Tag: 1998

Categories
Kyoto Protocol United States of America

November 12, 1998 – USA signs Kyoto

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, November 12th, 1998,

“equally surprising was the last-minute volte-face by the United States at Kyoto by agreeing to 7 percent emissions cuts by 2008- 2012 instead of its previous, deeply entrenched position. Eleven months later, while public predicating U.S. commitments on “meaningful participation” from developing countries, the Clinton-Gore administration nevertheless went ahead and formally signed the Kyoto Protocol on 12 November 1998”

Indispensability and Indefensibility? The United States in the Climate Treaty Negotiations on JSTOR

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 367ppm. 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 US administration of George HW Bush had prevented targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries from being included in the text of the Climate Treaty. From 1995 there had been a process to get them in (“The Berlin Mandate”).

The specific context was the Kyoto meeting had taken place in December 1997.  Clinton-Gore could sign it all they liked, but the chances of getting it through the US Senate were approximately zero.

What I think we can learn from this – politicians virtue-signal/cross their fingers/hope something will turn up.

What happened next – Gore probably won the 2000 election, but it was handed to George “Dubya” Bush by the Supreme Court.  Bush (well, Cheney really) then pulled the US out of the Kyoto negotiations.

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 12,1976 – “Greenhouse Effects due to Man-Made Perturbations of Trace Gases” in Science – All Our Yesterdays

November 12, 1999 – John Howard and mates say “nope” to renewables

November 12, 2012 – Greenpeace smeared by Queensland extractors, of course

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Carbon Dioxide Removal Swtizerland Uncategorized

August 30, 1998 – Fourth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies

Twenty-seven years ago, on this day, August 30th, 1998,

4th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 30 Aug. – 2 Sept. 1998, Interlaken, Switzerland

There’s a book here

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 367ppm. 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 conferences about “greenhouse gas control technologies” had been happening since the early 1990s.

The specific context was that this was the first one after the Kyoto Protocol was “agreed” the previous December. It now looked like rich countries were going to have to something to reduce their emissions. Therefore, a bit more attention was being paid to various 

What I think we can learn from this is that the promises of capture/reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been spilling from engineers’ mouths for decades. Proven at scale technologies that capture meaningful amounts of carbon dioxide? Not so much…

What happened next – the conferences kept happening. CCS has gone through periodic periods of rise and fall since then. The only really steady trend is in the Keeling Curve, which measures the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And guess what, that’s starting to point up more. Happy days.

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 30, 1971 – Bob Carr (ex- NSW premier) ‘gets’ climate change

August 30, 1975 – The Science Show does climate change…

August 30, 1986 – Adelaide warned about climate change by Environment Minister Don Hopgood

August 30, 1989 – A global tax on emissions?!

August 30, 1990 -Australian diplomats (probably) tried to water down IPCC recommendations

Categories
Australia

March 9, 1998 – First head of Australian Greenhouse Office announced – (Or “Infamous long AGO”) 

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, March 9th, 1998,

Gwen Andrews was appointed as Chief Executive Officer of AGO (Taplin and Yu, 2000: 104) 

She never briefed Prime Minister John Howard!

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard had spent 1997 doing everything with his power to carve out the absolute sweetest deal possible for Australia at the Kyoto conference; up to and including the threat of not even signing. He had sent emissaries to other nations trying to build a coalition for Australia’s special position, without much success, it must be said. And he had also had to make some vague promises ahead of the Kyoto conference. So in October of ‘97 he had really released a stupid statement “Safeguarding Australia’s Future,” and had promised the creation of something called the Australian Greenhouse Office. Ooh, sounds like you’re taking action, doesn’t it, but no. So on this day, the AGO got its first director. 

What I think we can learn from this is that solid, important sounding initiatives can be paper-thin Potemkin outfits. And so it came to pass. 

What happened next

Gwen Andrews never gave Howard a briefing, I’m sure she was diligent and keen. Howard couldn’t have been less interested in engaging with the science, politics, economics of climate change. The AGO was there as a fig leaf alongside things like the Greenhouse Challenge. 

