Categories
Australia

August 10, 2000 – States’ greenhouse gas failure

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 10th, 2000 – as part of the “we’re gonna do stuff, and the states aren’t doing their bit” strategy, Environment Minister Robert Hill is dishing out smears.

“State governments – including South Australia – have failed “abysmally” to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions satisfactorily, Environment Minister Robert Hill said yesterday. Senator Hill said most states would achieve only half the cuts they had promised two years ago on signing the National Greenhouse Strategy.”

Anon, 2000. States’ greenhouse gas failure. Adelaide Advertiser, August 11, p. 13.

The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Hill, yesterday threatened to withhold up to $400 million in State funding for greenhouse gas abatement, and said NSW was more interested in producing “glossy brochures” than in taking real action. [POTS AND KETTLES]

The threat came as he said he believed the United States would ratify the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions regardless of who won this year’s presidential election. In addition, he said the Government would announce in a few months an early-credit scheme to encourage businesses to keep reducing emissions even before the protocol was ratified.

Senator Hill’s statements follow BHP’s threat last week to opt out of the Federal Government’s Greenhouse Challenge program, saying there were inadequate incentives to reduce emissions.

Clennell, A. 2000. Style Put Ahead Of Substance On Greenhouse: Hill. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 August, p.7.

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 Federal Government was happy to blame state governments when it suited their interests – state-federal tensions are hardly new.

The specific context was that Howard and his colleagues were engaging in the usual blame-shifting.

What I think we can learn from this – Federal systems have more room for experimentation, but also blame-shifting.

What happened next Howard kept on blocking all action, including undermining the growth of renewables etc etc. Criminal.

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 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles…

Categories
Australia

August 9, 2000 – a new Greenhouse Strategy – including on LNG. Yeah, yeah sure.

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, August 9, 2000,

The Federal Government is set to announce a new national strategy on greenhouse gases after a Cabinet subcommittee resolved key issues this week.

At a three-hour meeting on Wednesday [9th August], the Cabinet subcommittee on greenhouse agreed on a broad national greenhouse strategy, which would subsume ministerial wrangling over how individual industries such as liquefied natural gas should be affected by future government greenhouse decisions.

Taylor, L. 2000. Government set to unveil greenhouse strategy. Australian Financial Review, 11 August. P 15.

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 John Howard had made it clear he wasn’t going to take climate action, especially if it interfered with growth in fossil fuel exports. He’d already carved out an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto conference in 1997. 

The specific context was that the Howard government was about to discuss whether to debate an emissions trading scheme, and presumably this sort of thing was there to make at seem that SOMETHING was being done. 

What I think we can learn from this – much of what passes for “policy” announcements is there as perception management/public relations.

What happened next – Howard kept on blocking all action, including undermining the growth of renewables etc etc. Criminal.

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 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 9, 1999 – The Australia Institute calls for emissions trading

Twenty-six years ago, on this day, August 9, 1999, the Australian Financial Review deigned to cover climate change…

The introduction of a domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme could generate $7 billion in annual revenue, enabling government to cut the company tax rate to 30 per cent, abolish accelerated depreciation and reduce payroll tax by 60 per cent, according to a paper by the Australia Institute.

“Emissions trading has the potential to become an important tool in environmental protection and economic and fiscal management,” the institute’s Mr Clive Hamilton and Mr Hal Turton say in their paper Business Tax and the Environment Emissions trading as a tax reform option, released last week.

1999 Hordern, N. 1999. Emissions trading call `half-baked’. The Australian Financial Review, 9 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. 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 putting a price on things you don’t like, to encourage decreased use (cigarettes, anyone?) is hardly controversial, especially if you’re going to use money raised to explore alternatives.
Or rather, it is VERY controversial to those people currently making money and wanting that to continue. Two carbon tax proposals had been defeated already, and attention therefore switched to “emissions trading schemes.”

The specific context was that Australia had signed (but not ratified) the Kyoto Protocol, and so ways and means to ‘reduce’ Australia’s emissions (it had a 108% target!) were being investigated, not just by The Australia Institute but also other outfits.

What I think we can learn from this – the simplest and in some ways least significant actions turned out to be, well, impossible.

What happened next – Prime Minister John Howard killed off two proposals for Emissions Trading Schemes, in 2000 and 2003. States got interested in doing a “ground-up” scheme among various states. This never really got off the ground, before action turned back to the Federal level in 2006-7.

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 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United States of America

August 8, 2006 – MIT Review on “Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, August 8th, 2006. MIT Review has a story on, well, “Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean” calling it a “A safe, high-capacity method could make carbon sequestration more practical.” 

God forbid breathless technophilia ever infect people’s cognitive faculties…

One way to combat global climate change is to directly capture carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as it is being emitted, and store it safely. But methods of carbon dioxide sequestration, notably, pumping the gas into underground geologic structures such as exhausted oil reservoirs, are not practical in many areas, and raise fears that the stored carbon dioxide will escape.

