Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 30, 1989 – A global tax on emissions?!

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 30 1989 the Australian newspaper the Canberra Times reported on the crazy ideas that … might have made a difference.  What a stupid stupid species we turned out to be.

“A third set of more imaginative options are ruled out as too costly. These include a global tax on carbon emissions, major investment in renewable energy, and the banning of coal.”

Guest, I. 1989. World Bank tackles global warming. Canberra Times, 30 August, p. 9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that debates about the responses to climate change – what we used to call the greenhouse effect – were well underway, because various nations were adopting or thinking about adopting emissions reductions targets such as the Toronto Target. What’s entertaining in this is the question “compared to what?” So, if there had been a global carbon emissions tax and the money raised had gone into investing in renewable energy and compensating the workers affected by the demise of coal, then we might have gotten somewhere… But it would all have been too costly to save the world.

What I think we can learn from this is that the ideas we needed were there but turning ideas into a political program requires more skill and resources than we had. This is largely (but not totally) because of the veto power of business and the obduracy of large technical systems and so on.

What happened next

We never got a carbon tax. We got attempts at emissions trading schemes. The so-called major investments in renewables came very late, too late. And although we may exit coal, we will do it far too late.

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.

Categories
Australia

August 24, 1989 – a Sydney council takes greenhouse suggestions on-board (or says it will).

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 24, 1989, Sydney councillors start to take note of citizen ideas for tackling “the greenhouse effect”. And use it to put the spotlight on the feds.

A concerned citizen’s letter has prompted Leichhardt Council to send three submissions to a Senate committee inquiring into ways of reducing the impact of the greenhouse effect.

The submissions, from Alderman Issy Wyner, as chairman of the council’s environment pollution control panel, Dr Ken Sullivan, president of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand, and Mr John Mara, council’s deputy chief health and building surveyor, were posted on Friday.

Mr N. G. Hyde, of Kingsgrove, had written to Leichhardt Council, expressing his concern about the greenhouse effect and depletion of the ozone layer.

“He probably wrote to every council but it stimulated a response from us,”Mr Mara said.

“We kept the matter on the agenda by writing to the Federal Environment Minister, Senator Richardson, and his NSW counterpart, Mr Moore, for advice, and picking up information from newspapers and journals.”

Bilic, J. 1989. Council officers greenhouse tips. Sydney Morning Herald, 24 August. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was running around with urgency and ideas for dealing with what was then called the greenhouse effect. People who understood it knew that early action was not only preferable but necessary because once it has got out of hand it wouldn’t just be “too expensive to do anything about” but “impossible ti do anything about.”

This was at a federal state and local level in Australia. (Of course we had had the Brundtland Report by now, which emphasised the importance of local action).

What I think we can learn from this is that all the rhetoric about responsive government, citizen engagement citizen participation have been with us for generations. And on whole, in most places, it has not taken. And even in the places where it has taken it needs persistent consistent effort because the culture of atomization of neoliberalization of techno-salvationism is very very strong.

What happened next – they gave us the language of Local Agenda 21, but local councils went back to doing what they do best – being secretive, flogging off state assets including publicly-owned land to developers in exchange for brown envelopes and acting as a career launch pad and finishing academy for ambitious young politicians wanting to be an MP, and general “snout in the trough” opportunities for others

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.

Categories
Geoeingeering New Zealand

 August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 17, 1989, more silly technofixes got proposed.

A giant and costly space screen to reduce sunlight and the effects of global warming is proposed by a Canterbury University scientist.

**FULL_TEXT Mr Michael Mautner writes in a letter in yesterday’s Washington Post that if atmospheric means of reducing the effects of greenhouse warming fail, “it may be possible to erect a space screen that would reduce the incident sunlight on Earth.”

Anon. 1989. Space shield plan to cut sunlight. New Zealand Herald, 17 August. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone was running around with their pet opinion about the greenhouse effect and “technological solutions”. The prospect of an international climate treaty was rising, and the need therefore for technological fixes was becoming apparent (because Gaia forbid that you do anything about imperialism and consumerism).

What I think we can learn from this is that the dream of controlling the weather and planetary engineering had been around at least since the 1950s as a realistic prospect (see for example all of the effort around weather modification in the 50s and 60s see Jason Fleming’s book for this). 

People always reach for the outlandish and eye-catching because it will get them attention.

What happened next

 We still do not have space mirrors but the idea of solar radiation management from seeding clouds with sulphur still seems to have a life see for example the journal environmental politics and it’s articles about solar geoengineering.

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.

Categories
Activism Sea level rise United Kingdom

April 11, 1989 – “Ark” sinks its cred

Thirty four years ago, on this day, April 11, 1989, the flash-in-the-pan UK environment group “Ark” released a report about potential sea level rise that tanked its credibility

1989 Ark Sea-level rise report, “by 2050″…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Ark, launched in December 1988, was trying to outflank the existing outfits like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. It needed big claims to grab attention… Ooops.

What I think we can learn from this

It is hard to join a “cartel” and big big claims may grab attention, but they can also come with a big big downside.

What happened next

Ark crashed and sank, within months.

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.

Categories
Australia Denial

December 27, 1989 – Greenhouse effect = “socialist hokum”

On this day, December 27 in 1989 the Canberra Times reported that a Queensland mining chief  had called the greenhouse effect  “socialist hokum”,

Mussared, D. (1989) Global Warming The Evidence The Canberra Times  Wednesday 27 December 1989, page 32 

I’ve not been able to find the name of this clown, or the date, but it will have happened at some point in 1988 or more likely 1989.

See also August 15, 1989 – Queenslander mayor says the greenhouse effect is like“a bird urinating in the Tweed River while in flight”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 353ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

By 1989 “The Greenhouse Effect,” as Global Warming/Climate Change was briefly known, was ‘everywhere’ in the media (to be bumped only by the build-up to the First Gulf War, from August 1990.)

Why this matters. 

The point is this – we all assess new things in the world through various lenses – of what seems ‘right’, what fits our cosmology. If there is something like “the greenhouse effect”, which implies things we have always thought of as Good (more cheap energy) might have downsides, or presents a problem that is going to upset our way of life, then of COURSE we look for ways to dismiss it. That’s who we are.  And an entire industry of professionals has built up to make this easier rather than harder to do.

What happened next?

Queensland got megarich from selling coal, both thermal and metallurgical (or rather, some people – in and beyond Queensland –  got rich. Others, not so much).

Categories
Denial United States of America

December 25, 1989 – business press pushback about Global Warning “panic” begins…

On this day, December 25 in 1989 the business press ran one of the first (of countless) bullshit articles saying that concern about global warming was a “panic”. 

The usual cherry-picking and getting react quotes from various contrarians, all wrapped up with basic condescension, and  just enough actual facts to make it all seem plausible. 

Am not going to quote from it. Life is (really) too short.

Brookes, W. (1989) “The Global Warming Panic” Forbes, December 25: 96-102

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 351ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The “pushback” against concern on climate change was growing.  Corporate interests were realising that this was a threat that needed combatting. Outlets like Forbes, read by the CEOs and wanna-be CEOs, needed to provide coherent-seeming, professional seeming pieces, that studiously avoided, oh, any mention of how the atmospheric scientists had been right about ozone, for example.

Why this matters. 

The doubt and denial campaigns began in 1989, and picked up speed. We need to remember that. Those who planned and implemented these should be in front of some international tribunal for crimes against humanity and ecocide. But won’t be, of course.

What happened next?

More nonsense, more “Global Climate Coalition” etc.

See tomorrow’s post…

Categories
Egypt International processes

December 17, 1989 – a big #climate conference in Egypt begins…

On this day, December 17 in 1989, a big conference on climate change began in Egypt. 

“During 17-21 December, the World Conference on Preparing for Climate Change was held in Cairo, Egypt. At the opening address, Suzanne Mubarak from Egypt referred to the ‘grim irony’ of the fact that, while the ‘primary responsibility’ for global warming lay with the industrialised countries, the effects would be experienced ‘mostly in the countries of the South, where the capacity to cope [was] weaker.’”

Paterson, M (1996) p.38

Also http://www.climate.org/about/archives/Cairo%20Climate%20Conference%201989.pdf

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 353ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Everyone was running around holding conferences back then. Each one was going to be the one that history remembered as The Moment It All Started To Go Right. Not a single one of them was…

Funny how nobody (that I saw) brought this up during the recent COP27 nonsense. Presumably would raise too many awkward questions about how little has been achieved…?

Why this matters. 

It doesn’t, I guess. But good to remember, as we circle the drain, that there was a time when we tried to sort ourselves out.  Or gave the impression of trying to, in any case…

What happened next?

More meetings in 1990 and then, finally, the negotiations for a climate treaty began in early 1991. And the US, predictably, did everything it could to slow down/stop progress, with considerable success…

Categories
Australia Economics of mitigation

December 4, 1989 – first anti-climate action economic “modelling” released in Australia

On this day, December 4 in 1989, the first anti-climate action “economics modelling” in Australia came out, and was reported by the business press. Oddly, they neglected to mention that the funding for this “research” came from… a company that was digging up and selling coal.  Can only have been space constraints that stopped them mentioning it, oh yes….

Australia will have to suffer the consequences of reduced economic growth to achieve the proposed international goal of a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over 15 years, according to a group of leading economists.

A paper to be presented to a conference entitled Greenhouse and Energy, which starts at Macquarie University in Sydney today, states that, among other effects, the fight against the greenhouse effect will result in increased electricity bills and reduced increases in real wages.

Lawson, M. 1989. Fighting Greenhouse has an economic cost. Australian Financial Review, 4 December.  

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 353ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Everyone was talking about emissions cuts and how much (earlier in the year the Thatcher government had shat all over the Toronto Target (see here).

Why this matters. 

The “models” do not “reflect” reality. They are just made up bullshit.

John Kenneth Galbraith said it best – “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”

What happened next?

Those who want to stop climate action – because it would cut their profits and/or power, because it offends them, will always find some shonky “modellers” to give them the answers they want. Then equally shonky “journalists” will uncritically run the crap on page 1, and it will get picked up by shonky politicians… and presto, “common sense” is created.

See also – May 13, 1992 – Australian business predicts economic armageddon if any greenhouse gas cuts made

Categories
International processes Uncategorized

November 18, 1989 – Small Island States say “er, we gotta do something before the waves close over our heads”

On this day, November 18 in 1989, small island states made one of the first of their many many declarations of “stop burning the damn fossil fuels.” Usual impact, or rather, release the Male Declaration on Global Warming and Sea Level Rise.

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/81035?ln=en#record-files-collapse-header

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 353ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

By 1987, in diplomatic circles, it was clear a climate change debate was coming, and that there might conceivably be another of those toothless UN treaties that keeps bureaucrats busy and happy.  The issue exploded in the second half of 1988. By 1989 everyone was making stern proclamations of this that and the other. This was one of them, albeit from people with more to lose, and in the shorter term, than others.

Why this matters. 

We knew. We do not lack knowledge. We lack courage and power.

What happened next?

Maldives kept on keeping on about climate – who can forget the underwater cabinet meeting of 2009. Etc.

Categories
Australia

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

On this day in 1989, a third of a century ago, a new organisation called Greenhouse Action Australia was formed. It cemented Australia’s place as a climate movement leader.   Dan Cass explains…

Greenhouse Action Australia (GAA) was the first non-government organisation (NGO) dedicated to climate action in Australia, and one of the first in the world. Its formation was supported by the federal government, in particular Barry O Jones, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. His sponsorship helped it recruit a powerful board and funding from federal and Victorian Labor governments.

In the late 1980s climate activism wore an ambitious vision. We believed that by educating the public and the elite we could bring about a deep, equitable transformation of humanity’s relationship to the Earth and to each other. GAA rode a rising tide of ambition following the UN’s Brundtland Commission report in 1987, which called for ‘ecologically sustainable development’.

GAA grew out of a very Australian experiment in ecological literacy called ‘Greenhouse 88’. This was a network of conferences in ten cities across this vast land. Some 8000 citizens learned about the science of ‘global warming’, debated consequences and imagined solutions. It was popular but not populist; scientists drove the debate. There was no kowtowing to the ‘two sides’ narrative we endured for most of the following three decades.

Greenhouse 88 used video links between venues (thanks to Telstra, then publicly-owned), so it required fewer than 20 flights (thanks, Qantas) to bring experts to each room of the continent-wide congress. The ‘greenhouse’ became a household word.

1988 was a defining moment. The spectre of planetary peril hit global consciousness like an asteroid. An international conference in Toronto had called for a 20 per cent reduction of CO2 emissions worldwide by the year 2005. (The IPCC had warned an immediate 60% reduction was necessary to stabilise atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.)  

On 23  June 1988, Dr James Hansen from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies made headlines with dramatic testimony to the United States Senate. He said the time had come when the US must immediately reduce greenhouse emissions:

Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming…It is already happening now.

Australia’s Greenhouse 88 was about more than scientific expertise. It was shaped by a brand of futurist optimism you might expect to find in Silicon Valley. It was hosted by the staid but reputable CSIRO collaborating with the federal Labor government’s funky new Commission for the Future (CFF). Minister Jones had created the CFF in 1985 to look at how the country could predict and get ahead of technological trends. Based in an old bluestone church building in Drummond Street, at the edge of Melbourne’s CBD, it was chaired by Phillip Adams; a leading atheist among his many other qualities. The acting director was Professor Ian Lowe. The Greenhouse 88 convenor was Phil Noyce, a teacher on secondment from the Victorian Department of Education.

The reason Greenhouse 88 put Australia at the forefront was because it went beyond expert testimony to mass mobilisation. The congress concluded; ‘There is now sufficient evidence to accept that the greenhouse effect is a reality’. It called for the formation of a new national organisation to push governments to take action.

GAA was created to build knowledge and power. Its constitution included a branch structure to encourage members to organise in their communities. The Inaugural Council was a powerhouse, with the former Liberal Premier of Victoria, Sir Rupert ‘Dick’ Hamer as President. The sitting Labor premier of Victoria Joan Kirner was a member. Others included former Labor Deputy of WA Premier Mal Bryce, Christine Milne (Tasmanian MP, later leader of the Australian Greens), Ian Lowe, Jill Reichstein (Secretary, Australian Association of Philanthropy), Tricia Caswell (Assistant secretary, Victorian Trades Hall Council), Dr Barrie Pittock (CSIRO) and Phillip Adams.

I joined the staff of GAA in 1991 as electronic information officer. I was studying the philosophy of science and botany at the University of Melbourne. With Apple Australia’s sponsorship our office was full of the new computers. We used IT to minimise carbon footprint and maximise information management and educational impact. Our members got their own email addresses and Internet training so they could access the bulletin board of climate science and policy information which I administered. We made audiovisual materials for schools on CD-ROM.

It was exciting to work there. We felt the world was about to change. The science was clear; truth would win. I had read the (first) assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and cried. It was obvious that we had but a couple of decades to shut down coal, oil and gas. I knew enough politics to understand it would be almost impossible to defeat such interests. But here I was in an organisation moving at lightspeed: building influence, harnessing expertise, developing global networks, all supported by government.

Our office was upstairs in a disused Victorian building at North Melbourne Primary School. One day I was answering the phones and took a call from someone at Cray Research, the leading manufacturer of supercomputers. He asked if Cray could be the major commercial sponsor of our upcoming conference.

In the first issue of GAA’s Greenhouse Action newsletter (March 1991) Dick Hamer’s column quoted Dr Mostafa Tolba, Director of the UN Environment Program; ‘We shall win – or lose – the climate struggle in the first years of the 1990s.’ We faced the certain prospect of civilisational collapse; could GAA and the nascent global movement build power enough to force governments and business to listen?

Why it matters

Australia was a global leader but GAA’s greatest moment was yet to come. And soon enough, its demise.

On World Environment Day, 5 June 1989 the UN Environment Program admitted Greenhouse 88 to its Roll of Honour. The citation read ‘No other organisation or nation has so far conducted any comparable public awareness program on climate change.’ The amalgam of CSIRO and CFF, plus the catalyst of federal government support, had done something unique.

In December 1989 Phil attended the World Conference on Preparing for Climate Change in Cairo, hosted by the government of Egypt, UNEP and the Washington based Climate Institute. The Climate Institute’s director John Topping invited GAA to host their next big international conference in 1991, in Melbourne.

Greenhouse Action for the Nineties was duly held on 21 – 23 July 1991 in Melbourne’s Town Hall. The federal and state Labor governments and Melbourne City Council provided funding and other support. UNEP and The Climate Institute co-hosted. Its purpose was to build the movement in Australia but also to influence the negotiations for a Climate Change Convention to be agreed at the landmark Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) in Rio de Janiero, in June 1992.

It was amazing working on Greenhouse Action for the Nineties. My only previous experience of an international event was a Pugwash conference in the USSR in 1990. (It was a workshop at the Leningrad Youth Palace and a side event at the Leningrad Naval Academy, where I questioned the Commander of the Baltic Fleet about public attitudes towards the military and crashed a frigate in the Academy’s training pool.)

Thanks to significant preparatory work by GAA the conference discussed a broad range of issues in detail. The Australian Ambassador for the Environment, Sir Ninian Stephen, chaired the final plenary which ratified the eight-page Melbourne Greenhouse Action Declaration. Other federal officials helped, such as Industry Commissioner Tor Hundloe.

The Declaration was a radical document. It called for ‘a fundamental reappraisal of traditional approaches to virtually all aspects of human endeavour’. Energy was key. The Melbourne Declaration recommended ‘aggressive energy efficiency’ and ‘accelerated adoption of renewable energy technologies, many of which are already available (emphasis added)’.

Thanks to the breadth of expertise on the Council and Phil’s deep approach to change, the conference traversed issues that the climate movement would later downplay when we got distracted by a global price on carbon for a decade and more. The Declaration called for ‘more creative jobs and more productive recreation’, along with community empowerment, urban farming and redesign of broad acre agriculture, increase walking and cycling, modal shift from trucks to rail for freight, life-cycle driven product design, promotion of community media and building bilateral ties between local ethnic communities and their countries of origin to spur grassroots action.

I was among nine GAA members who went to the Earth Summit in June 1992 to take the Melbourne Declaration agenda forward, including Louise Crossley, Alan Roger and Phil Noyce.

Even corporations who, by the mid-nineties would back Australia’s ‘Greenhouse Mafia’, were on board with GAA in 1990 and 1991. The preparatory workshop for Greenhouse Action for the Nineties was attended by oil supermajors Shell and BP; miners BHP and CRA; chemical multinational ICA; and ALCOA, manufacturer of aluminium (or ‘congealed electricity’, as former PM Paul Keating called it).

I think the innovation and success of Greenhouse 88 and GAA came about due to a combination of particular individuals and structural factors. Ecologically sustainable development was in the air and global warming was, as now, its most pressing and controversial dimension. Labor was in power federally and under PM Bob Hawke it was struggling to adopt a credible climate policy. It ultimately failed to adopt the Toronto target and after Paul Keating replaced Hawke as PM in December 1991 he shamefully decided against attending the Rio Summit, sending Environment Minister Ross Kelly and Trade Minister John Kerin. However, the government was forced by the environment movement and the rise of the ‘green’ independent MPs in Tasmania to at least debate the issue. In this context, individuals could make a big difference and three in particular did.

Science minister Barry Jones was a brilliant polymath who applied himself to complex, structural policy challenges brought about as technology advances. (In 1982 he had published Sleepers, Wake!: Technology and the Future of Work). Environment Minister Kelly was accountable for climate policy and took a minimal position but Jones had the remit and the inclination to vigorously explore the science and its implications. Barry retrofitted Pascal’s wager on the existence of God; “If we act as if it matters and it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter. But if we act as if it doesn’t matter and it matters, then it really matters”.

Phil Adams came to his role as CFF chairman after a highly successful career in advertising and film which meant he could afford to be bold and his personality would not let him do otherwise. He backed Ian Lowe and Phil Noyce to take the science to the people. He even offered his advertising nous to help Noyce engage with the TV networks to sell the apocalypse on prime time.

Noyce, who went from convenor of Greenhouse 88 to founding Director of GAA was kind, creative, passionate and visionary. He confronted how little time we had left to save the world. He was a grassroots democrat and an international diplomat.

GAA shows that ambition and deep thinking are crucial for ecological movements. We must be ambitious. If there were intellectual blind spots to our work back then I think they fall in two key areas. Firstly, we should have created a national plan to bring down the cost of solar PV and lobbied for it. The keystone of the bridge to an ecologically sustainable future is cheap solar electricity.

Secondly, we failed to read the rise of the anti-science movement on the right. We should have focused less on explaining the science and more on building an army to defend the scientists. Nobody could have predicted the success of the right’s war on science and rationality.

Around this time I went to a workshop in a fine Victorian mansion hosted by Kenneth Myer. Someone sat me next to the director of a conservative Melbourne-based think tank. As we listened to the speakers and enjoyed the lunch he became drunk and told me what he really thought about climate change. ‘The scientists’, he said, ‘are prostitutes.’

My mistake was seeing him as a mad man. To be sure, what he said was crazy, but the salient point is that he was respected enough to get millions of dollars in sponsorship from money, media and mining barons. Their money gave his views currency. He was visionary in his way, telegraphing the future.

The biggest factor that taking Australia from climate hero to climate criminal was that the Liberal Party won the federal election in 1996. The new PM, John Howard, was a radical climate denier (and still is). He led the federal Liberal Party into cul-de-sac of reality-denial from which it never emerged. As late as 2021 the Liberal government was trying to entrench coal in the National Electricity Market.

What happened next

After the Rio Earth Summit the ‘Greenhouse Mafia’ waged war on science. Politics changed and the backlash against ecology grew. GAA thrived under Labor governments but withered when Liberals came to power. When Victorian Labor Premier Joan Kirner lost the election in October 1992 the new premier, Jeff Kennett, had no interest in joining her on GAA’s Council.

Kennett was a proud university dropout. An ex-soldier, his other career before parliament was in advertising. Kennett and John Howard were brilliant culture warriors, elites who maintained power by constructing an imagined elite who they blamed for the suffering of ordinary people. 

Kennett once sent a proposal to captains of industry for them to fund a new think tank to take back the political debate. His proposal came in a hot pink folder. It complained that the sixties counterculture had dominated the academy and through that, the national conversation. Business could win back the people from the experts though the media and advertising. Already in the 1970s the right was creating the horror we live in now.

PM Howard’s conservative populism suited the era after the September 11 attacks. He exploited fear and ignorance, to become the second longest serving PM in Australia, in power until 2007, by which time the climate damage had been done.

After a few short years, GAA failed financially. That was mostly because of the withering of support from governments. But the executive and Treasurer also bore some responsibility, failing to trim the ambition of GAA’s agenda, or at least its budget, to match the new political era.

My dear friend Phil Noyce had coffee with me one day with tears in his eyes. He confessed the organisation was going bust. I too was heartbroken. I knew that if we didn’t turn around rising emissions in the nineties, the future was on the rocks. 

As government funding for GAA tapered away the organisation faded. In 1995 Phil Noyce died suddenly from a heart attack, playing tennis. The end of GAA was tragic and his death doubly so. Christine Milne remembers him as the ‘glue’ of the new movement; anyone who wanted to do anything about climate in Australia always knew to start by asking Phil. In writing this piece I hope he gets the place in history that he deserves.

After the death of Phil and the election of John Howard, Australia’s thriving ecosystem for climate action in Australia fragmented. By the late 1990s the resources lobby, right-wing think tanks, conservative politicians and their media echo chamber had made climate change politically toxic at the national level. Australia became an international pariah.

For all the setbacks, mistakes and tragedy of the early nineties, I recall those days with fondness. I regularly wonder; what could we have done better? It was, as Bill McKibben wrote, in The End of Nature, an ‘unreal’ moment.

One evening during the Melbourne conference Phil took us staff to an Italian pizzeria on Rathdowne Street, North Carlton. We sat with rapporteurs including Ian Lowe, Jeremy Leggett and Bill Hare on either side of a long table stretching the length of the echoey restaurant. My new activist friend Danny Kennedy had come down from Sydney to volunteer. We took media calls on mobile phones, which were a serious novelty in 1991. We were doing an apprenticeship with the best and brightest, learning to reimagine the world. The owner took our orders and walked away leaving Phil looking  bemused. Phil smiled and explained to us, ‘He just asked me, Are you real estate agents?

Dan Cass is a senior advisor at The Australia Institute and the Clean Energy Investor Group and a research affiliate at the Sydney Environment Institute at the University of Sydney