Category: Energy

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 Energy

July 25, 1989 – “Mineral Fuel Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect”

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 25th, 1989, 

Mineral Fuels Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect Seminar in Melbourne

Australian Institute of Metallurgy

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.

Also on this day: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Energy United Kingdom United States of America

July 19, 1979 – “a political view on C02”

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 19th, 1979, 

“The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide may be accelerated by President Carter’s new-found enthusiasm for synthetic fuel. But the atmospheric ‘crisis’ may come too slowly to bother the politicians, argues Michael Glantz.”

Glantz, M. A political view of CO2. Nature 280, 189–190 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/280189a0

A political view of CO2 | Nature

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. 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 through the 1970s scientists got more interested in – and alarmed about – the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In February 1979 the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva.

The specific context was that in response to the second oil shock, plans for the US to make shale oil were on the front burner. People like Glantz were part of the move to say “whoa, before you get moving on this, have you thought about the carbon dioxide implications?”

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 1970s, a moderately well-informed person would have known that there was a better-than-trivial chance of serious trouble ahead.

What happened next is that the better-than-trivial chance happened. Oh well.

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: 

July 19, 1968 – “man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable.”

July 19, 1976 – , Scientist warns “ “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century, then we’ve had it.”

Categories
Energy United Kingdom

June 16, 2000 – Energy the Changing Climate report released

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 16th, 2000, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution released a report that turned out to be pivotal.

RCEP releases influential “Energy: The Changing Climate” report, advocating 60% reduction in emissions by 2050.  Also tacitly endorses Contraction and Convergence

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly zzzppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that  the UK government had been making weak promises about climate action since the late 1980s, and been able to keep them for two reasons – the UK was de-industrialising (manufacturing was heading off to China and India) and coal was being challenged as a supplier of electricity by gas, which – nominally at least – has a lower carbon intensity.  The Kyoto Protocol was still “alive” (this is before Bush was gifted the Whitehouse by his dad’s Supreme Court appointees).

The specific context was the science was pretty clear – did we really need the Third Assessment Report? Or the Fourth? The Fifth? Hallelujah…

What I think we can learn from this 

Good people at the RCEP had an impact on the “common sense views” of the policy networks. Twenty five years ago. And here we are.

What happened next   some people within Blair’s broader policy network pushed for increased ambition and action.  You can draw a not-bad line between this and the 2003 Energy White Paper.

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: 

June 16, 1971 – “Ecology Action” formed in Sydney. – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1972 – David Bowie and (Five Years until) the End of the World. Also, Stockholm – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Energy

May 29, 1992- ANAO says it will look at DPIE’s energy management programme

I know, I know, hardly scintillating!

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 29th, 1992,

“On 29 May 1992, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) announced its intention to undertake an efficiency audit of DPIE’s energy management program. The audit was to consider the potential for improvement in the administration of the program and in the reporting of program performance. The auditors focussed on the administration of the interim greenhouse gas response initiatives with a view to contributing to efficiencies in the implementation of the NGRS’”

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION review of Audit Report No. 32 1992-93—an efficiency audit of the Implementation of an Interim Greenhouse Response

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was various “greenhouse” responses had been proposed. Most had been killed off in the committees and left to die by the wayside. Those that had survived the hazing and salami slicing needed to be looked at for “value for money” etc.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can’t teach an elephant to tapdance.

What happened next  On this particularly? I don’t know. But have a look at Australia’s response to climate change and tell me it hasn’t been catastrophically suicidal. Go on.

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: 

May 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

May 29, 2007 “Climate Clever” ad campaign in attempt to save John Howard – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Energy

April 13, 2007 – smart meters are gonna save us…

Sixteen years ago, on this day, April 13th, 2007, Australian governments said smart-metering was just round the corner,

By April 2007 there was formal agreement by COAG to a national mandated rollout of electricity smart meters to begin by the end of 2008, in locations where an economic case could be made, as summarised in the 13th April 2007 COAG Meeting Communique:

‘‘COAG. . . endorsed a staged approach for the national mandated roll out of electricity smart meters to areas where benefits outweigh costs, as indicated by the results of the cost-benefit analysis which will be completed by the end of 2007.” [COAG (2007): 1]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone in Australia (okay, some people, but a little hyperbole is okay) was running around either actually caring or – more commonly – pretending to care about Saving The World.  In late 2006, as if a switch had been flicked, the issue had broken through, and by December even arch-blocker Prime Minister John Howard had been forced into a U-turn. So here we have various government types having to say they’re going to act. And “smart meters” are part of that whole neo-liberal efficiency discourse, that sorta sounds okay until you think how it comes up against Jevons Paradox, techno-failure and the use of technology to surveil populations.

What I think we can learn from this

Policies can be announced. Doesn’t mean they’re gonna get implemented.

What happened next

Fast forward to November 2024-

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) has announced a final rule requiring smart meters to be deployed across the National Electricity Market (NEM) by 2030.  

