Tag: 2000

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 

Categories
Australia

 September 8, 2000 – “Minchin’s Quiet Win”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 8th, 2000, Lenore Taylor, then at the Fin, wrote an interesting piece.

Senator Nick Minchin had a big Cabinet win on greenhouse policy two weeks ago.

It was a win that had been preceded by months of bitter debate, by several inconclusive Cabinet discussions and by a frenzy of lobbying by business organisations all of which occurred with very little public fanfare.

What he won was a series of promises by Government to Industry to try to overcome their deep concerns about greenhouse-related investment uncertainty.

But it’s very hard to reassure someone about what’s down the track if you don’t know what’s down the track.

And given that no-one knows whether the Kyoto Protocol will ever be ratified, nor what its final form will be if it is, this is a very winding and difficult-to-predict track indeed.

Taylor. L. 2000. Minchin’s quiet win on greenhouse policies. The Australian Financial Review, 8 September, p.16

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. 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 both ALP and Coalition elites were deeply hostile to any action on climate change (because their current business mates would suffer, and because they just didn’t really buy what the scientists were saying).

The specific context was that a proposal for an Emissions Trading Scheme had been brought before the Cabinet in August. Minchin was the guy who killed it, while Honest John sat on smiling, like Emperor Palpatine.

What I think we can learn from this is that the governments of settler colonies are gonna do this. But so are other governments. It’s just what governments do….

What happened next

In 2003 it was John Howard’s turn to get his hands dirty – in response to a united Cabinet. He delayed for a month, then came back and said “nope.” There is still time to get him to the Hague, you know…

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 8, 1972 – Green activist vanishes off face of Earth… – All Our Yesterdays

September 8, 1990 – Australian #climate denialist spouting his nonsense…

September 8, 2014 – Lobster boat blockaders have charges dropped.

Categories
Australia

August 28, 2000 – Victorian power generators refuse to sign up to reduction plan, because it is sticks as well as carrots.

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, August 28th, 2000, private interests reject the public good – colour me amazed.

MELBOURNE, Aug 28 (Reuters) – Victorian power generators said on Monday they would not sign a government agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions because it contained draconian penalties.

Loy Yang Power spokesman Richard Elkington said generators had agreed to voluntarily achieve best-practice efficiency standards that would cut emissions, but the proposed Australian Greenhouse Office document contained a range of penalties.

“The most obvious one was that if we didn’t meet the targets we would recognise the right of government to regulate the operation of the power plant,” he said.

“If it is a voluntary agreement, let’s have some words that reflect that without the appearance of draconianism.”

Reuters, 2000. Australia generators condemn greenhouse document. Reuters News, 28 August.

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 Federal Government in Australia, led by John Howard, was profoundly uninterested in driving down emissions, or in anyway inconveniencing their rich mates. But they still had to have some pretend schemes, to keep green-minded voters in marginal electorates confused and (com)pliant. So, voluntary schemes. But of course, if these contained even the HINT of enforcement, fines/penalties etc, this would piss off the knuckledraggers, especially the ones hooked on brown coal…

What I think we can learn from this – kayfabe comes with costs. Not everyone is always willing to go along with pretend schemes. 

What happened next – the brown coal kept getting burnt, the companies that owned the power stations kept making money. 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: 

August 28, 1971 – snarky opinion piece in New York Times. Stephen Schneider rebuts days later.

August 28, 1977 – First  Australian“Greenpeace” action, against whaling

August 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Kyoto Protocol

August 23, 2000 – Nick Minchin in gloat mode

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, August 23rd 2000,

The Government will only implement a mandatory domestic emissions trading scheme if the Kyoto Protocol is ratified by Australia, has entered into force and there is an established international emissions trading regime. This decision does not rule out the subsequent introduction of such a scheme if further analysis demonstrates that this would be in the national interest. Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, Media Release, Government Provides Greater Greenhouse Certainty For Industry, 23 August 2000

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 Australian policy elites had been confronted with the idea that you have to put a price on emitting carbon dioxide for over a decade. The first two goes were a carbon tax. These were defeated. Then the attention and “intellectual” energy switched to emissions trading schemes (which offer more scope for avoidance and enrichment by consultants and bankers etc)

The specific context was that the first proposal for a Federal emissions trading scheme had just been defeated in Howards’ Cabinet, with Nick Minchin leading the charge.

What I think we can learn from this is that even the simplest actions were too much for us to contemplate. We are stupid hairless murder apes who will take down pretty much all the other species with us. With luck the planet won’t go full Venus, and in a few (dozen?) million laws the biodiversity will return?

What happened next – in 2003 Howard’s Cabinet was united in favour of an Emissions Trading Scheme. Howard exercised a personal veto, having spoken to a couple of business mates.

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 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

August 23, 1856 – Eunice Foote identifies carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum

Categories
Australia

August 16, 2000 – No future for the Sydney Futures Exchange

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 16th, 2000,

“However, 12 months later, the Sydney Futures Exchange announced that it had dropped its proposal to establish a trading centre for carbon credits. The decision was made in the context of the Exchange demutualising and moving to a public company. A spokesman noted that the commercial viability of carbon trading was not likely to be in a time frame proportional to other business initiatives. As well, political uncertainties existed over the implementation of the Kyoto protocol limiting the emission of greenhouse gases.44”

“SFE drops plan to trade ‘fresh air’ carbon credits” in Reuters News Service, 16 August 2000.

From 2002 Stewart Smith Greenhouse Update

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 one form of putting a price on carbon – a straightforward tax – had been handily defeated, twice, in the early 1990s. Since then, interest had grown in “emissions trading”. The Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had signed (but NOT yet ratified) had scope for this. There had been a real push for carbon trading in Australia (consultants and bankers were going to make money) and it would ‘efficiently’ reduce emissions (yeah, sure).

The specific context was that it had become obvious that there would not be an early ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and the ducks were not all in a row and so… plug pulled.

What I think we can learn from this – emissions trading might have helped a little bit, at the margins, in a perfect universe. But if we lived in a perfect universe, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Also, in politics, sport, you name it, timing is everything.

What happened next – the Chicago Futures Exchange (whatever it was called), met a similar fate, a few years on.

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 16 1984 – “Why are they lying to our children?” – what a 40 year old propaganda campaign can tell us about today (and tomorrow’s) cultural battles. #Climate #CorporatePropaganda

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit”

August 16, 2010 – Polar Bears going through the motions 

August 16, 2012  – Tony Windsor calls Tony Abbott an “absolute disgrace” on carbon tax/climate