down the road by John Howard, Kevin Rudd and, in his own way, Malcolm Turnbull…. There’s a compelling, almost cinematic quality to her determination; it’s like watching a slalom downhill skier deliberately hitting every peg.

(Cooney, 2015: 218)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that putting a price on carbon – either by a straightforward tax or an emissions trading scheme (the latter has more scope for loopholes and the enrichment of consultants, so guess which was considered more “efficient”) – had been pushed since the late 80s. And the fossil fuel lobby and its ideological henchmen had done an extremely effective job of stopping it, repeatedly, with help from John Howard on several notorious occasions.

The specific context was that Kevin Rudd’s cowardice and incompetence on carbon pricing had tanked his reputation, and in the end cost him his job. His replacement, Julia Gillard, was forced by the electoral mathematics of her minority government to push through a carbon price, in the face of an extraordinary campaign of vitriol (looking at you, Murdoch media minions and worms).

What I think we can learn from this – women have to clean up men’s messes.

What happened next – the next government, of Tony Abbott, abolished the pricing mechanism. God help us all. 

(To be clear, the pricing mechanism was utterly inadequate as a response).

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 13, 2005 – “Climate Change: Turning up the Heat” published 

Categories
Activism Australia

October 12, 2008 – the GetUp Climate Torch Relay…

Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 12th, 2008,

“The GetUp Climate Torch Relay reached its finale yesterday with a great event on the lawns in front of Parliament House.

While Messrs Rudd and Turnbull were otherwise occupied with the melting global financial system (as opposed to melting polar ice caps), Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown was on hand and spoke passionately, vehemently and inspirationally.

Can’t tell you too much about what he said as I was running around taking pics and helping people off-stage etc.

It was a brilliant day. It was short on political rhetoric and big on tips and traps for reducing, recycling and reusing. The GetUp theme was: Be a super hero for climate change, so there were orange capes for [people] to don to signify their will to reduce their use of precious natural resources.”

http://the-riotact.com/overheard-at-the-getup-climate-torch-relay-finale-sunday-12-october/9247

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that by now Australia was two years into its “omfg, climate change” spasm, and events were beginning to look a little tired.

The specific context was Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spent most of 2008 flying around having meetings with world leaders about the Global Financial Crisis. In the meantime, the policymaking process around a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” was descending into farce, with ever more giveaways to business.

What I think we can learn from this – repertoires get old. Politicians are slime, usually.

What happened next – Rudd’s CPRS was defeated twice, and he didn’t even have the guts to call a double dissolution election. Spineless twunt.

References

Torch relay to prompt alternative energy awareness – ABC News

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 12, 1976 – Jule Charney throws (private) shade on fellow climatologists… 

Categories
Australia France International processes

October 11, 2000 – Aussies want to mark their own homework

Twenty five years ago, on this day, October 11th, 2000,

“At a UN climate change conference in France in September, the Australian delegates argued that countries should monitor their own progress on greenhouse gas emissions rather than establishing an international monitoring body. An Australian delegate objected to a proposal to establish a consultative process to ensure continuity of information exchange, to facilitate international cooperation and to contribute to the assessment of demonstrable progress.

If such a body was established, Australian delegates argued, it should be prohibited from responding to questions about a country’s performance except for questions posed by the country in question.

An Australian delegate also opposed proposals for financial penalties, or any binding consequences whatsoever, for countries failing to meet their targets.”

Green, J. 2000. Greenhouse sceptics lose the plot. Green Left Weekly, 11 October.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greenhouse-sceptics-lose-plot

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia had been nakedly criminal on climate policy since 1996 (before that they tried to cloak it). Although they’d extorted a fantastically generous deal at the Kyoto Conference (COP 3) and then signed it, they had not ratified. And everyone knew that if he could avoid ratifying it, Prime Minister John Howard would.

The specific context was that Australia was once again trying to find ways to carve out even more generous conditions…

What I think we can learn from this is that once an untrustworthy and thieving asshole, always an untrustworthy and thieving asshole.

What happened next – in 2002 John Howard went public with the not ratifying Kyoto thing, to nobody’s surprise.

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 11, 2006 – “Climate Institute” begins tour of rural Victoria 

Categories
Australia Energy

October 5, 2016 – “Energy ministers urged…” again

On this day nine years ago…

Policy uncertainty could cause essential investments to be deferred or distorted at a huge cost to consumers, business groups warn.

