Tag: 1994

Categories
Australia

December 2, 1994 – “Canberra fiddles as environment burns”

Thirty years ago, on this day, December 2nd, 1994,

When it comes to protecting the environment and meeting Australia’s international greenhouse commitments, the Prime Minister and his Government” lack vision and direction”, claims a leading solar scientist.

Dr David Mills, a physicist at the University of Sydney, said Mr Keating’s Government offered $150 million “to take down an expressway in Sydney as an aesthetic eyesore, but puts a pittance into development of new technologies to alleviate future environmental and balance of payments disasters. Canberra fiddles while the environment burns.”

Dr Mills will present his critique of Federal renewable energy policy in Sydney today at Solar ’94, the Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy Society annual conference.

Dayton, L. 1994. ‘Canberra fiddles as environment burns’. Sydney Morning Herald, 2 December, p.5. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 Australia’s policy elites had been shitting on all things climate since about 1990, upping the speed of this from 1991.

The specific context was that a modest carbon tax was on the table. It would have provided reliable and significant funding for renewables. It was defeated.

What I think we can learn from this – Australia is a lucky country led by tenth-rate assholes.

What happened next – the carbon tax was, of course, defeated. Emissions climbed. People got rich and will in all likelihood escape any punishment for their grievous crimes not just against humanity, but against life itself. 

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

December 2, 1964 – Mario Savio’s “bodies on the gears” speech at Berkeley..

December 2, 1981 – “Is the world getting warmer?” (YES)

December 2, 1991 – “Ecologically Sustainable Development” bites the dust…

December 2, 2023 – Exxon’s boss vs IEA, planet – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

November 9, 1994 – interdepartmental bunfight in Australia

Thirty one years ago, on this day, November 9th, 1994,

A DOCUMENT leaked from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has revealed the department’s strongly critical view of business and farm lobby concerns over international environment treaties now being negotiated by the Government.

The document, a minute written by First Assistant Secretary, Mr W.N. Fisher, to the department head, Mr Michael Costello, reveals a DFAT institutional view that is highly critical and dismissive of business and farm lobbies.

The minute will gravely embarrass the Federal Government, which has undertaken to improve consultation with business and farm groups over treaty negotiations. The minute reveals DFAT’s conviction that consultations are a waste of time because, ultimately, the Government knows what is best for business.

In it, he calls DFAT contacts with business “despairing” and “pretty appalling”. He says Mt Isa Mines Ltd salesmen are “incompetently briefed” by the company on a climate change convention now being negotiated.

“You would think that MIM, with a multi-million dollar export contract at stake, would at least have the wit to brief its salesmen on the contents of the framework convention so that if they have to confront these arguments they would know what they are talking about.”

“Too much to hope for, apparently. MIM salesmen must be a pushover for the Germans and the Japanese to deal with,” the minute says.

Barker, G. 1994. Govt leak scorns business lobby. The Australian Financial Review, 9 November.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 already been fierce fights within the federal policymaking machinery about climate change.  Problem was, the bad guys were winning.

See this great piece by Royce Kurmelovs on ABARE…

The specific context was – the first COP was coming up (Berlin, March-April 1995) and Australia wanted to get its position straight. Meanwhile, there was a fierce campaign for (and a fiercer campaign against) a carbon tax.

What I think we can learn from this – states are not monoliths. There are all sorts of fights going on about turf, but also direction of travel. And industry has its meatpuppets within the official bureaucracy, as well as lots of zombie think tanks etc.

What happened next – the Department of Climate Criminality and Assholeness continued to win all the important fights.

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: 

November 9, 1988 – Tolba gives “Warming Warning” speech at first IPCC meeting

November 9, 1991 – Australian TV station SBS shows demented ‘”Greenhouse Conspiracy” ‘documentary’

November 9, 1992 – Ark sails on, Downunder – All Our Yesterdays

November 9, 2000 – Tyndall Centre launched

November 9, 2009 – Senior Liberal says CCS won’t work – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia New Zealand Science

October 26, 1994 – “Global warming is a global warning”

Thirty one years ago, on this day, October 26th, 1994,

Scientists, politicians and economists recently gathered in New Zealand for the Greenhouse 94 conference from October 10 to 14. Discussions at the conference confirmed that the heat is on: sea levels are rising, climate patterns are shifting, and the atmosphere is heating up. ZANNY BEGG reports on the implications of global warming.

Ben Elton, in his best-selling novel Stark, was able to describe the earth as a stinking trash can of multinational companies — with an ozone layer in tatters, sea temperatures rising and pollution transforming the air into a toxic soup — and keep it funny. But when straight-faced scientists begin to talk about the threat global warming poses to the planet there isn’t much to laugh about.

Two thousand five hundred scientists working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement on September 14 that told the world what we didn’t want to know: carbon dioxide levels are on the rise and the world’s climate is at a serious risk from human activity. This was confirmed by discussions at the Greenhouse 94 conference, convened by CSIRO, which concluded that sea levels and temperatures in the Oceania region have been rising steadily since the beginning of the century.

Elwin Jackson attended the Greenhouse 94 conference for Greenpeace. His prediction for the future, if no reduction of greenhouse gases occurs, is as stark as Ben Elton’s. “In the year 2040”, he explained to Green Left Weekly, “we could see famine stalking through South-East Asia. We could see more droughts, increased flooding, rapidly changing weather conditions and more pests. The conditions we see in many parts of Africa could come to this part of the world. The human cost of this would be horrific.

Anon, 1994. Greenhouse alert: global warming is a global warning. Green Left Weekly October 26, 1994

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greenhouse-alert-global-warming-global-warning

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 the first “Greenhouse” conference, in 1987, had been crucial – an opportunity for scientists working in different domains to compare notes. For a few years the scientists were being sorta listened to (which is distinct from saying they had a lot of influence).

The specific context was by 1994 climate had disappeared from the front pages and into the boring bits where policies are combatted and not really explained. Yawnsville. Still, the grinding work of science goes on…

What I think we can learn from this – issue attention cycles are a thing. More people should know about them

What happened next – scientists kept sciencing. Emissions kept climbing.

See interview with the cartoonist 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.

Also on this day: 

October 26, 1975 – “The Endangered Atmosphere” conference begins… 

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation Incumbent strategies

September 22, 1994 – another “sky will fall” report

Thirty one years ago, on this day, September 22nd, 1994, 

The Federal Government’s response to the greenhouse gas problem will inevitably cut billions of dollars from Australia’s economic growth but a carbon tax would devastate the economy, according to a major new report.

The study, by the Melbourne-based National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, says that current government ambitions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are “unrealistic” and cannot be achieved without major economic costs.

It confirms there are no easy choices facing the Government in dealing with the greenhouse problem, particularly in the short term.

Commissioned by the Electricity Supply Association of Australia, the two-year, $400,000 research project, suggests that a longer-term greenhouse response would mitigate the impact on the national economy. The new analysis will be publicly released today. … coal industry closed down by 2000.

Gill, P. 1994. Carbon tax to ruin economy says new study. The Australian Financial Review, 22 September, p.6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 business had been running scare campaigns against any government action on any given issue for ages – that’s what they do.  Starting in 1989 or so, they did the same for “the Greenhouse Effect.”

The specific context was that the Federal Environment Minister, John Faulkner, had spent the last few months trying to get people on board for a carbon tax.  This was part of the pushback.

What I think we can learn from this is that they always do “sky will fall” economic reports. Why change a winning game?

What happened next: The carbon tax was defeated in early February 1995.

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: 

September 22, 1971 – Australian communist talks about climate change

September 22, 1991 – ESD RIP. Australia’s chance of a different future… squashed flat.

September 22, 2014 – “We Mean Business” coalition formed

Categories
Ozone United Nations

September 16, 1994 – International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer

Thirty one years ago, on this day, September 16th, 1994,

Sept 16, 1994 – Montreal Protocol – To commemorate the signing of the Montreal Protocol on September 16, 1994, the United Nations General Assembly declared September 16 as International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer. Since then every year September 16 has been dedicated to the importance of preserving the protective ozone layer.

The ozone layer is a naturally occurring high concentration of ozone chemicals between 15 and 30 kilometers above the Earth’s surface (stratosphere). It covers the entire planet. By absorbing the sun’s harmful ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation, it forms an effective shield from the sun, protecting living organisms on earth from excessive UV-B radiation, which is found to cause cancer, cataracts, genetic damage and immune system suppression.

https://green-forum.ec.europa.eu/green-business/emas/international-day-preservation-ozone-layer_en

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 there had been concerns about CFCs and their impact on ozone since the early 1970s. Things moved along sharply after the “hole” was discovered in the mid-1980s.  

The specific context was that the first COP was coming up, and I guess everyone hoped the same magic would rub off. But there were a few companies that made CFCs, and these companies were able to switch to similar other products, and get paid handsomely to do so. With carbon dioxide, it’s a little bit more complicated. 

What I think we can learn from this: A false analogy with a hopey-changey hook can blind you to what the actual challenge is.

What happened next  The ozone is recovering, says the UNEP. The carbon dioxide build up? Yeah, let’s talk about something else.

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: 

September 16, 1969 – Aussies warned about carbon dioxide build-up by top scientist – All Our Yesterdays

September 16, 1969 – Nobel-prize winning Australian scientist warns about carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1969

September 16, 2015 – Turns out big companies are ‘climate hypocrites’?

Categories
Australia

July 15, 1994 – ALP and BCA in good cop bad cop routine

Thirty one years ago, on this day, July 15th, 1994, a former Treasurer admits that there is a “good cop bad cop” routine going on with the peak business body.

The Business Council of Australia was the dominant influence on Labor’s reform agenda in the past decade, at the expense of other employer groups and the party’s traditional union supporters, according to the former Treasurer Mr John Dawkins.

Such was the intimacy of the relationship, Mr Dawkins claimed, that it had been useful on occasions to have the BCA appear to be a critic of the Government’s performance.

Williams, P. and Ellis, S. (1994) DAWKINS KISSES AND TELLS ON BCA. Australian Financial Review, July 15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 ALP had always had a “complicated” relationship with business, and if its leadership got too determined to do anything, well, there could always be a change of leadership, either by elections dominated by propaganda or, as a last resort, the Governor-General… This is a story repeated with social democratic parties everywhere…

The specific context was that Australia’s economy had been “opened up” (tariffs down, dollar floated etc) from the mid-1980s onwards, in the name of “reform”, which somehow magically morphed into the rich getting richer and the poor really getting the picture. The BCA, set up in 1983, played a key part in all this.

What I think we can learn from this is that the means by which policy is made – and the way nominally independent political parties are shaped – is not theorised very well by academics, who are not nearly as bright as they think they are.

What happened next – the wealth inequality in Australia, already accelerating under Keating, became turbo-charged under Howard (1996-2007). And the emissions kept climbing, though hidden behind accounting tricks and dodgy numbers – and the atmospheric concentrations 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: 

July 15, 1968 – first(?) UK government attention to the possibility of climate

July 15, 1977 – “Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate”

July 15, 2005 – The “Stern Review” into #climate is announced…

Categories
Australia

June 28, 1994 – Faulkner says carbon tax a possibility

Thirty one years ago, on this day, June 28th, 1994 Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner says carbon tax a possibility – 

Faulkner tells states: World Heritage, woodchipping high on my agenda.

A new Commonwealth-States row was looming last night after the Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, unveiled a hardline environmental strategy which includes a push to expand Australia’s World Heritage listings…. Later yesterday, Senator Faulkner said he was considering the implementation of a carbon tax and user pays strategies for heritage areas, as well as other economic measures to benefit the environment. He said he was expecting a departmental report on a range of measures by the end of the year so he could look at the possibilities “in the context of any submission I might make to Cabinet in the lead up to the next Budget”.

Lenthall, K., Darby, A. and Kelly, H. 1994. Green Showdown Looms. The Age, June 29, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting was scheduled to take place in Berlin in March-April 1995, and Australia could not afford to turn up empty handed. The “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” had been emptied of all meaning by a huge and successful lobbying effort (helped along by the transfer from Prime Minister Hawke to Prime Minister Keating).

What I think we can learn from this is that doing something about climate change, using the simplest and surely least controversial policy tool of carbon pricing – was successfully hammered out of existence by the rich, who just do not give a damn about the future of the planet and its species. 

What happened next Faulkner’s effort was met with highly effective opposition, and he ran up the white flag in February 1995. Carbon pricing came back on to the agenda, as an Emissions Trading Scheme, in 2006-7. An ETS was finally passed in 2011, only to be repealed in 2013-4. And here we are. 

xxx

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: 

June 28,1982 – Secretary of State for Energy justifies flogging off public assets – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Denial

June 17, 1994 – Moron versus physics. Sorry, “Moran”

Thirty one years ago, on this day, June 17th, 1994, a genius corrected all our WrongThink with an article that has aged like a glass of milk.

Global warming is a con. There is no justification for threatening those jobs that depend on coal and thermal power stations, says ALAN MORAN

The greenhouse phenomenon has raised far more hot air than has emerged from global temperature records. Not all agree with this.

Greenpeace has launched its “Climate Timebomb” catalogue, claiming documentary evidence of global warming attributable to increased emissions of carbon dioxide….

Moran, A. 1994. “Cool appraisal time for global warming.” Australian Financial Review, June 17, p. 26.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australian denial had kicked into high gear in 1989 and continued, with institutional support from outfits like the IPA and the Tasman Institute, onwards.

The specific context was that the carbon tax proposal was beginning to take shape, and opponents wanted to lay down some suppressing fire.

What I think we can learn from this is that “newspapers” like the Fin were – and I suppose remain – mostly just propaganda outlets for stupid/greedy/venal people who want to (mis)shape the public discourse.

What happened next  Soft denial became mainstream thanks to the coming of the Howard Government, and the hard denial picked up speed with the formation of the Lavoisier Group in 2000.  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: 

June 17, 2009 –  Blistering speech about how “The Climate Nightmare is Upon Us” by Christine Milne – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 16, 1994 – Australian business want international allies

Thirty one  years ago, on this day, June 16th, 1994, Australian business interests were looking for people who could help them out in avoiding any significant climate commitments.

  BUSINESS groups have called on the Federal Government to form strategic alliances with other countries to maximise its negotiating position in future climate change negotiations. The suggestion at yesterday’s [June 16] round table follows widespread concern in the business community that Australia might be forced into a greenhouse response which is not in its interests. While the form of any alliance on greenhouse gas has not been spelt out, it could be modelled on the Cairns Group of 14 agricultural exporters which played a key role in the Uruguay Round of world trade talks. It is understood the Cairns Group model has been informally discussed by industry representatives concerned that Australia will have little influence in the negotiations. A paper prepared for yesterday’s round table by the Australian Coal Association and the Australian Mining Industry Council says it is “high time we stopped mouthing undefinable expressions” and pursued more precision in a so-called “burden-sharing agreement”.

Gill, P. 1994. Call to form strategic alliances.  Australian Financial Review, 17 June. 

And

“Canberra has been remarkably close-mouthed about how Australia is to reduce emissions. The Prime Minister, the Environment Minister and the Resources Minister met yesterday with the NGOs and State Government ministers to exchange views on this and related matters.”

Moran, 1994, 17 June.

And 

The Federal Government has assured business groups that Australia won’t be financially penalised in meeting its international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“We have got to set an example on greenhouse gases but there has always been a caveat in our negotiations that it won’t be at an economic cost to Australia,” the Minister for Resources, Mr Beddall, told The Australian Financial Review.

The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, had earlier yesterday given similar reassurances at a high-level forum on the environment in Canberra.

Mr Keating told the meeting of more than 100 business and environmental representatives that the Government was aware of the “economic implications” of adhering to international guidelines on greenhouse gas emission.

The meeting thrust the greenhouse issue onto the economic agenda, with 10 business groups demanding the Government adopt measures that reflected Australian industry’s greater use of energy before agreeing to further international targets on greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental groups mounted a strong counter-attack at the meeting by accusing the Government of failing to match the effort of other countries in responding to the United Nations Climate Change Convention.

Dwyer, M. 1994. Greenhouse ‘won’t put us in the red’. The Australian Financial Review, 17 June, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly zzzppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australia had ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in late 1992, along with a surprising number of other nations.  The treaty was now international law, and the first Conference of the Parties was to be held in Berlin next March.  Australia was already in an awkward position – it had promised (with caveats) steep domestic emissions cuts which were not in fact happening. Meanwhile, its coal exports were raising eyebrows….

The specific context was that Environment Minister John Faukner had already floated the idea of a carbon tax, and business was nervous.

What I think we can learn from this

The solutions – or some of them – were staring us in the face.  The rich didn’t like those solutions, so they kicked the can down the road. And down the road. And here we are in 2025.

What happened next  Faukner’s carbon tax proposal met fierce, fierce opposition and came to a grisly end in February 1995.  The Berlin COP happened and Australia signed on to turn up at the 3rd meeting with a plan to reduce its emissions.  But by then it was no longer Keating in charge – John Howard became Prime Minister in March 1996, and had other ideas…

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: 

June 16, 1971 – “Ecology Action” formed in Sydney. – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1972 – David Bowie and (Five Years until) the End of the World. Also, Stockholm – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 5, 1994 – that referendum idea is back again…

Thirty one  years ago, on this day, June 5th, 1994, the referendum idea that has been around since early 1989 is still being mooted…

Any national referendum to decide the republican issue should also include a proposal to give the Federal Government increased powers and responsibility to protect the environment, Democrat Leader Senator Cheryl Kernot said yesterday.

“The debate on constitutional reform must be broadened to include concerns about the environment,” Senator Kernot said, marking World Environment Day.

Senator Kernot said the Democrats supported a proposal by a former executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Phillip Toyne, which would confer on the Commonwealth the power to make laws about:

• Land, air and water conservation affecting more than one state or territory.

• Nuclear energy and ionising radiation.

• Protection of areas of national and international significance.

• Protection of flora and fauna from extinction.

• Regulation of genetically or biologically manipulated life forms.

A spokesman for Senator Kernot said later there was no present consideration for such a referendum to be held in tandem with the next federal election, but it should happen and “the sooner and the better.”

Grose, S. 1994. Ecology should go to vote: Kernot. Canberra Times, 6 June p 2.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/118168960

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2025 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the heady days of 1988-9 were long gone. It was in early 1989 that the ALP’s Federal Environment Minister, Graham Richardson, had mooted the referendum at a fundraising dinner in Adelaide (LINK).  Since then the business pushback had been very determined and pretty successful.

The specific context was that Environment Minister John Faulkner was making noises about a carbon tax, because he knew Australia had to have SOMETHING to take to COP1 in Berlin if it wasn’t to get hammered in the negotiations. Meanwhile, the moves for a referendum on dumping the monarchy was on its way…

What I think we can learn from this is that ideas persist for a certain period, but there is only so many times they can be pulled out of Cohen’s “garbage can” and dusted off…

What happened next – there was no eco-referendum. The Republic referendum was held, and failed.

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: 

June 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays