Tag: 1995

Categories
Australia

November 13, 1995 – no Aussie savings of greenhouse gases so far

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, November 13th, 1995,

Asked yesterday [13 November] for an update on Australia’s domestic performance, Dr Hamilton told the Herald that he still could not identify any savings. “I’d like to be able to,” he said.

Dr Hamilton said a major reason for the Government’s failure was that the advice from the bureaucracy was “very skewed” and came from sections that shared a world view with the coal, oil and gas industry.

Gilchrist, G. 1995. Greenhouse Gas Policy Has Failed. Sydney Morning Herald, 14 November, p.4. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a battle over whether to have a carbon tax. The carbon tax had been defeated in February and the consolation prize, the booby prize, was the Greenhouse Challenge, entirely voluntary, self-reporting…  all that nonsense, no punishment for failing to hit targets. You know the drill. And this made it entirely obvious that the Toronto target for reducing emissions by 20% by 2005 was no longer even worth pretending about.

What we learned is that unless you can keep the pressure on the politicians, they will pretend they never made those promises. And then, when it’s no longer possible to meet those promises, they’ll say, “Well, we must be pragmatic.” You know the rest. “I’m not here to pick over yesterday’s failings. I’m not stuck in the past. I’m looking to the future.” They are taught this in “Being Corrupt Spineless Dickheads 101.” 

What happened next, the Greenhouse Challenge kept being used to soothe enough of the people who needed soothing. Not all of them by any means but enough. It was replaced by a Greenhouse Challenge Plus, which must be hard to keep a straight face to. And then, alongside this, emissions trading schemes were proposed and defeated. And the emissions kept rising. 

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 13, 1963 – Ritchie Calder warns of trouble ahead because of carbon dioxide…

November 13, 1975 – climate testimony to House of Reps committee

November 13, 2008 – Coal industry tries to get some ‘love’

Categories
Australia

September 27, 1995 – Greenhouse progress in Australia? None. Zip. Zero. 

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, September 27th, 1995, the government has to admit that there has been no progress on reducing emissions.

The Keating Government’s action plan to curb emissions of harmful greenhouse gases has failed to produce any significant benefits in the almost three years since it was endorsed by the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments.

Despite the plan, and a further commitment for action in this year’s Greenhouse 21C, independent analysts can find no evidence that any measure is working.

Six months after the launch of Greenhouse 21C, no director has been appointed to run its key initiative. Interviews were held only last week.

The director’s position carries only a middle-management grade in the Public Service, even though that person’s task will be to hammer out voluntary agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions with the heads of some of Australia’s biggest companies.

Gilchrist, G. 1995. Greenhouse Project Fails To Curb Gases. Sydney Morning Herald, 27 September, p11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian governments had been making big promises about climate action, for some years. The most notable had been the “Interim Planning Target” in October 1990. And here we were five years later, with the carbon tax defeated in February, with new coal-fired power stations, new freeways. It was totally clear that the Australian Government was not pressing industry, and that the upward trajectory and emissions would continue. 

What we learn is that getting governments to make promises is not actually that difficult. Getting them to keep those promises is. 

What happened next? Well, two months after this story in December of 1995, the Keating government started promulgating ridiculous ABARE modelling on the global level to try and be more aggressive against the Berlin Mandate. In March of 1996, John Howard took office. And then the fun and games on climate delay and denial really kicked in. 

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 27, 1962 – “Silent Spring” published as a book

September 27, 1988 – Margaret Thatcher comes out as a lentil-eating greenie…

September 27, 1988 – UNEP should become world eco-regime

Categories
Denial

August 2, 1992 – Canberra Times reporting that Jastrow idiot #RelevanceDeprivationSyndrome

Thirty two years ago, on this day, August 2nd, 1992, the newspaper for Australia’s political capital reports a very stupid physicist who couldn’t cope with having backed the wrong horse and being old and now irrelevant (scientifically, if, not – sadly – politically).

“Global warming caused by sun” Canberra Times 2 August, p.5, reporting Jastrow

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that although the denialists had one relatively famous victory at Rio, it wasn’t enough. It was never enough, because they wanted to drive a stake through what they perceive to be the vampire’s heart. And, of course, they quite liked travelling around the world, feeling important because they were addressing various audiences and getting polite applause. These are old white men suffering from Relevant Deprivation Syndrome. Their days as high powered physicists were well behind them. They had fought the Cold War, they had defended Reagan’s Space Defence Initiative, (aka Star Wars), and now they had found a new grift, saying that the greenhouse effect wasn’t real.

What we learn is that Relevance Deprivation Syndrome is a tragic chronic illness, with fatal consequences for everyone else. Robert Jastrow, in the late 70s, after all, had been saying there would be a new ice age. It’s fine to be wrong. It’s not so fine to compensate by being a total prick. 

What happened next, the Canberra Times kept publishing denialist screeds because journalistic “balance” as per Boykoff and Boykoff (2004). Funny how they didn’t balance pro-capitalist views with anti-capitalist and communist views, for example.

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: 

August 2, 1970 – LA Times runs #climate change front page story

August 2, 1994 – Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating says greenies should ignore “amorphous issue of greenhouse”

August 2, 2007 – Russia plants a flag on the Arctic sea-bed.

Categories
Australia

May 31, 1995 – newly-minted MCA meets with Keating…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, May 31st, 1995, the rebranded peak mining body meets with Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating.

Leaders of AMIC, now the Minerals Council of Australia, met with the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, for three hours on Wednesday [31 May] to discuss regional relations, trade liberalisation and relations with Japan and Indonesia. 

In line with the recommendations of a report by the Allen Consulting Group, the MCA is putting increased emphasis on lobbying rather than public campaigning.

Mr Buckingham said the way the industry had helped persuade the Government to drop the proposed carbon tax and increase the  diesel excise showed the benefits of its approach. “Where access [to senior levels of Government] is required there is confidence that that access will be given.”

Davis, I. 1995. New name, image for industry group. Canberra Times, 2 June, p.12

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Mining Industry Council had been vehemently opposed to climate action. But more significantly for this particular blog post even more vehemently opposed to Aboriginal land rights. And the crucial dilemma for any trade association is how hard to fight, how publicly: because if you lose and you’ve punched some politicians in the face, they tend to remember it. So AMIC had hired Geoff Allen, who was a venerable business fixer, abd who had set up the BCA in 1983. Allen had suggested a change of leadership. So out with Lachlan McIntosh, and a name change, to complete the rebranding and maybe toning down all the anti Mabo bullshit. And they managed to engineer a meeting with Paul Keating that apparently was three hours. Keating, whatever he thought, had to be in a mood of reconciliation, and if not all is forgiven and forgotten. Let’s move forward. Because if you want to be a successful leader, you can’t really hold those sorts of grudges. 

What we learn, these trade associations have to be careful. There are limits to what they can do. And if they overstep those limits, there are consequences just because they’re made up of powerful individual companies or sectors. Doesn’t mean they have total carte blanche.

What happened next? Well, the Australian Mining Industry Council/MCA and the BCA had been beavering away and they created a really effective group called the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, which was massively successful for over a decade in combating both domestic policy, e.g., the 1994/5  carbon tax battle, but also the international stuff keeping Australia from making any sane commitments for Kyoto, and for ratifying it once they’ve extracted that victory. And you’ve got to hand it to them, they’re really really good at what they did. 

And, you know Guy Pearse and Clive Hamilton chart that success in their books High and Dry and Scorcher respectively. And see also the Carbon Club by Marian Wilkinson. 

But never forget that the picture of Labor as sweet and innocent is complete bullshit. Because if you look at the period especially from 1990 to 1996 they were making sure that no serious action on climate change happened. 

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 31, 1977 – “4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise by 2027” predicts #climate scientist Wally Broecker

May 31 1996 – Rocket Scientist Charlie Sheen uncovers warmist alien conspiracy!!

May 31, 2012, an Australian climate minister makes a song and dance

Categories
Germany IPCC UNFCCC

April 8, 1995 – Journo points out the gamble on climate

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, April 8th, 1995, Fred Pearce of the New Scientist points out that there is a gamble going on (as did Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman three years earlier).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619720-300-world-lays-odds-on-global-catastrophe/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first COP had just finished. Rich nations had been resisting emissions cuts using scientific uncertainty as their final excuse. But Swedish scientist Bert Bolin, who had been banging on about climate change, and carbon dioxide build up since 1958, at the latest, was telling them that the IPCC Second Assessment Report would be out later this year and that they shouldn’t expect to be able to use the uncertainty card for very much longer, more or less.

What I think we can learn from this is that the really sharp battles at the end of 1995, were all about that. I hadn’t quite grokked that before.

What happened next

Well, there were really sharp battles at the end of ‘95. From the middle of ‘95 efforts by denialists to smear individual scientists (the “Serengeti Strategy”) and the process in order to slow progress towards a serious protocol.

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: 

April 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

April 8, 1980 – UK civil servant Crispin Tickell warns Times readers…

April 8, 1995 – Australian environment minister says happy with “Berlin Mandate”

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

Categories
Australia

April 3, 1995 and 2001 – Australia’s international trajectory – from bullshit to batshit delusion (but honest)

Twenty nine and twenty three years ago, on this day, April 3rd, 1995 and 2001, the Australian position on international negotiations went from mildly hypocritical to unashamedly evil.

Australian environment minister John Faulkner meets with German Environment Minister Angela Merkel at COP1 and says “Australia is not obstructionist”

McCathie, 1995, 5 April. Australia’s change of heart hits the spot.

AND THEN 

The Australian government is being applauded by corporate polluters and corporate front groups at home and abroad. The Global Climate Coalition, the major front group for US corporate polluters, features on its web site an article by Alan Wood in the April 3 Australian (<http://www.globalclimate.org>). Wood’s article, titled “Killing Kyoto in Australia’s best interests”, urges Australia to back the US in pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol.

Wood comments favourably on a paper written by climate sceptic Alan Oxley for the Lavoisier Group, an Australian “think tank” which argues that the Kyoto Protocol poses “the most serious challenge to our sovereignty since the Japanese fleet entered the Coral Sea on 3 May, 1942”.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/canberra-covers-bush-greenhouse

and

The US has called Europe’s bluff.

LISTEN to the Europeans and you could be forgiven for thinking George W. Bush has just sent the world to the gas chamber – the greenhouse gas chamber, that is. What Bush has really done by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol is shatter a European dream of running the international energy market, or at least a substantial bit of it.

This dream arose from a mix of Europe’s quasi-religious green fundamentalism and cynical calculation of commercial advantage. Jacques Chirac gave the game away at the failed COP6 talks at The Hague last November, when he described the protocol as “a genuine instrument of global governance”.

Wood, A. 2001. Killing Kyoto in Australia’s best interests. The Australian, 3 April, p13.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361 to 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this six year period is really where the “failing to deal with climate change” accelerates. Before April 1995 two serious battles had already been lost. The Ecologically Sustainable Development process, which came up with some workable if not transformative in-and-of-themselves ideas, had been watered down and then killed off by Keating and federal bureaucrats. 

A second bite at the “carbon tax” cherry had just been defeated by early February 1995. John Faulkner had had to run up the white flag. The COP1 meeting was underway when this first bullshit was being spouted. 

But then if you look at the next six years, it’s an astonishing period of abject policy failure on climate, if, of course, by failure you mean protecting current and future generations. If your metric is “keeping rich people rich and the fossil fuel interests happy” that it was a stunning success. You have Australia’s adoption of ABARE modelling for international purposes by late 1995 under Keating.

You have the hostility to international negotiations breaking out in public in Geneva in July 1996. 

You have the year long campaign in 1997 for Australia to have some sort of special exemption, which sadly was successful.

You have the play acting of the Australian Greenhouse Office.

You have the defeat of the first Emissions Trading Scheme in 2000.

You have the introduction of an incredibly watered down Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. 

And you have the protection of state sanctioned credibility for a fantasy technology known as “carbon capture and storage.” 

By here we are on  April 3 2001, just after Bush had pulled out of Kyoto. That Bush decision meant that Australia was going to do the same, as per the leak in 1998. The batshit denialists could have just rested on their laurels. But theirs is a fire that continues to burn, regardless of whether they’re winning big or winning medium; and they were winning big. 

What we learn – the failure was public. There were no secrets, really.

What happened next. The failure has continued. And unless people behave differently, will continue to do so.

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: 

April 3, 1980 – US news anchorman Walter Cronkite on the greenhouse effect

April 3, 1991- Does coal have a future?

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 10, 1995 – Faulkner folds on carbon tax – doesn’t have the numbers in Cabinet

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, February 10th, 1995, the Australian Environment Minister John Faulkner conceded that he didn’t have the numbers to get a carbon tax proposal through cabinet.

THE Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, has abandoned proposals for the introduction of a carbon tax …. His decision was made on Friday [10th February] after two days of talks with environmental and business groups

Ellis, S. and Gill, P. 1995. Faulkner calls off plans to impose carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 14 February, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been an entirely sensible idea put forward by the greenies at the Australian Conservation Foundation, among others, to have a small carbon tax that would fund energy efficiency and solar. This had finally been put forward by the environment minister, John Faulkner in 1994. It had led to a vehement coordinated attack on the proposal. The opponents had played their cards very well. The proponents not always so well. And on Friday 10th of February Faulkner had realised he didn’t have the numbers because the crucial role in politics is “learn to count.” 

What we learn is that everybody knows the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost and this is one of the times that the good guys lost. What we also learn is that proposals for sanity get made all the time and usually get defeated. 

What happened next?  Faulkner went to COP1 in Berlin and announced himself happy. There was the announcement of the entirely voluntary greenhouse challenge, bullshit that achieved nothing other than to confuse people. Its purpose was to make BHP and its chums look like ”responsible” corporate citizens. 

Also on this day: 

Feb 10, 2010 – Dutch scientists try to plug denialists’ holes in the dike

February 10, 2011 – Australia gets a “Climate Commission”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 7, 1995 – Business Council of Australia vs a carbon tax. Of course

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, February 7th, 1995, the lobby group for big business successfully fought off a carbon tax.

Canberra — The Business Council of Australia yesterday attacked the Federal Government’s proposed carbon tax, saying that it could jeopardise more than 47,000 jobs and $43 billion in production in the nation’s export energy industries.

Drawing on a report released by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics yesterday, the council said a carbon tax, at any level, would result in lost jobs, production and exports.

The executive director of the council, Mr Paul Barratt, said any carbon tax would have a serious impact on Australia’s oil and gas, coal, metal products, petrochemicals, pulp and paper and cement industries.

Thomas, C. 1995. Business Council Hits Plan For Carbon Tax. The Age, 7 February, p.50.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a fierce battle going on over a proposal for a carbon tax at federal level in Australia, and the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Mining Industry Council, (who made the tie-in official as the AIGN later) were at the forefront of a campaign to stop it. And one of the ways – not the only one,  but one of the ways – was to say that the “sky would fall” economically speaking.  

And what you do is you get some economic modelling by so-called independent experts who set their parameters in such a way that the sky will fall, you then turn that into a report, write a press release. You give it to some tame journalists, who then get it put up on the front page of a newspaper. Then get questions asked in Parliament. It gets picked up on television and the “common sense” that action on climate change will cost a fortune is just that little bit further embedded. 

And they have been playing this game for a very long time. They’re very good at it and the reason they keep playing it is it’s usually a winning tactic for them. 

What happened next. The carbon tax was defeated in February of 1995 before the BCA and its chums had to pull up the really big guns. Policy advocate interest shifted to emissions trading schemes. One was finally introduced in 2012, only to be abolished two years later. Australia deserves everything it gets.

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 7, 1861- 161 years ago, a scientist identifies carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas

February 7, 1979 – Met Office boss bullshits about his carbon dioxide stance

Categories
Australia

January 25, 1995 – Australian electricity reforms mean more greenhouse gases…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, January 25, 1995 the tension between making lots of money in the near-future and doing something about climate change became obvious.

AUSTRALIA’S electricity reforms and greenhouse policy appear to be headed in contradictory directions. While senior Federal ministers concede that a carbon tax would not be a single solution to meeting greenhouse targets, demand management reforms that would have a substantial impact on greenhouse emissions have been proposed by a working party of the National Grid Management Council. Yet the latest drafts of that report suggest that the NGMC will step back from critical recommendations. On December 7, the NGMC’s working party on demand management in the emerging competitive power market, produced a third draft that listed three specific options – Budget allocations, an energy efficiency levy or tax incentives – to promote energy efficiency. But when the “final draft” was produced on January 25 by the NGMC itself – in preparation for its ultimate submission to the Council of Australian Governments – each of these recommendations was substantially different…

1995 Gill. M. 1995. The meek take the running on electricity reform. Australian Financial Review, 13 February, p.12.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that state owned electricity systems in the states of Australia, were busy being privatised. The idea was also to have a national grid excluding Tasmania, but still excluding Western Australia, because there was money to be made. And of course, if you had to have greenhouse, and environment considerations included, that would interfere with rich white people getting even richer. And we can’t have that now, can we? Because that would be communism. 

What we learn – failure was systematically baked in.

What happened next? Everybody knows the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost. Greenhouse was kept out of the documents that set up the Australian energy market and all of that who had the national grid. And this is a good part – by no means the only part but a good part – of why Australia has had until recently astonishingly high carbon intensity in its electricity generation. I mean, brown coal, I ask you. 

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

January 25, 2013 – Lord Stern admits #climate “worse than I thought”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 12, 1995 – Australian carbon tax coming??

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, January 12th 1995 the game of chicken and dare around a carbon price in Australia was coming to a head. A front page story in the Canberra Times began as follows,

“A greenhouse gas levy remains firmly on the Government’s agenda, with the bureaucratic working group responsible for developing the levy meeting for the first time yesterday.”

 Henderson, I. 1995. Greenhouse gas levy remains to the fore. The Canberra Times, 12 January, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Conservation Foundation (a big green NGO) and others had been pushing for a carbon tax for years initially as part of the Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process. And although they had suffered defeats, they didn’t let it go. New Environment Minister John Faulkner had taken that on board and he had also taken on board Phlilip Toyne who had been a major force in the Australian green movement as head of the Australian Conservation Foundation. 

What we can learn is that there is a great deal of believing when you’re top of the web or “dissent ecosystem”, (not that you can be at the ‘top’ of such a thing) in that when you’re a big player it’s tempting to believe that you can join the system and change the system from within. Then there’s a logic to doing so, or wanting to do so: beyond easy claims and smears of careerism, and parlaying radicalism to take one of the jobs for the boys. Toyne tried. He failed to get the tax up – but that was because the opposition to it was clear and clever and the support for it did not have its shit together.

What happened next a month and two days after this was in the newspapers, Environment Minister John Faulkner pulled the plug on a carbon tax. Instead, there was a meaningless voluntary scheme, the Greenhouse Challenge, which was reheated a couple of times, but frankly, never amounted to a bucket of warm spit. 

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: 

Jan 12, 1983 – RIP to the “master organizer in the world of science”, Carroll Wilson

January 12, 2008 – Australian mining lobby group ups its “sustainability” rhetoric #PerceptionManagement #Propaganda