– My question is directed to either the Minister for Science or the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. I ask whether the Minister is aware that the solar energy report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources states:
There is no Australian energy policy and in the absence of any central direction to co-ordinate a search for alternatives, the complacency that currently exists will continue.
Is the Minister aware also that the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Thomas, endorsed at least the first part of that statement this morning on the radio program AM? Does the Minister agree with that proposition? If not, is he able to indicate what is the energy policy of the Government?
Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP
-I shall take this question as I think it properly belongs in the area of responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources. I have not had the advantage of reading the report put down in the Senate yesterday by my friend and colleague, Senator Thomas. Therefore, I think it would be unfortunate if, not having read the report, I were to make any comment on it. However, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has drawn my attention to it, I shall look at it and certainly shall draw the honourable senator’s comments to the attention of my colleague in the other place . https://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770505_senate_30_s73/#subdebate-3-0
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that there had been interest in solar energy, especially in the aftermath of the first oil shock, ‘73-74 but that with the return of a Liberal National Government, some of that enthusiasm melted away.
The specific context was that there were lots of attempts at energy investigations and so on. (What’s interesting here is that thanks to what’s being said in Parliament, you can learn what is and isn’t being said on the radio, and to a lesser extent, the television and TV and radio are much harder things to research than newspapers.)
What I think we can learn from this is that when you have plentiful supplies of coal, investigating solar seems stupid and unfriendly to the incumbents, and people who are unfriendly to the incumbents tend not to prosper in our political systems.
What happened next. Solar energy advocates kept banging on, largely ignored. There was a petition in late ‘77. Solar only really took off in the 2010s onwards.
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.
Around 150 people gathered outside the Adelaide Convention Centre to ‘welcome’ delegates to the Annual General Meeting of the oil and gas company Santos. Marc Hudson investigates.
The Adelaide Convention Centre sits on North Terrace. The only thing between it and the South Australian parliament is a railway station. I mention this because in September 1977 there was an election for the right to sit in that parliament. During that election questions of mining, and energy, were high on the agenda.
One party – we will come back to which – had the following as its policy statement on this.
Fast-forward 49 years and Santos, (an acronym for South Australia and Northern Territory Oil Search) the oil and gas company that some say has a disproportionate influence on South Australia’s politics, is holding its Annual General Meeting. Around 200 people gathered for a protest rally organised by a group of environmental and social justice organisations including the Australian Conservation Foundation, Action Aid and the Conservation Council of South Australia.
Under the watchful (and occasionally baleful) eye of plentiful South Australian police, delegates and protestors shared the same escalator up to the entrance of the convention centre.
Four protestors, in mock business suits, were on the pavement at the foot of the escalator.
All held signs and one, Ian, from Extinction Rebellion, chomped on a cigar. He explained the purpose of the protest –
“We’re here because Santos is the biggest company in South Australia. They’re having their AGM today. The shareholders will be here, and they are running programmes, projects around the country and overseas that are impacting the environment, that are impacting and overriding the rights of indigenous people. If anybody stands in front of them, they will take them to court. They’ve constantly taken indigenous people to court, and they keep appealing any decisions they lose. So we’re here to call them out. We’re here to support the First Nations people, but we’re also letting the public know that we believe Santos pays no tax. Hasn’t paid business tax for last 10 years. They pay very little money in donations to the government, and they always get what they want from government.”
(full interview transcript at the foot of this post]
Up the escalator, on the plaza outside the entrance the Convention Centre (the inevitable vast panes of glass – the banal calling card of global corporate architecture), thronged various people with placards and t-shirts bearing blunt messages (not all of them entirely safe for work). Various TV and print journalists scurried around, with police ‘liaison’ officers mingling too. (See InDaily’s report here).
There was a brief welcome to country, delivered first in a First Nations language and then in English – “Because we all family, right? Yeah, happy together. I’m strong like the ground, like the country, and we’re soft like water too. So I bring you all here in the spirit of humanity. That’s my mom’s words.”
The speeches at the rally were necessarily brief, (and there was a telling absence from the line-up, of which more later).
The MC (who did well!) was at pains to get all those present to be aware of – and repeat out loud, twice – the fact that the speakers from today’s rally would be at an event – No New Gas! Q&A with Frontline Traditional Owners and Adam Bandt – Conservation Council SA – tomorrow (Friday 17th April) at the Lion Arts Factory, 68 North Terrace, from 5.00pm, where more detail would be delivered, and more ways to be involved in the various campaigns.
