Category: Kyoto Protocol

Categories
2003 Australia Carbon Pricing Finance Capital Kyoto Protocol Westpac

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol United States of America

December 8, 1997 – Gore and Hill at Kyoto

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, December 8th, 1997,

Al Gore, then Vice-President of the United States, there at Kyoto. And on the same day

“Senator Hill’s entrance was a bit rockier, with a smaller Australian demonstration led by Greens’ Senator Dee Margetts jostling him on his entrance to the main summit hall. Two hours after Mr Gore, Senator Hill rushed through his speech – the 16th out of 67 – in front of a half-empty hall.”

Lunn, S. 1997. US juggernaut swamps small beer at Kyoto. The Australian, December 9, p.8

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 the UNFCCC had been kneecapped at birth by the US refusing to allow targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries into the treaty’s text. George HW Bush said he’d boycott the Earth Summit if they weren’t removed from the draft text – and the French blinked. Everything since then has been an attempt to get some targets in. The Paris farce is the latest and the last (presumably).

The specific context was in the run up to Kyoto there were fierce public campaigns, funded by the oil companies etc, against Kyoto. Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister John Howard had been trying to get people to accept the ridiculous position that Australia deserved special treatment (he succeeded).

What I think we can learn from this – we were doomed a long time ago.

What happened next – The US pulled out of Kyoto negotiations at the beginning of 2001. Australia followed the next year, despite having extorted an insanely generous deal. 

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

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

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

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

November 13, 2000- Kyoto “would hardly make any difference.“

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 13th, 2000,

According to Graeme Pearman, Australia’s senior climate scientist and head of its greenhouse research effort, not much. On ABC `7.30 Report’ last night (13th) he concluded –

Dr Graeme Pearman: “The reality of the protocol as it is at the moment, is even if all of the nations were able to achieve those targets, it would hardly make any difference.”  

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. 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 the UN negotiating process around climate was, as had been predicted, a total clusterfuck. Targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries had been kept out of the initial treaty by the US threatening to boycott the Earth Summit.

Graeme Pearman, by this stage, had been studying C02 build-up for almost 30 years, and had advised Keating’s cabinet (in 1994).  

The specific context was Australia had extorted an astonishingly generous deal, and had signed, but was still not moving to ratify, and it was pretty obvious (see leak from September 1998) that it would only do so if the US ratified.

What I think we can learn from this – international climate “policy” is basically make-believe, kayfabe.

What happened next – Australia finally ratified Kyoto, under Kevin Rudd, who then refused to set ambitious targets for further action.

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 13, 1963 – Ritchie Calder warns of trouble ahead because of carbon dioxide…

November 13, 1975 – climate testimony to House of Reps committee

November 13, 1995 – no Aussie savings of greenhouse gases so far – All Our Yesterdays

November 13, 2008 – Coal industry tries to get some ‘love’

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Kyoto Protocol United States of America

November 12, 1998 – USA signs Kyoto

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, November 12th, 1998,

“equally surprising was the last-minute volte-face by the United States at Kyoto by agreeing to 7 percent emissions cuts by 2008- 2012 instead of its previous, deeply entrenched position. Eleven months later, while public predicating U.S. commitments on “meaningful participation” from developing countries, the Clinton-Gore administration nevertheless went ahead and formally signed the Kyoto Protocol on 12 November 1998”

Indispensability and Indefensibility? The United States in the Climate Treaty Negotiations on JSTOR

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 367ppm. 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 the US administration of George HW Bush had prevented targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries from being included in the text of the Climate Treaty. From 1995 there had been a process to get them in (“The Berlin Mandate”).

The specific context was the Kyoto meeting had taken place in December 1997.  Clinton-Gore could sign it all they liked, but the chances of getting it through the US Senate were approximately zero.

What I think we can learn from this – politicians virtue-signal/cross their fingers/hope something will turn up.

What happened next – Gore probably won the 2000 election, but it was handed to George “Dubya” Bush by the Supreme Court.  Bush (well, Cheney really) then pulled the US out of the Kyoto negotiations.

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 12,1976 – “Greenhouse Effects due to Man-Made Perturbations of Trace Gases” in Science – All Our Yesterdays

November 12, 1999 – John Howard and mates say “nope” to renewables

November 12, 2012 – Greenpeace smeared by Queensland extractors, of course

Categories
Activism Australia Kyoto Protocol

November 7, 2001 – Australian Conservation Foundation bluffs in support of Kyoto ratification

Twenty four years ago, on this day, November 7th, 2001, ACF tries to say the rest of the world is raring to go…

“What is clear is that the rest of the world is not waiting around for the US and is getting on with the changes to their economies that are necessary to cut greenhouse pollution. Unless Australia ratifies we will not be able to benefit from international markets emerging in environmental technologies and greenhouse pollution reduction. Australia must get on with the job and join other nations committing to ratify the protocol.”

Australian Conservation Foundation, Media Release, Australia loses out as world moves closer to Kyoto, 7 November 2001.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. 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 Australia had been asshole-ish on climate from 1991 to 1995, but that ramped up once the Liberal National Party government of John Howard came along in March 1996.  They’d managed to extort a fantastically generous deal at the third COP, in Kyoto, in December of 1997, which meant Australia could increase its emissions.  But still Howard was refusing to ratify. 

The specific context was that in March 2001 President George W Bush, gifted the presidency by his dad’s Supreme Court picks, had pulled the US out of Kyoto, despite having said on the campaign trail the previous year that C02 from power plants would need regulating.

What I think we can learn from this – Conservation/Environment groups are forced to use the language of economic growth and “more technology” in order to seem responsible and have any chance to exert even the tiniest of pressures.

What happened next – it would be 2007 before Australia ratified Kyoto, under Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

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 and further reading

The Veil of Kyoto

Also on this day: 

November 7, 1973 – Energy security avant la Ukraine: Nixon announces “Project Independence”

 November 7, 1997 – Australian governments bang heads in pre-Kyoto bash 

November 7, 2000 – Australian “The Heat is on” report released

November 7, 2022 – journalist covering JSO protest arrested

Categories
Kyoto Protocol Russia

October 22, 2004 – Russian Duma votes for Kyoto ratification

Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 22nd, 2004, 

Russian Duma votes in favour of ratification of Kyoto (Scorcher, page 95)

Just hot air, in every sense…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. 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 original climate treaty, which became the UNFCCC, didn’t have targets and timetables for rich countries to reduce their emissions. This was not forgetfulness, this was the intransigence of the USA, whose President, George H.W. Bush, threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if the French didn’t take out the targets and timetables. The French did, and then it became a question of how to get some emissions reductions commitment into play. The “answer” was the Kyoto Protocol” – entirely inadequate from a scientific viewpoint, but “at least it’s a start” if you need to believe because you are a breeder, or part of your job description is to believe. But although a deal was created at Kyoto, in 2001 the Americans pulled out followed by one of their satellite states, Australia, the following year.

The specific context was that the Russians wanted in to the World Trade Organisation (this was in the days of cuddly Putin), and the tacit quid pro quo was they’d sign up to Kyoto (which wouldn’t affect them because their emissions had plummeted after the collapse of the Soviet Union) and everyone would be happy.

What I think we can learn from this – you gotta know the history, and you gotta understand that climate policy is a bauble compared to all the other stuff (you can make an argument that “climate policy” doesn’t actually exist, btw).

What happened next – Kyoto became international law early the next year because of Russia saying yes. Australia and the US set up an attempted spoiler/distraction outfit, but nobody took it seriously. There was to-ing and fro-ing- at the COPs, but eventually, in 2007 there was the “Road to Copenhagen” – where a successor to Kyoto would be agreed. 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 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Activism Kyoto Protocol United States of America

September 27, 2007 – Kyoto Inaction Protest

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 27th, 2007,

2007 Kyoto Protocol Inaction Demonstration, Washington D.C.

Four environmental organizations including Greenpeace, Oil Change International, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, staged a protest against climate change inaction and the Bush Administration’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Demonstrators gathered outside the State Department, where Bush was (ironically) holding an international meeting on climate change. Nearly 50 activists, including Greenpeace Executive Director John Passacantando, were arrested on civil disobedience charges, i.e. refusal to disperse.

Read more: http://www.mensjournal.com/travel/events/a-brief-history-of-climate-change-protests-in-the-u-s-20140919#ixzz3J9SD6WJ4

and more here – https://climateandcapitalism.com/2007/09/23/dc-rally-to-protest-bush-climate-change-conference/

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 the US had signed up to the UNFCCC treaty in 1992, having made sure – via threatening to boycott the Earth Summit – that the text contained no commitments for reductions of emissions.

The specific context was that there was a huge industry lobbying effort in the run-up to the Kyoto conference (to be held in December 1997) to ensure that profits would not be harmed.  This effort by the green groups is part of the fight.

What I think we can learn from this – the green groups are always outspent, of course, and are up against the Western belief that “some technology will turn up at the last minute…”

What happened next – the Kyoto conference delivered a weak protocol, which the US pulled out of in 2001.  There was then an effort to create a sequel, in Copenhagen in 2009. That failed. Then, in 2015 the world-saving “Paris Agreement”, 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: 

September 27, 1962 – “Silent Spring” published as a book

September 27, 1988 – Margaret Thatcher comes out as a lentil-eating greenie…

September 27, 1988 – UNEP should become world eco-regime

September 27, 1995 – Greenhouse progress in Australia? None. Zip. Zero.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Kyoto Protocol

August 23, 2000 – Nick Minchin in gloat mode

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, August 23rd 2000,

The Government will only implement a mandatory domestic emissions trading scheme if the Kyoto Protocol is ratified by Australia, has entered into force and there is an established international emissions trading regime. This decision does not rule out the subsequent introduction of such a scheme if further analysis demonstrates that this would be in the national interest. Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, Media Release, Government Provides Greater Greenhouse Certainty For Industry, 23 August 2000

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. 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 Australian policy elites had been confronted with the idea that you have to put a price on emitting carbon dioxide for over a decade. The first two goes were a carbon tax. These were defeated. Then the attention and “intellectual” energy switched to emissions trading schemes (which offer more scope for avoidance and enrichment by consultants and bankers etc)

The specific context was that the first proposal for a Federal emissions trading scheme had just been defeated in Howards’ Cabinet, with Nick Minchin leading the charge.

What I think we can learn from this is that even the simplest actions were too much for us to contemplate. We are stupid hairless murder apes who will take down pretty much all the other species with us. With luck the planet won’t go full Venus, and in a few (dozen?) million laws the biodiversity will return?

What happened next – in 2003 Howard’s Cabinet was united in favour of an Emissions Trading Scheme. Howard exercised a personal veto, having spoken to a couple of business mates.

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: 

August 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

August 23, 1856 – Eunice Foote identifies carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

July 28, 2005 – AP6 announced

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 28th, 2005 a bullshit “spoiler organisation” the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) designed to undermine the Kyoto Protocol, which neither Australia nor the US had ratified, was launched.

“The partnership announced itself while tepidly pledging not to undermine the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the treaty to limit global greenhouse-gas emissions. Kyoto’s supporters clothed their contempt for the new partnership in condescension.

The birth notice of the partnership was a terse statement issued from the White House by US President George W. Bush a few hours before the press conference in Vientiane on July 28, 2005. With paternity clearly established, the US stepped back and allowed Australia’s foreign minister to chair the announcement.”

Dobell – https://griffithreview.com/articles/the-gang-of-six-lost-in-kyotoland/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was holed below the waterline before it even left port, thanks to the resistance of the United States to targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations going in the treaty text. The Kyoto Protocol had been an attempt to patch the hole in the hull.

The specific context was that the US had pulled out of negotiations around Kyoto in March 2001, with Australia following in June 2002. But Kyoto had, eventually, become international law in February 2005, thanks to Russia ratifying for a) the shiggles and b) WTO membership (a tacit quid pro quo). So President Bush and Australian Prime Minister little Johnie Howard wanted a “technology-led” spoiler organisation so they could distract from their rampant vandalism, and give possibly worried “conservatives” something to point to, a talking point.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a massive effort to manage Joe and Jane Publics anxieties. If their glorious leaders are assholes (i.e. all the time), then there has to be some way of not seeing what is obvious. Most of that is supplied by the normal bias in the media, but sometimes a spoiler proposal is called for.

NB Nothing here should be read as an endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol, which was criminally inadequate.

What happened next – the AP6 died, and was not mourned. Other spoiler organisations were formed. Grand sounding but just as empty. And the emissions kept climbing.

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

Jeffrey Mcgee & Ros Taplin 2006. The Asia–Pacific partnership on clean development and climate: A complement or competitor to the Kyoto protocol? Global Change, Peace & Security, Volume 18, 3,  173-192  https://doi.org/10.1080/14781150600960230

Also on this day: 

July 28, 1970 – American journalist warns about melting the icecaps…

July 28, 1990 – American #climate denial comes to London

July 28, 2003 – James Inhofe shares his genius

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

June 5, 2000 – Liberals pushback against Kyoto, a UN conspiracy…

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 5th, 2000, an, ah “interesting” MP wanted an investigation into the Kyoto Protocol

MP calls for treaty inquiry.  Andrew Thomson getting Treaties Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade to investigate Kyoto. 

and

“The crackpot conspiracy theories of the Lavoisier Group have been transformed into government policy, albeit in modified form (see Green Left Weekly, October 11). The Lavoisier Group’s ranting about the risk of invasion by Kyoto eco-fascists is echoed in comments from the Liberal MP and treaties committee chairperson, Andrew Thomson. During public hearings of the committee last year, Thomson wondered aloud whether Australia would find itself at the mercy of international greenhouse inspection committees dominated by “hostile” developing countries. Speaking on ABC radio on September 28, Thomson questioned the “strange notion of inspections like having Richard Butler go into Iraq”.

Corporate greed behind US dumping of greenhouse treaty | Green Left

See also

The economic impact of the Kyoto Protocol, the UN treaty limiting developed countries’ emission of greenhouse gases, should be further investigated by Federal Parliament, says the chairman of a key committee.

“We’re going to hear a long list of witnesses talking about how dangerous the protocol can be,” said Liberal MP Mr Andrew Thomson, chairman of the Treaties Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Hordern, N. 2000. MP calls for treaty inquiry. The Australian Financial Review, 5 June, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that until 1991 Australia had been a semi-enthusiastic supporter of the basic idea that rich countries would have to cut their emissions first, with poor countries having space to grow. It had even, reluctantly, agreed to the Berlin Mandate in 1995, which had led to the Kyoto Protocol.  But under Keating, and especially Howard, the position hardened and in 1997 Howard had launched a ferocious campaign to try to get Australia special treatment. This had been a success – Australia got an emissions “reduction” target that was an increase.

The specific context was that a 1998 Cabinet leak LINK   had shown that Howard intended only to ratify the Kyoto Protocol if the US did. At this point the US had not pulled out (that would come months later, when President Cheney stuck his hand up the Bush meat-puppet’s ass and had him say some words.)  So, the “right wingers” (it’s all relative) in Howard’s party were muttering about Kyoto, since climate change was a hoax and the whole thing was clearly some global control scam.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can be a Senator and be thick as mince. I know – who knew?

What happened next  Bush pulled out of Kyoto in March 2001, Howard followed in June 2002. Thompson had a little local difficulty. “Thomson retired from the seat of Wentworth in 2001 after losing preselection to Peter King. “ And the emissions kept climbing.

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

Canberra covers for Bush on greenhouse | Green Left

Also on this day: 

June 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays