Tag: 1997

Categories
Australia

 August 26, 1997 – Germans versus Australians…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 26th, 1997,

The “holier-than-thou” Germans became “very angry” over Australia’s controversial proposals on how the world should fight climate change, according to confidential Federal Government “greenhouse papers” obtained by the Herald.

Hogarth, M. 1997. Germany ‘angry’ On Clean Air Target. Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2026, 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 slipped from being a responsible middle power 1988 to 1990 to an active, very active opponent of climate action.

The specific context was here we see in the run up to the Kyoto Climate Conference, at which rich nations were supposed to bring their plans for significant emissions reductions, as per the Berlin mandate, and the Germans pointing out the facts, which is that the Australians were behaving like utter assholes. Criminal stock indeed.

What I think we can learn from this is that Australian governments since the very early 90s have been criminal. They have disregarded the rights of future generations of humans and other species to anything approaching a habitable planet, and they have done this because they are basically the meat puppets for a bunch of extractivist goons. And you can dress it up however you like, and you can make good money and/or good career in dressing it up, but ultimately you’re dressing it up.

What happened next Australia extorted an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto conference, and then refused to ratify. By the time Australia did ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2008 it was a dead letter. The balance sheet kept breaking up the sky.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 26, 1965 “Climatic Change appears to be underway, in fact.” – the 1965 commencement speech that should have rocked the world.

August 26, 1970 The Alkali Inspector’s report

August 26, 1973 – Sir Kingsley Dunham points out the C02 problem

August 26, 1991- We cannot delay says Brundtland

August 26, 2003 – Australian “plan” to save biodiversity

August 26, 2006 – First “Climate Camp” begins

Categories
Australia

August 23, 1997- Sydney Morning Herald does some Clintonian wish-casting…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 23rd, 1997,

United States officials expect Australia’s maverick greenhouse position to be blown away in a “big bang” at the climate change convention in Kyoto, according to confidential reports by Australian diplomats obtained by the Herald…. The documents are confidential internal communications between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra and Australian embassies.

They detail Australia’s desperate globe-trotting efforts to undermine the push for international agreement on binding, uniform targets to reduce greenhouse emissions, initially for developed nations.

In June, for example, one senior Canberra official went to Seoul and promoted the economic benefits of a “free ride” to South Korea – a key developing nation – rather than it having to face the high cost of any future emissions control regime. [Compare Exxon doing the same thing with China]

Hogarth, M. 1997. Why Our Stand On Climate Change Is Doomed. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2026, 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 US under George H. W. Bush had succeeded in eliminating emissions reductions, targets and timetables for rich countries from the text of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Australia had gone along with that, probably quite happily. The administration under Democrat Bill Clinton had tried to take some energy efficiency conservation action with its BTU tax, and had been soundly defeated. Here we see Clinton at the beginning of his second term, after having given a speech in 1996 at the Great Barrier Reef, beginning to flex muscles ahead of COP 3, which was to be held in Kyoto.

The specific context was that the Australians were pursuing a particularly aggressive line against Australia having any discernible ambitious targets on emissions reductions. This was against the mood music that the Americans, especially under Senator Tim Wirth, as Clinton’s climate envoy were wanting to put forward, so the Clinton gang were talking about how Australia was isolated and would be more isolated and would suffer significant diplomatic consequences for its stance. And for whatever reason, the Sydney Morning Herald was going along with that wish casting. 

What I think we can learn from this – occasionally the mood-music out of Washington is a better form of kayfabe (see, for example, Obama in 2014).

What happened next – Australia got an insanely generous deal at Kyoto, through exasperation and exhaustion at its intransigence.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

August 23, 1856 – Eunice Foote identifies carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum

August 23, 1989 – Space Mirrors proposed to combat global warming. I am not making this up.

August 23, 2000 – Nick Minchin in gloat mode

August 23, 2002 – Stafford Beer dies

Categories
Australia

 July 20, 1997 – Howard appoints a taskforce…

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, July 11st, 1997, John Howard gets his ‘gotta kill any expectations of Australia being a responsible actor on climate’ taskforce together.

Mr Howard yesterday appointed a top level climate change task force, including senior Canberra bureaucrat Roger Beale and Australia’s Ambassador for the Environment Howard Bamsey, to visit Washington, Tokyo and London, following up his recent greenhouse talks with world leaders.

Lunn, S. 1997. Gas targets framed as bargaining chip. The Australian, July 21, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was xxxppm. As of 2026, 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 Australian government had initially said the right words on climate, but this melted away through the early 1990s.  By 1996, and especially with its performance at the second COP, in Geneva in July, it was obvious Australia would be a bad-faith player.