Adam Bandt, formerly a member of parliament for the Australian Greens, and now CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, kept his remarks brief. Gas, he said, is as dirty as coal (this in response to the messaging – pushed by Santos and many others, that gas is somehow a ‘transition’ fuel). He said that gas was driving the climate crisis and pointed (as did a later speaker) to the algal bloom that is wreaking havoc on the wildlife in the oceans of South Australia (and on the livelihoods of those who rely on fishing, tourism etc). Bandt pointed to the hotter summers and ever more sever heatwaves, to waters sources being under threat. He concluded his remarks by saying that Australia has solar and wind sources that are the envy of other nations, that governments don’t go to war over solar and wind and that Australia should be aiming for energy independence. He also, – and this will not have endeared him to the delegates – proposed healthy taxation of Santos’s profits.
Adam Bandt
Next up was Uncle Jack Green, of the Northern Territory, where he and his kin have been confronting the Mcarthur River Mine. His comments were brief, but compelling. He reminded those present that the mines threaten the water, and that “we live on that water – doesn’t matter who you are, cattle, human, kangaroo.”
The next speaker was Kara Kinchella (sp?), whom I believe (will correct if wrong) of the Gomeroi traditional owners from New South Wales. A coalition of groups, made up of Gomeroi Traditional Owners, NSW Farmers, the Country Women’s Association of NSW, Unions NSW and the Lock the Gate Alliance, have created the Breeza Declaration. (can’t find online, but this is the closest I got)
Her takeaway message – “we need to get angry, before it’s too late.”
The penultimate speaker (it was clear that the event had started late, and the rally would therefore be somewhat truncated) was Joseph, from Papua New Guinea, where both Santos and the French company Total have operations. Total has managed to get permission – and here Jospeh quoted from a newspaper article ‘to discharge waste into the environment’. As he pointed out, the waste kills the fish, the prawns and poisons the land – this is a human rights abuse issue. He got a full-throated cheer from the crowd for his suggestion that “if it’s safe, take all the waste and dump it in Paris, at the Eiffel Tower.” He closed saying “Santos, you are responsible, don’t do this.”
There was a short break for a group photo, and to send the various delegates into the AGM to ask their questions. The final speaker was Kirsty Bevan, of the Conservation Council of South Australia.
She said she is often asked “why South Australia?” (with, I think, the implication in the question being that SA is a backwater and people here have the luxury of thinking that nothing they do matters) She said that she always replies that Santos has its HQ here, but also, beyond this, there problem is not one for the future but rather one of the
“crises that we’re seeing play out in front of us. It’s not a future problem, it’s a now problem, and we’re seeing extreme weather events. Our surface water temperatures in the ocean have risen by 2.5 degrees, well above the normal, which is what has resulted in the algal bloom, which we’re entering our second year.” (you can read the full transcript at the foot of this post.)
Earlier I alluded to a missing speaker. So, who was absent from the line-up? Well, this is NOT a criticism of the organisers, merely a reflection of the reality we live in – where were the union figures willing and able to speak out on the dangers of continued extraction of oil, coal and gas? There have always been tensions – sometimes managed well, sometimes not – between organised labour and environmental movements. There have been Green Bans, environmentally-inspired pushes for Full Employment, dreams of a “Green Gold Rush” around “green jobs” and climate jobs” (something Australian Conservation Foundation pushed in the early 1990s and late 2000s respectively – the second time with the peak body for Australian Trades Unions). But today, for whatever reason, no union rep was to be heard.
In 1977 Australia was in the midst of a debate about uranium mining and the export of uranium to countries with nuclear reactors. There was then (as there is now) talk of nuclear power for Australia. Which party had that manifesto commitment? It wasn’t the Greens – they would not exist until the early 1990s, brought into existence from one-betrayal-too-many from the Australian Labor Party. It wasn’t Labor. It wasn’t the Liberals (though there were Liberal figures pushing for renewables research and development.) Reader, it was the National Country Party, now known as the Nationals.
In 1977 the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at roughly 333 parts per million. Carbon dioxide traps heat on the earth’s surface. The more there is in the air, the more heat is trapped. Today, in 2026, the CO2 levels are at almost 100ppm above that – 430ppm. They are climbing faster and faster each year. More heat is trapped. More consequences for our past inaction – stretching back long before 1977 – pile up for present and future generations.
My two cents: There really is only so much you can do to innovate with the format of a rally like this, especially when time is tight. Tomorrow afternoon, at the Lion Arts Theatre, it will be easier to see if there is the kind of innovation in how activists hold events that is desperately required. Watch this space.
Transcript of interview with Extinction Rebellion person.
