Tag: 1995

Categories
International processes IPCC Science Scientists

April 8, 1995 – Fred Pearce writes “World lays odds on global catastrophe”….

Thirty one years ago today, New Scientist lays it out…

Fred Pearce article in New scientist about IPCC World Lays odds… 8-4-1995

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 New Scientist magazine had been going since the late 50s, And in an early issue, it had reported on carbon dioxide build up link and through the 70s and 80s, it had been regularly reported on the topic.   

The specific context was that Fred Piearce had been at the Berlin COP which had just finished, and it was clear that progress was going to be much slower than it had initially been hoped and it needed to be. And Pearce was not stupid, and he was not hopeful about our chances of not being incredibly stupid. 

Pearce has a new book out, btw. Despite It All: A Handbook for Climate Hopefuls

What I think we can learn from this is that a decent science journalist is a relatively good guide to life. 

What happened next:  Well, the COPs are still going, but the emissions have climbed and climbed and climbed and the atmospheric concentrations are now climbing very rapidly, and we are in a world of shit of our own devising. What do we do about it? I don’t know that there is much that we can do. To be honest, why am I doing this? Because I can, because it’s a habit, because I don’t know why I’m doing this.

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, 1995 – Journo points out the gamble on climate – All Our Yesterdays

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

Categories
Australia

March 24, 1995 –  Australian scientists release report

Thirty one years ago, on this day, March 24th, 1995,  

AUSTRALIA’S top science bodies say much uncertainty remains over greenhouse warming predictions despite claims by Argentinian researchers that Antarctica’s ice shelf has begun cracking up.

Current increases in global temperature cannot be linked with certainty to human action, the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering caution in a joint report released yesterday.

Cribb, Julian, 1995. Greenhouse theory ‘still uncertain’. The Australian 25/03/95 Page 10

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 climate change from carbon dioxide build up began to be talked of seriously by Australian scientists in 1977, after Graeme Pearman came back from a trip to the US and Europe. There had been conferences in 1980 and 1987, and monographs, articles etc etc.

The specific context was that the IPCC had already released its first report, and its second assessment report was nearing completion. Presumably, this report was designed to be released to inform the COP to take place in Berlin. It’s hard to know what the lead times were, but I can’t imagine. It’s much of a coincidence. Maybe it is. 

Meanwhile, the Australian was and is still SUCH a reliable source of information about what scientists are saying. Oh yes.

What I think we can learn from this is that is that any scientific report can be massaged in any direction you like, pretty much, and if it can’t be massaged in the direction you like, well, you can simply fucking ignore it or suppress it. 

What happened next. More reports, more suppression, more reports, more emissions, higher concentrations, more impacts, more despair and the window closes.

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: 

March 24, 1989 – Exxon Valdez vs Alaska. (EV wins)

March 24, 1990 – Labor politician has dummy spit on election night about needing small g-green votes

March 24, 2004 – Launch of Coal21 National Plan

March 24, 2010 – Scientists explain another bad thing on the horizon, this time on soil

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

March 21,  1995 – Labor versus Berlin agreements

Thirty one years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1995, the Fin reports, 

FEDERAL Cabinet is today expected to endorse Australia taking a tough stand – at a ministerial meeting on climate change in Berlin next week – against new measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s stance against the creation of a new protocol on greenhouse gas reduction was given a strong boost by the failure of a last-minute meeting of 26 countries held in Bonn 10 days ago to reach consensus on the issue.

Dwyer, M. 1995. Australia takes strong line against greenhouse rules.  The Australian Financial Review,  21 March. 

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 six years previously, Australia had made all the right noises at an international conference in The Hague, but six years and a couple of 100 extra miles make all the difference.

What actually happened?

The specific context was that by 1995 the resources lobby had won all the battles on climate policy, and Australia was the Labour Party was going to fight tooth and nail against any reduction commitments. 

What I think we can learn from this is that a week is a long time in politics and six years is an eternity.

What happened next.  Well, it’s interesting because John Faulkner must have been sent to the Berlin COP with a set of instructions, but ultimately, for whatever reason, he agreed to the Berlin mandate. It would be fascinating to see the cables back and forth between the Australian embassy and Keating’s government and to see what Keating et al said to Faulkner when he returned.  

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: 

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

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

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

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)