A better way to store carbon dioxide: Pump it into the sea floor in liquid form. There,high pressure and cold temperatures make it more dense than water in the surrounding rock, preventing it from rising to the surface. (Source: Daniel Schrag. Artist: Jared T. Williams)

Now researchers at Harvard University and Columbia University have proposed a new method for trapping nearly limitless amounts of carbon dioxide – a technique they say will be secure, as well as a practical option for areas located far from underground reservoirs.

The researchers, in an article posted online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, propose that carbon dioxide be pumped into the porous sediment a few hundred meters into the sea floor in deep parts of the ocean (greater than 3,000 meters deep), in what one of the researchers, Dan Schrag, professor of geochemistry at Harvard, calls “a fairly simple, permanent solution.”

The key was finding a “sweet spot,” where the pressure and temperature of the surrounding environment make carbon dioxide more dense than surrounding fluids, thereby trapping it in place. This situation occurs at the bottom of the ocean because of a combination of high pressure and low temperatures – a fact others have also noted in proposals to store carbon dioxide in deep parts of the ocean.

Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean | MIT Technology Review

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 from the mid-1970s various scientists had been saying “well, look if carbon dioxide build-up is actually a problem, we will just bury it in/under the oceans. Simples.”

The specific context was that the carbon dioxide build-up issue was back on the agenda because the Kyoto Protocol had come into effect – despite US and Australian intransigence – in February 2005. This meant that there would be a successor deal, and the rich countries wanted to be able to say “tech will fix it” to dodge calls for emissions cuts by rich people.

What I think we can learn from this is that we believe what is convenient to believe, and disregard the rest (yes, that’s a Simon and Garfunkel hollaback).

What happened next – the CCS bandwagon lost a wheel in 2011 or so. This has since been duct-taped back on, at considerable expense to the taxpayer.

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 8, 1975 – first academic paper to use term “global warming” published

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

August 8, 1990 – ANZEC says “adopt Toronto target” of sharp carbon cuts. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

August 7, 1933 – Elinor Ostrom born

Ninety-two years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1933 Elinor Olstrom was born.

Elinor Claire “Lin” Ostrom (née Awan; August 7, 1933 – June 12, 2012) was an American political scientist and political economist[1][2][3] whose work was associated with New Institutional Economics and the resurgence of political economy.[4] In 2009, she was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for her “analysis of economic governance, especially the commons“, which she shared with Oliver E. Williamson; she was the first woman to win the prize.[5]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 308ppm. 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.

What I think we can learn from Ostrom. Governance of common goods (it IS possible, it has been done). Garrett “Tragedy of the Commons” Hardin was not merely extremely racist but extremely racist and wrong.

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 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Australia

August 7, 2007 – Cate Blanchett asks “Who on Earth Cares”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, August 7th, 2007, 

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) launched a new campaign – Who On Earth Cares – with Cate Blanchett as its ambassador, aiming to provide online community spaces for people to show they care about climate change in Australia, and who want to see Australia reduce its greenhouse pollution.

Cate Blanchett and Don Henry on Sunrise

https://www.treehugger.com/culture/who-on-earth-cares-cate-blanchett-does.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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 ACF had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up as a Real Problem since the early 1980s, but only began campaigning on it in the late 1980s (for very understandable reasons). They’d done really good work (within the confines of what is ‘possible’) in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But the times change – the Liberals decided they’d been “betrayed” and Labor began to resent the rise of the Greens.

The specific context was that in late 2006 the climate issue had exploded onto the scene in Australia, and ACF hoped to develop pressure around this, especially as there was an election coming up…

What I think we can learn from this – there are waves of attention and inattention. During a wave you might get some promises of action. Whether you get action once the inattention kicks in depends on what kind of infrastructure of monitoring and pressure you have (or haven’t) built.

What happened next – Blanchett also, in 2011, fronted some adverts in support of Gillard’s carbon price – the “Say Yes” campaign. This, predictably, earned her the moniker “Carbon Cate” from the Murdoch press.

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 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Australia

August 7, 1991 – “Draft Ecology Plans released”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1991, the backlash against “greenhouse” and ecology action stepped up a gear.

The price of petrol would rise sharply under sweeping proposals for ecologically sustainable development revealed yesterday by a Government taskforce.

The ambitious plan to make industry sustainable by avoiding the overuse of resources was commissioned by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke.

The ecologically sustainable development working groups, which are writing policies for nine industries, released draft reports yesterday and called for public comment.

1991 Peake, R. 1991. Draft Ecology Plans Released. The Age, 8 August, p.15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 there had been an upsurge in concern about environmental issues in the late 1960s, and the Federal Government had responded with the usual mix of new organisations (including a Minister for the Environment) and fine words. Everything had more or less died down/become predictable for a long time, until the late 1980s. In order to keep green groups onside for the Federal Election of March 1990 (it was going to be tight) the Hawke government had promised an “ecologically sustainable development policy process.”

The specific context was that the ESD had been a ‘success’ – in that the arguments for the status quo/no action had been exposed as lazy and half-baked. The problem was, the bureaucrats were in the wings, waiting to water down proposals, and feed tame journalists scare stories…

What I think we can learn from this is that we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. The same mechanisms are in place now, with an extra 80ppm in the atmosphere since then.

What happened next – Hawke was toppled by Paul Keating, who killed off all the green crap the way a lion kills another lion’s cubs when he acquires a new lioness. And the emissions kept climbing. 

