Tag: 1991

Categories
Australia Coal

September 13, 1991 – Australians worry about coal exports…

Thirty five years ago, on this day, September 13th, 1991,

Export markets for Australian coal could start to disappear by the end of the decade because of advancing energy technology. Overseas research is concentrating on treatments to make coal burn more efficiently. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has made research into the field a priority to defend Australian markets.

Forman, D. 1991. CSIRO crusades for coal’s future. BRW, September 13

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the negotiations for the climate treaty, which would become the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, were underway, and the Australians are beginning to realise that a strict treaty might actually have impacts on the amount of coal they can flog to developing nations. This is also the exact moment that it’s becoming clear that Bob Hawke will not be Prime Minister for much longer, and that Paul Keating, who hates environmentalism and environmentalists, will be grabbing the throne.

What I think we can learn from this is the old line, follow the money. It’s not much more complicated than that. It is somewhat more complicated, but not that much more. 

What happened next Australia became an opponent of climate action, and here we are completely fucked with emissions climbing, well plateauing at about 40 billion tonnes a year, concentrations climbing, and as the sinks fail, those concentrations will climb more quickly, regardless of emissions, unless emissions take a massive nosedive. No one’s explained to me how they think emissions are going to take a massive nose dive. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 13, 1661 – Fumifugium!

September 13, 1856 – the game’s a Foote

September 13, 1976 – US news broadcast on ozone and climate.

September 13, 1984 – unsettling Seattle workshop on sea level rise

September 13, 1992/1994- Scientists traduced, ignored

Categories
Australia

September 5, 1990 – “emissions reductions targets will strengthen the economy” says Australian Env Minister

Thirty six years ago, on this day, September 5th, 1990,

Targets to reduce greenhouse gases would strengthen the Australian economy, not cripple it, according to the Minister for the Environment, Ms Kelly.

Speaking to a Metal Trades Industry Association seminar, Ms Kelly made a preliminary sortie in the battle she will fight with her Cabinet colleagues next Monday to try to persuade them to set targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Ms Kelly said a report for her department by Deni Greene Consulting Services showed that a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2005 “is not only possible, it is pretty easy to obtain”.

Industry groups have been lobbying the Government hard in recent days against setting a target to reduce emissions, which they argue could dramatically increase costs.

Garran, R. 1990. Kelly sees big savings in cutting greenhouse gases. Australian Financial Review, 6 September, p. 5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2026, 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 greenhouse effect had burst onto the public scene around the world, but especially in Australia, in 1988. There were now fierce debates about what was to be done. In March of 1990 there had been a federal election, and the Liberal Party had had a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labor. Yes, that’s true.

The specific context was that here, just as the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy making process was about to kick off, we see a speech about how emissions reductions targets will not weaken the economy but strengthen it. This was a narrative that was hated and challenged repeatedly, usually by commissioning so-called independent reports, which could be thumped down on the table, “Our modelling shows that dot dot dot”.

What I think we can learn from this is that we could have had nicer things, we could have delayed a greenhouse warming, but the powers of darkness, the forces of well, evil, were stronger, and they won the day, and the week, and the month, and the year, and the decades.

But they will not win eternity. Well, they will, if their aim was to cause mayhem.

What happened next The following month the Australian Government agreed to a version of the Toronto Target, but with so many caveats that it was rendered useless. This agreement was simply so the Environment Minister could go to the second World Climate Conference in Geneva with something in her hand. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 5, 1986 – a “Safe Energy” rally, in London

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

September 5, 1995 – Australian Aluminium Council joins “Greenhouse Challenge”

September 5, 2004 – John Howard gloats about cooking the planet

September 5, 2005 – protest about the brown coal in Melbourne

September 5, 2005 – Anthony Albanese introduced “Avoiding Dangerous Climate #Change” private member’s bill

Categories
Australia

September 3, 1991 – Dick Smith launches Reconciling Economics and the Environment

Thirty five years ago, on this day, September 3rd, [nb] 1991,

Dick Smith launches IPA nonsense “Reconciling Economics and the Environment”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 Dick Smith had made a quick fortune by establishing and then selling a range of cheap and cheerful electronics outlets, and Smith had also taken an interest in biodiversity. He’d created Australian Geographic, so he had environmental credentials and plausibility. Smith is also, or was at the time – I don’t know if he still is – extremely “dry” on his economics, and so was happy to pal around with the Institute for Public Affairs, a so-called think tank that spews climate denial. It didn’t do it explicitly back then, quite so much as it does now. 

The specific context was that debates over a carbon tax were live, and the IPA was keen to attack such moves as unjustifiable interference in the “free” market.

What I think we can learn from this is that climate denialists know when to push for delay and when to come out with active denial, and they know how to make marriages of convenience with plausible cultural and economic figures. 

What happened next Australian Geographic is still being published. I don’t know (or particularly care) what Smith’s views are on climate change, but ultimately we’re completely fucked. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 3, 1963 – Ritchie-Calder sounds the alarm: CO2 build up will “radically affect glaciers and ice caps”

September 3, 1988 – Ann Landers is Greta Thunberg avant la lettre…

September 3, 1990 – Greenies meet Prime Minister, a cautious dance ensues

September 3, 2002 – “Kyoto cuts too small, so we’re not going to bother”. 

It was September 7th, according to this – An invitation for Dick Smith, the IPA and other Walter Block fans to the 2nd Australian Mises Seminar

by Benjamin Marks, author of “An Open Letter to Dick Smith,” and Economics.org.au editor-in-chief

In Sydney, on September 7, 1991, famous Australian entrepreneur and environmentalist Dick Smith launched Reconciling Economics and the Environment, edited by Jeff Bennett and Walter Block, for the IPA.1 

Categories
Australia

August 22, 1991 – Industry Commission report does its job (scuppering climate action)

Thirty five years ago, on this day, August 22nd, 1991,

There would be little point in Australia’s taking unilateral action to reduce greenhouse gases, according to a government report.

International consensus and concerted international action were needed if the greenhouse effect were to be addressed effectively.

The Industry’ Commission report, published today, “Costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions”, examines the impact on Australian industry of an international stabilisation of greenhouse gases at 1988 levels by the year 2000 and a 20 per cent reduction in those emissions by the year 2005.

Uhlmann, C. 1991. Australia can’t work alone on greenhouse. Canberra Times, 22 August, p12

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 Australian political elites had been warned repeatedly about carbon dioxide build up from the late 60s onwards, and had adopted a wait and see strategy at various points.

The specific context was that in October 1990, in exchange for acceding to Australia, announcing a very hedged interim planning target around the Toronto proposal for a reduction in CO2 emissions of 20% by 2005 Treasurer, then-Treasurer Paul Keating had gotten the promise that the Industry Commission – a quasi-independent gang of growth-oriented intellectual thugs – would look at the greenhouse issue in the context of Australia’s economic performance.

By the time of the industry commission’s report coming out, Keating had quit government because Bob Hawke had reneged on a promise to step down in favour of Keating after the 1990 election, and was lurking on the back benches, biding his time. Graham Richardson, who had been Environment Minister, and then was butt hurt when he didn’t get the defence job he wanted was Keating’s leadership organiser (66 to 44 and “it’s enough”).

The Industry Commission report said the predictable things, and was a useful stick to beat advocates of action with because it was ostensibly independent and we were told that action was unnecessary and would be expensive blah blah blah – the usual. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there is always one of these “don’t panic, no one needs to upset the applecart” reports coming out. Some work, some don’t.

What happened next Keating succeeded in toppling. Hawke in December 1991 and then Keating basically set fire to everything environmental that Hawke had proposed, including climate actions and Keating, in order to cover his ass, allowed waste minimization and recycling to stand in for actual policy.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 22, 1960 – JFK says “we must climb to the hilltop”

August 22, 1981 – New York Times front page story costs #climate scientists their jobs.

August 22, 1987 – “Civilisation and Rapid Climate Change” – a short book…

August 22, 1988 – scientists say “Australia, expect #climate refugees”

August 22, 2000 – Minchin kills an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

August 22, 2011 – anti-carbon pricing rally flops

Categories
Coal United Kingdom

July 18, 1991  – “Clean Coal” says Commons Energy Select Committee. 

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July  11st, 1991, the House of Commons Energy Select Committee produces a report calling for – in the light of ‘the greenhouse effect’ – “clean coal.”

Guardian

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sr3-V4fIY8IZTvM_QIv2DA-dnOAEhjn6/view?usp=drive_link

The Times

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VWimV0nX9i33Ijg6wEl6QkFL6E4Dm8Ez/view?usp=drive_link

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 environmental consequences of coal burning were, shall we say, well known, from the 19th century especially (not that 1661 had been a quiet year).


From the mid-1950s onwards, the climate implications had been spoken off here and there, but it was only in the mid-1970s on that this became a common feature of discussions.  Various people had done their best to silence the issue (looking at you, John Mason).

The specific context was in 1988 everyone had started to get het up about the Greenhouse Effect (as climate change from carbon dioxide build-up was then called). Panels and committees were established etc etc.

What I think we can learn from this We knew plenty. Clean coal is a joke, at least as far as carbon dioxide is concerned.

What happened next The British coal industry got privatised.  What expertise there was was scattered to the four winds.  The emissions kept climbing. Coal was finally kicked out of the electricity generation mix in the 2010s.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 18, 1979 – US Senators ask for synthetic fuel implications for greenhouse warming. Told. 

July 18, 1996 – Australian Prime Minister snubs #climate talks 

July 18, 1996 – Geneva Ministerial Declaration noted but not adopted 

July 18, 2005 – inconvenient energy targets scrapped 

July 18, 2012: Climate Justice poem – “Tell Them” by Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner – hits the internet 

Categories
Australia Sea level rise South Paciific

May 16, 1991 – environmental refugees from Pacific islands 

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 16th, 1991,

Australia would have to take thousands of environmental refugees from the Pacific if greenhouse seas drowned their island homes, a defence strategist said in Melbourne on Thursday [16th].

Professor Des Ball, of the Australian National University, said rising sea levels caused by global warming threatened the survival of several South Pacific islands.

Anon, 1991. Greenhouse refugees from islands. Green Week, May 21, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that it was obvious, again, from the late 70s, earlier in fact, that there would be massive geopolitical implications of rising sea levels. One of these was that the low lying island states would get screwed and the humans would have to go somewhere. 

The specific context was that here in Australia, it was well understood that this would be a problem. And here we have a security analyst, Des Ball, stating the obvious. 

What I think we can learn from this we’ve known, we’ve known this would cause havoc and chaos and disaster. Still, we didn’t act because we could kick the ball down the road, the tin can down the road. 

What happened next. Well, eventually, by the mid 2000s the Labour Party in the in Australia was producing hand-wringing documents, and another 20 years later, there would begin to be agreements to evacuate some people from Tuvalu. 

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: 

May 16, 1972 – “Carbon and the Biosphere” symposium

May 16, 1973 Energy and how we live. UNESCO seminar at Flinders – All Our Yesterdays

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese says critical action on #climate being delayed by 20 years… #auspol

May 16, 2006 – UK Prime Minister Tony Blair goes nuclear…

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese, eco-warrior…

May 16 – Interview with Rosie, about zero population growth, zero climate progress, etc…

Categories
Australia

April 12 1991 – Hawke’s “Energy Guide” 

Thirty five years ago, on this day, April 12th, 1991, an “Energy Guide”
was released. Here’s the press release…

MINISTER FOR RESOURCES ALAN GRIFFITHS

PIE91/963 5 April 1991

ENERGY GUIDE TO BE LAUNCHED ON APRIL 12

The Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, will officially launch the consumer household hint booklet, the “Energy Guide” on April 12, the Minister for Resources, Mr Alan Griffiths announced today.

Mr Griffiths made the announcement during an opening speech to a workshop organised by Greenhouse Action Australia in Melbourne.

Throughout the speech, the Minister highlighted the need for both household and industry consumers to take responsibility for short term measures which would have an immediate effect  on greenhouse gas emissions.  

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22media%2Fpressrel%2FHPR02002063%22

“The energy guide is an intensive educational exercise. It shows how to save energy, save money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions without any loss of quality of life,” Mr Griffiths said.

The Energy Guide will be distributed to every Australian household this month.

“If every Australian follows the hints contained in the book, we could reduce our annual output of carbon dioxide by a massive 36 million tonnes each year,” Mr Griffiths said,

“The book is a first for Australia, and recognises us as world leaders in educational campaigns to reduce greenhouse emissions.”

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 Australian political elites had been repeatedly warned about carbon dioxide build up, from the late 70s. You had the CSIRO conference in Port Phillip and then the 1980 symposium. These had been reported in places like the Canberra Times, National Party senators had talked about carbon dioxide build up. It was not exactly a state secret. 

The specific context was that in 1988 the issue had exploded into public awareness, thanks also to the CSIRO’s work as made possible by Barry Jones, Minister of Science, who had set up the Commission for the Future. Anyway, Labor Party had won elections in 1983, 1984 and 1987.The 1990 election had looked like a bridge too far, but Labor had squeaked home thanks to small g green voters, and here we see Bob Hawke having to engage with the issue, while also getting a photo op out of it. 

What I think we can learn from this is that this is the sort of light-green, blame-shifting, responsibility-shifting, big-picture-avoiding stuff that politicians love.  

What happened next:  So what we learn is that blame shifting is the name of the game. What happened next? Hawk was toppled a few months later, and all the environmental initiatives were binned by his successor, Paul Keating. 

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

Also on this day: 

April 12, 1955 – Coventry Evening Telegraph – “Melting Ice Could Menace the World” – All Our Yesterdays

April 12, 1992 – seminar asks “How sustainable is Australian Energy?” (proposes switch to gas)

April 12, 1993 – “environmental economics” gets a puff piece

Categories
Australia

March 23,  1991 and 1992 – Ninian Stephen and Barry Jones speeches on World Meteorological Day

Thirty five and thirty four years ago, on this day, March 23rd, 1991/2,

“Climate change and policy change : the nexus”  World Meteorological Day address 1991 / by Sir Ninian Stephen

And one by Barry Jones too, dropping truth bombs.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355/6ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was this was World Meteorological Day – I don’t know if this is still commemorated or celebrated. The climate issue had exploded in 1988 and by now people were probably getting a bit of fatigue, attention fatigue. Ninian Stephen had been appointed ambassador on the environment after a scandal of him as Governor General,   

Barry Jones had been Minister of Science from 1983 to 1990 and had done a brilliant job, even though he was not necessarily well-liked, but that’s not important. And they both gave speeches.

What I think we can learn from this is that the attempt to “embed” climate issues, via things like World Meteorological Day, has, largely, failed. We don’t like to look at confronting facts. We turn away…

What happened next I don’t think World Meteorological day is really still much of a thing. The caravan has moved on.  

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 23, 1969 – US TV network CBS asks “What are we doing to our World?”

March 23, 1989 – cold fusion!!

March 23, 1993 – UK “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper published.

 March 23, 2011 – Ditch the Witch rally in Canberra

Categories
Australia

February 12, 1991 – “Rescue the Future” report released

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.

Also on this day: 

February 12 1968 – The Motherfuckers do their motherfucking thing, with garbage in New York.

February 12, 1979 – First World Climate Conference opens

February 12, 1992 – John Hewson plots to cut the green crap

Categories
Technophilia technosalvationism United States of America

February 8, 1991 –  New York Times and climate tech nonsense

Thirty five years ago, on this day, February 8, 1991 the “Grey Lady” was peddling the usual soothing lullabies…

Technology Is Found to Exist To Cut Global Warming Gases – The New York Times

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.

Also on this day: 

February 8, 1956 – Roger Revelle sexes up the dossier to House Committee on Appropriations 

February 8, 1973 –  American ecologist explains carbon build-up to politicians

February 8, 1988 – BBC Horizon on The Greenhouse Effect