Marc – It’s 16th of April, 2026, I’m outside the Convention Centre. I’m talking to two men in business suits “representing” Santos. One of them has a cigar, as per photo. You’re from extinction rebellion. Why are you here today?
Ian – We’re here because Santos is the biggest company in South Australia. They’re having their AGM today. The shareholders will be here, and they are running programmes, projects around the country and overseas that are impacting the environment, that are impacting and overriding the rights of indigenous people. If anybody stands in front of them, they will take them to court. They’ve constantly taken indigenous people to court, and they keep appealing any decisions they lose. So we’re here to call them out. We’re here to support the First Nations people, but we’re also letting the public know that we believe Santos pays no tax. Hasn’t paid business tax for last 10 years. They pay very little money in donations to the government, and they always get what they want from government.
Marc – And what next for after today? How does the campaign against what Santos is doing continue?
Ian – Okay, in May, we have the Australian Energy Producers conference here in Adelaide that is the lobby group for the oil and gas industry in Australia. All the CEOs will be here, and government ministers will be here. They’ll be here for four days. So we’ll be here to disrupt them.
Marc – I seem to recall, at the last AEP meeting in Adelaide two or three years ago, there were protests that ended up with the Malinauskus government changing the laws. Any comment?
Ian -We’ll do whatever we have to do. We’ll keep doing it because they are not changing. The government is going down the path that Santos tells them to go down, and we’ll keep resisting.
Transcript of rest of Kirsty Bevan speech
It is so important that South Australians stand up and declare that we are not responsible for the climate crisis. As individuals, there are organisations and there are companies who are contributing every day to an accelerated changing climate, whether they’re digging that gas out of the ground which releases greenhouse gases, whether they’re burning it to turn it into liquid gas to export it overseas, they are releasing greenhouse gases which are all contributing to the climate crisis. This part is not under question.
So what do we do? We get them to pay, not the South Australian public. We get them to play for the crisis that’s resulting and our algal bloom, which the report we did at the Conservation Council, we submitted a report that showed that in the first 12 months conservatively, the economic impact of the bloom was around 250 million that’s a quarter of a billion dollars. And who bears the cost of that? We do.
Our role here in South Australia is so important, and we need two fronts at the federal level. We need to show that we are united and that they have a strong voice, that the federal government needs to stop any future expansions of gas and in South Australia, we need to make a firm stand to say that Santos is not a household name. We need to stop promoting Santos at our climate friendly events like the Tour Down Under. We need to stop promoting Santos in our universities and on public land, and we need to stand together to show that we won’t stand for it.
And the government needs to make a change. You can all join up to the Conservation Council’s programme. There’s some people around with their placards out, their hands up, come sign your name, be a part. Showing up to these events is what makes it really matter. But we will continue to hold the government to account. And I thank every single person here today for coming out. Thank you”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 345ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Exxon, by the late 70s, was fully switched on to the problem of carbon dioxide build up, and had allowed its tankers to be used to collect samples. Exxon knew, in other words, this is one of the last public or semi public discussions of CO2 that Exxon would do without casting doubt and denial, which began in ‘88.
What I think we can learn from this is that well Exxon kept on knowing but the weather changed within the C suite, and they basically decided denial was their friend for their business model.
What happened next
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was there had been high hopes for nuclear in the 1950s – “electricity too cheap to meter” and all that. The coal industry had fought back, and so had, well, reality and economics.
The specific context was that the 1973-4 Oil Shock had concentrated everyone’s minds.
What I think we can learn from this is that every technology comes with costs.
What happened next – anti-nuclear activists highlighted the dangers. A few of those worried about carbon dioxide (especially William Barbat), tried to say there were bigger dangers.
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.
From ‘ Efficient Energy presented Futures’, by Amory B, Lovins, at the Workshop on Energy/Climate Interactions, Munster, FRG, March 3, 1980, and pending publication with the Proceedings (Energy/Climate Interactions, W. Bach, et al., editors) by Reidel (Dordrecht, Netherlands)
“The integrated burn of fossil fuel, and the associated risk of global climatic change, can be minimized by economically efficient energy policies based on very efficient energy use and rapid deployment of appropriate renewable energy sources. Such policies can stabilize the rate of burning fossil fuel and gradually, over a half-century or so, reduce it to approximately zero. Economically and technically sophisticated recent studies in many industrialized countries have shown that it is cheaper, faster, and easier to increase national energy productivity by severalfold than to increase energy supply. If such studies are taken as an existence proof, a worldwide Western European material standard of living for 8 X 10 people could be maintained with today’s rate of world energy use ( 8 TW) or less, even with un-changed life-styles in the developed countries and complete industrialization of the developing countries. At these cost-effective levels of energy productivity, virtually all long-term energy needs can be met by appropriate renewable sources that are already available and that are significantly cheaper, faster, and otherwise more attractive than competing power stations and synthetic-fuel plants. Only major efficiency improvements and, secondarily, appropriate renewable sources can substantially change the timing of, or reduce the risk of CO2 problems.”
-Abstract.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that scientists had been thinking about the likely consequences of the build-up of carbon dioxide from the early 1950s, and measuring its rise accurately from 1958.
The specific context was that by the mid-1970s,that measuring was turning to awareness/alarm and the desire to do something before the shituation got completely out of hand. This workshop happened in the aftermath of the First World Climate Conference, which had failed to be a rallying point.
What I think we can learn from this is that we knew.
What happened next We failed to do anything before the shituation got completely out of hand.
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.
On November 11, 1965 America received the first hint of what was to become a reality. On that night, there was a power failure. As a result, the entire Eastern Seaboard became dramatically aware of how dependent it had become on electrical energy. Shortly afterward, smaller blackouts and brownouts began to occur frequently.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 320ppm. 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 grids are higgedy-piggedythings – kludges and palimpsests, and prone to overload…
The specific context was – accidents will happen…
What I think we can learn from this – sometimes a good blackout can concentrate people’s minds? Maybe… It can also stampede them back into outdated thinking and technologies…
What happened next – more blackouts at various points. And rising emissions, obvs.
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.
Fifty five years ago, on this day, October 20th, 1970,
Dr Edward David memo to Nixon about federal government funding for energy research being necessary because power industry too fragmented.
See Speth Ch 1 of They Knew
This isn’t the memo (I think), but gives the same flavour.
“On the other hand, in some cases projects are so large and the industry involved so fragmented that they are really unable to come to grips with big, expensive efforts where the risks are high and the payoff far in the future. Furthermore, many industries don’t have the R&D tradition. The tradition of R&D and the peculiar culture that surrounds it are necessary for its existence and its effectiveness. Some industries have not cultivated and have never had this tradition. It’s difficult and, indeed, almost impossible for them to begin R&D on a large scale successfully and without great waste of resources. In the next few years the nation is going to be faced with many problems concerning government action in certain R&D fields. The President decides whether a development is potentially so important that if industry doesn’t pick it up, then the Government must. He has made a number of those judgments, particularly in the environmental area. And we are doing a great deal of environmental research, for example, the unconventional automobile propulsion work at the National Air Pollution Control Administration. The question arises: Why should the Government be developing unconventional automobile engines why not the industry itself? Well, there is a delicate judgment there as to whether the Government ought to be doing such work. In this instance, we had judgments from many people both in and out of the industry that if the Government augmented the work, it would go forward a great deal more rapidly. I don’t see us taking over automotive R&D, however.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. 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 there were (as always) fierce debates going on about the “energy mix” (coal, nuclear, oil etc etc) for the US. Each had its proponents and opponents, with their varying tactics. But doing any sort of co-ordination/planning or even research is problematic in fragmented/privately owned situations.
The specific context was Nixon’s government was aware of climate change (Moynihan memo and response) and had been warned about it in the August 1970 CEQ report. But it was not high on the agenda.
What I think we can learn from this – that fragmented is not good, but centralised isn’t perfect either. Look at the UK, which at this time had the Central Electricity Generating Board, an “opaque behemoth.”
Whatever system you have, you need an active/engaged/irrepressible civil society, of which social movements are a subset. Absent that, some brand of Bolshevik/Hayekian is going to pick your pocket and loot your future.
What happened next – the Bolsheviks and Hayekians continued to pick pockets and loot futures. And the emissions kept climbing, regardless of various “eco-awakenings.”
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 from 1988 – thanks in part to the domestic work of the “Greenhouse Project” (a collaboration of the CSIRO’s atmospheric physics division and the Commission for the Future) – Australian public debate about the greenhouse effect and what to do about it high.
The specific context was that debates about how to reduce domestic carbon dioxide emissions were about what else besides coal (then dominant) might keep the lights on. Might it be natural gas?
What I think we can learn from this is that there were debates about replacing coal waaaaay back when.
What happened next – the coal lobby fought back (obvs) and even though the debate on natural gas continued, ultimately it was wind and solar that finally began eating into coal’s dominance, in the 2010s. Meanwhile, Australia’s per capita emissions remain staggeringly high, and the impacts of climate change are beginning to bite. Billions of cooked animals. What a species 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.
