Thirty five years ago, on this day, February 12, 1991 a report about
“Reducing the Impact of the Greenhouse Effect.” by the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (CA 6703).
See the committee details, contents of the report, terms of reference and Chapter 1 overview here.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that various Australian parliamentarians (the smarter ones) had been warning about carbon dioxide build-up since the 1970s. In the late 1980s the issue finally hit the headlines, and the obvious question was “well, what do we DO about it?”
The specific context was that the Senate report was trying to add to the pressure to actually get something done. However, it was released, inevitably, after the military effort to push Iraq’s armed forces out of Kuwait was underway, and anyway, the Greenhouse issue was booooring by then.
What I think we can learn from this is that detailed reports take time, and by then something else has come along and distracted everyone. I don’t know what to do about this, beyond having really resilient social movement organisations that understand the dynamics of issue-attention cycles.
What happened next: The issue went away, and then got reduced to “ratify Kyoto or not”? It finally returned in 2006, twenty long long years ago. Meanwhile, the emissions kept climbing and the concentrations kept climbing. Fafocene.
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 xxxppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that “technology will fix it” is the first cry of technocrats and politicians wary of upsetting their incumbent donors. Sometimes technology does indeed fix things – vaccines are pretty fantastic, and so many other things. But not always…
The specific context was that the climate issue had finally broken through in 1988. By early 1991 the negotiations for an international treaty were beginning, and the US line would be “technology will fix it.” The New York Times, one mouthpiece for this worldview, was doing its job.
What I think we can learn from this is that we are a bright species, but not quite as bright as we think, and not bright enough to see that our brightness is causing problems that our brightness might not be able to fix.
What happened next: The Times kept peddling this credulous nonsense. People wanted to believe it, so they did. Only by the 2020s was that particular lullaby beginning to take on fingers-on-the-blackboard characteristics.
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 five years ago, on this day, January 8th, 1991, former Federal Treasurer Peter Walsh lets rip,
BACK in 1989 a proposal to spend $6 million on an Australian response to the greenhouse effect and climatic change was being considered. The 1990 Budget Papers identify another $17 million for climate change core research and “multifaceted programme initiatives” – which presumably includes funding various national and international greenhouse conferences so beloved by greenhouse activists.
Walsh, P. 1991. Credibility Gap in Greenhouse Gabfests. Australian Financial Review, 8 January, p.7.
BASED ON DALY GREENHOUSE TRAP
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Hawke government’s Cabinet had, in October 1990 created the interim planning target of a 20% reduction in the CO2 emissions by 2005 with the notable caveats that it didn’t hurt the economy and that other nations took similar action, i.e., “we’re not going to do it.” And even these caveats were not enough for people like Walsh, who regarded environmentalism as akin to paganism, astrology, whatever.
What’s interesting about this is that the column is based largely on a then-new book called The Greenhouse Trap by a guy called John Daly. So you see here the mechanics of how a book, even if basically self published, can get picked up and used in speeches and opinion columns and reverberate and become part of the actual or possible “common sense”, or certainly part of the acceptable range of opinions. Blah, blah, Overton Window, blah, blah – there’s a kind of conveyor belt going on.
What I think we can learn from this is that Old White Men have a lot of cultural power, or at least influence.
Walsh was involved in the dimbulb denialist outfit the Lavoisier Group, and Daly kept on being daily until he died in January 2004.
And the gab fests, as Walsh called them, became meaningless, principally because the United States insisted that targets and timetables not be included in the treaty text of the UN Convention.
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, November 20th, 1991,
On 20th November 1991 a number of countries signed an agreement to take part in a programme of research and development aimed at potential mitigation techniques as a response to the issue of global warming. Formed under the aegis of the International Energy Agency (IEA), the programme brings together those countries interested in establishing the techniques, costs, and environmental consequences of removing CO2 from power station flue gases and storing or otherwise disposing it.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. 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 IEA had been set up in the aftermath of the 1973 Oil Shock. It had held various relatively consequential meetings (it’s all relative) about climate change through the 1980s.
The specific context was that now, with the Rio Earth Summit just around the corner, they were wanting to be an important institutional player in the climate technology game.
What I think we can learn from this – the institutions matter, in terms of where the funding comes from, where the hype from technology enthusiasts can go to get nurtured, given an imprimatur…
What happened next – through the 1990s, CCS kept bubbling under. By 1999-2000 it was beginning to break through.
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, October 21st, 1991,
An international plan was unveiled yesterday to “harness the total resources of humanity” to improve the global environment by measures which include massive reductions in energy consumption and the use of natural resources in industrialised countries.
The proposals, put forward by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world conservation union (IUCN) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), envisage the establishment of a new world organisation – probably based on the United Nations – to co-ordinate environmental protection and encourage sustainable development which does not deplete natural resources.
The reports entitled “Caring for the Earth”, suggest that the UN general assembly could coordinate the system through its committees and produce annual reports on the state of the world environment.
Launching the report in London, the Duke of Edinburgh, president of the WWF, warned that unless population growth was halted soon world resources would no longer be able to support humanity’s needs and economies would face collapse. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/cfe-003.pdf
Unknown Author, 1991. Environment Agencies Start To Flex Their Muscles. Financial Times October 22 p.4
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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. I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that many of these organisations had been established in the 1950s or 1960s, when the major issues were habitat loss. Over time the ones that could roll with the punches, adopt new language etc., were able to survive while the small, unlucky or “stuck” with a particular perspective or image stayed small or died. By 1991 the second great eco-awakening was already three years old, and participant fatigue was beginning to set in.
The specific context was that the Rio Earth Summit was just 8 months away, and everyone was hoping that this time they’d all get it right and Save the World.
What I think we can learn from this – green groups can have hopes, but then, well, there’s always reality…
What happened next. Reader, nobody Saved the World. The UNFCCC was a farce, and the emissions are 60+ per cent higher than they were in 1990.
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, October 18th, 1991,
Fred Singer The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Tasman Institute Seminar
Not his first rodeo…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 carbon dioxide build-up had broken through as an issue in 1988. By 1989 the George C Marshall Institute (set up to shill for Reagan’s Star Wars bullshit) had entered the fray and was enabling denialist efforts, alongside the Global Climate Coalition etc. Australia was one market for its shite.
Singer – Singer had been a semi-respected scientist and bureaucrat from the 1950s onward. But at some point he had jumped the shark. Here, he was fresh from warping the words of a dying Roger Revelle, who had known that many people did not think Singer was much of a scientist…
The specific context was that the Ecologically Sustainable Development process was coming to an end and the moment of maximum danger – where the government might actually take on some of its recommendations – was about now. If you were going to bring out some idiot not very good scientist (as per Roger Revelle) now would be a good time. And so it came to pass…
What I think we can learn from this – evil people aren’t necessarily stupid or incompetent. (And conversely, the “good” guys aren’t all smart and competent.)
What happened next – The ESD got thrown in the bin by Paul Keating, who toppled Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke a couple of months later. The Tasman Institute kept up with the tours, economic modelling etc.
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, September 30, 1991,
The cost of repairing damage to the environment must be included in the price of resources, the Federal Government was told yesterday.
The message was delivered to senior ministers during a private meeting with the heads of the Government’s working groups on ecologically sustainable development.
They warned that the community must be more closely involved if the plan to write sustainable policies for resource-based industries was to succeed.
The working group heads put their views directly to ministers and the Prime Minister, shortly before Mr Hawke had talks with representatives of business, unions, and green groups.
1991 Peake,R. 1991. Report Backs Green Levy On Consumers. The Age, 1 October, p.18.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. 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 in 1990, after winning the March Federal election by a very slender margin, with the grudging support of small g- green voters, the Labor government of Bob Hawke had initiated an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” process. This dragged on, and by September 1991 the draft reports were released.
The specific context was that everyone knew Hawke’s days were numbered – Paul Keating was lurking in the wings, waiting for Hawke to stumble…
What I think we can learn from this is that policy processes are meat-grinders, and leave few good options for NGOs. Refuse to participate and you look prima donna. Participate and you are ground down and look complicit.
What happened next – Hawke stumbled, Keating came for him, got the Prime Ministership. ESD got thrown in the bin.
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, September 14th, 1991,
“In an article in the Good Weekend of September 14, Deirdre Macken produced much evidence from market research that public concern about the environment, and the public’s willingness to buy eco-friendly products, had subsided markedly since their surge in 1989.”
Ross Gittins
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm. 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 first wave of global eco-concern (1969 to 1972 or so) had given us UNEP and also the “issue-attention cycle”.
The specific context was that we were near/at the end of the public interest in/concern about the greenhouse effect etc. The media was covering it less – no new angles to be had. These things then enter a kind of death-spiral.
What I think we can learn from this – creating organisations that can cope with this death-spiral, this “abeyance” is really tough. They become bureaucratic, soulless grant-grubbers, or they wink out of existence. There oughta be a third way…
What happened next
“The climate” did not burst back onto the scene in a big way until the end of 2006. And then followed the pattern – by 2010 everyone was exhausted. But the 2010 election, and Prime Minister Gillard’s reliance on Independents and Greens, kept the policy window open…
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, August 26th, 1991, the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland lays it out
Speaking to the industry at the international Environment Northern Seas Conference (sic.) in Stavanger in 1991, the prime minister stressed the danger of global warming:
“We cannot postpone dealing with global warming. We have enough scientific evidence about causes and probable effects to know that the costs of not acting will be very high and that a further delay of action will increase these costs even more”
.29 ; “Brundtland key note speech,” Environment Northern Seas International Conference and Exhibition, Stavanger, 26-30 August 1991,
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. 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 Brundtland had been the poster-child for “development” as we then called it, in the 1980s. The “Our Common Future” process and report had popularised the term “sustainable development.”
The specific context was that the negotiations for a climate treaty were deadlocked because the United States wanted them to be – they were determined that whatever was (or wasn’t) signed in Rio the following year (i.e. June 1992) would be weak, and not place any commitments on the US.
What I think we can learn from this We knew 35 years ago that time was short.
What happened next – the Americans got their way – the UNFCCC contained no time tables or targets for reductions by rich countries. Meanwhile, Norway got rich exporting fossil fuels. Go figure.
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, 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.
