Tag: 1997

Categories
Australia

July 7, 1997 – Alexander Downer tells the truth.

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, July 8th, 1997 Australian Foreign Minister Alexander  Downer [who had been toppled as opposition leader at the peak of the carbon tax imbroglio of 94-5] explains the facts of life… 

The Government’s position was explained in a speech given by the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, in the lead up to the Kyoto Conference in 1997, in which he stated:

A significant proportion of the Australian economy is currently geared toward the production of emission intensive products. As a result, the abatement costs in Australia are likely to be larger than in other countries that have lower reliance on emission intensive outputs. 84

After discussing the importance of emission intensive industries in the Australian economy and Australia’s linkages with rapidly developing economies in Asia, the Minister said the “only target that Australia could agree to at Kyoto would be one that allowed reasonable growth in our greenhouse emissions”.

A.   Downer Australia and Climate Change, Address by The Hon Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the ‘Global Emissions Agreements and Australian Business Seminar’, Melbourne, 7 July 1997 (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra: 1997).

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 – and this may be hard to believe for Australian readers – the Liberal Party had gone to the 1990 Federal election with an emissions reduction target that was MORE ambitious than that of the Australian Labor Party, then in government.  But then they decided they’d been “betrayed” by the green establishment (specifically the Australian Conservation Foundation) and anyway, their mining mates and manufacturing mates thought it was all another green hoax, so they flipped to soft and hard denialism.

The specific context was the Howard Government was trying to gain international support for the idea that Australia was a special case that deserved special treatment ahead of the Kyoto Conference, to be held in December of 1997.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Liberals are at least honest about not giving a rat’s arse about future generations. Labor feel compelled to lie.

What happened next – Australia got an exceptionally generous deal at Kyoto. And still refused to ratify.

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 7, 1970 – an Australian banker goes “Full Extinction Rebellion”, 50 years early…

July 7, 1988 – foolish “Jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial in Nature.

July 7, 2008 – Liberals start back-tracking on climate promises.

Categories
Australia International processes

June 23, 1997 – Howard vs world, API versus world

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1997,

John Howard was too busy meeting Baroness Thatcher to attend Earth Summit II in New York this week. It was a controversial decision in light of our position on greenhouse gases,

FIRST thing on Monday morning, as Earth Summit II began in New York, the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, brought his huge bulk into the chamber of the United Nations General Assembly – the venue for the biggest environment conference since the Rio Summit in 1992.

A few minutes later, the US Vice- President, Al Gore, made a passionate but carefully worded speech welcoming delegates from over 70 countries. For a few minutes he even wandered into the throng on the floor of the General Assembly, and took a seat with the rest of the US delegation.

Both of these leaders were having a back-slappingly, handshakingly good time. Both seemed to be making the most of the opportunity to meet and talk with other leaders. For both men the reason for their presence was because they have a political imperative to make a statement about their concern for the environment.

But Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, did not appear. To the disappointment of conservationists, he decided to send his Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill.

On Monday [23rd June], Howard was meeting his hero and mentor, the former British prime minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher.

Woodford, J. 1997. Leaders Warm To The Task. Sydney Morning Herald, June 28.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Kyoto meeting of the UNFCCC was due to be held in December. Rich countries were supposed to turn up with emissions reductions pledges.  Liberal Prime Minister John Howard was really not up for that…

What I think we can learn from this is that John Howard is a terrible human being. But one who was enabled by other terrible human beings.

What happened next.  Australia managed to extort an incredibly generous deal at Kyoto, and Howard STILL refused to ratify it.

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 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

December 30, 1997 –  “How seriously should we take the greenhouse effect?” asks deeply unserious economics hack

Twenty six years ago, on this day, December 30th, 1997

How seriously should we take the greenhouse effect – how fast is the world’s temperature rising, and how important is it that we should take precautionary measures, and of what kind? How much should we spend now, given the uncertainties of the whole issue? And how, or on whom, should we spend? 

1997 MCGuinness on ‘environmentalist propaganda’ McGuinness, P. 1997. Running risks of global warming. Sydney Morning Herald, 30 December, p.6

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people have been talking about Australia’s “national interest” and climate change and limits to carbon for a long time because the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol had been going on all year. And here’s Paddy McGuinness, a libertarian economist who had given aid and comfort to the Centre for Independent Studies recycling his bullshit, and refusing to actually think that gosh, he and his beloved ideology might be wrong. 

What we learn is stupid people gonna stupid, especially if their stupidity gets them a seat at the top table, and helps make rich people stay rich/get richer. They need useful idiots in the war of ideas. 

What happened next? Well, McGuinness died, which is why I can speak freely about him. 

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 30, 1957 – a letter from Gilbert Plass to Guy Callendar

December 30, 1976 – President Jimmy Carter is lobbied about #climate change

December 30, 2006 – “Industry snubs climate strategy”

December 30, 2007 – Bert Bolin dies.

Categories
Australia

 November 7, 1997 – Australian governments bang heads in pre-Kyoto bash

Twenty-seven years ago, on this day, November 7th, 1997,

Climate change requires federal leadership and action, as acknowledged in the [NOVEMBER] 1997 Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth and State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment, which states:

The Commonwealth has a responsibility and an interest in relation to meeting the obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in co-operation with the States, through specific programmes and the developments and implementation of national strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and to protect and enhance greenhouse sinks.

(Ruddock, 2007: 183) 2.30 The COAG meeting of 7 November 1997 resulted in an in-principle endorsement of the Agreement on Commonwealth/State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment from all Heads of Government and the President of the Australian Local Government Association.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Completed_inquiries/1999-02/bio/report/c02

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia’s federal government had been doing all that it could to resist having to make any consequential commitment at the impending COP3 negotiations in Kyoto. It had been spitting the dummy for a year sending diplomats around the world to demand that Australia get special treatment. Not all state governments were on board with this. So for example, Bob Carr was much keener on climate action. But of course, state governments have relatively limited power….

What we learn is that not everyone is on the same page. That especially in a federal system, there are public differences of opinions, and especially private ones. 

What happened next? John Howard was successful, in that Australia got not only a108% “reduction” target, but also managed to ram through a clause about land clearing that turned that into a de facto but not de jure 130% “reduction” target. Just naked greed and duplicity, and fuck these people. 

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 7, 1973 – Energy security avant la Ukraine: Nixon announces “Project Independence”

November 7, 2000 – Australian “The Heat is on” report released

November 7, 2022 – journalist covering JSO protest arrested

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

October 6, 1997 – Australia says nope to uniform emissions 5% cut. Assholes.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 6th, 1997,

Senator Robert Hill, the federal Minister for the Environment, rejected Japan’s proposal of a 5% uniform reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2012 on the basis that it would result in unacceptable job losses in Australia (ABC television 7.00 pm news 6.10.97)

(Duncan, 1997:10)

Same day President Bill Clinton hosts pre-Kyoto climate conference at the White House… (see New York Times coverage here).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard as prime minister had taken hostility of Australian political elites to the climate treaty from a solid eight through to 11. (“This one goes up to 11.”) And he had sent diplomats around the world over the course of 1997 to try and convince everyone that Australia deserved special treatment at the impending Kyoto meeting, without much success, it has to be said. The Americans were mocking him. Anyway, this above one attempt to break the logjam by the hosts. The Japanese posed an across the board 5% cut from everyone. Now this wouldn’t have been in keeping with the science but it was a bid worth making. The fact that Australia just turned round with a flat rejection tells you plenty.

What we learn is that Australian political elites just don’t give a shit about the future. All they care about is filling their own pockets with loot in the here and now. This is not uncommon, of course.

What happened next? Howard was rewarded for his efforts. Australia managed to get not only 108% so called reductions target, i.e. they got to increase their emissions. But also just through sheer trickery and nastiness they managed to get a land clearing clause backdated to 1990. So that in effect, the emissions reduction target was 130% essentially, de facto if not the jure. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

October 6, 1988 – coal lobby says greenhouse effect “greatly exaggerated”

October 6, 1989 – Hawke Government given climate heads up by top scientist

October 6, 2005 – carbon capture is doable…

Categories
Kyoto Protocol Media

October 3, 1997 – CNN pretends to grow a spine (Spoiler, stays jellyfish)

Twenty-seven years ago, on this day, October 3rd, 1997, the American cable news network CNN tells an “anti-Kyoto” coalition it won’t run their ads,

Of course, it later recants.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that CNN had been owned until the year before by Ted Turner, who fancied himself as the Ecowarrior. And it had been taking money from fossil fuel lobbyists, like the Global Climate Coalition, which was trying to weaken public support for the Kyoto Protocol.

What we learn is that corporations, or individuals within corporations may think that they have spines, but if they get between a source of profit, and the owners of the company, then other members of the corporation, whether it’s publicly or privately owned, will have something else to say. And this was very beautifully put in Julian Rathbone’s eco thriller, The Euro killers, in the late 70s. And if we all read a bit more eco-thriller fiction, we would be less surprised by life, perhaps.

What happened next, CNN did a u-turn. The Global Climate Coalition kept pressing and succeeded. And then in 2002, decided to shut up shop because big members were defecting. And anyway, their work was done. And since then, we’ve had other outfits performing elements of the same function. So the Cooler Heads Coalition set up in 2007, which is mostly now sort of information sharing and spine stiffening for members of Congress and so forth. 

See also – FRAMING OF G8 stuff in early 2001 in Italy – March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy https://allouryesterdays.info/2023/03/06/march-7-2001-cnn-unintentionally-reveals-deep-societal-norms-around-democracy/

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

October 3, 1975 – Three members of Congress introduce first bill for a national #climate program.

October 3, 2004 – John Howard revealed to have asked for fossil fuel CEOs to kill renewables. #auspol

Categories
United Kingdom

September 28, 1977 – John Mason being an idiot again.

Forty-seven years ago, on this day, September 28th, 1977, the Met Office’s John Mason covers himself in glory yet again…

In one of the earliest indications of Cabinet-level interest in climate change, Hunt took the opportunity to quiz Mason on climate issues during his visit to the Meteorological Office in September 1977. Over the course of the visit, Mason made his views on CO2 climate change, as well as his exasperation with ‘‘alarmist United States views’’ clear.54 Whilst Hunt agreed that the voices coming out of the United States were unduly scaremongering, still he insisted that the Meteorological Office devote more attention and resources to climate questions and directed Mason to coordinate with the Central Policy Review Staff—orders Mason could not ignore.55

Source: Martin-Nielsen “Computing the Climate.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US National Academy of Sciences had just released its two year report on Energy and Climate. It’s not clear whether Mason had seen a copy yet, probably not. But he had read press clippings, no doubt, and Mason was continuing his failure to engage with CO2 as a problem, something that he had been doing at least since 1967. Possibly earlier. 

What we learn is that important, influential scientists within the British establishment were arrogant and complacent (this will come as a big shock to you). And that this arrogance and complacency had monumental consequences. 

What happened next Mason continued to be a dick. And he was especially a dick. At the First World Climate Conference in Geneva in February of 1979. 

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 28, 1997 – Australian denialist spouting tosh to his US mates.

September 28, 2000 – Liberal MP goes full cooker on Kyoto as threat to sovereignty.

September 28, 2008 – “Wake Up Freak Out” posted online

Categories
Australia

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister”

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, August 17th, 1997,

The Australian energy, mining and paper industries have united to call on the Government to appoint a Cabinet-ranked sustainable development minister to combat “piecemeal management” and to take a national approach to greenhouse gas abatement.

Yesterday, industry peak bodies issued a joint statement saying the lack of coherent management was “one of the greatest threats to a robust, coherent and consistent industry policy and certainly to resources and energy policy”.

1997 Taylor, L. (1997) Industry wants minister for `greenhouse’ The Australian Financial Review 18th August

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that it was clear some sort of “Greenhouse Office” or greenhouse minister was going to be required, if only to keep the Libs quiet. And so this call from industries like Paper happening as it was, at the same time as the Countdown to Kyoto conference is a classic spoiler move, demand a ministerial post is created: that helps give small L-libs that something is being done (see also Macmillan Manoeuvre). And then you make damn sure that your guy is in charge. And if your guy isn’t in charge, you have fallback plans about withholding information, not inviting them to meetings, all the rest of it. And this is one of those good tactics that the dickheads have at their disposal. 

What we learn is that in isolation, a bold statement of fact can seem confusing, but once you put the pieces together of the puzzle, you see what else was happening. You see what else their motivations might have been. Then it becomes a little bit clearer. 

What happened next, there was no greenhouse minister that there was the Australian Greenhouse Office with pitiful funding that Howard appointed and then ignored. It was a total waste of money as the Australian National Audit Office pointed out in 2004.

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 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol United States of America

July 23, 1997 – US climate envoy wonders what Australian leaders are smoking…

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, July 23rd, 1997, Tim Wirth called out the Australians for being bonkers.

Asked about the economic modelling by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) on which the Howard Government’s stance is based, he said he had not seen it.

But he was generally sceptical of industry-funded models and said the US Administration believed modelling around the world showed green-house gases could be stabilised at either no economic cost or an economic benefit – a finding strongly at odds with ABARE’s work.

“I think there are some people who plug their own assumptions into models and then they flog those models as if they are the things that are going to define and predict the future of the world,” Mr Wirth said.

“Anybody who believes that an economic model is going to be able to predict to points of percentage of increase or decrease, I’d raise an eyebrow . . . or look at what those people have been smoking, because I don’t believe there’s any way in the world you are going to get that sort of accuracy.”

The ABARE modelling draws such conclusions and was partially funded by industry. “Industry groups . . . have points of view that they are paid to advocate,” he said.

Taylor, L. 1997. US rejects Aust `differentiated’ greenhouse goal. Australian Financial Review, 24 July, p3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at COP1 in Berlin in 1995, the rich nations had agreed that they would come to the third meeting with plans for their own emissions reductions. That meeting was to be held in Kyoto. International capital, especially oil and gas and coal, had mobilised ferociously against the science – see the attacks on the IPCC’s. second assessment report. And there were also campaigns in the US against Kyoto, Australia’s government, under that thug John Howard, trying to carve out the sweetest deal they could. And that’s what led Clinton’s climate envoy Senator Tim Wirth to say that he wanted to know what the Australians were smoking because he felt that the claims for special treatment were unjustified and demeaning.

What we learn – you can laugh at denialists and obstructors all you like. That doesn’t make them less formidable.

What happened next well, Australia wore down the other nations, it not only got the 108% so-called “reduction” target. But it also managed to insert a so-called “land clearing” clause, which meant in effect, their emissions reduction target was 130%. So, while Tim Wirth’s jibe was a good one, The Last Laugh belongs to Howard. 

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 23, 1979 – Charney Report people meet – will conclude “yep, global warming is ‘A Thing’.”

July 23, 1987 – Calvin (and Hobbes) versus climate change!

July 23, 1998 – denialists stopping climate action. Again.

Categories
Australia UNFCCC

April 28, 1997 – John Howard says Australia should not have signed climate treaty (UNFCCC)

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, April 28th, 1997, Prime Minister John Howard says Australia should not have signed the UNFCCC. Classy guy.

On 28 April 1997 on ABC Radio National, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, stated publicly that he believed that Australia should never have signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This was the culmination of over a year of backpedaling by the Australian Liberal-National Party Government on the issue of climate change due to purported negative economic impacts.”

Yu and Taplin, 2000 The Australian Position at the Kyoto Conference in Gillespie and Burns (eds) Climate Change in the South Pacific: Impacts and Responses in Australia, New Zealand, and Small Island States, Kluwer

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was the COP3 (Kyoto) conference coming at the end of year, and the Berlin Mandate of 1995 meant that rich nations (including Australia) were supposed to turn up and agree to a CUT in emissions.

What I think we can learn from this

Howard has never been a “conservative”. He’s a radical statist directing taxpayers’ money and assets towards his mates. Like Thatcher squandering North Sea Oil, he squandered the commodity supercycle. Prick.

What happened next

Howard had ten years to destroy everything decent about Australia. Job’s largely done, though there are mopping up operations ongoing. And resistance, of course.

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 28, 1975- Newsweek’s “The Cooling World” story.

April 28, 1993 – Australia to monitor carbon tax experience