Tag: 1998

Categories
Australia Denial

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

Twenty five years ago, on this day, December 9, 1998, a Howard minister talked the usual nonsense so that enough concerned Liberal voters would stay asleep.

Media Release Statement by Senator Nick Minchin Minister for Industry, Science and Resources

 Wednesday, 9 December 1998 98/047

Canberra businesses commit to the Greenhouse Challenge 

Canberra has an important role to play in demonstrating the nation’s commitment to the environment, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, and Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill said today.

The Ministers were speaking at Greenhouse Challenge Day at Parliament House in Canberra. Greenhouse Challenge is a joint industry-Government program, designed to encourage business to take a voluntary and self-regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This most commonly involves improvements in energy and process efficiency.

“The Greenhouse Challenge has had a positive impact on the environment and energy management systems in place here at Parliament House.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media/pressrel/2R006%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Howard government, in the run up to the Kyoto meeting, had undertaken an intense diplomatic push against strong commitments being imposed on Australia. Domestically, in October 1997 Howard had made a speech with impressive sounding but actually empty nonsense about a Renewable Energy Target, and the creation of the “Australian Greenhouse Office” (see link). This announcement was part of the ongoing con.

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians say any old nonsense if it will get them what they want. There are enough confused/cynical liberals (small l) who choose not to see that they are being conned. If they did see they were being conned, they would either have to admit they were gullible/corrupt/complicit, or get off their arses. Neither option is attractive…

What happened next

Minchin was the guy who led the successful charge against an emissions training scheme in 2000. 

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..

Categories
United States of America

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 30, 1998, two of the Seven Sisters join at the hip.

1998 – Exxon and Mobil sign a USD$73.7 billion agreement to merge, thus creating ExxonMobil, the world’s largest company

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Mobil had, by this time been doing “advertorials” and so on (see Herb Schmertz- https://marketingcraftsmanship.com/2013/07/05/the-herb-schmertz-era-when-public-relations-had-some-balls/

that the German provocateur and artist Hans Haacke had spoofed.

What I think we can learn from this is that Omnicorp is on the horizon, as per the Onion “Our Dumb Century”. These immensely powerful concentrated interests well, you can break them up and they recombine, recoalesce. It’s like that scene at the end of Terminator two (spoiler), where he’s been in the liquid nitrogen, they shoot him, he is destroyed. And then the pieces and Mercury start to come back together.

What happened next

Exxon continued to fund denialist groups (provoking the Royal Society into writing a public letter in 2006 telling them to knock it off), and is now getting sued for what it did to block action.

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

That Hans Haacke/Bourdieu book “Free Exchange”

https://raphaeldelamer.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/bourdieu-pierre-haacke-hans-free-exchange.pdf

Categories
Australia

November 26, 1998 – “National Greenhouse Strategy” (re)-launched

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 26, 1998, yet another “National Greenhouse Strategy” was launched in Australia. Utterly meaningless of course.

Robert Hill launches the National Greenhouse Strategy (just a ‘refresh’, basically – bureaucratic games…)

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F39006%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been the “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” dribbled out in December 1992, which was a lot of fine words stripped of all meaning after the defeat of the people in favour of sanity during the ecologically sustainable development process.

The Howard government, re-elected in October 1988 thought they needed to pretend that they’re doing something. The AGO has been launched, but the Renewable Energy Target was still being kicked down the road, down the road, down the road demoralising environmentalists and investors.

What I think we can learn from this

Just because it is said by a “serious” person doesn’t mean it ain’t kayfabe.

What happened next

The National Greenhouse Strategy went nowhere. Of course, it was always designed that way, and anyone who thought otherwise was either naive or cynical. And emissions kept climbing.

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.

Categories
Australia

November 18, 1998 – coal guy becomes Australian environment ambassador

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 18, 1998, Australian Prime Minister John Howard trolls the environmentalists and the planet by appointing a coal guy as “environment minister”.

Australia announces new environment ambassador.

18 November 1998

CANBERRA, Nov 18 (Reuters) – Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer announced on Wednesday the appointment of senior Foreign Affairs and Trade department officer Ralph Hillman as Australia’s new Ambassador for the Environment.

Hillman, who has an extensive economic background, was most recently the Ambassador, permanent representative of Australia to the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. He replaces Meg MacDonald, who held the post since September 1997.

1998 Democrats unhappy that Ralph Hillman is now environment ambassador, with ACF more emollient –

FED – Democrats damn appointment of environment ambassador. 19 November 1998

Australian Associated Press

CANBERRA, Nov 19, AAP – The Australian Democrats today damned the appointment of economist and trade expert Ralph Hillman as Australia’s new ambassador for the environment.

Democrats environment spokeswoman Lyn Alison said the announcement that Mr Hillman would replace Meg McDonald as ambassador this month was a cynical decision.

“Mr Hillman has no obvious qualifications to be an advocate for the environment, he is more likely to work against the interests of the environmental movement,” Senator Alison said in a statement.

“The key credential Mr Hillman brings to the position is his hard-headed economic rationalism and experience in foreign affairs. This makes him just the ticket for a government that doesn’t take the environment seriously.”

But the Australian Conservation Foundation said it would work with Mr Hillman.

“We believe it is a very important job,” ACF campaigns director Michael Krockenberger told AAP.

“It is especially so as Australia faces a lot of international pressure on the environment on issues like climate change and looking after world heritage areas threatened by issues such as uranium mining in Kakadu National Park and oil shale mining at the Great Barrier Reef,” he said.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Howard liked, I think, occasionally to troll his opponents. And this was classic trolling, appointing the head of the Australian Coal Association, to be the next ambassador for the environment, a post that had been created a few years earlier during the “Greenhouse Effect” spasm.

Howard also appointed Wilson Tuckey as Minister for forestry – “ he has a sense of humour.” (quote from Hamilton)

What I think we can learn from this is that by putting these sorts of people in these sorts of positions, you send the message – you demoralise your opponents, you destroy the credibility of organisations and institutions to poison the well. In other words,

What happened next

Howard kept trolling – his best was using World Environment Day to announce, in 2002, that he would submit the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had signed, forward for ratification.

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.

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

September 26, 1998 – Howard decision only to ratify Kyoto if US does leaks.

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 26, 1998, the Canberra Times had a good old-fashioned scoop, thanks to a leak … . That was that the government of John Howard had decided – despite having extorted an insanely generous deal at Kyoto, and having signed it in April, they would not submit it to Parliament for ratification unless (and this was vanishingly unlikely) the USA did.

Sept 1998 – Howard government decision not to ratify Kyoto unless America does. Leaks on 26 September (Scorcher p. 102)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian government had secured an eye-wateringly generous deal at Kyoto but that still was not going to be suitable to Howard because once you’re in the ratchet it can keep ratcheting. And it would lead on to having to do more and more over time. Howard was on the record as saying that the Australian should never have even signed up to the UNFCCC. The leak, the leak was in the context of an impending federal election.

What I think we can learn from this

This is “clever politics”- you are kicking it into the long grass but you are not saying “never.” And you are hinge-ing it on other people’s actions, so everyone can get mad at them instead. It’s a bit like the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket picking on Private Pyle. 

What happened next 

George Bush, once he had been selected president, pulled the US out of Kyoto. Howard waited for another 16 months before confirming that Australia would not ratify. He did this on World Environment Day. For the lulz.

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

Categories
Australia

September 19, 1998 – Public Health Association calls for “life-saving green taxes”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 19, 1998, the Australian Public Health Association calls for “life-saving green taxes”

A LEADING health advocacy group has called on main political parties to include ecological levies in their taxation plans to stem environmental degradation and its ill-effects on humans.

The Public Health Association, in warning that mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever and Murray Valley encephalitis could spread as far south as Sydney in the next 20 years, accused the Government and Opposition of ignoring “a most serious health issue”. In a resolution passed at its annual conference in Hobart on Wednesday, the PHA said the Australian electorate deserved tax reform that would contribute to a sustainable future, advocating “ecotaxes” such as on carbon, which have been implemented in many European countries.

PHA spokesman and director of the National Centre in Epidemiology and Population Health Bob Douglas, who moved the resolution, says there was already evidence that climate change was affecting human health.

Ross River fever has been increasing substantially over the past five or six years; outbreaks of Japanese encephalitis have occurred in northern Australia; while multiple sub-types of dengue fever have emerged in Townsville over the past few years.

Malaria also threatens to again become endemic.

“There are very serious concerns that in a worst case scenario the survival of humans is under threat,” Professor Douglas says. “If we go on having rising temperatures with changes in the level of the sea, increased susceptibility to immune paralysis by ultraviolet radiation and if the temperatures make less our food sustainability, we are in some danger of an ecological collapse.”

The proposed eco-taxes would be on activities releasing pollutants such as fossil fuels, for a carbon tax, or nitrogen and sulphur oxides, the components of acid rain.

“We believe most Australians are concerned at the need to constrain greenhouse emissions, which, if they continue at their current rate, will result in ecological changes profoundly damaging to human health,” the resolution says.

Anon. 1998. Association calls for life-saving green taxes. The Australian, September 19, 1998 Page: 044

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that 25 years ago it was patently obvious what was coming. This was before the creation of Environmental Doctors for Australia or whatever it’s called. It was also obvious that John Howard was not interested in doing anything about environmental issues. There was an election coming which he was to win …

What I think we can learn from this is that, again, the ideas to fix the problems are all around us but they are rendered politically impossible by powerful organised vested interests.

What happened next – no eco taxes were brought in. We have squandered the past quarter of a century and are not prepared for the amplifying concatenating public health crisis and this my friends is why I’m very glad that I did not breed.

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.

Categories
Australia

August 31, 1998 – Green dollar growing on trees?

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 31, 1988, the Australian press sees kerching in the climate…

Trees could take on a new value as the world struggles to reduce greenhouse gases, according to a British forestry expert.

International commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, forged at last year’s Kyoto climate summit, would put a high value on preserving large tracts of forest as carbon sinks, a director of the International Institute for Environment and Development, Dr Stephen Bass, told a Melbourne conference last week. 

Winkler, T. 1998. Green Dollar Growing On Trees. The Age, 31 August, p.6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Kyoto Protocol had created putative new asset classes, such as trees as a source of carbon sequestration. In the aftermath of Kyoto – which had happened in December 1997 – lots of conferences about getting rich and saving the planet happened. People listening politely to each other, schmoozing each other, no one sticking up their hand and saying “but this is all a f****** inadequate fantasy isn’t it?” Because if you tell the truth, you don’t get applauded like the boy who said the emperor was naked – you simply tank your career and get uninvited in future.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have pissed 35 years against the wall in all sorts of self-soothing fantasies about market solutions and cleverness. And we never got down to brass tacks of radically reducing energy demand through efficiency, ending the growth economy delusion and being responsible sentient beings on the planet. The consequences of those decisions and actions and inactions are now becoming clear, even to rich white people.

What happened next

It was 2011 before Australia finally had a national emissions trading scheme. It didn’t ratify Kyoto until 2007, by which time it was a purely symbolic action. And the whole thing with carbon sinks is just a sick joke in the context that you may have noticed but there have been some bushfires and enormous quantities of carbon have been thrown up into the atmosphere, including the carbonized corpses of I don’t know a billion animals. What a species we are.

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.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 17, 1998, an Australian Parliament committee looks at Emissions Trading as the ‘way forward’.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts into the possible introduction of trading in this new commodity. (Carbon) http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_committees?url=environ/greenhse/gasrpt/finalrpt.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian government had extorted an extremely sweet deal at the Kyoto conference in December 1997. This was the starting gun for the idea of emissions trading schemes in different countries which would ultimately linked up and make bankers and traders rich while, as a sideline, “saving the world on the cheap.” 

The Australian government had signed the Kyoto protocol document in April of 1998. The leak about ratification only happening if the Americans ratified will still a month away, so at this precise moment the idea of Australia having its own emissions trading scheme that then linked up to other emissions trading schemes was not the fantasy that we would look on it as with 25 years of bruising experience.

What I think we can learn from this is that standing committees/senate inquiries house of reps stuff, it’s all nice busy work or undergrowth for policy wonks where they can can justify their money they are on, make professional connections and try to create a common sense agreement around whatever their particular pet solution is. Policy subsystems, policy constituencies etc etc.

What happened next is a proposal for an emissions trading scheme for Australia went to John Howard’s cabinet in the year 2000 killed off by Nick Minchin from South Australia the Sydney’s future exchange never got off the drawing board.

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.

Categories
Denial United States of America

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

Twenty five years ago, on this day, July 23, 1998, the Global Climate Coalition (industry front group set up to stop any real climate action) is busy quote mining and distorting what people have said, to give the impression of doubt, confusion etc.  Age-old tactic, that keeps working, again and again.

 http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climate-coalition-collection/1998-kyoto-epa-implementation-selected-quotes/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that although the US  Senate had passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution, there was still the lingering threat that a new US administration might if not actually agree to the Kyoto Protocol, then at least take international action that the Global Climate Coalition didn’t like. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the Global Climate Coalition and similar outfits, just keep on keeping on grinding away. Whether they’re winning or losing, they keep grinding away in the kind of war of attrition against sanity. And they can do that because they’re well-funded.

What happened next

The Global Climate Coalition was able to shut up shop in 2002. There were two factors. One is they had lost some of their big public-facing companies, especially automakers, because denying the existence of climate change was becoming a reputational risk. And separately, they’d won: once Bush said the US was not going to go negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The big big battle that had been their raison d’etre since their foundation in 1989 was won.

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.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

 June 27, 1998 – we’ll trade our way outa trouble (not)

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 27, 1998, the Australian state broadcaster, Radio National, broadcast a programme about the joys of then-almost-fashionable Emissions Trading…

1998  Radio National Earthbeat on Emissions Trading

Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Radio National (Organisation)

Michael Walsh (Guest)

Ian Causley (Guest)

Hugh Saddler (Guest)

Peter Graham (Guest)

Anna Reynolds (Guest)

Alexandra de Blas (Reporter)

Alexandra de Blas (Presenter)

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/earthbeat/greenhouse-emissions-trading/3647076

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberal party was wanting to seem like it cared about climate change at some level. There was after all an election coming and so it had started making some noises about emissions trading and the New South Wales premier Bob Carr was making a lot of noises.

What I think we can learn from this

Emissions trading is popular with diverse social actors because it allows, effectively, the appearance of doing something when you are not. And some people can get seriously rich.

What happened next

An Emissions Trading Scheme was presented to Cabinet in the year 2000 and killed off by Nick Minchin. Emissions trading never really got off the ground, and has been beset by enormous and predictable difficulties. Has it actually reduced any emissions anywhere? That’s a good question.

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.