Major business organisations and energy users have urged federal and state governments to work cooperatively to map out a “strategic response to Australia’s energy transition and challenges” ahead of a meeting of energy ministers scheduled for Friday – warning that investment is at risk.

Murphy, K. 2016. Energy ministers urged to map out strategic response to renewables. The Guardian, 5 October.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/06/energy-groups-and-businesses-plead-for-strategic-response-before-ministers-meet

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 404ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was well, look at the previous day’s post. There’s all sorts of promises about getting hold of energy production, consumption, efficiency. You feel so powerful when you convene meetings. And then… what happens?

The specific context was that the Turnbull government was trying to pretend it would do something about climate change, to placate “green” Liberal voters.

What I think we can learn from this – “co-ordination problems” exist. So does incumbent power.

What happened next – The energy ministers all took that onboard, and Australia is now leading the way on emissions reductions. Oh yes.

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

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

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

Categories
Australia Energy

October 4, 1990 – “Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, October 4th, 1990, the energy efficiency crew said the same thing again…

AUSTRALIA can reduce its contribution to global warming and improve its balance of payments with a major energy efficiency strategy, according to new research.

Three recent reports indicate that Australia is lagging behind other developed countries in energy efficiency and can improve performance dramatically to cut carbon dioxide output by up to 20 per cent by the year 2005.

Two of the reports say the target could be achieved with net energy savings of $6.2 billion a year by 2005, while the third says it could be done with no cost to the economy.

But a major national program would be required. This would see us use more public transport and switch to cars using only 4.5 to six litres of petrol per 100km (the average is now 12). All buildings would have to meet energy-efficient standards and higher road freight taxes would channel more freight to rail.

Our refrigerators could well have a 90-watts rating (as do the most fuel-efficient sold in the US) and not the 700-1,000 watts here.

The energy-efficiency plan is designed to save 42.6 per cent of energy in the residential sector, 54 per cent in the commercial sector, 38 per cent in transport and 23 per cent in manufacturing industry.

Two reports by Deni Greene, a Melbourne energy consultant – one for the Federal Environment Department, the other for all environment ministers – are at odds with the views of some that energy-saving measures cost too much.

Williams, G. 1990. Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 October, p.19.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that from 1988 onwards “the greenhouse effect” was big news. There were some who thought (rightly) that there were huge savings in emissions to be made from tightening up energy efficiency regulations. See for example March 3, 1990 – ” “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored

The specific context was that the Business Council of Australia was already brewing (had produced?) a report that said doing anything about energy efficiency would crash the economy.

What I think we can learn from this – we couldn’t even do the simple stuff. We couldn’t even pick the low-hanging fruit. What on EARTH makes anyone believe we can do the really tricky stuff? Srsly?

What happened next – by 1992 the “Ecologically Sustainable Development process” was dead in the water- killed by Keating.

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 4, 1957 – see, see – SPUTNIK!! – All Our Yesterdays

October 4, 1969 – “If we melt the Antarctic, our problems are solved because all of the ports of the world would vanish and the ocean will rise 200 feet.”

October 4, 1978 – the Interdepartmental group on Climatology meets for the first time…

October 4, 1993 – Coal chief wringing his hands about “greenhouse,” promises new tech

Categories
Australia

October 3, 2011 – “The End of Australia”

Fourteen years ago, on this day, October 3rd, 2011, Rolling Stone published the following by Jeff Goodell.

Climate Change and the end of Australia by Jeff Goodell

It’s near midnight, and I’m holed up in a rickety hotel in Proserpine, a whistle-stop town on the northeast coast of Australia. Yasi, a Category 5 hurricane with 200-mile-per-hour winds that’s already been dubbed “The Mother of All Catastrophes” by excitable Aussie tabloids, is just a few hundred miles offshore. When the eye of the storm hits, forecasters predict, it will be the worst ever to batter the east coast of Australia.

I have come to Australia to see what a global-warming future holds for this most vulnerable of nations, and Mother Nature has been happy to oblige: Over the course of just a few weeks, the continent has been hit by a record heat wave, a crippling drought, bush fires, floods that swamped an area the size of France and Germany combined, even a plague of locusts. “In many ways, it is a disaster of biblical proportions,” Andrew Fraser, the Queensland state treasurer, told reporters. He was talking about the floods in his region, but the sense that Australia – which maintains one of the highest per-capita carbon footprints on the planet – has summoned up the wrath of the climate gods is everywhere. “Australia is the canary in the coal mine,” says David Karoly, a top climate researcher at the University of Melbourne. “What is happening in Australia now is similar to what we can expect to see in other places in the future.” (continues)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 391ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia’s population was well-informed about climate change “then called “the greenhouse effect” in 1987-1990. But that awareness and concern did not translate into strong action. 

The specific context was that Goodell had written a very good book called Big Coal – climate change is his beat. Meanwhile, the Australian policy elite had been tearing itself to pieces over a simple small measure – a price on carbon. Gillard’s minority government had just gotten it through when this issue of Rolling Stone hit the newsstands (are their newsstands anymore?)

What I think we can learn from this – we fucking knew.

What happened next. Gillard’s brave but utterly inadequate carbon pricing scheme was repealed in 2014. The emissions keep climbing, as does the kayfabe.

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

Goodell, J. 2011. The End of Australia. Rolling Stone, October 3.

Also on this day: 

October 3, 1970 & 2008: Nixon creates EPA, Brown creates DECC 

October 3, 1975 – Three members of Congress introduce first bill for a national #climate program.

October 3, 1997 – CNN pretends to grow a spine (Spoiler, stays jellyfish) – All Our Yesterdays

October 3, 2004 – John Howard revealed to have asked for fossil fuel CEOs to kill renewables. #auspol

Categories
Australia

September 30, 1991 – Hawke’s ministers and ESD 

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 30, 1991,

The cost of repairing damage to the environment must be included in the price of resources, the Federal Government was told yesterday.

The message was delivered to senior ministers during a private meeting with the heads of the Government’s working groups on ecologically sustainable development.

They warned that the community must be more closely involved if the plan to write sustainable policies for resource-based industries was to succeed.

The working group heads put their views directly to ministers and the Prime Minister, shortly before Mr Hawke had talks with representatives of business, unions, and green groups.

1991 Peake,R. 1991. Report Backs Green Levy On Consumers. The Age, 1 October, p.18.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that in 1990, after winning the March Federal election by a very slender margin, with the grudging support of small g- green voters, the Labor government of Bob Hawke had initiated an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” process. This dragged on, and by September 1991 the draft reports were released.

The specific context was that everyone knew Hawke’s days were numbered – Paul Keating was lurking in the wings, waiting for Hawke to stumble…

What I think we can learn from this is that policy processes are  meat-grinders, and leave few good options for NGOs.  Refuse to participate and you look prima donna. Participate and you are ground down and look complicit.

What happened next – Hawke stumbled, Keating came for him, got the Prime Ministership. ESD got thrown in the bin.

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 30, 1969 -US activist publication mentions climate change

September 30, 1977 – “Carbon Dioxide and climate: carbon budget still unbalanced” 

September 30, 2009 – Tony Abbott says #climate science is “absolute crap”

September 30, 2014 – a big CCS demonstration project opens.

Categories
Australia

September 26, 1970 – Medical Journal of Australia

Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 26th, 1970, the Medical Journal of Australia runs an article on “Notes on Some Aspects of Pollution”.

“The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased by 14% since 1960. If it continues to build up at anything like that rate, it could, by the end of the century, form a blanket around the earth, raising the temperature appreciably, turning the tropics into hothouses, making the temperate zones tropical, and beginning to melt the polar ice caps. If the trend continued until the ice caps were completely melted, all maritime cities would be drowned, and the surf that now beats on Bondi beach would be beating on the lower slopes of the Blue Mountains.”

26 Sep 1970 Dark, medical journal of australia more on him here – https://bluemlocalstudies.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/dr-eric-payton-dark/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there was a global ecological awareness/concern springing up.

The specific context was from late 1969 carbon dioxide build up was mentioned among all the other dangers facing us. It had been on ABC radio in September 1969, and was popping up in articles like these.

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve had warnings about carbon dioxide build-up for a lot longer than most people realise.

What happened next: The warnings were, of course, ignored. From 1988 onwards, there have been various games of kayfabe.

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 26, 1969 – Death on All Fronts, says Allen Ginsberg – All Our Yesterdays

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.

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