Tag: 2000

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

 April 25, 2000 – “Beyond Kyoto”  more meaningless blather by Australian politicians

On this day 25 years ago, April 25, 2000, the Federal Environment Minister, Robert Hill spoke at a meeting to the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change in Washington, ‘Beyond Kyoto: Australia’s efforts to combat global warming’, 25 April 2000,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that Australia had extorted an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto Conference (Hill had received a standing ovation at Cabinet afterwards). But it had leaked in 1998 that Howard was only going to ratify the deal if the US did (up in the air, with the 2000 election forthcoming). So Hill had to pretend all was well. And people had to pretend to be going along with that. Rude not to.

What we learn. It’s all kayfabe, innit?

What happened next. The Supreme Court handed George W Bush the 2000 election. In March 2001 he pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Australian Prime Minister John Howard waited until World Environment Day 2002 before doing same. Why the delay? Probably just because he liked watching the greenies twist in the wind? For the shingles, in other words.

Also on this day

April 25, 1989 – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying? (Why yes, yes it is) 

April 25, 1969 – Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

April 25th, 1974 – Swedish prime minister briefed on carbon dioxide build-up

April 25, 1996 – Greenpeace slams Australian government on #climate obstructionism

Categories
Australia

April 17, 2000 – Labor tries to get the green vote…

On this day 25 years ago, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Australian Labor Party was gearing up to use environmental issues to attract voters…  Ha ha ha ha.

Federal Labor is preparing a major push for the green vote at the next election by toughening its stance in key areas including greenhouse gases and mining in national parks.

A draft of its revised policy platform also commits the party to establishing a new independent watchdog, the Commissioner for the Environment.

Labor will also maintain its commitment to examine all legal options to stop the construction of a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney and close the Jabiluka uranium mine in Kakadu National Park.

The Opposition’s environment spokesman, Mr Nick Bolkus, and foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Laurie Brereton, are involved in the push for a revised policy, arguing there is an opportunity to exploit disenchantment with the Government. [Kyoto was removed at August ALP Conference in Hobart by Martyn Edwards and Bob McMullan. But they went to the 2001 election with it, so it got put back at some point…]

Robinson, M. and Clennell, A. 2000. Labor To Push Tough Policy For Green Vote. Sydney Morning Herald, April 17, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that  Australian Prime Minister John Howard was dragging his heels on all environmental issues, and especially renewable energy and other climate issues. 

What we learn. Labor used to pretend harder to care.

What happened next.  Labor lost the 2001 Federal Election. And the 2004 one.  Then – irony of ironies – Kevin Rudd was able to use Howard’s policy vandalism on all matters climate as a stick to beat him with ahead of the 2007 election. Howard became only the second sitting Prime Minister to lose his own seat in the November 2007 election. 

 April 17, 1981 – David Burns writes in New York Times about trouble ahead – All Our Yesterdays

April 17, 1993 – Paul Keating versus the idea of a carbon tax…

April 17, 2007 – UN Security Council finally discusses the most important security issue of all…

Categories
Australia Energy

July 14, 2000 – Wind power providers want carbon labelling…

On this day 24 years ago, Wind Power Energy Association types tried to get some sensible stuff going.  Yeah, good luck with that.

CANBERRA, July 14, AAP – Labels telling consumers their electricity came from fossil fuel should be put on power bills, supporters of the wind energy industry said today. President of the Australian Wind Energy Association Grant Flynn said most consumers were unaware that most of their power was derived from the burning of fossil fuels.

Putting a sticker on power bills telling consumers the source of their electricity would go a long way to making the public more aware of greenhouse gas issues. “A lot of people don’t really understand that a significant proportion of their electricity, about 90 per cent of it, comes from burning fossil fuels,” he said.

Mr Flynn’s group was one of several to make submissions to a review of the government’s renewable energy bill.

2000 Wright, S. 2000. Fed – Labels should tell consumers where their power comes from. AAP, 14 July.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Federal government of John Howard was doing everything it could to renege on its 1997 promise of more renewables (made as a pre-Kyoto distraction). Evil evil people

What we learn – the hope that the mythical Ethical Consumer will save the day is a powerful one.

What happened next. John Howard kept being a climate criminal. Renewables eventually took off, but later than they could have. Oh well, nice planet while it lasted.

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 14, 2000 – Miners versus the ALP/ and climate action

July 14, 2011 – “Four Degrees or More: Australia in a Hot World” conference closes

Categories
Australia

May 23, 2000 – Deputy Prime Minister versus Greenhouse Trigger

Twenty four years ago, on this day, May 23rd, 2000,

Prior to a Cabinet meeting on 22 May [2000] where the greenhouse trigger was to be discussed, the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson publicly criticised the proposal, describing it as ‘unnecessary and inappropriate’ and suggesting it would harm the economy, particularly in regional [page break] areas. In a press release issued on 22 May, Anderson said that ‘it was not necessary or appropriate for the Commonwealth to effectively take over the State’s role in the environmental assessment and approval of major developments.

(Macintosh, 2007: 49-50) 

And then this –

Senator Hill had been ambushed. It appears neither he nor his staff were aware the trigger proposal was likely to face such fierce opposition in Cabinet….

The anti-greenhouse, anti-trigger camp did not stop at this. The following day [23 May 2000] senator Minchin presented research he had commissioned from Dr Brian Fisher of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), a critic of the Kyoto Protocol, which found that meeting Australia’s Kyoto target could cost between 0.5 per cent and 1.4 per cent of Gross National Product at 2010. The fossil fuel lobby used this research as a springboard to back Anderson’s and Minchin’s position, suggesting the trigger would have significant adverse economic implications. Dick Wells, the executive director of the Minerals Council of Australia, was quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying, ‘[w]e agree with John Anderson that the trigger would harm employment and regional growth…..

(Macintosh, 2007: 50) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Howard Government had signed the environmental biodiversity protection and conservation act in 1998 and there was talk of a so-called greenhouse trigger which meant that any particularly carbon intensive scheme would have to go to a minister for approval. Yikes, because this would mean that there would be more lobbying and more political cost in waving through the latest worship of the great god Development. The opponents of greenhouse action hated this idea. And on this day, there was an ambush. 

What we learn is that political parties have different factions representing different interests. And there is always going to be a headbanger element, whether it’s Warwick Parer, Nick Minchin, John Anderson, whatever.

What happened next? Well, the greenhouse trigger did not get up and three months later, there was another defeat when the emissions trading scheme also bit the dust. 

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: 

May 23, 1977 – President Carter announces Global 2000 report… or “Let’s all meet up in the Global2000”

May 23, 1980 – Aussie senator alerts colleagues to #climate threat. Shoulder shrugs all round. #auspol

May 23, 2012 – wicked problems and super-wicked problems all around…

Categories
Australia Business Responses

May 5, 2000 – Business Council of Australia boss on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues”

Twenty four years ago, on this day, May 5th, 2000 former Federal public servant turned BCA Boss David Buckingham opined on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues for Australia.” Business Council of Australia

http://www.bca.com.au/media/strategic-greenhouse-issues-for-australia

Suggests a voluntary domestic emissions trading scheme might be a goer, as a “learning by doing” exercise.

See also Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill 2000. Warming to the Challenge; The Role of Australian Business in Combating Global warming. Address to the World Business Council on Sustainable Development and the Australian Business Council Forum, Melbourne, 5 May.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were various big conferences being held because there had been the Kyoto Protocol, at the end of ‘97. It looked like Al Gore would be the Democratic Party nominee for the president, and he might win, in which case the US would be taking more climate action, even if Kyoto itself weren’t necessarily on the cards. And therefore, everyone was making plans to be ready for that reality if it emerged in Australia. Yes, the Lavoisier group had been set up, but there were also tensions within the peak bodies, especially the Business Council of Australia about what the Australian response should be of interest in carbon trading, carbon farming and offsets and money to be made. 

And so it wasn’t a simple case of denial or bowing down before the great God of technology, at least not for the more thoughtful members of the business policy outfits. And here we have David Buckingham, who had been a Federal Environment civil servant, before being poached, first by the Minerals Council and then the Business Council. 

What we learn from this is that business was seriously scratching its head about what might be coming and how best to take advantage of what might be coming. 

What happened next? Well, Bush was selected president by his dad’s Supreme Court chums and then quickly pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. In 2003, the BCA had to move from opposition to Kyoto ratification to a “neutral” stance because of fierce fights within it. 

And of course, the 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.

Also on this day: 

May 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

Categories
Activism Netherlands UNFCCC

November 22, 2000 – protests at COP6 at The Hague

Twenty two years ago, on this day, November 22, 2000, climate protesters stormed the stage at the COP6 negotiations in The Hague.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1036211.stm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that three years after the Kyoto negotiations ITwas obvious that the UNFCCC process was again going nowhere. Bands of climate protesters descended upon the Hague, which had been the scene of a 1989 meeting on climate in order to say “get moving.”

What I think we can learn from this

We’ve been cajoling the UNFCCC for decades. Citizens, arrests, and 7-metre dinosaurs: the history of UN climate summit protests

Does it build movements? Well, does it?

What happened next

The Hague process ended in disarray andwas the first and only time there was no formal end to the meeting. So they had to continue in Bonn the following June or July.

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

Categories
Academia United Kingdom

November 9, 2000 – Tyndall Centre launched

Twenty three years ago, on this day, November 9, 2000, an academic collaboration finally ground into existence, after a 1997 Tony Blair election promise…

The Tyndall Centre is a national United Kingdom centre for trans-disciplinary research on climate change. It is dedicated to advancing the science of integration, to seeking, evaluating and facilitating sustainable solutions to climate change and to motivate society through promoting informed and effective dialogue. The Centre was constituted in October 2000 and launched officially on 9 November 2000.

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/contacts/v.php?id=2713

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Blair’s Labour Party had made a lot of promises in the run up to the 1997 election. One of these was the creation of a scientific body in the UK to look at climate change. And so on this day in November 2000, over three years later – nice sense of urgency Tony! The Tyndall Centre had been launched.

This was against the backdrop of stalling international climate negotiations in the midst of the uncertainty about whether Gore or Bush would be president in the end. George W. Bush’s dad’s mates on the Supreme Court fixed it for him. With the collapse of the negotiations at The Hague it was all looking pretty bleak. 

What the Tyndall Centre would do, if one were to be cynical about it, is offer institutional homes for disciplinary and interdisciplinary work around climate change. Ultimately there’s something deeper and longer going on here isn’t there? There is a failure to really solve these problems. So you have to ask yourself, why do we keep doing what we keep doing? It’s because this change is really difficult and it’s comforting to keep doing what we’re doing. Fewer costs. It’s easier to be a winner on a losing team than a loser on a losing team because even if you switch, you yourself will not derive benefit, but I digress.

What I think we can learn from this

Academics gonna academic. It’s no bad thing.

What happened next

Tyndall is still going, still producing great work (I mean that sincerely, not snarkily!).

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

Twenty three years ago, on this day, November 7, 2000, a committee of Australian federal MPs released a report about climate policy, in the wake of the government’s intransigence…

‘The heat is on: Australia’s Greenhouse Future’ Senate Committee report released:

The report criticises the Government for a lack of commitment to climate change policy. More than 100 recommendations are made.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard had made it pretty clear that he wasn’t going to do anything on climate. So Labor and Democrat politicians, especially in the Senate, had done what you do in this circumstance – you use the parliamentary system to create space for dissident voices and critique of government policy, in the hope of making at least some government ministers and governing party members sit up and take notice. Maybe get some new ideas going, give NGOs a sense that they’re influencing matters, and keep the whole show – in every sense – on the road.

What I think we can learn from this

Reports always need to be read in context…

What happened next

The Howard government lost no sleep, and kept on being what it was.

Am I too cynical? Is that possible? Can you be cynical enough? The game is the game. 

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
Science United States of America

October 25, 2000 – James Hansen writes a letter

Twenty three years ago, on this day, October 28, 2000, famed climate scientist James Hansen wrote an open letter…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369,4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that James Hansen had not yet retired from NASA – hadn’t yet been pushed out by the Bush administration’s attempts to shut him up. He knew that the IPCC report was coming out. And he decided to do some truth telling. And here we are.

What I think we can learn from this

The problem is not the science, the problem is not the scientists. The problem is the power structures. This is nothing that radicals have been telling us that for a very long time, but the people who want to “save the world” never quite get their shit together. Here we are. 

What happened next

Hansen started getting nicked on demos, bless him.

And is still Doing The Science. Turns out there’s global warming in the pipeline – https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889

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

September 29, 2000 – On campaign trail, George Bush says power plants will require carbon dioxide cuts

Twenty three years ago, on this day, September 29, 2000, George Bush, trying to shore up his vote among Republicans who cared about conserving a habitable planet (they did exist, back then), makes a promise that he wouldn’t keep.

 “We will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time.”

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 Bush was in a tight race with Al Gore. Ralph Nader was taking votes maybe more from Gore than him, but Bush needed to make the right noises so that centrist Republicans and independents who cared about climate might consider voting for him. Bush’s daddy had, in 1988, made similar “I will act on the greenhouse effect” promises and then done fuck all.

What I think we can learn from this as per Nick Tomalin, “they lie they lie they lie,” especially at elections.

What happened next

When de facto president Cheney took office he shat all over this fantasised about building new power stations and 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.