Tag: 1992

Categories
Australia

February 5, 1992 – Liberal leader Hewson snubs the Australian  Conservation Foundation

Thirty two years ago, on this day, February 5th, 1992, the Leader of the Liberal Party, John Hewson, decided he would not bother meeting with those irritating greenies, who had Betrayed Their Word after the fateful lunch on January 15 1990 (they hadn’t, actually, but it made for a good “Dolchstoss” myth…).

Anon, 1992. Hewson snubs Conservation Foundation. Canberra Times, 6 February, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberals felt that they had been shafted by the greens in March of 1990 and that they had not yet let this go. The Liberal view had hardened  – they felt that the 1993 election was eminently winnable, especially now the widely disliked Paul Keating was PM. Bob Hawke had given a piss weak response to John Hewson’s Fightback! and so, had been toppled by Labour, who chose Paul Keating, who was deeply unpopular with the Australian public as Treasurer. Meanwhile, green issues were no longer salient. And therefore, Hewson thought that telling the Australian Conservation Foundation to go fuck itself was a no lose proposition which would throw red meat and support to the headbangers. 

What we learn is that policies and politics are done by humans who have their senses of status and that can have long-term consequences because there is path dependency. 

What happened next Hewson managed to lose the unlosable election in March 1993. Prime Minister Keating went on to shit all over environment issues and especially climate issues which he considered amorphous. You know the rest. 

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.

See also

See also 12 0ctober 1989 piece by Andrew Fraser on Alexander Downer and market forces

Also on this day: 

Feb 5, 1974 – Energy security, meet anti-Arab sentiment #propaganda

February 5, 2007 – Australian Prime Minister trolled by senior journalist

Feb 5 1990 – A president says what he is told…

Categories
Australia

January 28, 1992 – Ros Kelly versus Industry commission on greenhouse plans

Thirty-two years ago, on this day, January 28th, 1992, the Australian Environment Minister was trying to keep her options open…

The Federal Government will press ahead with plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2005 despite an Industry Commission report that says such reductions would cut Australian production by about 1.5 per cent, or $6 billion a year. The Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, said yesterday that the report, released yesterday, had a “very narrow focus” and failed to capitalise on the opportunities available for industries….

1992 Glascott, K. 1992. Kelly dismisses attack on greenhouse plan. The Australian, January 29, p.4.

And

 The Federal Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, conceded yesterday it would be “very difficult” to achieve global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent – a target endorsed by the Federal Government.

Garran R. and Lawson, M. 1992. Kelly concedes greenhouse difficulties. Australian Financial Review, 29 January, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a fierce battle within the Hawke and then Keating governments about greenhouse. And everybody knows the good guys lost. As part of the quid pro quo for declaring an interim planning target of a 20% reduction by 2005 (so that Kelly could go to the Second World Climate Conference with something in her hand) the then-Treasurer Paul Keating had managed to extract the concession or agreement that the Industry Commission (later renamed the Productivity Commission) would study the costs. Once the costs document was released, it was predictably used as a stick to beat advocates of energy efficiency and sanity over the head. 

What we can learn is that always these battles within governments and allegedly “independent” “scientific”/economic reports are a key weapon. 

What happened next? The Kelly gang lost and we’ve been losing ever since. 

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: 

January 28, 2013 – Doomed “Green Deal” home insulation scheme launched in the UK

January 28, 1993 – Parliament protest – “Wake Up, the World is Dying” – Guest Post by Hugh Warwick

Categories
Australia Denial

January 23, 1992 – denialist bullshit in the Fin

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 23rd 1992 the allegedly fact based business newspaper, the Australian Financial Review” (“the Fin”) published more denialist shite, including the inevitable quote from Pat Michaels.

SEA levels may be unlikely to rise significantly for many decades to come, but the flood of published material about the enhanced greenhouse effect has become a matter of serious concern.

The flood threatens to inundate small libraries around the world and force the larger ones to build retaining walls in their periodical sections. Fortunately, the main book collections are so far unthreatened.

But while most of us can only watch the increasing flood levels of articles about the effect and wonder what it all means, there are signs that the worst may be over….

Lawson, M. 1992. Cooling the global warming predictions. Australian Financial Review, 23 January . SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Fin had been running denialist hit pieces, which was very common in the business press this time, even in the quality business press, like the FT allegedy part of the battle of ideas.

The denialists were very good at calling themselves truth tellers and claiming that they were being censored and silenced. See Boykoff and Boykoff 2004 “Balance as bias” – it is really good on this. And the denialists also knew how to give the elite and business press what they wanted, or what was needed to get something printed. So getting a prestigious American over to yap some bollocks was still enough to get published. 

What we can learn from this is that the denialists were cunning and persistent. And of course, the organizations were well-funded.

What happened next? The denial kept going, kept escalating, and reached an early peak in 97 before Kyoto. Then the Lavoisier group came along, just to stiffen Howard’s anti Kyoto spine and then it exploded into public in 2009-11. And here we are. 

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: 

January 23, 1957 – New Zealand scientist warns about consequences of carbon dioxide build-up  

January 23, 1995 – The Larsen B starts to break up with us.. (Ice, Ice, baby)

Categories
Australia

January 22, 1992 – “Greenhouse action will send Australia to the poorhouse”

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 22nd 1992, the delayers and deniers deployed the dollar dilemma argument,

CANBERRA: Australia would be sent to the poorhouse by the Federal Government’s attitude towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it was claimed yesterday.

It would be “grossly wrong” for Australia to do this at the expense of living standards in a time of recession, said the chief executive of the Australian Institution of Engineers, Mr John Enfield.

He criticised the Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, for acting “prematurely” on the issue, before further research confirmed or disproved predictions on the greenhouse effect.

Chamberlin, P. 1992. Green govt warned of poorhouse effect. Sydney Morning Herald, January, 23 p3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that although the battle against the carbon tax had really already been won, not everyone had gotten the memo. And anyway, they want to lay down some suppressing fire and that’s what was happening here, in the immediate period before the Rio Earth Summit. Industry is determined to dampen down government ambition because – nightmare – scenario -rush of blood to the head might get the government promising things (unlikely under Keating!).

What we learn. Assholes gonna asshole. 

What happened next World leaders all went to Rio (except Paul Keating, the only OECD nation leader not to attend) and they signed the empty treaty. And you know, the emissions kept climbing and you know the rest.

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: 

January 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

January 22, 2002 – Exxon and on and on

Categories
Australia

January 19,1992 – they gambled, we lost

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 19th, 1992,

“One of the CSIRO’s top scientists says doubters of the greenhouse effect are gambling with the future of the world. Dr Graeme Pearman, coordinator of the CSIRO’s climate change research program, said yesterday there was little doubt global warming was a reality according to all the best scientific models.”

Anon, 1992. Greenhouse cynics gambling with future. Canberra Times, January 20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the denialist campaigns in Australia, helped by imported American scientists, had been successful. And the Hawke and then Keating governments had significantly softened their stance, their already weak appetite for economic measures, such as a carbon tax. Pearman, who had been studying the climate issue for 20 years by this stage, knew what was at stake and was publicly pushing back. 

What we can learn from this is that scientists have been correctly predicting that the gamble was going on and correctly predicting that there might be losers in that gamble. 

What happened next is that a carbon tax came back onto the agenda in 1994-95. It was again defeated, then tax became ETS in the late 90s. Everyone was talking about it. And then finally Tony Abbott killed it off. More broadly Pearman has been very public about the struggles back then.

And we are toast. 

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: 

January 19, 1968 – Engineers are not ecologists…

January 19, 1976 – The carbon consequences of cement get an early discussion.

January 19, 2015 -Four utilities pull out of an EU CCS programme…

Categories
Europe UNFCCC

 December 21, 1993 – European Union agrees to ratify UNFCCC

Thirty years ago, on this day, December 21, 1993, 

“the European Union agreed to ratify the FCCC without any commitment to an energy/carbon tax. The debate continues, with all governments increasingly interested in raising revenue from energy consumption in the home and on roads.”

Boehmer‐Christiansen (1995; 185) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC climate treaty had had far fewer teeth than the Europeans wanted, thanks to the successful resistance of US President George Bush, his Chief of Staff John Sununu and others. There were no targets and timetables for emissions reductions but at least they’d seen the back of George Bush having been defeated in the 1992 presidential election by Bill Clinton of the Democratic party, for what that was worth (not much when it came to climate.)

What I think we can learn from this

This is just one of those moments of history. Thirty years. And what has been achieved since then? Half of fuck all – though the Europeans will tell you that massively reduced their emissions so maybe that’s something I don’t know-  if the cause of that has been the same as in in the UK – deindustrialisation and some uptake of different forms of energy besides coal – that’s a question I could look into.

What happened next

We have kept tipping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow…

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 Energy

March 13, 1992 – Australian climate advocates try to get government to see sense… (fail, obvs).

Thirty one years ago, on this day, March 13, 1992, advocates of climate action made one last plea to the (Labor) government to take climate change seriously as both a threat and an opportunity. 

A study [“Energy Futures: Efficient Energy Scenarios to 2020” ] by the Commission for the Future to examine the cost of reducing greenhouse gases found that Australia can break even if it enters the market for energy-efficiency equipment.

Announcing the findings last Friday [13th], commission director Archbishop Peter Hollingworth said, “The report highlights the urgent need for Australia to find a way through the difficult problem of maintaining economic growth and protecting the environment.

Anon, 1992.  How Australia can break even on greenhouse. Greenweek, March 17,  p.3.

The report is online, on Googlebooks.

Also, see here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context

This one of the last desperate attempts by the pro climate action people in Australia to influence Australian Government thinking before the Rio Earth Summit.

The Commission for the Future had been set up when Barry Jones was still Science Minister. It had played a blinder in the late 1980s, relatively speaking, but by now was a shadow of its former self.  It released a report that said energy efficiency would at least allow a breakeven on hitting the Toronto target.  Paul Keating had become prime minister in December 1991, and had made sure that all of the previous (Hawke) administration’s environment policies were buried in 17 committees and left to rot. And this was among them. 

If you were even more of a geek than me (not possible) you could do a comparison of the rhetoric and argument in the Feb 4 1990 document I wrote about here [LINK] 

I suspect that it was commissioned before the end of 1991. Because otherwise they wouldn’t have wasted their breath.

What I think we can learn from this

Policy Windows close. Not necessarily because there’s been an election, just because there are new people at the top saying what is and what is not important.

What happened next

The Tasman Institute  – rightwing “think” tank set up in 1990 to combat green groups – came out with a rapid rebuttal. Over the past year they had become quite good at doing rapid rebuttal reports. The Tasman Institute was wound up a victim of its own success by 1998. 

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
Denial India United Nations

March 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial

Thirty one  years ago, on this day, March 6, 1992, US Public Radio had a segment with polar opposite views on its environment segment with Fred Singer (denialist idiot) and Anil Agarwal, of the Center for Science and the Environment, in New Delhi [link]. Agrawal made the point that while the West was talking about its luxury emissions, the mere survival emissions of poor people were being ignored, or worse, thrown into the mix as something that must be reduced. Oh how times have changed…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that negotiations for the text of a climate treaty were entering the end game, centred on US intransigence on the question of targets and timetables versus the desire of the Europeans to have a stronger treaty. 

Singer had just orchestrated an open letter (see Feb 27 1992)

And National Public Radio was trying to educate people about all aspects of the debate, the science, the policy, etc. Agrawal made the point that there are such things as necessity, “survival emissions” versus “luxury emissions”, and that countries like India should have capacity to increase their emissions. Singer was just spewing the usual shite.

What I think we can learn from this

We should remember that what we now see, as a matter of fact, text of a climate treaty has been, from the beginning, intensely fought over. And the battles that were won by the evil bastards in 1992 have made it much easier for the opponents of climate action to continue to win, though they have never, to my knowledge, rested on their laurels, or taken their ongoing victory for granted.

What happened next

The French and Europeans blinked. There were no targets and timetables in the treaty. And here we are 31 years later. 

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

November 5, 1992 – Jeremy Leggett calls Australian petrol price cuts “insane”

On this day, November 5 in visiting British geologist and Greenpeace climate adviser gave a speech at the National Press Club. With a Federal Election imminent in March 1993) he weighed in on Australian domestic policy, days before the so-called “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” is launched., 

A visiting environmental scientist — an expert on the greenhouse effect — has branded as “insane” the federal Coalition’s promise to cut petrol prices if it is elected.

Dr Jeremy Leggett, who works for the environmental group Greenpeace in Britain, told a National Press Club lunch yesterday that the Coalition’s plan to cut petrol prices flew in the face of world concern about global warming.

“You reduce petrol prices at the direct peril of generations of Australians to come,” he said.  And – In Canberra yesterday the World Wide Fund for Nature launched what it called a “green print” for Australia’s future over the next three years.

The document called for endangered species protection legislation to be enacted this year, for the Federal Government to act on the recommendations of its ecologically sustainable development process and for ratification of conventions on climate change and biodiversity.

Leggett’s speech – “Accounting for Global Warming, Financial Institutions Wake Up To the Impacts”

Mussared, D. 1992. Pledge to cut petrol prices ‘insane‘. Canberra Times, Friday 6 November, page 5

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was xxxppm. At time of writing it was 416ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Australian ambition to do anything about climate change had been wilting for a year, and in 1992 new Prime Minister Paul Keating had basically binned all the ‘green crap’ (to use a term David Cameron later used).

All that was left was the names and jargon to throw around, disconnected from any reality, any ambition, any responsibility.

Why this matters. 

We know who did this.

What happened next?

Decades of denial – hard or soft,  predatory delay, “triangulation” etc.