This reform aims to modernise Australia’s energy system and accelerate the transition to renewable energy. 

Smart meters are essential for enabling a connected, efficient energy system and achieving net zero targets. 

The reforms include: 

  • faster smart meter deployment to help households and businesses access savings and energy benefits sooner 
  • improving network access to important power quality data for better network management, reduced costs and improved safety. 

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

(Lovell, 2017:103) Lovell, H. 2017. Mobile policies and policy streams: The case of smart metering policy in Australia. Geoforum, 81, pp.100-108.

Also on this day: 

April 13, 1968 – the New Yorker glosses air pollution, mentions carbon dioxide

April 13, 1992 – Denialist tosh – “The origins of the alleged scientific consensus”

April 13, 2011 – GE and others say Gillard is on right track

Categories
Energy United States of America

December 23, 1973 – Solar Patent issued..

Fifty one years ago, on this day, December 23rd, 1973,

5. P. E. Glaser, “Method and Apparatus for Converting Solar Radiation to Electrical Power,” United States Patent 3,781,647, December 23, 1973.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Glaser had been aware of carbon dioxide build up at least since 1967. Possibly significantly earlier than that. He had mentioned it at a 1967 Solar Energy Conference in Tucson, Arizona and he had been talking about space satellites and microwave energy since ‘68. And here was his patent. 

What we learn is that smart people were knocking out actual plausible technofixes. 

What happened next? The idea of space-based systems was later used, I think, by the Reagan administration apparatchiks to undercut and undermine land-based systems. We should, of course, have had both. If we were smart species, that’s what we would have done. But we’re not a smart species. We are a technologically adept species, but that is distinct from being smart. And here we are with the emissions still rising. 

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: 

December 23, 2003 – Vestas opens Tasmanian wind turbine factory

December 23, 2009 – Kevin Rudd told to call double-dissolution #climate election… (spoiler – he didn’t)

Categories
Austria Energy

December 8, 1976 – IIASA holds a workshop on climate and solar energy conversion

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, December 8th, 1976,

IASA workshop on climate and solar energy conversion. Report released in 1977.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that IIASA was a new outfit and needed to get hold of some issues that nobody else was really talking about, and to play to its strengths across the Iron Curtain. Climate was a good choice. They ran with it.

This is also in the context of Kissinger making his speech to the United Nations General Assembly and National Academy of Sciences pushing their Energy and Climate report and so forth. And the meeting in the UEA Climatic Research Unit in 75 that had said “yeah, it’s gonna get warmer.” I mean serious people were not doubting this at this point.

What we learn is that smart people have been thinking about it for a long time.

What happened next? The issue could have broken through in the late 1970s, but it would actually be 1988 before things got real.

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: 

December 8, 1981 – Thames TV shows “Warming Warning” documentary

December 8, 2003 – Chief Scientific Advisor under microscope for Rio Tinto role

Categories
Energy United Kingdom

November 5, 2014 – Vince Cable and the Energy Trilemma

Ten years ago, on this day, November 5th, 2014, Vince Cable splashes the cash on the Energy Trilemma

A £14 million fund to help businesses develop new products and technologies to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy security and reduce costs was announced by Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Vince Cable.

The fund will encourage companies to invest in technologies which help to meet our future energy needs in a more environmentally friendly way, while at the same time boosting economic growth.

In a separate competition, Innovate UK are also making £5 million available to increase research and development and fund feasibility studies to reduce the environmental impact of extracting and using fossil fuels. It will help develop innovative technologies to take advantage of the changing energy landscape and make £1 million specifically available for feasibility studies led by small businesses.

Business Secretary Vince Cable said;

We are facing a trilemma. As well as reducing emissions and improving energy security, we need to reduce costs for energy users. Governments have their role to play, but we also need there to be investment by businesses in innovation to develop new products and technologies.

We are making £14 million available to encourage that investment and make sure that British companies have help to tackle this challenge.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberal Democrats had chosen to go into a coalition government with fucking Tories. Because Nick Clegg was a Tory on everything but Europe. And they quite liked the idea of limousines and red ministerial boxes. And here’s Vince Cable banging on about the energy trilemma. The context being that David Cameron had already decided to “cut all the green crap.” And there were the typical Treasury tussles over funding on anything that couldn’t pay for itself within five minutes. 

What we learn is that smart people are understandably seduced by power because they want to make their mark, get something done, change the system from within, etc. 

What happened next? The Tories since 2015 have been governing in their own right, thanks to the infinite wisdom of the British electorate, and everything has turned to shit. Literally, in the case of rivers, the state is being looted, and the earth is being assaulted. And the young can be grateful that catastrophic climate change is going to mean that they don’t have to spend 70-80 years enduring this. 

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: 

November 5, 1969 – House of Lords question about the greenhouse effect

November 5, 1992 – Jeremy Leggett calls Australian petrol price cuts “insane”

November 5, 1997 – Global Climate Coalition co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference