Category: Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia Denial Kyoto Protocol

April 3, 2001 – Kyoto Protocol most serious challenge to Australian sovereignty since Coral Sea

On this day 25 years ago a nutjob wrote…

 Australian government is being applauded by corporate polluters and corporate front groups at home and abroad. The Global Climate Coalition, the major front group for US corporate polluters, features on its web site an article by Alan Wood in the April 3 Australian (<http://www.globalclimate.org>). Wood’s article, titled “Killing Kyoto in Australia’s best interests”, urges Australia to back the US in pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol.

Wood comments favourably on a paper written by climate sceptic Alan Oxley for the Lavoisier Group, an Australian “think tank” which argues that the Kyoto Protocol poses “the most serious challenge to our sovereignty since the Japanese fleet entered the Coral Sea on 3 May, 1942”.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/canberra-covers-bush-greenhouse

AND

The US has called Europe’s bluff, LISTEN to the Europeans and you could be forgiven for thinking George W. Bush has just sent the world to the gas chamber – the greenhouse gas chamber, that is. What Bush has really done by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol is shatter a European dream of running the international energy market, or at least a substantial bit of it.

This dream arose from a mix of Europe’s quasi-religious green fundamentalism and cynical calculation of commercial advantage. Jacques Chirac gave the game away at the failed COP6 talks at The Hague last November, when he described the protocol as “a genuine instrument of global governance”.

Wood, A. 2001. Killing Kyoto in Australia’s best interests. The Australian, 3 April, p13.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that, well, as discussed yesterday, link, the Kyoto Protocol was inadequate, but essential – necessary but wildly insufficient. What you see here is the bat shit, crazy, conspiratorial One World Government crap from someone with an academic background, but no grasp on reality. This language of sovereignty, of “taking back control” is immensely powerful and useful for the nutjobs, and they use pretty much every opportunity they can to deploy it.

So much for one fragile world. The Treaty of Westphalia is a treaty of failure, as was predicted by many observers in the late 1970s who knew that getting nations to agree to emissions cuts would be virtually impossible.

The specific context was that Bush Jnr had followed Dick Cheney’s instructions, and pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are doomed.

What happened next:  Howard pulled Australia out the following year, but this was a major factor in his eventual political demise.

Also on this day: 

April 3, 1995 and 2001 – Australia’s international trajectory – from bullshit to batshit delusion (but honest)

April 3, 1980 – US news anchorman Walter Cronkite on the greenhouse effect

April 3, 1991- Does coal have a future?

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol

April 2, 2001 – Post-”Bush pulling out of Kyoto” joy from various Australian nutjobs 

On this day, 25 years ago, 

A string of federal ministers, led by Prime Minister John Howard, voiced support for the US position following the March 29 announcement by Washington that it would not support the Kyoto Protocol. Federal cabinet decided on April 2 to support the US decision. The government declared that it will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless the US does.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/canberra-covers-bush-greenhouse

And

The April 2 Age 2001 printed an article by Ray Evans from the Lavoisier Group, in which he stated: “President Bush has shown courage and provided world leadership by announcing that the United States will not support the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. What is baffling, however, is that some senior members of the Australian government do not seem prepared to immediately lend support to Bush. In the interests of good policy and good science, they should do so.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the UNFCCC had been signed in 1992. In 1995 rich nations had agreed to turn up to the third Conference of the Parties with plans to reduce their emissions (“the Berlin Mandate”). However, in the United States, fossil fuel lobbies and denialists fought tooth and nail, and reduced ambition. Meanwhile, the Americans forced the Europeans to accept all sorts of carbon trading and so-called “Joint Implementation.” That was a recipe for delay in Australia. The Howard government used all its diplomatic weight to try to carve out a special deal for Australia, resulting in an official de jure, so-called reduction target of 108%, i.e. an increase, but de facto, 130% once you took into account so called land clearing anyway, the 

The specific context was that George W Bush had been handed the 2000 presidential election by his dad’s appointees on the Supreme Court, and although Bush Jr W had said on the campaign trail that carbon dioxide would need to be regulated, once in office, he took orders from Dick Cheney and pulled the US out of Kyoto.

So what you see here is the relief and applause from various Australian assholes because they knew that sooner or later, Howard would make the same announcement, (but not until after the Federal Election of 2001 which, of course, he was looking like he would lose). But then, well, the Tampa and the lies and all of that. 

What I think we can learn from this is that these people applauding Bush pulling out of Kyoto are, frankly, the scum of the earth. This is not to say Kyoto was at all adequate, but they’re still the scum of the earth. 

What happened next:  Kyoto ratification became a weird virtue-signalling fetish in Australia, which suited the Labor politician Kevin Rudd, who used it as a stick to beat John Howard, with Australia, did eventually ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which was a completely futile gesture.

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: 

April 2, 1968 – Oz Senate debates Air Pollution Select Committee

April 2, 1979 – AAAS workshop in Anaheim begins…

April 2, 2008 – Senator Barack Obama blathers about coal

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