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

Also on this day: 

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
United States of America

August 6, 2009 – Governor Paterson versus the Greenhouse Effect

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 6th, 2009, 

New York Governor Paterson Sets Greenhouse Gas Targets, Planning Requirements

Executive Order Sets Goal of Reducing Emissions 80 Percent by 2050 and Requires Comprehensive Climate Action Plan

On August 6th, Governor David A. Paterson signed Executive Order No. 24 setting a goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This target is consistent with President Obama’s GHG reduction goals and the targets established in the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 29, 2009, as well as bills currently being debated in the U.S. Senate. It is also consistent with long-term recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. 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 governors had been pushing climate action during the “Dubya” Bush administrations, when the Federal government was doing less than nothing. And there were executive announcements and so forth stretching back to the late 1980s – see this one from New Jersey’s governor in 1989.

The specific context was that the Copenhagen “last chance to save the earth” conference was coming up in December.

What I think we can learn from this is that talk is cheap.

What happened next. I don’t know if New York a) produced a plan and then b) did anything to make it happen. I have my doubts about 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.

References

Salkin, P. E. (2014). The Executive and the Environment: A Look at the Last Five Governors in New York. Pace Envtl. L. Rev., 31, 705.

Also on this day: 

August 6, 1945 – Hiroshima

August 6, 1990 – another climate documentary shown…

August 6, 1992 – Australian environmentalists and businesses united… in disgust at Federal bureaucrats #auspol #climate

Categories
Academia Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

August 5, 1997 – “Climate Change Policies in Australia” briefing

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, August 5th, 1997 – Clive Hamilton, founder of the Australia Institute,

“Climate Change Policies in Australia: A briefing to a meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate”, Bonn, Germany, 5th August 1997

The Government’s position has been bolstered by economic modelling analysis that purports to show that Australia would be especially hard hit. It is projected that wages in Australia will be 19% lower by 2020 under a scenario that reduces emissions by 10% below 1990 levels in 2020. It is also claimed that the economic cost for each Australian would be 22 times higher than for each European. These extraordinary claims have been challenged by many experts including 131 Australian academic economists who signed a statement declaring that policies are available to slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia.
It is also apparent that the modelling results have been presented in ways that are highly misleading. Despite the fact that the model is constructed in a way that exaggerates the impact of emissions reductions on the Australian economy, the results actually show that the impact would be extremely small.

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 UNFCCC had been agreed in 1992, but the text did NOT include targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. Why not? Because UNCLE SAM SAID SO THAT’S WHY NOT YOU PINKO TREE-HUGGER.

(i.e. the people around George Bush Snr defeated the “pro-action” forces). So in 1995, the “Berlin Mandate” had been agreed – rich countries would have to come to the 3rd meeting in 1997, with plans/commitments to cut their emissions.

The specific context was that the Australian government of Paul Keating had been deeply reluctant, and once there was a switch to John Howard, the anti-action work had turbocharged. This briefing came during a “charm” (sic) offensive by Howard’s people, trying to get a special deal for Australia. Clive Hamilton, who had set up the Australia Institute three years earlier, was not amused.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Australian political and economic elite are, of course, criminally incompetent when it comes to a host of issues. But especially climate…

What happened next – Howard succeeded in getting that extremely generous deal at Kyoto. Then STILL didn’t ratify it, on general (lack of) principle.

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 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens – All Our Yesterdays

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight

Categories
United States of America

August 4, 1980 – “Towards a Troubled 21st Century” reports Time Magazine

Forty five years ago, on this day, August 4th, 1980, Time Magazine was reporting on the “Global 2000” report put out by the Carter Administration.

As compared with such doomsday forecasts as that of the Club of Rome’s 1972 The Limits to Growth, which predicted mass starvation, political chaos, and general catastrophe by the middle of the next century, the study is cautiously restrained, even muted, giving its warnings more impact in a way…. 

Less predictable, but no less frightening: a possible global heating from the growing volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—expected to rise a third over preindustrial levels by century’s end from continued burning of fossil fuels.

“Toward a Troubled 21st Century: A Presidential Panel Finds the Global Outlook Extremely Bleak,” Time Magazine (4 August 1980): p. 54

Environment: Toward a Troubled 21st Century | TIME

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 339ppm. 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 warnings had been coming for a long time. Time had covered it in 1953, after all.

The specific context was that the Global 2000 report, begun shortly after Jimmy Carter became President, was a pretty good stab at the problems ahead. Of course it was met with a fierce and stupid backlash by fierce and stupid people at the Heritage Foundation etc.

What I think we can learn from this – any effort to raise the alarm will be met with the cry of “alarmist”, no matter how credentialled, sober and cautious you are.

What happened next – in September 1980 it was obvious that Ronald Reagan, republican candidate for the presidency, wasn’t even AWARE of the Global 2000 report. And the rest? It’s history and emissions, until the latter mean there’s none of the former. 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: 

August 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

August 4, 2004 – Australian farmers nervous about climate change. Ignored – All Our Yesterdays

August 4, 2008 – Police pepper spray #climate campers