Tag: 1994

Categories
Australia Coal UNFCCC

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1994, a local council in New South Wales, Australia says yes to another coal fired power station, on the day that the UNFCCC comes into farce. Sorry, force.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had a growing economy, and needed more electricity. The easiest way to do that was to dig up and burn coal. So we do the easiest thing. Councils are going to wave through the sorts of things because jobs, donations to parties, perks, a sense of normalcy.

And the UNFCCC being ratified and becoming law the same day? It’s just one of life’s historical ironies. The Greenpeace campaign against Redbank is also just not even historical footnote really is it? There you are. 

What happened next. Redbank pumped out seriously amounts of planet-cooking CO2. 

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

Greenpeace Australia Ltd v Redbank Power Company Pty Ltd and Singleton Council [1994] NSWLEC 178, (1994) 86 LGERA 143, Land and Environment Court (NSW, Australia)

Chamberlain, P. 1994. Danger in cheap power. Canberra Times. November 13, p. 6

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/130537382

Also on this day: 

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

Categories
Australia

March 16, 1994 – “We could bail from Rio” says former Environment Minister

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1994, the Australian political elites lived up to their convict heritage.

“Cabinet is understood to have agreed in January 1991, before talks on the UN convention, that Australia would not proceed with measures which had “net adverse economic impacts nationally or on Australia’s trade competitiveness in the absence of similar action by major greenhouse gas-producing countries”.

Former environment minister and former senator, Mr Graham Richardson, used exactly the same words when he described the joint Commonwealth-State position on climate change to Parliament on March 16.”

Gill, P. 1994. Minister signals change of policy on greenhouse gas. The Australian Financial Review, 26 May, p.6. [On Evans using exactly the same words on 24 May]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that Australia had made a very weak eye-catching commitment in October of 1990, saying that it would reduce emissions if other large emitters did so, on the proviso that there were no economic consequences to speak of. Australia had not introduced any carbon tax and only had a pissweak “national greenhouse response strategy” which was utterly toothless. The UNFCCC treaty had been ratified by enough nations quite quickly, and was going to become law imminently. And therefore the problem for Australia was they’d signed it. What might they have to do? And this was Graham Richardson, who only five years earlier had been a tub thumping “we must save the world” activist who can be credited with having won the 1990 election for Hawke. He was backtracking, or in his eyes, reading aloud the fine print. 

What we learn from this Is that a politician will be a fire breathing tub thumper when it suits him or her. But as soon as implementation of firebrand tub thumping policies might impinge on donors and elite allies, they suddenly change their tune. 

What happened next. A carbon tax was defeated again. The next Environment Minister went to Berlin and was forced to agree with the idea of Australia joining other rich nations in negotiating emission cuts under the so-called Berlin mandate. And Australia then shat all over that, of course. 

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: 

March 16, 1973 –  North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)

March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 2, 1994 – A green budget needed in Australia…

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 2nd, 1994, environmentalists were doing what they could to push for a carbon tax.

Canberra — The Australian Conservation Foundation has urged the Prime Minister, Mr Keating, to consider green-based Budget measures, including a radical tax on carbon.

The foundation’s president, Professor David Yencken, and its executive director, Ms Tricia Caswell, met Mr Keating yesterday. They sought support for a complex Budget submission and asked for a swift replacement for the former Environment Minister, Mrs Kelly.

Middleton, K. 1994. Conservationists Urge PM To Go For A Green Budget. The Age, 3 March p.7.

And

The Australian Conservation Foundation has proposed sweeping changes to the Federal Government’s taxation and spending practices to safeguard Australia’s future environmental and economic interests.

In its first detailed Budget submission, released yesterday, the ACF proposed measures it said would save the Government between $ 1.4 billion and $1.9 billion next financial year at the same time as promoting more environmentally responsible practices and creating jobs. The measures include a jobs levy, carbon tax, woodchip export levy, more money for public transport, and taxation incentives for nature conservation and the use of green technologies

AAP, 1994. Alter taxation, spending to aid environment: ACF. Canberra Times, 3 March, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people wanting to see action on what we then called “the greenhouse effect” had been suggesting a tax on carbon dioxide usage since the “Ecologically Sustainable Development process of 91-92. And there wasn’t really any coherent ideological or economic argument against this other than squeals of pain from the people who would have to pay it, who were doing the polluting.

Australia was a signatory to the UN Framework Convention, which was going to become law. And there was going to be the first “COP” meeting quite soon. And so in order to demonstrate credibility, so the argument went, the Australian Government could introduce a low tax, which would fund some energy efficiency, some renewables and the sky would not fall. And so that was the bid – entirely sensible, but unable to overcome, as we have seen, the power of the fossil fuel lobby in Australia. 

What I think we can learn from this is that politics is a blood sport. And everybody knows the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost. 

What happened next: The conservation lobby got their wish. There was a proposal for a carbon tax. And it was withdrawn because the opposition to, from within Paul Keating’s cabinet, egged on by the usual suspects beyond, was so successful that it was never going to get through cabinet. And the emissions kept climbing 

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

Also on this day: 

March 2nd, 1997- RIP Judi Bari

March 2, 2009 –  Washington DC coal plant gets blockaded

Categories
Australia

February 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 3rd, 1994, the fossil fuel lobby was trotting out its favourite argument – that Australia was being treated “unfairly” in the climate negotiations, and throwing “developing countries” in to make it a more confusing message and one harder to counter.  

Australia and the developing economies of the world could bear an unfairly high proportion of the costs of controls on greenhouse emissions in the event of any global agreement to adopt uniform emission-reduction targets, the Outlook 94 conference was told yesterday.

Grose, S. 1994. Unfair burden’ on Australia. Canberra Times, February, 4, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.2ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that President Clinton’s energy tax had been defeated the year before. But it simply wasn’t clear that a carbon tax was dead in Australia too. And the whole question of Australia’s commitments under the climate treaty, which had been ratified, and previous December, was making rich fossil fuel outfits nervous. And so at “Outlook 94”, which was one of the energy sector’s watering holes and ideas-swapping or meme-swapping opportunities. They, including John Daley, were pushing hard on the old idea that Australia was a special case that was being unfairly treated. 

What we can learn is the rhetoric of unfairness is pervasive, and that bullies and assholes will often deny, attack, reverse victim order – DARVO.

What happened next?

The proponents of climate action put their eggs in the carbon tax basket which was entirely sensible to their eyes. And they were defeated. 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: 

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
Ignored Warnings

June 3, 1994 – Greenpeace warns of climate time bomb

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, June 3, 1994, news reached the colonies of an event that had actually happened on Wednesday June 1… – Greenpeace International’s release of ‘The Climate Timebomb’.

Anon, 1994. World is facing a climate time bomb: Greenpeace. Canberra Times, 3 June, page 7

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Greenpeace trying to get people to understand that the increasing number of weather disasters and extremes are in fact a climate time bomb. The United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change had been ratified. And by enough countries the UNFCCC itself the text was no great shakes and Greenpeace was well aware that more needed to be done. And were trying to get insurers and reinsurers interested. 

What I think we can learn from this is that using “natural disasters” to convince people that climate is a pressing issue hasn’t really worked. Because people have short memories, because of shifting baselines, because people don’t want to stare into the abyss. And because until recently attributing any specific disaster or event to climate was problematic at best. 

What happened next

Greenpeace kept trying to do what it could on climate. And you can have criticisms – I do – but they’ve been on the side of the angels as opposed to the fossil fuel shills.

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 IPCC Science

November 21, 1994 – Skeptic invited to engage with IPCC (Spoiler, he doesn’t)

On this day, November 21, an invitation to climate “skeptic” Pat Michaels to take part in the IPCC’s second assessment report was sent by a lead author, Tom Wigley.

“Patrick Michaels was invited to contribute to Chapter 8. He declined to do so. One of the lead authors of Chapter 8, Tom Wigley, wrote to Pat Michaels on November 21, 1994, and on February 21, 1995, soliciting comments on the portrayal of Michaels’s Franklin Institute paper in a December 8, 1994 version of Chapter 8. Prof. Michaels did not respond to these requests.”

Gelbspan, R. (1998)   Page 235 [Compare to Saudis not attending ad hoc group that Houghton organised at end of 1995 in Madrid!!  Easiest way is to not turn up, then continue sniping!!]

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 359ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The first IPCC assessment report, in 1990, had come under attack by the usual suspects of oil industry lobbyists and various goons (see here).  The climate denial machine geared up, knowing that they would need to get ahead of the game for the second assessment report, to weaken and discredit in advance.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that the scientists did provide the information. The politicians chose to ignore it. The social movements were not good enough – they were outgunned and outspent. The propaganda blitzes, and the institutional biases away from truth and sanity were too strong.

What happened next?

Michaels declined Wigley’s offer.

The second assessment report came out, and sure enough, the denialist machine launched as ferocious attack on it as it could manage.

Categories
Australia

October 31, 1994 – Four Corners reports on Greenhouse Mafia activity

On this day, October 31 in 1994, the ABC explained what was going on with Australian energy and climate policy.

“ABC Four Corners special on Monday when veteran ABC science reporter Gavin Gilchrist exposes an industry that has “failed dismally to match both the words and sentiment of national greenhouse response strategy”. Gilchrist looks at the Victorian model of electricity reform and the “white-anting” of national minimum energy performance standards – or MEPS – by manufactures and government.” 

Fries. P. 1994. Insert. The Australian Financial Review, 28 October, p.3.    

See also this in SA Greenhouse News #3

“At the ANZMEC meeting in September 1994, Ministers considered whether to proceed with mandatory MEPS, but did not agree to do so because of the position taken by the Victorian Minister for Energy, who was opposed to regulations of any kind, and who did not believe that the case for mandatory MEPS was strong enough to overcome the preference for ‘market forces’. This was a clear case of ideology getting in the way of rational policy making.”

And

The industry has since pointed out publicly (on the ABC’s Four Corners program on 31 October 1994) that the only practical and fair way to implement MEPS is through regulation, something which was never in dispute in all of the negotiations leading up to the ANZMEC meeting. The minimum energy performance standards proposal was ANZMEC’s first opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to the NGRS, and it conspicuously failed to do so. Whatever happens with MEPS now, the episode has demonstrated to the public and to the appliance industry how tenuous is the ANZMEC commitment to the NGRS, and how easy it is for individual State Ministers to delay or even derail its key programs. 

from Feb 1995 Can the Future be Rescued report by The Australia Institute]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 356.21ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm.

The context was this – There was a battle going on around whether the Keating government would introduce a carbon tax (it didn’t).

Why this matters. 

We have known the truth, it has been broadcast (literally).

What happened next?

Gilchrist did some very solid reporting for the Sydney Morning Herald about what the “Australian Industry Greenhouse Network” was up to, and wrote a great book – “The Big Switch”.

Categories
United Kingdom

January 25, 1994: UK government releases “Sustainable Development Strategy”

. On this day, the United Kingdom government, led by John Major, released its “Sustainable Development Strategy”, which was going to return the UK carbon emissions levels to 1990 levels by the year 2000. And this was achieved, yep, great… except it was all part of the dash for gas and de-industrialization (off-shoring production).

What happened next? The UK government, by this time had already killed off a European Community-wide carbon tax proposed by the Danes for two reasons (at least) – because of the political difficulties around Maastricht and also pit closures. 

And the incoming Blair Government, set itself a 20% reduction target by 2010 because it thought this would be relatively easy. 

However, by 2000 it was obvious (or rather, the late-lamented Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution pointed out) that emissions reductions weren’t going to continue, and would in fact increase. Cue much talk of nuclear and CCS. Of course.

HMG still not doing nearly as well as it would like to say that it is doing. We have been making bold promises about climate action, taking credit for accidents, and dodging the blame for everything else.