Tag: 1995

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 18, 1995 – Carbon tax 1

Thirty one years ago, on this day, January 18th, 1995

FEDERAL Cabinet is considering a series of controversial measures to cut greenhouse emissions, including a carbon tax of up to $20 a tonne, which would raise $13 billion over three years, and an extra 10c/litre fuel excise.

The proposals – detailed in a Cabinet document obtained by The Australian Financial Review – are set to generate massive industry hostility, and to switch the environmental spotlight from Mr Beddall, the minister responsible for the woodchip controversy, to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, and his departmental deputy secretary, Mr Phillip Toyne, who is masterminding the greenhouse strategy.

 Callick, R. 1995. Revealed: Green tax shock *$13bn grab *$20/tonne carbon tax *New 10c/litre fuel levy. Australian Financial Review, 18 January, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the idea of taxing “bads” is hardly new (Pigou, much?) and had been suggested for carbon dioxide not merely in the late 1980s, but all the way back to 1970.

The specific context was that industry had already seen off a previous tax proposal (or the idea of one) in 1990-1, and had been prepping for another battle for a while, since it was obvious that those wanting climate action would try again.

What I think we can learn from this is industry mostly gets what it wants. We are screwed.

What happened next – those wanting a price on carbon switched to an emissions trading scheme. This makes bankers and consultants happy, and offers enormous opportunities for loophole finding and patronage which turns into post-election-defeat jobs.  Even that was resisted, successfully, for ages.

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 18, 1964 – Nature mentions atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up

January 18, 1993 – Australian unions and greenies launch first “Green Jobs” campaign

January 18, 1993 – Job’s not a good un. “Green Jobs in Industry Plan” achieves … nothing. #auspol

Categories
Activism Australia Coal

December 5, 1994 – direct action against Yallourn coal power station, in Victoria

Thirty one years ago, on this day, December 5th, 1994,

“Conservation groups yesterday stepped up pressure on the Federal Government to adopt tougher measures to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Federal Cabinet will consider the issue tomorrow.

In Yallourn, Greenpeace activists chained themselves across railway tracks used by coal trains which feed the Yallourn W power station.

They also unfurled a huge banner down the side of one of the station’s smoke stacks.”

 Birnbauer, B. 1994. Greenies Mount Campaign For Greenhouse Tax. The Age, December 6, p.3.

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 Greenpeace Australia had had a boom and bust cycle in the late 1980s early 1990s, and had almost gone bankrupt. But it survived, and people wanted to take action…

The specific context was there were plans afoot to expand coal burning (and even exports of brown coal – I mean, wtaf?). Meanwhile, there was a carbon tax debate underway in Canberra.

What I think we can learn from this – direct action (albeit symbolic) against fossil fuel infrastructure has been going on for a generation.

What happened next – Greenpeace kept doing blockades, occupations etc. There was also a trend to protests in Melbourne (LINK).

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 5, 1952 & 2009 London sees climatic pollution events

December 5, 1994 – Taxing times for Australia, maybe… – All Our Yesterdays

December 5, 2002 – Australian Government CCS support begins…

Categories
Australia

November 29, 1995 – Australian power company boss is silent on climate, obvs

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 30th, 1995,

Two days ago, Fred Hilmer, the chairman of Australia’s worst atmospheric polluter, Pacific Power, gave a talk at the University of NSW on the rationale behind the Carr Government’s changes to the electricity industry.

Professor Hilmer gave an impressive, enthusiastic sales job. The crowded room was hot as hell that afternoon and at the end of his 45-minute talk he was sweating profusely.

Even though Pacific Power is our biggest producer of greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect and global warming were not mentioned. It was an extraordinary omission.

1995 Gilchrist, G. 1995. Just The Shock Power Industry Needs. Sydney Morning Herald.  December 1, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 leaders had by this time had 7 years of having to pretend they gave a damn about “the greenhouse effect”.  But the public pressure was off a bit by now…

The specific context was – a carbon tax proposal had been defeated earlier in the year, and maybe Hilmer couldn’t be bothered to pretend to give a shit?

What I think we can learn from this – they will ignore an issue if they think they can get away with it.

What happened next – John Howard became Prime Minister of Australia in March 1996 and climate policy went from incredibly bad to even worse.

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 29, 1973 – Australian politician warns of climate change

NOVEMBER 29, 1974 – SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER SAYS “RISK OF A CHANGED CLIMATE DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES … [IS] OF UTTER IMPORTANCE”

November 29, 1988 – Australian parliamentarians taught climate

November 29, 1990 and 1994 – Australian denial fools (Fred Singer and Brian Tucker) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Coal Technophilia

September 25, 1995 – Clean Coal. No, seriously.

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 26th, 1995,

Senator Cook opens CRC that “will help maintain Australia’s export coal trade in an increasingly competitive and environmentally sensitive international market”

Cook, P. 1995 Black coal goes green at new Cooperative Research Centre. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 had become the world’s biggest coal exporter in 1984, and Australian politicians had been trying to “square the circle” with environment concerns since the late 1980s. See for example Bob Hawke in January 1989.

The specific context was that there were various research institutions happy to relieve the taxpayer of cash – god forbid industry fund research and development in a meaningful way…

What I think we can learn from this is that the taxpayer is always on the hook.  

What happened next  “Clean Coal”?  Yeah, like dry water.

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 25, 1980 -Reagan turns out to be an ignorant fool. Who knew? 

September 25, 1991- European Commission proposes a carbon tax…

September 25, 2003 – Bob Carr “strikes greenhouse deal” with European investors

Categories
Australia

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

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 5th, 1995 , the Australian Aluminium Council announces it is joining the ‘Greenhouse Challenge.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 Australian business interests had, from 1990, fought ferociously against any meaningful climate policy (not that the ALP, then in charge, was ever particularly serious about it).

The specific context was that the “Greenhouse Challenge” was a bullshit voluntary scheme dreamed up to cover up the defeat of a carbon tax. It was so harmless and useful to corporate reputations that even the Aluminium Council liked it.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is all kayfabe. No climate action that would affect the power and prerogatives of the rich would ever be tolerated. If you thought otherwise, well “tell them they’re dreaming”.

What happened next – the Greenhouse Challenge staggered on, with a further reboot when it was too obviously ridiculous. It was put out of its misery in the mid 2000s, having achieved no emissions reductions worthy of the name, but keeping some consultants happy and providing useful PR ammo. So it goes. 

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

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

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

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

Categories
Australia Denial

July 20, 1995 – Patrick Moore at the National Press Club

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 20th, 1995 the Canadian Patrick Moore, who did not, in fact, co-found Greenpeace, speaks at National Press Club in Canberra.

Hard choices for the environmental movement, Greenspirit or Greenpeace

You can listen to it if you like – 59 minutes of your life you will never get back…

See also  22 Jul 1995 – Saturday FORUM Internal tensions threaten environmental successes – Trove

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 by the early 1990s (earlier, really) the incumbents had figured out that a mix of scientists and “environmentalists” who accused others of being alarmists would be a very very effective way of dampening concern….

The specific context was various Australian groups had become adept at inviting US and Canadian public figures and experts to Australia for speaking jaunts – guaranteed to get some free publicity, spread some confusion.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are a limited number (perhaps) of tactics, and incumbents know how and when to use them.

What happened next – the Keating Government (toast by this point) was replaced the following March, 1996, by the a Liberal/National government of John Howard, and these sorts of speaking tours became less necessary for a long time. 

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 20, 1989 – Bob Hawke fumbles the green football…

July 20, 2014- the “Green Blob” blamed

Categories
United States of America

July 11, 1995 – Chicago heatwave gets going

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 11th, 1995,

The July 1995 Chicago heat wave led to 739 heat-related deaths in Chicago over a period of five days.[1] Most of the victims of the heat wave were elderly poor residents of the city, who did not have air conditioning, or had air conditioning but could not afford to turn it on, and did not open windows or sleep outside for fear of crime.[2] The heat wave also heavily impacted the wider Midwestern region, with additional deaths in both St. Louis, Missouri[3] and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[4]

1995 Chicago heat wave – Wikipedia

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 poor people are always on the pointy end of “natural” disasters, be they floods, heatwaves, pandemics etc.

The specific context was that 1995 was the year the second assessment report of the IPCC came out. It included the fateful words that there was already a “discernible” impact of human activity, which drove the denialists to new heights (depths) of venality and stupidity.

What I think we can learn from this. We’ve had a lot of warnings about what is coming. But on each step of the way there will be people who want/need to dismiss the warnings – “there have always been heat waves” etc., And then it gets into a sterile attribution debate, and the denialists are happy…

What happened next The emissions kept climbing, and these sorts of one-in-a-hundred year events started happening more frequently.

There is a book about the social dynamics of the mortality risk, btw. I haven’t read it, but someone whose intellect I respect raved about it.

Eric Klinenberg, 2002 Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, 

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 11, 1968 – The UN Secretary-General, U Thant, delivers report on Human Environment that mentions carbon dioxide and climate change

July 11, 1994 – Australian Environment Minister admits not clear if Australia hitting targets (spoilers, it wasn’t) 

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

June 20, 1995 – Shell raises the white flag in Brent Spar battle

Thirty years ago, on this day, June 20th, 1995, Shell surrenders in the Battle of Brent Spar

See this from Greenpeace’s 1995 Annual Report

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that there had been a decent run of “environmental successes” (if you squint) over the previous decade, most memorably on ozone. And a “convention” on climate change (squint a LOT, ‘kay?).  But the oil companies never sleep, and were looking for a cheap way of disposing of dozens/hundreds of old oil rigs. If they could get one done, then, well, the precedent is established, isn’t it?

What I think we can learn from this was that this was about the last time TNCs (transnational corporations) were under the cosh of the ENGOs (environmental non-governmental organisations)  (Though I’d happily be corrected).

What happened next.  The greenwashing and the lobbying kicked into higher gear. The emissions kept climbing. We are so fubarred.

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 20, 1977- “Alternative Three” – An early Climate Hoax  – All Our Yesterdays

June 20, 1979 – Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

 March 29, 1995 –  “a transparent attempt to promote the Australian coal industry”

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 29th, 1995, Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner, fresh from losing the carbon tax battle) gave a press conference 

J Faulkner (Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories),Press conference for the release of Greenhouse 21C, speech, 29 March 1995 

Greenpeace’s climate campaigner, Mr Keith Tarlo, said the biggest single item was the $25 million program to promote clean coal technology in India.

“This is a scandal. (It) is a transparent attempt to promote the Australian coal industry and can only lock India into escalating greenhouse emissions,” he said.

Boreham, G. 1995. Industry Says Yes, Greens Say No To Emissions Policy. The Age, 30 March, p.3. 

AND

Greenpeace said the biggest item in the package was $25 million to promote “clean coal” technology overseas. This was really meant to boost Australian coal exports and the “clean” meant only low sulphur content, it said.

Shehan, C. and McCathie, A. 1995. Bid To Cut Gas Levels – But It’s Voluntary. Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a bloody and ultimately successful campaign against a mild, minor carbon tax. And here John Faulkner, who had proposed that tax had to pretend the booby prize, which was the Greenhouse 21 challenge (presumably had been written by civil servants or given to them by business as the lowest common denominator) would make a blind bit of difference.

What I think we can learn from this is that if you’re not going to have anything serious, but you still have “presentational problems” on an issue that voters might care about, then you come up with these bullshit voluntary schemes. 

What happened next

Greenhouse 21 was a joke, as was the Australian Greenhouse office, as was Greenhouse Challenge Plus. And everybody stopped pretending that it was worth continuing to pretend by about 2005. But the pretence continues – it has to…

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 29, 1979 – Health impacts of carbon dioxide discussed…

March 29, 1993 – C02 Disposal symposium takes place in Oxford

March 29, 1995- Kuwaiti scientist says if global warming happening, it’s not fossil fuels. #MRDA

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

March 27, 1995 – former Nature editor John Maddox admits was wrong on Greenhouse, without, er, admitting it.

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 28th, 1995,

27 March 1995, to another Australian audience – “On the greenhouse effect, Sir John suggested that the onus of proof had shifted towards those who denied it”. https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-253921166/view?sectionId=nla.obj-259513073&partId=nla.obj-253927437#

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first IPCC report had come out, and the second was near completion. John Maddox, finally, 25 years after his first attacks on carbon dioxide concerns, was conceding that those worried had been right and he’d been wrong. Not that he put it in those words of course.

The older context was that in 1971 Maddox on a visit to Australia had rubbished worries about carbon dioxide….

What I think we can learn from this is it takes old white men a very long time to change their tune. It’s not clear to me that the former Met Office supremo, John Mason, for example, ever did. 

What happened next

The second IPCC report came out saying that there was a discernible influence of human activity. And this word got monstered. The denialists knew enough not to go for Bert Bolin, so they went for Ben Santer instead.

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 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

March 27, 2008 – James Hansen writes a letter to Kevin Rudd