Categories
Australia

June 29, 2000 – promises of salvation via… vibes

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 29th, 2000.

POWER INDUSTRY GREEN LIGHT FOR GREENHOUSE CUTS

Environment Minister Robert Hill says Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will be dramatically reduced when new efficiency standards are introduced for power stations from July 1st.

Senator Hill said it’s expected the new standards for fossil fuel generators will lead to a cut of about four million tonnes of carbon emissions each year.

“This achievement, the equivalent of taking over one million cars permanently off the road, would not have been possible without the co-operation of industry,” Senator Hill said.

Media Release

Senator the Hon Robert Hill

Leader of the Government in the Senate

Minister for the Environment and Heritage

29 June 2000

http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/archive/env/2000/mr29jun200.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.8ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Prime Minister John Howard had made it very clear he did not believe that climate change was a problem, and that Australia should not have signed the UNFCCC.  However, he needed to pretend to give a bit of a damn, to keep intelligent Liberal voters (they exist) on side/able to pretend that “Liberal values” weren’t going to trash Australia.  So, various bullshit PR stunts – like the “Greenhouse Challenge” and so on, were rolled out.

What I think we can learn from this.  There was, until Trump, a tendency of the knuckle-draggers to pretend that they gave a damn. Now they don’t bother so much….

What happened next  Howard killed off two Emissions Trading Schemes (one in August 2000 and another in mid-2003).  When climate change became a salient political issue in late 2006 he tried a pivot, but nobody believed him.

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

Also on this day: 

June 29, 1979 – G7 says climate change matters. Yes, 1979. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 28, 1994 – Faulkner says carbon tax a possibility

Thirty one years ago, on this day, June 28th, 1994 Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner says carbon tax a possibility – 

Faulkner tells states: World Heritage, woodchipping high on my agenda.

A new Commonwealth-States row was looming last night after the Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, unveiled a hardline environmental strategy which includes a push to expand Australia’s World Heritage listings…. Later yesterday, Senator Faulkner said he was considering the implementation of a carbon tax and user pays strategies for heritage areas, as well as other economic measures to benefit the environment. He said he was expecting a departmental report on a range of measures by the end of the year so he could look at the possibilities “in the context of any submission I might make to Cabinet in the lead up to the next Budget”.

Lenthall, K., Darby, A. and Kelly, H. 1994. Green Showdown Looms. The Age, June 29, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting was scheduled to take place in Berlin in March-April 1995, and Australia could not afford to turn up empty handed. The “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” had been emptied of all meaning by a huge and successful lobbying effort (helped along by the transfer from Prime Minister Hawke to Prime Minister Keating).

What I think we can learn from this is that doing something about climate change, using the simplest and surely least controversial policy tool of carbon pricing – was successfully hammered out of existence by the rich, who just do not give a damn about the future of the planet and its species. 

What happened next Faulkner’s effort was met with highly effective opposition, and he ran up the white flag in February 1995. Carbon pricing came back on to the agenda, as an Emissions Trading Scheme, in 2006-7. An ETS was finally passed in 2011, only to be repealed in 2013-4. And here we are. 

xxx

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

Also on this day: 

June 28,1982 – Secretary of State for Energy justifies flogging off public assets – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Coal United States of America

June 27, 2013 – Judge versus climate

Twelve years ago, on this day, June 27th, 2013,  

U.S. District Court judge ruled against the expansion of Arch Coal’s West Elk mine in Colorado for failure of federal regulators to consider the social cost of carbon [3] in their environmental review.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/30/3454764/court-blocks-arch-mine-coal-expansion/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.8ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that one of the favoured tools for liberal opponents of climate change is the court system.  And sometimes there are, it seems, some “victories”.  Often reversed, but well, what are you gonna do? 

What I think we can learn from this.  “They make the laws to chain us well”…

What happened next. The courts get stacked with dickhead judges, cases get dismissed and the emissions climb….

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

Also on this day: 

June 27, 2000 – crazy but well-connected #climate denialists schmooze politicians – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Cartoons

June 26, 2009 – Impact on cartoonists

Sixteen years ago, on this day, June 26th, 2009,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Copenhagen climate conference was coming, and cartoonists had scope to tackle the implications of climate change.  But it’s always hard to find a new angle. Bizarro succeeded.

What I think we can learn from this – gallows humour is allowed.

What happened next. The emissions climbed. The concentrations climbed. The consequences climbed. The seas rose.

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

Also on this day: 

June 26, 1991 “environment is not flavor of the month any more” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 26, 1992 – BCA versus reality (BCA wins in the short-term)

Thirty three years ago, on this day, June 26th, 1992 the Business Council of Australia was defending the short-term interests of the rich, while weeping crocodile tears for the poor and completely ignoring the future. So good that they’ve changed their MO since then, eh?

“Australia would be “severely disadvantaged economically” if a 20 per cent reduction of greenhouse gases is achieved by 2005, according to the Business Council of Australia.

The council’s assistant director, Chris Burnup, in her address to the Institution of Engineers’ greenhouse policy seminar yesterday, said that Australia’s international trade competitiveness would decline and there would be a fall in the standard of living.”

 Sibley, D. 1992. Economy may suffer if gases reduced. Canberra Times, June 27, p.4.

This was at an Institution of Engineers Australia seminar – see also

Diesendorf, M., Kinrade, P., 1992. Integrated greenhouse policies for energy and transport post-Rio. Institution of Engineers Australia seminar on Australia’s greenhouse policy, Canberra, 26 June 1992. Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne.

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

The context was that the Rio Earth Summit had finally been agreed; it did not contain targets and timetables for emissions reduction (Uncle Sam had threatened to boycott if those were in the text, and the French blinked).  Australia had signed, having said no to a carbon tax at the same time (there’d be another battle in a couple of years).

What I think we can learn from this,  Business always wants to keep the beaches open. What’s a few people chomped by Great Whites between friends?

What happened next. The BCA continued to play a spoiler role. Of course. Crucially, it and the Minerals Council of Australia (then known as AMIC) created the “Australian Industry Greenhouse Network”, which fought against domestic and international action with great success. 

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

Also on this day: 

June 26, 1991 “environment is not flavor of the month any more” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Cartoons

June 25, 2007 – “what would you liked to have been?”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, June 25th, 2008,

 The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that we were in the midst of the second Big Wave of climate awareness (the first one had been 1988-1992).  Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth had come out, won an Oscar. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC had come out.  Talk of a successor to the (piss-weak) Kyoto Protocol was afoot.  Climate camps were being held.  There was still a sort of belief that things might be if not turned around, then, the killer blows softened (not all of us believed that, of course).

What I think we can learn from this We knew of our failure.  And here we are.

What happened next: More great cartoons got published. And the emissions climbed. 

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

Also on this day: 

June 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Denial United States of America

June 25, 1996 – Wall Street Journal pretends to be a newspaper

Twenty nine  years ago, on this day, June 25th, 1996 the Wall Street Journal pretended to be a newspaper. 

“Santer immediately drafted a letter to the [Wall Street] Journal, which forty of the other IPCC lead authors signed. Santer explained what had happened, how he had been instructed by Houghton to make the changes, and why the changes were late in coming. At first the Journal wouldn’t publish it. After three tries, Santer finally got a call from the Journal’s letters editor and the letter was finally published on June 25. Santer’s reply had been heavily edited, and the names of the forty other cosigners deleted.

Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 208

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report had said that there was already a discernible impact of human activity on the earth’s climate (It’s hard to remember now, but this was a Big Deal back then). The denialist attack dogs were predictably out for blood, and they had latched onto what they perceived to be a vulnerable scientist, Ben Santer.

What I think we can learn from this:  Assholes like the Global Climate Coalition and the so-called “George Marshall Institute” goons were amplified by “newspapers” like the Wall Street Journal, who were happy to publish hatchet jobs and then refuse significant right of reply.

What happened next  The denialists found a new object of hate – Michael E. Mann.  And the caravan kept rolling on.  The emissions climbed, the concentrations climbed, the consequences climbed. 

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

Also on this day: 

June 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

 June 25, 1986 – AEC meeting

Thirty nine years ago, on this day, June 25th, 1986

The 18th Meeting of the Australian Environment Council on 25 June heard a special address on the environmental consequences for Australia of probable global climatic change.

The address, by the Chief of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, Dr. G. B. Tucker, was arranged so that Ministers could hear a first-hand account of recent studies of the effects of carbon dioxide and other trace gases on the atmosphere (the ‘greenhouse’ effect). Dr Tucker told the meeting of findings from measurements made at the Commonwealth baseline air monitoring stations at Cape Grim, Tasmania, which indicate in concentrations of key gases associated with climate change. He demonstrated the global effect which could take place within fifty years and said that the changes could not only take place in such a relatively shot time, but “There is nothing we can do about it.” For instance, in Australia there is likely to be a 2 degree C rise in mean summer temperatures b 2030.

Dr Tucker said that the effect of a two  degree rise in temperatures brought about by the greenhouse effect could seriously diminish rainfall in the grain growing areas of the northern hemisphere. IN Australia it could cause increased rainfall in northern areas and some grain growing areas. A two degree rise could drastically alter the snowfield climate to that of an area 300 metres lower. Dr Tucker said he had used these examples to illustrate some of the problems which Australia would have to begin planning for.

The Chairman of the AEC, Dr Don Hopgood, (Deputy Premier of South Australia and Minister for Environment and Planning) said Dr Tucker had foreshadowed a complex of problems which would have to be faced in the coming years. The issue was of global and regional significance and Australia should continue to play an active role in scientific studies on climatic change and its implications.

Vol 6 (2) October 1986, page 5

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was in September 1985 atmospheric scientists had met, compared notes and decided that all alarm bells needed to be rung about carbon dioxide.

Australian scientists had long been aware of the problem – see for example the meeting organised in 1977 by Graeme Pearman of the CSIRO, the 1978 conference on Philip Island, the 1980 AAAS symposium in Canberra, and Brian Tucker’s 1981 publication.

Meanwhile, the “Commission for the Future”, set up under the auspices of Minister for Science Barry Jones, was collaborating with the CSIRO on “the Greenhouse Project.”

What I think we can learn from this is that before an issue “breaks through” there has to be a hell of a lot of preparatory work…

What happened next is that the media started to pay a lot more attention (see the Age). Chair of the AEC Don Hopgood gave a speech.  By 1988, the issue was everywhere. And yet here we are, four decades later, having utterly, fundamentally failed. Oh well.

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

Also on this day: 

June 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

June 24, 2010 – Large and small renewables

Fifteen years ago, on this day, June 24th, 2010 Australian renewable energy target was tweaked to differentiate between large and small scale. 

To promote large scale renewable generators, on 24 June 2010, there was an amendment to the RET by differentiating  between large scale renewable energy target (LRET) such as wind farms, solar plants and geothermal facilities; and also small scale renewable energy target (SRET) such as solar panels and solar hot water systems.

Effendi and Courvisanos 2012 p 247

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the resistance to renewables under Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007) had given way to Labor “all of the above” ness.

What I think we can learn from this – is that our technocratic lords and masters are not nearly as smart as they think.

What happened next – renewables took a hit again under various Liberal administrations (2013-2022). While things are moving forward, well, once you’re behind the curve, good luck catching up…

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

Also on this day: 

June 24, 1986 – New Yorkers get to watch a documentary on “The Climate Crisis” – All Our Yesterdays

June 24, 2009 – Scottish Parliament passes insufficient climate legislation; claims ‘leadership’ anyway – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
International processes Japan UNFCCC

June 23, 1991 – Japanese propose pledge and review

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.

Also on this day: 

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol – All Our Yesterdays