Seventeen years ago, on this day, December 15th, 2007 Bali COP closed with “Road Map to Copenhagen”… We were finally going to take it Seriously and come up with an all-singing, all-dancing successor to Kyoto, only better. Oh yes.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the UNFCCC process had been dealt severe blows in 2001 when newly-selected President Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, or rather the people pulling the strings on the meat puppet called George W. Bush had him pull out. The following year, Australia pulled out, to no one’s surprise. And it looked like the whole idea of the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC might just fall apart. It didn’t because the Russians ratified it as a quid pro quo for membership of the World Trade Organisation. And so in 2005 the Kyoto Protocol had become a thing. And then it became a question of what’s going to replace it? And there was back and forth and back and forth, as there always is. And then in 2007, everyone went to Bali, with the idea that they were going to produce a “Roadmap to Copenhagen”. And at Copenhagen, they would sign an all singing, all dancing, replacement, or extension, whatever you want to call it, of Kyoto. And so on this day in 2007, the Bali meeting ended with a fair amount of optimism. It was the same year after all, that the IPCC fourth assessment report had come out. Al Gore and the IPCC had won a Nobel Prize. It was a great time for Bert Bolin and William Kellogg to die (as they did), because, frankly, it looked like everything was going to be okay. Or at least manageable.
What we learn is that the UNFCCC has been through these processes before. There’s been ups and downs and it’s all part of the soap opera.
What happened next? Well, Copenhagen was a joke. And the pieces of crockery had to be glued back together again. They were and everyone went to Paris. And history repeats itself. We’ve been through tragedy and farce, I don’t really know where we are now.
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.
In what follows, I explain what’s a COP – hopefully telling you some things you don’t already know, offer a history of South Australian awareness of climate change, and then make some brief idle speculations on how Adelaide’s bid might fair – could it do a Bradbury?
Oh no, it’s the COPs!
COPs are the “Conferences of the Parties.” While there are plenty of parties at COPs, in this case the “parties” refers to the countries (almost the whole world) which have signed up to the UNFCCC;, which was one of the international treaties signed at the pivotal “Earth Summit” in 1992, held in Rio de Janeiro.
The first COP was in Berlin in March-April 1995 (a young Angela Merkel was a key player). There have been 28 since, and COP29 is starting today, in Azerbaijan
The basic problem is that the original treaty never specified targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. The French and most European countries were keen, but Uncle Sam said “nope. Do that and we won’t come.”. That has meant a series of efforts to get emissions cuts agreed – Kyoto 1997 (agreed, but USA and Australia pulled out), Copenhagen 2009 (ended in tears and little else) and Paris in 2015 (warm words, no teeth). In the meantime, the burning of oil, coal and gas has soared. This means that the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has gone way up (and is increasing faster and faster, as the things that take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere give up the ghost – or as the scientists call it – ‘sink failure’).
Of course, by the time Adelaide finds out if its bid is successful, the whole COP circus might be grinding to a halt, if Donald Trump repeats what he did last time round, and withdraws from negotiations.
Why Adelaide?
Anthony Albanese announced that Australia would bid to co-host COP31 with South Pacific Island nations in November 2022 (giving up on the idea of hosting it in 2024)]. It isn’t automatically capital cities that host the COP. For example when the UK hosted in 2021 Glasgow got the gig in any case. Let’s start with the obvious reason why Adelaide might not succeed; it’s not on the Pacific Coast. However, unlike Sydney and Brisbane which are, Adelaide is not the capital of a state with an enormous coal export industry that has enraged the South Pacific Island states – “awks” as the kids used to say.
A history lesson
South Australians have always known that the weather matters, and is unpredictable. Go north of the Goyder line and you’ll see the abandoned buildings of those who thought they could buck the system. Over the last 55 years though, awareness has grown of man-made problems.
In March 1970 a newly-elected Labor politician, Richard Gun, referred to carbon dioxide build up in his maiden speech (see this article on the Guardian website by Royce Kurmelovs).
In July 1970 as alarm at “ecology” (as it was then called) reached an early peak, a group of business leaders at an Adelaide luncheon were told the following
“And so the sprawling city, the maimed country, and even the air we breathe and the sea that gives us life, combine into what can only be described as a coming nightmare unless we as a people are prepared to become violently Australia-conscious and to replan, decentralise, preserve, prohibit and police. We won’t correct the situation unless first as individuals and secondly as a nation we are prepared to think, to take care and to spend money.”
But this was not a protestor who’d stormed the stage. It was in fact Bede Callaghan, managing director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation
Already in February of that year the Liberal government of Steele Hall created a committee (of course!) on the environment. It held hearings and in May 1972 produced the “Jordan report,” which included a mention of C02, though largely a dismissive one.
And yes, it included a section – albeit understandably equivocal – on carbon dioxide.
A South Australian senator, Don Jessop mentions it in Federal parliament, in November 1973
“It is quite apparent to world scientists that the silent pollutant, carbon dioxide, is increasing in the atmosphere and will cause us great concern in the future.
And while the warnings and alarms continued through the 1970s and 1980s, with visiting professors (including pro-nuclear ones), ABC documentaries, CSIRO documentaries, and mentions of the problem by groups such as Environmentalists for Full Employment.
It is fair to say that policymaker awareness only took off in the second half of the 1980s.
In 1985 atmospheric scientists met in Villach, a city in Austria. They realised they had underestimated the impact of gases other than carbon dioxide, and that the heating they had expected to arrive in several decades was likely to come much faster. They left Villach determined to warn policymakers. The Australian result of this was that CSIRO started briefing politicians, including the Australian Environment Council. After its June 1986 meeting, South Australia’s environment minister, Don Hopgood, went public with a stark warning about sea-level rise,
The following years saw a flurry of scientific and public/political conferences, promises, exhortations and committees, all about “the Greenhouse Effect.” Internationally this culminated with the climate treaty in Rio in June 1992. South Australia had set up committees and programmes, but all this was basically swept away with the disaster of the failure of the State Bank of South Australia, Premier John Bannon’s resignation and the enormous defeat Labor experienced. The incoming Liberals paid lipservice at most, finding it easier not to kill anything off officially but let it instead die by neglect.
Climate change played little part in the debates over electricity generation that took up the second half of the 1990s. However, a determined group of policy wonks were beavering away, keen to promote renewables and action on climate. The return of Labor in 2002 was a turning point. The first (tiny by today’s standards) wind farm went live the following year. Over the years, Premier Mike Rann skilfully found wiggle-room as the Federal government was forced to continue to offer policy support. As Tristan Edis put it in a 2014 article
“The way it works is SA public servants assess the likely amount of renewable energy that will be installed in the state within the next few years as a result of the federal government’s Renewable Energy Target. Then, the South Australian government take this projection of what will be achieved under business as usual a few years from now, and duly claim it as an ambitious target that they are setting for themselves, but push out the year a bit so they claim they’ve reached it ahead of schedule.”
But Rann had been attending to the broader cultural issues as well. He invited US climate scientist Stephen Schneider to be South Australia thinker in residence in 2006. Schneider’s message – that the Millennium Drought was a harbinger of problems to come and we’d better get preparing now, resonated.
The next Labor Premier, Jay Weatherill, accelerated Rann’s trajectory. The 2016 blackout was perhaps pivotal. Two events stand out – First, Weatherill dishing it out to Federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg and the latter just having to take it.
Second- the big battery of Elon Musk, back when progressives could look past some of his, shall we say, foibles.
By the time Labor lost power, the energy transition had such momentum – and powerful people making money from it and popular support, that the state Liberals basically ignored their Federal counterparts.
Labor has returned to power, with even bolder targets. It seems now somewhat starry-eyed about hydrogen, and alarmingly willing to do whatever Santos wants, before being asked.
What will happen?
Who knows? I’ve learned not to make confident predictions about anything other than “higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere next year.”
We will all find out in a couple of weeks. Will Edis v2.0 work? It already has in once sense: Win or lose, Adelaide raises its profile and plays the ‘inward green investment’ vibes game. It’s a smart move from a political party that has shown alertness to the opportunities national and international policy games present niche actors.
Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 27th, 2001, the international climate caravan is pulled out of its rut, and shambles on.
COP 6 negotiations resumed July 17–27, 2001, in Bonn, Germany, with little progress having been made in resolving the differences that had produced an impasse in The Hague.
“Despite the withdrawal of the US just months earlier, parties convened again for a continuation of COP6 (‘COP-6 bis’) in Bonn in July 2001. To the surprise of many observers, agreement was reached on most outstanding political issues and the conference resulted in the adoption of the Bonn Agreements on the Implementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action. Work remained outstanding on a number of operational details which were referred to COP-7 for further negotiation” (source)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that COP6 in The Hague, in late 2000 had ended in disarray. This was the “stitching back together and trying to keep the show on the road” response, especially difficult now that Bush had said the US was withdrawing from the negotiations towards the Kyoto Protocol.
What we learn is that COP is a leaky boat that keeps needing plugs and fixes as it goes along, ever lower in the water…. And this was one of those times.
What happened next? The COP circus carried on and carried on and carried on. And here we are over 20 years later, still failing.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Twenty eight years ago, on this day, July 18th, 1996, John Howard showed his priorities…
Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:
1. Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);
2. Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;
3. Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.
AND
“PRIME Minister John Howard yesterday [18th] snubbed the international community, claiming Australia would continue to oppose reductions in greenhouse gases.
“Australia has drawn international condemnation for its refusal to accept legally binding reductions in greenhouse gases now accepted as causing global warming.”
Benson, S. 1996. Howard snubs world / Greenhouse gas call `hurts Australia’. Daily Telegraph, July 19, p.14.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that John Howard had come to power in March of that year and took the Keating government’s antipathy to all things climate, and dialled it up from a solid eight or nine to an 11. “This one goes up to 11”.
What we learn is that the Australian political elite was extremely hostile to anything that would get between them and profits. For coal companies, they could see no other way of being in the world. And they didn’t see the need for that other way, because they didn’t accept 19th century physics {LINK}
What we learn is that we’ve already learned that John Howard is a contemptible climate criminal.
What happened next, Howard dialled up the ante – the international agreement campaign against Australia having to cut emissions was not an 11 but a 12. The following year, he sent diplomats all around the world to try to carve out a special deal for Australia and was spectacularly successful in doing so.
And here we are almost 30 years later; acts of cosmic vandalism. And you need a heart of stone not to despair.
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 years ago, on this day, June 28th, 1994, Gareth Evans mutters about leaving the UNFCCC
AUSTRALIA may refuse to take on greenhouse gas reduction commitments if the economic impact on Australia was too high, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Evans, has warned.
Senator Evans told The Australian Financial Review that the option of Australia not accepting climate change commitments had been endorsed by Cabinet.
Gill, P. 1994. Australia may refuse to cut greenhouse gas levels: Evans. Australian Financial Review, 29 June, p.7.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context is that the headbangers and idiots could talk a good game where it mattered. But ultimately when push came to shove, they were all about fossil fuel extraction, selling, burning, getting rich. And Gareth Evans, the day after John Coulter gave Faulkner advice, was telling the Senate that Australia might well not honour the spirit of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, because it had perceived loopholes for itself.
What we learn is that any political party will have at least two factions. These change membership and focus over time and they can be traced if you can be bothered to make the effort, though it’s really not worth the effort. Depends if you’re being paid to do it I guess.
What happened next – the Keating government pushed the “we’re a special case” line quietly. When the Howard gang came in, in March 1996, that got dialled up to 11.
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-four years ago, on this day, May 26th, 1990, the Times ran a big story about Thatcher settling for a “stabilise UK emissions by 2000 at 1990 levels” target, but calling it “tough.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there had been fights over emissions reductions for rich nations. In 1989, an energy minister, Lady whoever or Baroness whatever had nixed that {LINK}. But the negotiations were coming and the UK would need some sort of position. SDtabilisation target looks like a winner, even if it wasn’t adequate scientifically(that’s never stopped people before and it didn’t on this occasion).
What we learn is that there were intense tussles and battles in that period of the 80s, ‘88 to ‘92. And this was one of them.
What happened next Thatcher was gone in six months. And the stabilisation target made its way into the UNFCCC treaty.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Thirty-two years ago, on this day, May 25th, 1992, the Cabinet of new Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating discussed the upcoming Earth Summit in Rio. Cabinet was (mostly) not in favour of making any big splash, and Keating himself would not attend the event (the only leader of an OECD country not to go…)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that as early as 1987, there had been an agreement that there would be an Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio. The following year, climate change had exploded onto the public consciousness and the Earth Summit had become the place where the climate treaty would be agreed. Australia had been initially seen as a leader on this, one of its diplomats had helped the IPCC processes as a co-chair on working group one (WM Tegart), and there had been an extremely hedged promise in October of 1990 for a so-called interim planning target.
However, since then, the champion of action Bob Hawke had been toppled. His replacement, Paul Keating was actively hostile to greenies. And Australia was in/emerging from a recession, “the recession we had to have.” And Keating wasn’t gonna go to Rio, (he was the only head of an OECD member who didn’t).
There had also been a successful campaign against introducing a carbon tax. This had been a suggestion as part of the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. So all in all, the Cabinet meeting was just signing off on allowing the environment minister to go. But pretty much saying to her that she wasn’t allowed to be exuberant or make any promises. And so it came to pass.
What we learn is that Australia had an opportunity to behave differently, but the leadership of the time had other plans and other priorities. And we are living with the consequences of that. And future generations will live and die with the consequences of that. And here we are.
What happened next, RosKelly went to Rio, was the ninth person to sign up to some misogynist flak from the denialists, of course. And Australia had another bite at the carbon tax for domestic purposes. This also failed, and then Australia carved out an insanely generous steal at Kyoto, which it then didn’t ratify. Poisonous, horrible, horrible political, economic elite. But what do you expect of an extractive settler state, a quarry with a state attached to it.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Twenty seven years ago, on this day, April 28th, 1997, Prime Minister John Howard says Australia should not have signed the UNFCCC. Classy guy.
On 28 April 1997 on ABC Radio National, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, stated publicly that he believed that Australia should never have signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This was the culmination of over a year of backpedaling by the Australian Liberal-National Party Government on the issue of climate change due to purported negative economic impacts.”
Yu and Taplin, 2000 The Australian Position at the Kyoto Conference in Gillespie and Burns (eds) Climate Change in the South Pacific: Impacts and Responses in Australia, New Zealand, and Small Island States, Kluwer
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there was the COP3 (Kyoto) conference coming at the end of year, and the Berlin Mandate of 1995 meant that rich nations (including Australia) were supposed to turn up and agree to a CUT in emissions.
What I think we can learn from this
Howard has never been a “conservative”. He’s a radical statist directing taxpayers’ money and assets towards his mates. Like Thatcher squandering North Sea Oil, he squandered the commodity supercycle. Prick.
What happened next
Howard had ten years to destroy everything decent about Australia. Job’s largely done, though there are mopping up operations ongoing. And resistance, of course.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, April 8th, 1995, Fred Pearce of the New Scientist points out that there is a gamble going on (as did Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman three years earlier).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the first COP had just finished. Rich nations had been resisting emissions cuts using scientific uncertainty as their final excuse. But Swedish scientist Bert Bolin, who had been banging on about climate change, and carbon dioxide build up since 1958, at the latest, was telling them that the IPCC Second Assessment Report would be out later this year and that they shouldn’t expect to be able to use the uncertainty card for very much longer, more or less.
What I think we can learn from this is that the really sharp battles at the end of 1995, were all about that. I hadn’t quite grokked that before.
What happened next
Well, there were really sharp battles at the end of ‘95. From the middle of ‘95 efforts by denialists to smear individual scientists (the “Serengeti Strategy”) and the process in order to slow progress towards a serious protocol.
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 years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1994, a local council in New South Wales, Australia says yes to another coal fired power station, on the day that the UNFCCC comes into farce. Sorry, force.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia had a growing economy, and needed more electricity. The easiest way to do that was to dig up and burn coal. So we do the easiest thing. Councils are going to wave through the sorts of things because jobs, donations to parties, perks, a sense of normalcy.
And the UNFCCC being ratified and becoming law the same day? It’s just one of life’s historical ironies. The Greenpeace campaign against Redbank is also just not even historical footnote really is it? There you are.
What happened next. Redbank pumped out seriously amounts of planet-cooking CO2.
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.