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: 

 March 9, 2005- Albanese says “ecological decline is accelerating and many of the world’s ecosystems are reaching dangerous thresholds.” #auspol

March 9, 2009 – Scientist tries to separate fact from denialist fiction

March 9, 2009 – Carbon price being weakened by lobbying…

Categories
Australia Economics of mitigation

February 4, 1998 – Ombudsman on ABARE and its dodgy af #climate modelling

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, February 4th, 1998, greenies ‘win’ – an admission that a state-funded outfit shouldn’t have excluded them (which it did so it could push out economic modelling bullshit unfettered).

Ombudsman releases ABARE investigation report

Commonwealth Ombudsman Philippa Smith said the ACF complaint about ABARE raised important issues about how government agencies developed and consulted on public policy. 

In June 1997, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) complained to the Ombudsman because the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) refused to waive the $50,000 per annum fee required to join a steering committee it convened to provide a ‘sounding board’ and data and technical advice for its GIGABARE climate change model.

GIGABARE and MEGABARE are climate change economic models which analyse the economic effects of greenhouse gas emission policy.

Ms Smith said: ‘In my opinion ABARE’s climate change modelling is best characterised as a public good and relates to important public policy issues.

‘Any Steering Committee or consultative process with these responsibilities should strive for a balance of interests and technical skills rather than being a mechanism for fund raising.’

Ms Smith said the case also highlighted the importance of planning and protocols in the receipt, acknowledgment and use of external funding or sponsorship by agencies allowing outside involvement in developing important public policy issues.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics (ABARE) had been putting out bullshit numbers about the cost of climate mitigation thanks to its ridiculous MEGABARE economic model, the Australian Conservation Foundation had tried to get on the board overseeing mega bar without paying the 50k a bar had said no. ACF had complained to the ombudsman, and the report came out on this day. 

What I think we can learn from this is that economic modeling exists to make astrology look respectable, as per, John Kenneth Galbraith, these are just made up bullshit numbers, but once they are in an official report and then spouted by the minister or the Prime Minister, they take on a solidity that they do not deserve, and the people trying to stop anything from happening know this, which is why it’s one of their favorite techniques.

What happened next ABARE and other outfits kept peddling utter fucking tosh, and the newspapers kept publicizing it because it was good, cheap, free copy.

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

February 4, 1963 – A UN conference on technology for “less developed areas” starts
February 4, 1980 – IIASA taskforce on Climate and Society
February 4, 1993 – Australian business versus the future (spoiler: business wins)

February 4, 1998 – Ombudsman on ABARE and its dodgy af #climate modelling – All Our Yesterdays

February 4, 2014 – CCSA and TUC release Economic Benefits of CCS report
Categories
Australia

November 19, 1998 – John Howard trolls Australia by appointing Mr Coal as Environment Ambassador

Twenty six years ago, on this day, November 19th, 1998, the Democrats were unhappy that coal baron Ralph Hillman is now environment ambassador.

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.

Anon, 1998. FED – Democrats damn appointment of environment ambassador. Australian Associated Press, November 19

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 367ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard could afford to relax a bit, having won a famous victory at Kyoto, carving out a tremendously generous deal. And now he could display his sense of humour. The post of ambassador for the environment was created under Bob Hawke in 1989 {link]. And Howard was now appointing the head of the Australian Coal Association as the ambassador for the environment. Oh how he must have chuckled. 

What we learn is that John Howard had a sense of humour when he was “owning the libs.” Any post can be emptied of its meaning, when a new government comes along and can’t be bothered spending political capital abolishing it, just render it utterly meaningless by appointing someone who is clearly not going to do the job the way it was meant.

What happened next. And so it came to pass. 

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 19, 1943 – FIDO used for the first time

November 19, 1958 – doctor warns of long-term problem of carbon dioxide build-up

November 19, 1960 – Guy Callendar gives advice on unpopularity of C02 theory

November 19, 1990 – “The US should agree to stabilising CO2 levels”

November 19, 2007 – Gordon Brown announces first Carbon Capture and Storage competition at WWF event

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