Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, November 14th, 1997,
The Federal Government is growing concerned about the threat of trade sanctions against Australia should it refuse to sign the global deal aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions at the world conference on climate change in Kyoto next month.
According to a confidential Australian Government briefing paper in the hands of The Australian Financial Review, the Government is seeking to have the World Trade Organisation treaty override any agreement reached by nations signing the United Nations’ Climate Change Convention that aims to significantly curb CO emissions, which many believe cause global warming.
“Australia’s proposed language also sends a message to parties that efforts to include trade measures against parties as possible penalties for non-compliance would be subject to strict disciplines,” the briefing paper says.
More specifically, the paper proposes that the Kyoto agreement should “not derogate from the rights and obligations of parties under existing international agreements and, in particular, shall not derogate from the provisions of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation or affect the rights and obligations of members of the WTO”.
An official has commented in handwriting beside Australia’s proposed text: “This is the most powerful safeguard we can devise to preclude or make it very difficult for parties to use the protocol to invoke trade sanctions on non-parties or non-complying parties who might very well be energy exporters [and] exporters of energy-intensive products.”
While the official Australian position is that it wants to play a leading role in the deliberations over the climate change convention, the briefing paper is a further sign that Australia is preparing the ground for opting out of the Kyoto agreement.
McCathie, A. 1997. Australia heating up over trade threat. The Australian Financial Review, November 14, p.3.
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 Australia had been a foot-dragger or worse on climate negotiations for several years now.
The specific context was Prime Minister John Howard was trying to get other nations to agree Australia was exceptional and should not be under the cosh for emissions reductions at the upcoming Kyoto conference.
Here he was clearly thinking about plan-B, in case things went wrong at Kyoto.
What I think we can learn from this – everyone “venue shops”.
What happened next – Australia got its sweet sweet deal at Kyoto. Still refused to ratify. Meanwhile, the WTO became instrumental in climate policy in an unusual way – In 2004 Russia agreed to ratify Kyoto in (tacit) exchange for membership of the WTO.
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, July 18th, 1996,
COP 2, Geneva, Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, COP 2 took place in July 1996 in Geneva, Switzerland. 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”.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 negotiations for a climate treaty, which got underway officially in early 1991, were hampered from the start by US intransigence on any strong action (yes, the Republicans were ideological about this, but there was also the industrial interests, for example the Global Climate Coalition).
The specific context was that at the COP1 meeting in Berlin, the rich nations had agreed to turn up at the third meeting (some point in 1997) with plans for actual cuts. This was causing all sorts of mayhem….
What I think we can learn from this is that it’s easy-ish to make promises. But the closer you get to having to deliver on them, the more awkward and angry everyone gets….
What happened next – the Kyoto meeting led to an utterly inadequate set of promises, which didn’t even get enacted because the US and then Australia pulled out. The Kyoto Protocol finally became law in 2005 when Russia joined, as part of a quid pro quo for World Trade Organisation membership….
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, June 23rd, 1991,
At the start of the Geneva session, a German delegate complained that ‘during the last round of negotiations we used up a great deal of time discussing procedural questions and we were still unable to find answers to all of them “ (quoted in ECO, 20 June 1991). Eco noted that the climate negotiations finally started on 23 June, four days after the session opened. (ECO, 24 June 1991). Page 55 Paterson, M (1996)
On 23 June 1991, less than a year away from the Earth Summit in Rio where the final Climate Change Convention was supposed to be signed, talks finally began on the treaty itself. The first attempt to identify a route to consensus came from the Japanese delegation. They called their new idea “pledge-and-review”. It aimed to try and bridge the gap between the White House, with its ‘Just say no’ approach and the rest of the industrialized world, which sought legally binding commitments on emission, with specific targets and timetables. Under pledge-and-review, states would sign a convention devoid of any commitments at the Earth Summit. They would pledge what they could in the way of targets, and agree to review their commitments, and in the implementation of those commitments, at an interval to be agreed.
Page 39
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the US had been blocking negotiations with adamantine intransigence. The Japanese proposed a way forward, as did others.
What I think we can learn from this is that the “Pledge and Review” that we have – i.e. the Paris “Agreement” was always going to fail. People knew it was going to fail when it was first proposed in 1991.
What happened next – the US opposition continued, and eventually the rest of the world blinked – the UN treaty signed in Rio had no targets, no timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. And guess what – emissions kept climbing, atmospheric concentrations kept climbing, temperatures went up, sea levels went up. Who knew?
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, March 26th, 2010, the Labor government was forced to give details of the size of the (large) Australian delegation to COP-15 in Copenhagen.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Copenhagen hadn’t just been Kevin Rudd tearing up the speech that had been written for him, rewriting it and delivering it to a total lack of applause. No, Copenhagen had been 70 or 75 officials and experts and so forth, all flying halfway around the world to save the world. And the Liberals were wanting to punch the bruise, and so requested the information in order to have the ammo that to run a one day wonder, “waste of money, pointy headed bureaucrats with their snouts in the trough style” article. And so it came to pass.
What I think we can learn from this
that any international negotiation is going to involve sherpas at the summit and all sorts of other malarkey. And for those who are opposed to the agenda of whatever the summit is, it’s a very easy writes-itself kind of critique. And that’s what happened.
What happened next
A couple months after this Rudd was gone. The climate issue, however, was not…
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the UNFCCC process had been in deep shit from 2001 when President Bush’s handlers told him to withdraw from Kyoto. It had only been brought back into shape by the Russians wanting World Trade Organisation membership and a quid pro quo of ratifying Kyoto. And then from 2007, there had been an intense process literally called the “Road to Copenhagen.” And here we are… Is this all we’ve got? Is that it?
What we learn is that the international process is fundamentally broken for a variety of reasons. There are always going to be people who want to keep that particular show on the road because they have so much invested psychologically and professionally (see here). And here we are.
What happened next? Along came Cancun. And along came Durban. And along came all the other COPs – Paris, Poznan, Glasgow, Dubai, Azerbaijan etc all amounting to fuck all.
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.
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.