The specific context was the Kyoto COP was coming, and John Howard was pulling out all the stops to try to avoid any emissions reductions commitments.

What I think we can learn from this, it is not too late to send Howard to the Hague.

What happened next – At Kyoto, through whining and exhaustion, Australia got a 108% emissions “reduction” target, that was actually 130% once you took into account the land-clearing clause.

And Australia STILL did not ratify, until 2007 under Kevin Rudd (that’s another story).

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 20, 1989 – New “Ambassador for the Environment” role makes greenies happy 

July 20, 1989 – Bob Hawke fumbles the green football… 

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

July 20, 2014- the “Green Blob” blamed 

Categories
Australia Science

April 29, 1997 – the “Challenge for Australia on Global Climate Change”

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, April 29th, 1997, 

“The challenge for Australia on global climate change”, 29-30 April 1997: summary of proceedings

 One of those chin-stroking talkfests organised by

National Academies Forum, Australian Academy of Science, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Australian Academy of the Humanities, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Australian Academy of Science, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Australian Academy of the Humanities, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, 1997.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian political elite had been warned about carbon dioxide through the 70s and 80s, and had chosen to ignore it until it couldn’t really be ignored any more, in ‘88. After an initial signal of willingness to be proactive and constructive, they had fairly quickly retreated into the asshole position that they hold today. 

In 1995 they had grudgingly signed on to the Berlin mandate – meaning they would come to the third COP (in 1997) with some plan for emissions reductions, and then had decided that they were not going to do that under new Prime Minister, John Howard. And most of 1997 was taken up with the Howard Government, sending diplomats around the place to try and get “differentiation” (an exemption for Australia).

Anyway, these sorts of conferences and seminars and events were happening because middle class people and so-called intellectuals want to believe that they are contributing to the betterment of the species and of its future. This is how they sleep at night, because having to admit that they were passengers on a train straight to hell would offend their amour-propre. 

The specific context was that it was obvious that the Prime Minister (John Howard) was scientifically illiterate and a climate denier who was doing everything he could (which was a lot) to fuck shit up (to use a technical term).  “Awks” as the kids used to say.

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been doing yakkety yak on climate for a very long time, and we will continue to do yakkety yak.

What happened next:  Australia got an insanely generous deal at the Kyoto conference, an emissions reduction quote, in quotes of 108% actually closer to 130 once you took into account the land clearing clause, the emissions kept climbing. Australia’s fossil fuel exports kept climbing. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 kept climbing. And after a certain delay, the despair and the fear of people who can read the Keeling Curve began climbing as well. 

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 29, 1967 – Canberra Times reviews Science and Survival – All Our Yesterdays

April 29, 1970 – Washington DC symposium talks about carbon dioxide

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol United States of America

December 8, 1997 – Gore and Hill at Kyoto

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, December 8th, 1997,

Al Gore, then Vice-President of the United States, there at Kyoto. And on the same day

“Senator Hill’s entrance was a bit rockier, with a smaller Australian demonstration led by Greens’ Senator Dee Margetts jostling him on his entrance to the main summit hall. Two hours after Mr Gore, Senator Hill rushed through his speech – the 16th out of 67 – in front of a half-empty hall.”

Lunn, S. 1997. US juggernaut swamps small beer at Kyoto. The Australian, December 9, p.8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 UNFCCC had been kneecapped at birth by the US refusing to allow targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries into the treaty’s text. George HW Bush said he’d boycott the Earth Summit if they weren’t removed from the draft text – and the French blinked. Everything since then has been an attempt to get some targets in. The Paris farce is the latest and the last (presumably).

The specific context was in the run up to Kyoto there were fierce public campaigns, funded by the oil companies etc, against Kyoto. Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister John Howard had been trying to get people to accept the ridiculous position that Australia deserved special treatment (he succeeded).

What I think we can learn from this – we were doomed a long time ago.

What happened next – The US pulled out of Kyoto negotiations at the beginning of 2001. Australia followed the next year, despite having extorted an insanely generous deal. 

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 8, 1976 – IIASA holds a workshop on climate and solar energy conversion 

December 8, 1981 – Thames TV shows “Warming Warning” documentary

December 8, 2003 – Chief Scientific Advisor under microscope for Rio Tinto role

Categories
Australia

November 21, 1997 – Shell is getting out of Aussie coal

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, November 21st, 1997,

ENERGY giant Shell is considering pulling out of coal production in Australia in what would be the first major move anywhere in the world by a multinational company to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The Dutch chairman of the corporation, Mr Cor Herstroter, has told two London newspapers the groups’ coal assets “were at present under review with the aim of divestment”. But Shell Australia executives yesterday played down the reports from London, claiming that the company fully intended to stay in coal production.

Benson, S. 1997. Coal too hot for Shell. Daily Telegraph, November 21

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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, awash in cash in the 1970s, oil companies had bought up all sorts of assets. Some they got out of quickly, others, more slowly. 

The specific context was Shell was having a think…

What I think we can learn from this – companies invest, divest, everything changes.

What happened next – Shell did in fact get rid of its Australian coal mines…

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 21, 1969 – the first permanent ARPANET link – All Our Yesterdays

November 21, 1978 – Sydney Channel Ten news on Carbon Dioxide build-up and trouble ahead – All Our Yesterdays

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

November 21, 2013 – “Cut the Green Crap” said UK Prime Minister

November 21 2023 – EU: CDR AOK – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

November 14, 1997 – Aussies want WTO to scupper UNFCCC

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, November 14th, 1997,

The Federal Government is growing concerned about the threat of trade sanctions against Australia should it refuse to sign the global deal aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions at the world conference on climate change in Kyoto next month.

According to a confidential Australian Government briefing paper in the hands of The Australian Financial Review, the Government is seeking to have the World Trade Organisation treaty override any agreement reached by nations signing the United Nations’ Climate Change Convention that aims to significantly curb CO emissions, which many believe cause global warming.

“Australia’s proposed language also sends a message to parties that efforts to include trade measures against parties as possible penalties for non-compliance would be subject to strict disciplines,” the briefing paper says.

More specifically, the paper proposes that the Kyoto agreement should “not derogate from the rights and obligations of parties under existing international agreements and, in particular, shall not derogate from the provisions of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation or affect the rights and obligations of members of the WTO”.

An official has commented in handwriting beside Australia’s proposed text: “This is the most powerful safeguard we can devise to preclude or make it very difficult for parties to use the protocol to invoke trade sanctions on non-parties or non-complying parties who might very well be energy exporters [and] exporters of energy-intensive products.”

While the official Australian position is that it wants to play a leading role in the deliberations over the climate change convention, the briefing paper is a further sign that Australia is preparing the ground for opting out of the Kyoto agreement.

McCathie, A. 1997. Australia heating up over trade threat. The Australian Financial Review, November 14, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 been a foot-dragger or worse on climate negotiations for several years now.

The specific context was Prime Minister John Howard was trying to get other nations to agree Australia was exceptional and should not be under the cosh for emissions reductions at the upcoming Kyoto conference.

Here he was clearly thinking about plan-B, in case things went wrong at Kyoto.

What I think we can learn from this – everyone “venue shops”.

What happened next – Australia got its sweet sweet deal at Kyoto. Still refused to ratify.  Meanwhile, the WTO became instrumental in climate policy in an unusual way –  In 2004 Russia agreed to ratify Kyoto in (tacit) exchange for membership of the WTO.

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 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

November 14, 2005 – Downing St blocked with coal – All Our Yesterdays

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Business Responses Denial Incumbent strategies Industry Associations United States of America

September 9, 1997 – “Global Climate Information Project”

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, September 10th, 1997 another pro-apocalypse propaganda outfit was launched, ahead of the UNFCCC negotiations to take place in Kyoto (COP-3).

“Global Climate Information Project” launched” 

Launched on September 9, 1997, by some of the nation’s most powerful trade associations, the Global Climate Information Project (GCIP) has rolled out an ambitious campaign for combating possible emission regulations courtesy of the Kyoto conference.

Through an advertising campaign that, according to GCIP figures, has already spent more than $3 million in newspaper and television spots and could spend as much as $13 million, the GCIP aims to cast doubt upon the need for emissions controls by questioning the politics and the science behind a United Nations agreement.

Writing on the media campaign unveiled by the GCIP, Bruce Clark of the Financial Times remarked that it “could become one of the most expensive lobbying efforts since the ‘Harry and Louise’ commercials that helped doom” the Clinton administration’s health-care reform proposal”

“A Clear View, Vol 4, No 16, Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 interests always mobilise and collaborate to face down challenges to their right to socialise the costs and privatise the profits. There’s lots of good research on this – Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway remains a good place to start.

The specific context was that Kyoto was coming and business had already done a great job in demonising it, in boxing in US Senators. But you can never be too sure, so thus the “Information” (sic) Project.

What I think we can learn from this. The war for the public mind goes on, and on.  

What happened next – the war for the public mind went on. 

GCIP ran a whole bunch of adverts on American TV.

New battalions were formed, new weapons tested. The strategic imperative remains unchanged – keep the peasants too busy to fight back. Buy off the smart one that you can, sideline or dephysicalise those you can’t.

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 9, 1947 – The Daily Worker talks about melting the ice-caps

September 9, 1971 – of Australian Prime Ministers and American scientists…

September 9, 1990 – classic (?) film Mindwalk released

Categories
Australia

 August 18, 1997 – MENSA turns out to be dumb as a rock.

Twenty-eight years ago, on this day, August 18th, 1997,  ABC’s Four Corners exposed the “economic modelling” scam

“This model [ORANI-F] was used, with ABARE’s MENSA model, in the economic modelling undertaken for the ESD Working Groups (1991). Dixon, when interviewed by 4 Corners [ABC television 18.8.97.], stated that he only edited a paper for ABARE regarding MEGABARE and that he did not referee the model. Dixon claims that ABARE does not have the intellectual expertise needed to develop a model of the global economy to adequately test the changes in policy it purports to be able to do. Hence, Dixon is directing his criticism at ABARE, not the model.”

(Duncan, 1997:74)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 economic modelling had come to be a useful way – especially for the rich and well-connected – to support their positions on economic policymaking. The key anecdote here comes from Richard Denniss, of the Australia Institute. Writing in 2015, he recalled

My first job as an independent economic consultant was 20 years ago. I’d previously worked with other economists as part of a team but this was my first solo performance. I was a bit nervous.

After a brief phone call explaining what the client wanted, I spent days preparing for our first face-to-face meeting. When I had spent a few minutes outlining what I saw as the strengths and weaknesses of the possible methodological options, the client interrupted.

“Look, mate,” he said, “all I want is something about an inch thick. I want to walk into a meeting, slam it on the fucking table, and say, ‘According to my economic modelling …’”

The specific context was that in late 1997 the issue of economic modelling and climate change was super “hot” because the Howard Government was trying to convince the rest of the world to give Australia a free pass on emissions reductions (domestic, let alone all the fossil fuels Australia was exporting!). And so Four Corners was looking into who said/did what to whom.

What I think we can learn from this – it’s all kayfabe. Economic modelling is voodoo and bollocks, for the most part.

What happened next – the economic modelling kept getting used, because it works on its intended audience – none-too-bright and obedient politicians, and friendly journalists up against a deadline with pages to fill. Doesn’t matter if it’s kayfabe/bullshit, it fills the need in the short-term.

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 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

August 18, 1991- Business Council of Australia says “fuck you, future generations,” rejects energy efficiency measures

August 18, 1996, Ex-CSIRO #climate boss shows he has lost the plot

Categories
Academia Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

August 5, 1997 – “Climate Change Policies in Australia” briefing

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, August 5th, 1997 – Clive Hamilton, founder of the Australia Institute,

“Climate Change Policies in Australia: A briefing to a meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate”, Bonn, Germany, 5th August 1997

The Government’s position has been bolstered by economic modelling analysis that purports to show that Australia would be especially hard hit. It is projected that wages in Australia will be 19% lower by 2020 under a scenario that reduces emissions by 10% below 1990 levels in 2020. It is also claimed that the economic cost for each Australian would be 22 times higher than for each European. These extraordinary claims have been challenged by many experts including 131 Australian academic economists who signed a statement declaring that policies are available to slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia.
It is also apparent that the modelling results have been presented in ways that are highly misleading. Despite the fact that the model is constructed in a way that exaggerates the impact of emissions reductions on the Australian economy, the results actually show that the impact would be extremely small.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 UNFCCC had been agreed in 1992, but the text did NOT include targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. Why not? Because UNCLE SAM SAID SO THAT’S WHY NOT YOU PINKO TREE-HUGGER.

(i.e. the people around George Bush Snr defeated the “pro-action” forces). So in 1995, the “Berlin Mandate” had been agreed – rich countries would have to come to the 3rd meeting in 1997, with plans/commitments to cut their emissions.

The specific context was that the Australian government of Paul Keating had been deeply reluctant, and once there was a switch to John Howard, the anti-action work had turbocharged. This briefing came during a “charm” (sic) offensive by Howard’s people, trying to get a special deal for Australia. Clive Hamilton, who had set up the Australia Institute three years earlier, was not amused.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Australian political and economic elite are, of course, criminally incompetent when it comes to a host of issues. But especially climate…

What happened next – Howard succeeded in getting that extremely generous deal at Kyoto. Then STILL didn’t ratify it, on general (lack of) principle.

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 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens – All Our Yesterdays

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight