Tag: 1999

Categories
Activism Australia

June 20, 1999 – Joint press release by TWS, ACF and Greenpeace

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, June 20th, 

The Wilderness Society, Australian Conservation Foundation & Greenpeace 1999, 82 Reasons Why the New Environment Legislation is Bad for the Environment, joint media release by the Wilderness Society, Australian Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace, 20 June, 1999.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. 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 for this was that between 1988 and sort of 1991 there had been a huge amount of media attention on climate change as an issue. Greenpeace, The Wilderness Society and Australian Conservation Foundation, as the three biggest environment groups had been frenemies, had cooperated, collaborated and competed over various issues, all of course, hoping to get the most prestige, membership dues, etc.

That’s normal, but occasionally they would come together to try and amplify their voices. And you see this now with this event in 1999, presumably around the Howard government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EBPC) Bill.

The specific context was that the Howard Government is trying to minimise any environmental commitments.

What I think we can learn is this: is that environment groups are like anything anyone else, they’ll compete and collaborate. 

What happened next: Howard continued to be an absolute twunt. If only he’d been booted out in 2001 there wouldn’t have been quite as much damage done to the Australian policy. But here we are. Australia is fucked.

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

References

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: 

June 20, 1977- “Alternative Three” – An early Climate Hoax 

June 20, 1979 – Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House

June 20, 1995 – Shell raises the white flag in Brent Spar battle 

June 20, 1997 – Australia versus the world on climate change

June 20, 2005 – RIP Charles Keeling

Categories
Australia

September 2, 1999 – Bob Brown bill

Twenty six years ago, on this day, September 2nd, 1999,

While the Senate Inquiry progressed, there was other movement in relation to the trigger proposal. In September 1999, Senator Bob Brown’s Convention on Climate Change (Implementation) Bill 1999 was read for the first time, which contained a greenhouse trigger.

(Macintosh, 2007: 48)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. 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 the Greens had formed earlier in the decade once it was obvious that trying to get the Australian Labor Party to even pretend to give a shit about the natural world (or poverty, justice etc) was a fool’s errand.

The specific context was that the Howard government was already backtracking on the inadequate promises they had been forced to make in the run up to the Kyoto conference of December 1997.

What I think we can learn from this is Bob Brown is a mensch. Lots of miscalculations etc (him being human and all) but indisputably a mensch, who makes the cowards and idiots in the main parties jealous, because he has a) principles and b) courage, things they know they don’t.

What happened next – the Bill went nowhere (nobody expected it to). Howard continued to be a prick, about soooooo many issues. Brown hung on, and helped push through the first carbon pricing system in Australia, with the minority-Gillard government.

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 2,1972 – BBC Radio speaks of “A Finite Earth” – All Our Yesterdays

September 2, 1972 – Adelaide FOE asks “is technology a blueprint for destruction?” (Spoiler – ‘yes’)

September 2, 1994 – International Negotiating Committee 10th meeting ends

September 2, 2002- Peter Garrett argues “community action” vs #climate change

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 9, 1999 – The Australia Institute calls for emissions trading

Twenty-six years ago, on this day, August 9, 1999, the Australian Financial Review deigned to cover climate change…

The introduction of a domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme could generate $7 billion in annual revenue, enabling government to cut the company tax rate to 30 per cent, abolish accelerated depreciation and reduce payroll tax by 60 per cent, according to a paper by the Australia Institute.

“Emissions trading has the potential to become an important tool in environmental protection and economic and fiscal management,” the institute’s Mr Clive Hamilton and Mr Hal Turton say in their paper Business Tax and the Environment Emissions trading as a tax reform option, released last week.

1999 Hordern, N. 1999. Emissions trading call `half-baked’. The Australian Financial Review, 9 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. 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 putting a price on things you don’t like, to encourage decreased use (cigarettes, anyone?) is hardly controversial, especially if you’re going to use money raised to explore alternatives.
Or rather, it is VERY controversial to those people currently making money and wanting that to continue. Two carbon tax proposals had been defeated already, and attention therefore switched to “emissions trading schemes.”

The specific context was that Australia had signed (but not ratified) the Kyoto Protocol, and so ways and means to ‘reduce’ Australia’s emissions (it had a 108% target!) were being investigated, not just by The Australia Institute but also other outfits.

What I think we can learn from this – the simplest and in some ways least significant actions turned out to be, well, impossible.

What happened next – Prime Minister John Howard killed off two proposals for Emissions Trading Schemes, in 2000 and 2003. States got interested in doing a “ground-up” scheme among various states. This never really got off the ground, before action turned back to the Federal level in 2006-7.

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 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Categories
Australia

July 13, 1999 – Australia’s emissions climbing. Obvs.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, July 13th, 1999,

Opposition and Conservation groups attacked the Government’s greenhouse performance yesterday over revelations of a 16.9 per cent rise in greenhouse-gas emissions between 1990 and 1998. Labor environment spokesman Nick Bolkus said there was ‘no way’ Australia would meet its Kyoto greenhouse targets based on National Greenhouse Gas Inventory figures, which showed a record annual jump in emissions from 1997 to 1998. Australia has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to no more than 8 per cent above 1990 levels by 2010 under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Webb, H. 1999. Emission Levels Put Cabinet Under Fire. Canberra Times, July 14, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia’s political elites had made some of the right noises on climate change in the period 1988 to 1990, but then started backtracking and weaselling.

The specific context was that since 1996 the Liberal government of John Howard had been less apologetic, and in fact almost gleeful about not bothering on emissions reductions.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been knowing that we were heading in the wrong direction, at faster and faster speed, for a generation. But our political systems, and those in them, well, shoulder shrug…

What happened next Shoulder shrugs! Eventually (2006-7) Labor used the climate issue as a way of dislodging John Howard. Then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd played politics with the issue rather than getting something decent through. And then Julia Gillard (who toppled him) had to guide an emissions trading scheme through parliament. And then Tony Abbott came in and tore it up. Worst soap opera ever.

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 13, 1971 – Stephen Schneider “predicts” an ice age (so the myth goes)

July 13, 2013 – future Australian PM ridiculed for #climate idiocy

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

July 1, 1999 – GEODISC gets green light

Twenty six years ago, on this day, July 1st, 1999, Australian fans of carbon capture move forward…

GEODISC commenced on July 1, 1999 after extensive consultation with industry regarding the issues, priorities, and available data. Wherever possible international research and development experience is being applied and modified to suit the conditions that prevail in Australia.

(see here)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm.  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 carbon capture and storage had been “bubbling under” since the late 1970s, with pilot studies here and there.  With the (likely) coming into effect of the Kyoto Protocol, which would force rich nations to actually reduce their emissions, CCS was grabbed out of the garbage can/filing cabinet and had some more money thrown at it…

The specific context was

The Australian government under Liberal John Howard had shown unremitting hostility to climate action, and had extorted a very very generous deal at the Kyoto Conference in December 1997.  But if Uncle Sam signed up, they might be forced to, so, good to have some pretend technologies on hand perhaps? I don’t actually know if this all got as far as Howard’s desk – seems rather unlikely, tbh – or was just being done as part of the normal operations of science and technology funding. Nor do I care that much, tbh.

What I think we can learn from this

The CCS bandwagon has been trundling along for a very very long time.

What happened nextAs of a bit later (December 2002) the PMSEIC (Prime Minister’s Science and IndustryCouncil) made some positive noises about CCS, and then it was off to the races…

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

December 22, 1999 – Australian population growth and carbon reductions – not so easy…

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, December 22nd, 1999 the economics editor for the Fin, Alan Mitchell, came out with some truth bombs.

It is unfortunate that political considerations probably mean market-based policies will never play their full role, because the Productivity Commission was right.

Instead of mucking around with regulation and “education and awareness”, or fiddling at the edges with immigration, we should be slapping on a carbon tax.

Notwithstanding the claims of the Australian Industry Group, just jacking up the price of generating greenhouse gases is exactly what we should be doing.

Mitchell, A. 1999. Migrants, Kyoto don’t gel. The Australian Financial Review, December 22, p.16.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Institute then run by Clive Hamilton had weighed in on the question of Australia setting very high ambition net immigration targets as potentially a bad thing. There’s been an historical quandary over this for environmentalists. Because if they oppose lots of immigration, they can be accused of being racist and selfish. And if they point out that the main boosters for a big Australia are businesses who want to depress wages and at the same time, increase the market for their products they can be accused of being Marxists, or conspiracy theorists. So they’re in a bit of a cleft stick. 

What we learn – Anyway, what’s interesting here is that the Financial Review’s economics editor pointed out that business was bullshit on this and that a carbon tax was precisely the sort of thing be required if you were going to deal with climate change 

Twenty-five years ago, today, the sin was talking a certain amount of sense on the climate issue. 

What happened next? Mitchell is now at the Sydney Morning Herald.

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 22, 1759 – “What have ye done?”

December 22, 1975 – “Scientist Warns of Great Floods if Earth’s Heat Rises” (surely “when”?)

December 22, 1978 – UK Energy Department chief scientist worries about CO2 levels and pressure to reduce them…

Categories
Australia

November 4, 1999 – Australians have highest per capita emissions

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, November 4th, 1999,

a report by The Australia Institute on Australians having highest per capita emissions is front page news for the Melbourne.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australia was built as a settler colony, and was burning enormous quantities of shitty coal, especially in Victoria, where they had basically limitless brown coal, which is filthy on so many levels.

And it’s hardly a surprise that Australia had the highest per capita emissions given the shittiness of their houses, the sources of their energy. Btw transport is not really that big a factor, because, despite the myth, most Australians don’t cover long distances. They are mostly huddled in various cities on the coast. There’s the myths that we like to tell ourselves and then there’s the reality. 

What we learn is that you can tell Australians that they’re causing planetary mayhem as much as you like. It won’t change anything.

What happened next, Australia’s per capita emissions continued to be berserk and are down unto this day.

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 4, 1988 – no quick fix on climate, warns Australian Environment Minister

November 4, 1991 – UK Government launches first of many blame-shifting publicity campaigns on #climate

November 4, 2006 – Australians “Walk against Warming”

Categories
Australia

October 15, 1999- Australian economy headed for trouble because of carbon dioxide emissions, admits government through gritted teeth.

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, October 15th, 1999 the Australian Financial Review reported that ,

The Federal Government has conceded for the first time that its greenhouse gas policy could reduce the competitiveness of key sectors of the Australian economy.

The Australian Financial Review has obtained a draft record of an August 25 meeting of the Council of Australian Governments’ High Level Group on Greenhouse. It puts the Commonwealth position in these terms: “Competitiveness is fundamentally linked to the economy as a whole and not individual sectors – no government could promise that the competitiveness of individual sectors would remain unchanged over time.”

Hordern, N. 1999. Greenhouse policy `can affect competitiveness’. The Australian Financial Review, 15 October, p. 6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Howard Government had come in in 1996 even more hostile to climate action than Keating. It had ramped up the opposition to international commitments. It had done greenwash where necessary and naked contempt when it thought it could.  In 1997 it had been cornered into making a few promises that it was now trying to backtrack on, and water down. But it couldn’t always bluster past the advocates of action at the state level, including New South Wales Premier Bob Carr…

 What we learn is that in 1999 even the Howard Government realised that continuing to ignore climate impacts was going to cause problems for The Australian Economy.

What happened next? Howard continued to do everything he could to avoid any climate action, both domestically and internationally. Domestically, he continued to undermine any progress on renewables, and to kill a carbon price twice (in 2000 and 2003). Internationally, he refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (despite having extorted the most unimaginably generous terms) and joined in various “spoiler” activities with the US.

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 15, 1971 – “Man’s Impact on the Climate” published

October 15, 1985 – Villach meeting supercharges greenhouse concerns…

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

April 27, 1999 – 2% increase in use of renewables report received

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, April 27th, 1999, another government-appointed group delivered another ‘worthy’ report.

The high-level Greenhouse Energy Group will today receive the final report of the task force set up by the Federal Government to devise ways to meet its target of a 2 per cent increase in the use of renewable energy over the next decade.

Hordern, N. 1999. Greenhouse targets study ready. Australian Financial Review, 27 April, p. 11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that as part of his pre Kyoto spoiler efforts, John Howard had promised a 2% renewable energy target. That was in 1997. The whole process had been extremely painfully drawn out by it since then, meaning that it was in effect, a 1% target. And this was another small link in a long chain of events. So let’s have another report. Let’s have another Working Group. Let’s just draaaag the process out for as long as possible to demoralise and confuse everyone, so that we don’t have to do what we promised we would do. Politics business as usual. 

What we learn is they’ll make a promise but then getting them to implement it requires more energy, tenacity, and smarts than social movements and civil society tend to have. 

What happened next, A pipsqueak Mandatory Renewable Energy Target was finally introduced in April of 2002. And despite everything Howard had done, was already too successful, working too well, so by May of 2004, he was asking his business buddies for help in undermining 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: 

April 27, 1979 – Ecology Party first TV broadcast ahead 

April 27, 1987 – “Our Common Future” released.

April 27, 2007 – Coal-bashing campaign by gas company ends

Categories
Academia Technophilia technosalvationism United States of America

March 8, 1999 – Direct Air Capture of C02 mooted for the first time

Twenty five years ago, on this day, March 8th, 1999, an “audacious” idea is unleashed on the world…

Klaus Lackner posits Direct Air Capture 24th Annual Technical Conference on coal Utilization & Fuel Systems, March 8-11, 1999 Clearwater, Florida

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 367.4ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that for the previous 10 years, technology types had been thinking about carbon capture and storage as a technofix for the socio-technical problem of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations increasing. And all sorts of ideas had been put forward, mostly around making coal burning more “efficient”, getting more bang for the buck, decreasing the intensity. And along comes the idea of direct air capture. 

What I think we can learn from this  is that ideas which seem very new often usually have a long pre-history. It’s worth knowing that, at least at outline level, so that you will not be so easily seduced by shiny promises. 

What happened next DAC really stayed on the backburner for about another 15 years. From about the 2015 Paris Agreement onwards, people start paying money and pretending to take it seriously. We’re just not going to do DAC at the scale that would require; it’s insane. It’s just another dream of technosalvation.

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 8 – International Women’s Day – what is feminist archival practice?