On this day 41 years ago, a 3-day hold-hands-and-BELIEVE-in-the-cleansing-and-redemptive-power-of-technology-and-markets event begins.
“No one doubts that the world environment is in a parlous state. With millions threatened, and thousands dying from starvation in Ethiopia as a consequence of drought and an eroded soil, with tropical forests still being obliterated in the face of a woeful ignorance as to the effects on world climate, with equally serious problems arising in the northern hemisphere because of acid rain, and with concern over the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is clear that mankind must again come to appreciate the integral role that the environment plays in his survival. No one doubts either that industry and the process of industrialization together comprise a major factor of change in the environment, bringing more and more of the earth’s surface under the domain of man and his artefacts.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 344ppm. 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 longer-term context is that industry had been making promises about cleaning up its act for a good decade now.
The shorter-term context is that there had been the 10 year anniversary of the Stockholm conference a couple of years before, and rumblings and mumblings about carbon dioxide build-up were growing. The French were/always are in the market for hosting this sort of tosh.
What we learn – talk has been cheap for a very long time. These events serve an important social function, allowing people to believe that our Lords and Masters are more than fearful greedy meatpuppets.
What happened next – the climate issue broke through a few ppm later – in 1988. For all the good it did us. Oh well.
Sixteen years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2009 QRC hype report on Carbon Capture and Storage
“Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche told brisbanetimes.com.au he believed government and industry support would ensure the technology was put in place much sooner.
“I’m confident we will have our first commercial-scale carbon capture and storage electricity generator by about 2014 or 2015,” he said in a report that was published yesterday.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 401ppm. 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 the coal industry had decided that CCS was a card to play while increasing exports. As long as the taxpayer picked up the tab for research and development, of course.
The specific context was that 2009 was peak CCS hype around the world.
What I think we can learn from this – gangs of rich people (“Resource Coucils”) are going to say whatever is convenient for other people to believe. There are plenty of tame stenographers willing to report it dutifully and accurately.
What happened next – CCS collapsed in a heap, of course.
Meanwhile, getting renewables projects going in Queensland just got much harder…
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.
Twenty nine years ago, on this day, September 10th, 1997 another pro-apocalypse propaganda outfit was launched, ahead of the UNFCCC negotiations to take place in Kyoto (COP-3).
“Global Climate Information Project” launched”
Launched on September 9, 1997, by some of the nation’s most powerful trade associations, the Global Climate Information Project (GCIP) has rolled out an ambitious campaign for combating possible emission regulations courtesy of the Kyoto conference.
Through an advertising campaign that, according to GCIP figures, has already spent more than $3 million in newspaper and television spots and could spend as much as $13 million, the GCIP aims to cast doubt upon the need for emissions controls by questioning the politics and the science behind a United Nations agreement.
Writing on the media campaign unveiled by the GCIP, Bruce Clark of the Financial Times remarked that it “could become one of the most expensive lobbying efforts since the ‘Harry and Louise’ commercials that helped doom” the Clinton administration’s health-care reform proposal”
“A Clear View, Vol 4, No 16, Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 business interests always mobilise and collaborate to face down challenges to their right to socialise the costs and privatise the profits. There’s lots of good research on this – Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway remains a good place to start.
The specific context was that Kyoto was coming and business had already done a great job in demonising it, in boxing in US Senators. But you can never be too sure, so thus the “Information” (sic) Project.
What I think we can learn from this. The war for the public mind goes on, and on.
What happened next – the war for the public mind went on.
New battalions were formed, new weapons tested. The strategic imperative remains unchanged – keep the peasants too busy to fight back. Buy off the smart one that you can, sideline or dephysicalise those you can’t.
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 two years ago, on this day, September 7th, 1993, Business meets to get ducks in a row…
From Business Council of Australia Bulletin 102, October 1993
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 357ppm. 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 business had made sure that the Australian government didn’t get carried away with the idea that Australia should pull its weight in the whole “saving the planet” thing that the commie-greenies were wanging on about. In this they’d been very successful, with help from senior ALP Federal ministers.
The specific context was that the UNFCCC had been signed in June 1992. The ratification process was proceeding faster than might have been expected (usually these things drag on for years) so meeting in September 1993 was a good idea, from their perspective – make sure they had the ability to be ready with arguments, allies and actions when the greenie lunatics tried to push for action.
What I think we can learn from this is that – as per Adam Smith – “‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices’.” Or, if he were writing now “trash the future for present profit and convenience. And to own the libs.”
What happened next – a carbon tax was defeated in late 1994-early 1995, and that was really game over for any response to climate change in Australia. To be clear, the carbon tax on its own would NOT have been enough. But without a price signal, and more money for research and development of wind and solar, you can just kiss the planet goodbye. And we did.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, June 9th, 2005, 24 companies say they would quite like to governments save the world (so they can continue making money),
24 large multinationals, including U.S. firms Hewlett-Packard and Ford, issued a statement in which they supported climate change measures, and pressured the G8 to adopt climate stabilization targets and set up a long-term, global climate change regime that would extend to 2030 at least, including a market-based system of emissions trading (World Economic Forum, 2005).
(Kolk and Pinkse, 2007:202)
Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. 2007. Multinationals’ Political Activities on Climate Change. Business & Society Vol. 46, (2), pp.201-228.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that
a) The G7 had first mentioned carbon dioxide build-up at its 1979 meeting in Tokyo, and then again in 1985 in Bonn. b) Business had pushed hard against any climate action in 1990-1 and now, fifteen years later, some of them were having a few second thoughts.
The specific context was that there was now an EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol were about to begin. But the major stumbling block was President Cheney. Sorry, “Bush.”
Prime Minister Tony Blair, hosting the G8 and keen for discussion to be Anything But Iraq, will have welcomed this. And his consiglieres may well have had a hand in making it happen – it’s a very Blair-ite stunt.
What I think we can learn from this
As human beings – we like to believe we are the good guys. It ain’t necessarily so.
As “active citizens” – business will always do this – deny costs, squeal about action, then demand someone else do something to clean up their mess.
Academics might like to ponder – their role in helping government and business versus the punters.
What happened next – more warm words (if not from the Cheney gang).
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.
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
On this day June 3, 1996, 29 years ago, the peak business body in the settler colony known as Australia wanted to nail yet another nail in the coffin of the carbon tax proposal that had been defeated in February 1995.
THE Business Council of Australia has asked the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics to update research conducted last year on the regional impact…
Strickland, K. 1996 Call for revision of carbon tax’s impact. The Australian, June 3, p.031
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 for this was that business was busy winning all the big policy battles, but still feared that climate action might impact their profits. Internationally, the Berlin COP had ended with a “Berlin Mandate” meaning rich nations (including Australia) were going to be expected to present plans for carbon dioxide reductions by the third COP.
The specific context was the new Liberal National Party government of John Howard was even more business-friendly and climate-action-blocking than that of the ALP’s Paul Keating. But you never know, issues can come back – especially with COP2 about to take place in Geneva – and the Business Council is here just laying down some suppressing fire.
What I think we can learn is this:
As human beings – business interests do not care about the actual future.
As “active citizens – business interests know how to keep governments on a leash, and they rarely get sloppy/complacent.
Academics might want to ponder – their role as handmaidens to this system.
What happened next: Howard came out swinging hard against both international and national commitments. He did not get punished by the Great Australian Electorate for these acts of bastardy until 2007.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Stuff on ABARE
Stuff on John Howard
(use the search function!)
References
(as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
It’s a clear autumn day in April and Penny Wong and her chief of staff, close friend Don Frater, are in a hire car on their way to Noosa. As the sun shines on the coastal playground and restaurant mecca, the politician and her staffer are far from relaxed. Wong and Frater have flown from Canberra to Maroochydore in the Government VIP, then picked up the hire car for a high-stakes game – navigating their way through the politics of the emissions trading scheme they have massaged and managed for months.
The trip is top secret. Four weeks earlier Wong had faced the uncomfortable truth: the scheme, the mainstay of Kevin Rudd’s green credentials, had become a political nightmare, backed neither by business nor by environmental lobbyists, let alone by any of the parties with the balance of power in the Senate.
Today – April 14 – in Noosa is about a strategic backdown. The target is the president of the Business Council of Australia, Greig Gailey, who is on holiday in the town. Today he opens the door to some very businesslike guests. They want to sound him out about exactly what it would take to win business over.
(Taylor, 2009)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in 2006-7 Australian politician Kevin Rudd had used the issue of climate change as a stick to beat Prime Minister John Howard with. Rudd was now enjoying watching the Liberals continue to tear themselves apart on whether or not to support an emissions trading scheme. This was all part of the game of politics. The CPRS legislation was about to be introduced into parliament, and everyone expected it would fall the first time. Which did come to pass.
What I think we can learn from this is that we do not live in a democracy. We live in a corporate shell game with demonstration elections. And there are people willing to be the hawkers and the sidekicks to that, because the perks are nice.
What happened next
The CPRS legislation fell again in November-December, 2009 and Kevin Rudd initially thought this was great that Tony Abbott would tank. But then Copenhagen tanked, and then Rudd seems to have had some sort of breakdown and refused to call a double dissolution election, even though he was advised to. And then, when he pulled the plug on his CPRS (see April 11 post), his popularity plummeted very quickly, and he switched to trying to introduce a liberal resources tax. The rest is, as the podcast title goes, is history.
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, January 22nd, 2015, a very good reporter broke an important (and largely ignored) story about industry associations.,
Fossil fuel companies have taken up majority positions in key renewables trade groups steering them towards a pro-gas stance that influenced Europe’s 2030 clean energy targets, industry insiders claim
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the EU policymaking process was grinding on. And the big fossil fuel companies were thinking about ways to make sure that EU policy got nudged in directions that would make them richer.
If renewable energy might cut your profit margins, there’s one obvious thing to do, which is to make sure that renewables advocates are not as powerful as they otherwise might be. And one fairly painless way of doing that, rather than picking a fight in public (which has costs both financial and reputational) is simply to make sure that the trade associations that might push renewables are, if not absolutely captured, then at least partially so, with at least one hand tied behind their back.
Basically,the fox wants to be inside the hen house.
What I think we can learn from this is that this tactic of capturing the opposition is quite normal. It happened in Australia (see Paddy Manning on what was happening in 2009)
Manning, P. (2009). The fox in the hot house. Sydney Morning Herald, 15 August.
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 three years ago, on this day, August 18th, 1991 the rich people told future generations (especially of poor people) to go fuck themselves.
The Business Council of Australia yesterday rejected proposals to make industry more energy-efficient.
The council criticised recommendations by the Federal Government’s taskforce on ecologically sustainable development to increase energy prices and impose new taxes, such as a tax on fuel with high carbon levels.
The council said the country’s future lay in continuing to develop its natural resources. Its executive director, Mr Peter McLaughlin, said the sustainable development process could significantly damage industry unless it adopted a “much more realistic tone”.
Peake, R. 1991. Business Rejects Lower Energy Use. The Age, 19 August, p.14.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Business Council of Australia, the main club for big business, was shouting no at everything, a bit like Ian Paisley did. And even stuff that made absolute sense on any level of economic thinking was shouted down. I think there are two things going on there, around fear of a slippery slope, and also that regulation might be shown – gasp – to be beneficial.
What we learn; two things. First, in the midst of a culture war, the red mist or the green mist descends. And the other thing we need to remember is that all of the economic modelling that outfits like the BCA were relying on and commissioning, assumed perfect efficiency already. And no matter how many empirical examples were given to them, by Alan Pears and other energy efficiency advocates, if it didn’t fit the theory, it was discarded. It was ignored. And so if you believe that things are already perfectly energy efficient, agreeing to further energy efficiency measures is actually merely agreeing to wasteful government regulation in and of itself, which will then encourage more bureaucrats to breed in dark corners.
What happened next, the BCA won, and the Australian housing industry is still miserably inefficient, of course. But the economic models that say it’s impossible for business to be inefficient, persist and have their death grip on the minds – if you can call them “minds” – of business elites.
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 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.
