Tag: 2000

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

August 21, 2000 – Renewables boast a hoax

Twenty six years ago, on this day, August 21st, 2000,

One of the Federal Government’s key boasts on greenhouse gases that it is legislating so electricity suppliers must increase their power from renewable sources by 2 per cent by 2010 has been called a hoax.

According to industry estimates, growth is occurring at that rate anyway.

And the Opposition has been criticised for signalling that it will pass the Government’s Renewable Energy Bill in its present form, which allows burning wood from native forests to create energy to be taken into account in determining whether the target has been met.

At present, 10.7 per cent of the country’s energy comes from renewable sources. The bill would lift that to 12.7 per cent by 2010. The bill, which also applies to major electricity buyers, such as the aluminium industry, will go to the Senate later this month.

The Australian Conservation Foundation yesterday accused Dr Sharman Stone, parliamentary secretary to the Environment Minister, Senator Hill, of issuing a misleading media release. It had said wind farms, solar-driven manufacturing, tidal power and energy from methane were “destined to become a growing part of Australia’s energy options” because of the legislation.

“This is the great renewable hoax,” the foundation’s campaign director, Mr John Connor, said. “It will be woodchip-driven stuff, and there’s basic problems … legislation which just won’t drive the kind of industries [we should] base the economy on.”

Clennell, A. 2000. Government Greenhouse Gases Boast A Hoax, Says Environmental Group. Sydney Morning Herald, August 22, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. 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 was that Australian governments, state and federal, had intermittently made supportive noises in the general direction of renewables, but had usually not provided funding or significant financial incentives. My favourite example is how in 1994-95 a proposal for a carbon tax where some of the profits were hypothecated towards research and development of renewables was shot down by opponents within the Labor Party before it got to cabinet. 

The specific context was in 1997 ahead of the Kyoto conference, Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard had, with some fanfare, produced a Safeguarding the Future policy, which included a promise of a 2% renewables per target for Australian electricity provision. Howard then slow-walked the policy implementation, so that it became a much smaller amount, and here we see various environmental groups pointing this out for all the good it did. 

What I think we can learn from this is that at time of writing or narrating, John Howard is still alive, and there is still time to get him to The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity and other species, and he has very little defence, And standing next to him in the dock should be Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison, and most of all Anthony Albanese, Julia Gillard squeaks her way out by the skin of her teeth, but as well as these meat puppets, lots of industry figures whose names we barely know should also be in the dock as well and this will not happen.

What happened next LETAG. Vestas (LINKS)

xxx

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

Xx

References

xx

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: 

August 21, 1961 – The UN holds a “new sources of energy” conference

August 21, 1972 – Nature editor John Maddox says C02-temperature fear “found wanting”

August 21, 1986 – Lake Nyos disaster

August 21, 2004 – The Australian reports on Howard cabinet split over ETS

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

August 15, 2000 – “Plan to bury Greenhouse Gas”

Twenty six years ago, on this day, August 15th, 2000,

Emissions soar 17 per cent despite $1b spent on crisis

AUSTRALIAN scientists are investigating a scheme to bury carbon dioxide underground as a way of reducing our burgeoning greenhouse gas emissions.

A research team, which is in the middle of a four-year project, claims it can find a cost-effective way of sealing carbon dioxide in the earth, safely and permanently, by putting it back where it came from.

They are looking at sedimentary basins across Australia – deep saline areas, coal seams which cannot be mined and depleted oil and gas reservoirs – for spaces big enough to hold big volumes of carbon dioxide.

The continuing research will be presented at an international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies in Cairns today, after new figures which warned of the effects of global warming.

Rose, R. 2000. Plan To Bury Greenhouse Gas. The West Australian, 15 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. 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 was the idea of capturing and storing carbon dioxide because of climate change went back to 1975 when Italian physicist Cesar Marchetti did some back of envelope calculations as part of an International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis workshop. This had been built on, looked at, and in the late 90s examined a bit more deeply and disregarded because it was palpable nonsense,

The specific context was that with the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 it was clear that actual emissions reductions for rich nations might be unavoidable, and therefore carbon capture and storage no longer looked too expensive and too ridiculous to consider. There had been a series of international workshops on greenhouse gas technologies from the early 90s onwards, and here we see another such meeting. 

What I think we can learn from this is that a technology can be laughed at, but come back later, because it now meets either an ecological, economic, or political need.

What happened next Carbon capture and storage really started to take off by the mid 2000s as a political solution to an ecological and social problem. There was a spike in interest in the second half of the 2000s especially in the lead up to the Copenhagen climate summit. It then went away again, and it has now come back, but seems to be as far as I can tell, and I really can’t be bothered to look closely because it is way later than anyone things – on life support.

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

Xx

References

xx

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: 

August 15, 1952 – flash flood – caused by Weather Modification experiment? 

August 15, 1977 – “Theoretical climate effects of doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide content

August 15, 1989 – Queenslander mayor says the greenhouse effect is like“a bird urinating in the Tweed River while in flight”

August 15, 2010 – a walk against warming fails to catch fire. #RepertoireRot

August 15, 2010 – Russia halts grain exports because of droughts and heatwaves

Categories
Australia Denial

July 5, 2000 – Centre for “Independent” Studies at peak intellectual capacity

Twenty six years ago, on this day, July 5th 2000,

“In the Courier-Mail on July 5 2000, another luminary from the Centre for Independent Studies, Barry Maley, argued that “Australia should heed a petition opposing the [Kyoto] treaty signed by over 17,000 American scientists.”

This sign-on internet petition includes the signatures of “Dr Jerri Halliwell” (a.k.a. Ginger Spice), and Drs Burns, Honeycutt and Pierce — from the television sit-com MASH. “ https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/climate-conference-cook-books

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. 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 was that Australia had, in the very first days of the upsurge of international environmental policymaking (mid-1980s) been a responsible and effective ‘middle-power’.  But by the early 1990s, especially on climate change, that was fading fast.

Meanwhile, in the US, various nutjobs – well-funded – mostly suffering Relevance Deprivation Syndrome – were launching ‘sand in the eyes’ tactics, like the Oregon Petition.

The specific context was the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Australia was a hot topic. It was pretty clear that under Liberal Prime Minister John Howard Australia would NOT ratify the Kyoto Protocol (even though it had extorted an incredibly generous deal) unless the USA did.  But it’s always good to lay down suppressing fire.

Most climate denial bullshit was spewed out by the other right-wing ‘think’tank, the IPA. The CIS didn’t usually enter the fray, but for whatever reason they did here.

What I think we can learn from this

Well, I can say it without fear of libel or being forced to make an apology, now that Maley is finally dead (last year, aged 99).  He may or may not have known what he was talking about within his field –  I haven’t bothered to look – but on this he was a pathetic fucking idiot, and his willingness not to do due diligence on a stupid petition (derided even at the time) says something about his sloppiness and willingness to believe whatever he wanted to believe. “Independent” my very fat arse.

What happened next

Australia under Howard resolutely resisted Kyoto, partnering with the Bush Administration to try to launch a spoiler organisation.  Eventually, under Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd Australia DID ratify Kyoto. For what that was worth (a bucket of warm spit).

The Centre for ‘Independent’ Studies continues in its wretched Atlas ways.

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

Xx

References

xx

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: 

July 5, 1973 – The Predicament of Mankind discussed

July 5, 1989 – Nuclear tries to regain some credibility, latching on to greenhouse

July 5, 1989 – Bob Hawke launches a book 

July 5, 2013 – that turd Michael Gove …drops plans to drop climate from curriculum

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

 May 23, 2000 – Industry versus greenhouse trigger

Twenty six years ago, on this day, May 23rd, 

Federal Cabinet faces a showdown over greenhouse environmental issues after ministers yesterday heard alarming predictions that meeting Australia’s emission targets could significantly cut economic growth and boost fuel prices.

The Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, and the Minister for Industry, Senator Nick Minchin, both entered Cabinet yesterday armed with new evidence about the extent of Australia’s greenhouse problems.

Economic research commissioned by Senator Minchin found that forcing industry to meet Australia’s targets under the Kyoto international greenhouse agreement could reduce gross national product by up to 1.4 per cent in 2010.

Taylor, L. and Skulley, M. 2000. Cabinet clash on greenhouse. The Australian Financial Review, 24 May, p1.

And 

Industry started a strong campaign against the Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill’s, proposed greenhouse trigger yesterday. This follows a fiery Cabinet discussion on Tuesday [23rd] over new greenhouse measures proposed by the Senator.

The Federal Cabinet is understood to have reached a clear understanding on Tuesday that no extra greenhouse requirements should be imposed on the proposed $1billion Kogan Creek power station in Queensland.

It rejected a memo from Senator Hill that the project be forced to invest in greenhouse-abatement projects to offset its own emissions. However, a spokesman for the Environment Minister said the Cabinet had not made a final decision.

2000 Taylor, L. 2000. Industry adds its weight to oppose greenhouse move. The Australian Financial Review, May 25, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australian political elites and economic elites had decided to resist climate action. They made this decision not in a smoke-filled room, but sort of collectively in ‘91-92. And they continued to push against any action. Even very moderate action, like a small carbon tax in ‘94-95 set them frothing and foaming at the mouth. 

The specific context was that there was pressure on the Minister for the Environment for a so-called greenhouse trigger, so that big developments would get called in for a proper look and more-than-rubber-stamp approval. 

What I think we can learn from this. Again, industry wants rubber stamps for their big projects that are going to make the money. They don’t want the politicians “interfering,” and they don’t want the politicians to have power and to have democratic control. This is how the game is played. 

What happened next.  The trigger was defeated, and greenhouse triggers have been defeated ever since in Australia, which is essentially a quarry with a state attached. 

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, 2000 – Deputy Prime Minister versus Greenhouse Trigger – All Our Yesterdays

May 23, 2006 – David Attenborough finally comes out on climate 

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

Categories
Australia

 March 30, 2000 – Robert Hill “attacks” industry

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 30th, 2000. 

Industry has been slammed by Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill for its slowness to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“I’m not inclined to reward those companies who make Australia’s emission reduction task more difficult,” Senator Hill said yesterday.

The blunt message came at The Australian Financial Review’s Third Annual Emissions Forum, being held in Sydney. But industry wants the government to provide better incentives to reduce emissions.

Hordern, N. 2000. Hill attacks industry over gas emissions. The Australian Financial Review, 31 March, p27.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  that the Australian political elites, by 1994-95 had definitively decided that they were going to prioritise the coal industry over future generations of Australians and the ecosystems and you name it, because the money, the non-executive directorships, the prestige, etc, all came from the coal industry and its allies. In 1996 the Liberal National Party, or liberal and national parties, for most states, had won the 1996 election and Prime Minister John Howard had come to power. He was extremely hostile to all things environmental, but especially the problem of carbon dioxide build up. This was evident from the second COP in June of that year onwards.  

The specific context was that Howard had simply kept a wheeze created under Paul Keating (previous Prime Minister). The “Greenhouse Challenge” had been the booby prize after a carbon tax was defeated. And the Greenhouse Challenge was one of these, “voluntary schemes” where industry was supposed to show that it could do what was needed and wanted without the heavy hand of unnecessary regulation. And guess what? Industry didn’t. Who knew. What A Shock.

What I think we can learn from this is that.  So here we have the Environment Minister performatively “chiding” industry, and industry would largely take it on the chin. It’s all pretend. It’s all kayfabe. Everyone knows that only the terminally-naive think that anything is actually going to be done and that government is going to get up on its hind legs and challenge big business. I mean, come on, it’s not the 1970s anymore. 

What happened next

The Greenhouse Challenge was rebooted as Greenhouse Challenge Plus, but then, sort of by 2004 or five it became impossible for anyone to pretend and so the whole thing was quietly done away with. Then late the following year, 2006 the climate issue exploded onto the scene and has never really left. It’s just now a running open saw that no one knows what to do with. 

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: 

 March 30, 1948 – The Conservation Foundation founded

March 30, 1983-  EPA sea level rise conference

March 30, 1992 – Thelma and Louise could teach humans a thing or three….

March 30, 2005 – The Millennium Ecosystems  Report is launched.

March 30, 2007 – Climate as “the great moral challenge of our generation” #auspol

Categories
Media United Kingdom

March 20, 2000 – snow joke –  Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”…

On this day 25 years ago, March 20, 2000 a gift to the denialists was given,

 Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the relationship between media and scientists has been one of “frenemies” for decades, far beyond climate science.

The specific context was that climate change was now steady “background noise”, and there was a flare up in coverage thanks to the Bush administration preparing to pull out of Kyoto.

What we learn? Well, here’s a journo from the same paper.

Steve Connor: Don’t believe the hype over climate headlines | The Independent | The Independent

Headlines are meant to draw people into a story and have to conform to quite rigid restrictions on space in the printed medium – where this headline first appeared. They are meant to be accurate, but they can never do full justice to the nuances of reporting. This is even more true when it comes to the more complex nuances of science. The headline in this case is not what the story itself said, as Dr Viner made clear. The story was about the frequency of snowfalls, and how “snow is starting to disappear from our lives”, which the it stated clearly.

A more accurate headline would be something like: “Snowfalls are becoming less frequent in our little corner of the world but that doesn’t necessarily mean that snow will disappear from our lives completely and forever.” Unfortunately, any sub-editor who would suggest such a tediously long headline is unlikely to last very long.

What happened next


Various denialist sites kept the receipts.

The End of Snow, 13 Years On – The American Interest

Stripped of context – Readfearn in Guardian

White lies: Daily Telegraph’s excitement over bumper snow season skates over facts | Graham Readfearn | The Guardian

Readfearn in DeSmog

Climate Science Denier James Delingpole Calls For “Alarmists” To Face Court With Death Penalty Powers – DeSmog

Also on this day

March 20, 1967 – Solar Energy advocate warns of carbon dioxide build-up

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

March 20, 2014 – industry groups monster reef defenders

March 20, 2014 – Australian Senate votes against killing off ARENA, CEFC etc  

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 9, 2000 – Report on emissions trading

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 9th, 2000,

“On March 9 a report on emissions trading by Allen Consulting was released to the Victorian Government. Modelling various scenarios but excluding the effect of international trading, the report put the cost on carbon in the range of $42 to $148 a tonne.

Analysts point out that an international carbon market is inevitable, and that this will considerably reduce the price of carbon. Let’s hope it does. The Allen report also predicted percentage point declines in national GDP and employment.

Hordern, N. 2000. Greenhouse gas and the high price of hot air. The Australian Financial Review, 29 March, p.18. 

AND

MELBOURNE, March 10, AAP – A compulsory system of trading of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia would be too expensive, according to a report prepared for the Victorian government.

The report on greenhouse emissions trading by The Allen Consulting Group said a domestic permits scheme would also be too complex.

However, the report recommended that Australia participate in an international trading system when an agreed model becomes operational.

“On balance, we do not support the imposition of a mandatory domestic emissions trading system in Australia,” the report said.

“The costs of permits under such a system may well be higher than those incurred later under an international system and could, therefore, lead to an unnecessarily high adjustment burden.”

Anon. 2000. Greenhouse emission trading plan too expensive – Aust report.  Australian Associated Press, 10 March,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide had been around for a long time. There was even a mention of it in 1970 in a major Australian newspaper. But it really only kicked into high gear in 1988-89, Two attempts at introducing a carbon tax had been defeated, in 1990-91 and then, more dramatically, in 1994-95

Then attention had switched to the idea of emissions trading. And of course, the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had signed but not ratified – and it was still a hope that Australia would ratify it at this stage – was allegedly going to enable international carbon trading. 

The specific context was … Allen consulting…. Well, the fact that it’s one of Geoff Allen’s babies should tell you plenty.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been dreaming up policy “solutions” to climate change, which don’t tackle the need for urgent, steep reductions, but allow people to feel that they are doing something, and allow those people and other people to get rich from All the consultancy fees, legal fees, etc. 

What happened next. Well, after being gifted the 2000 presidential election by his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, in March 2001, George W Bush followed instructions from the actual president, Dick Cheney and pulled the US out of negotiating around the Kyoto Protocol, In June of 2002 John Howard, Australian Prime Minister, did the same.

Eventually an emissions trading scheme came into force in Australia, thanks to the skill of Julia Gillard and her need to negotiate with Greens and Independents, but that was swiftly destroyed by the wrecking-ball liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and here 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

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

 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

December 17, 2000 – Gas companies can get out of jail free…

Twenty five years ago, on this day, December 17th, 2000,

COMPANIES that produce greenhouse gas would have to buy permits to do so under plans outlined in a new report by the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO).

The report rejects proposals backed by business for permits to be handed out, arguing the idea would be inefficient and do little to protect jobs that are at risk from greenhouse gas reduction proposals.

Anon. 2000. Gas permit plan. Sunday Telegraph, December 17

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. 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 fossil fuel interests had fought a very successful pair of campaigns against a carbon tax (1990-1 and 1994-5). A pissweak voluntary scheme, the “Greenhouse Challenge” had come into play in 1995, and the Howard government was content for this to keep going.

The specific context was that an emissions trading scheme proposal had been defeated, thanks to South Australian Liberal Senator Nick Minchin, in August 2000. But the pretence of action had to be maintained, for various reasons.

What I think we can learn from this – it is all kayfabe, all make-believe.

What happened next. Another proposal for an emissions trading scheme, supported by the entire Cabinet bar one person, came forward in mid-2003. That one person was Prime Minister John Howard, who vetoed 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: 

December 17, 1973 – “Global warming will make nuclear war look like a fire cracker in your backyard.”

December 17, 1989 – a big #climate conference in Egypt begins…

December 17, 2006 – Sulphur for reducing heat becomes canonical

December 17, 2008 – European Parliament says yes to funding CCS

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

November 13, 2000- Kyoto “would hardly make any difference.“

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 13th, 2000,

According to Graeme Pearman, Australia’s senior climate scientist and head of its greenhouse research effort, not much. On ABC `7.30 Report’ last night (13th) he concluded –

Dr Graeme Pearman: “The reality of the protocol as it is at the moment, is even if all of the nations were able to achieve those targets, it would hardly make any difference.”  

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. 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 UN negotiating process around climate was, as had been predicted, a total clusterfuck. Targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries had been kept out of the initial treaty by the US threatening to boycott the Earth Summit.

Graeme Pearman, by this stage, had been studying C02 build-up for almost 30 years, and had advised Keating’s cabinet (in 1994).  

The specific context was Australia had extorted an astonishingly generous deal, and had signed, but was still not moving to ratify, and it was pretty obvious (see leak from September 1998) that it would only do so if the US ratified.

What I think we can learn from this – international climate “policy” is basically make-believe, kayfabe.

What happened next – Australia finally ratified Kyoto, under Kevin Rudd, who then refused to set ambitious targets for further 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.

Also on this day: 

November 13, 1963 – Ritchie Calder warns of trouble ahead because of carbon dioxide…

November 13, 1975 – climate testimony to House of Reps committee

November 13, 1995 – no Aussie savings of greenhouse gases so far – All Our Yesterdays

November 13, 2008 – Coal industry tries to get some ‘love’

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia France International processes

October 11, 2000 – Aussies want to mark their own homework

Twenty five years ago, on this day, October 11th, 2000,

“At a UN climate change conference in France in September, the Australian delegates argued that countries should monitor their own progress on greenhouse gas emissions rather than establishing an international monitoring body. An Australian delegate objected to a proposal to establish a consultative process to ensure continuity of information exchange, to facilitate international cooperation and to contribute to the assessment of demonstrable progress.

If such a body was established, Australian delegates argued, it should be prohibited from responding to questions about a country’s performance except for questions posed by the country in question.

An Australian delegate also opposed proposals for financial penalties, or any binding consequences whatsoever, for countries failing to meet their targets.”

Green, J. 2000. Greenhouse sceptics lose the plot. Green Left Weekly, 11 October.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greenhouse-sceptics-lose-plot

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 had been nakedly criminal on climate policy since 1996 (before that they tried to cloak it). Although they’d extorted a fantastically generous deal at the Kyoto Conference (COP 3) and then signed it, they had not ratified. And everyone knew that if he could avoid ratifying it, Prime Minister John Howard would.

The specific context was that Australia was once again trying to find ways to carve out even more generous conditions…

What I think we can learn from this is that once an untrustworthy and thieving asshole, always an untrustworthy and thieving asshole.

What happened next – in 2002 John Howard went public with the not ratifying Kyoto thing, to nobody’s surprise.

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 11, 2006 – “Climate Institute” begins tour of rural Victoria