Tag: 2000

Categories
Australia

August 22, 2000 – Minchin kills an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

Twenty three years ago, on this day, August 22, 2000, the first effort at getting an emissions trading scheme for Australia died a death, killed off by climate denier Nick Minchin.

22 August 2000. Cabinet meeting at which Minchin beats Hill on a domestic emissions trading scheme. (See Crabbe, 23 Aug Advertiser etc)

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 that there had been lots of talk about emissions trading in the previous two or 3 years both at a national and especially New South Wales level because it seemed Australia might ratify the Kyoto Protocol. And if it did it would want to have its own emission trading scheme and perhaps make lots of money from growing trees. The best laid plans had not really come to fruition, and this was the first body blow – the rejection of a national emissions trading scheme.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have spent a veeery long time coming up with all sorts of visions and schemes rather than reducing our emissions in a safe and fair way by changing behaviours and incentives for energy efficiency etc.

What happened next

John Howard, to no-one’s surprise ruled out Kyoto ratification in 2002. In 2003 the idea of emissions trading scheme came back to cabinet and this time Cabinet was united in favour but Howard vetoed it LINK.

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

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

Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 14, 2000, the tensions any social democratic party faces were out in open…

A split is emerging between the main coal mining union and the ALP over Labor’s pledge to take early action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The ALP’s draft environment policy, released last week, calls for the introduction of a national carbon credit trading scheme ahead of any international trade system introduced under the Kyoto Protocol, the UN treaty limiting developed countries’ emissions of greenhouse gases.

But the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union is worried about the impact of the early introduction of such a scheme on the economy and employment particularly in energy-intensive sectors.

Hordern, N. 2000. Miners unhappy with Labor’s greenhouse pledge. The Australian Financial Review, 14 July, p.12.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that some folks within the ALP were trying to turn climate change into an issue, a bit at least, as a stick to beat Howard with. But it wasn’t easy…

What I think we can learn from this is that climate change is an extremely difficult issue to build red-green coalitions on, for multiple reasons.

What happened next

Howard won the 2001 Federal Election, thanks to vicious lies about Afghan refugees. And got another six years to delay and prevent climate 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.

Categories
Australia Business Responses

June 20, 2000 – Australian business writes the rules.

Twenty three years ago, on this day, June 20, 2000, business was getting what it wanted…

It’s quite plain who has the Government’s ear on greenhouse issues, writes Andrew Clennell.

At 4pm on June 20 on a busy parliamentary sitting day in Senate committee room 1S3, the big players in industry put their views to Government on greenhouse. A single sheet of paper was placed on the table. Now, as the Government takes its place in talks on global warming in The Hague, we can appreciate the full significance of that piece of paper. Policy on greenhouse coincides with business’s June wish list. See also his piece – Clennell, A. 2000. Industrialists Urge Caution On Gases Plan. Sydney Morning Herald, 21 June, p.5.

A contingent of industry leaders asked the Federal Government last night to state clearly that it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases unless the United States did so first, and to pledge that Australian jobs would not be sacrificed.

Representatives from BP Amoco, Rio Tinto, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Alcoa Generation met the Industry Minister, Senator Minchin, the Environment Minister, Senator Hill, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, and ministerial advisers from three other offices to discuss Australia’s greenhouse policy.

On the red leather chairs at the rectangular table were three ministers Robert Hill (Environment), Nick Minchin (Industry) and John Anderson (Deputy PM) and advisers from their offices and from the offices of the Treasurer, the Finance Minister and the Forestry Minister.

Facing them were BP’s Australian head, Greg Bourne, miner Rio Tinto’s managing director, Barry Cusack, and heads of the major lobby groups the Business Council, the Minerals Council, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry among others.

Clennell, A. 2000. Taking Care Of Business. Sydney Morning Herald, 14 November, p.15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Xxx John Howard was now 4 years as prime minister and facing another election soon. He had displayed just how willing he was to stop environmental policy if it hurt the interests of the fossil fuel industry, and what the above Google shows is the detail of how lobbyists helped make that happen.

What I think we can learn from this

We can learn that even though business is structurally lucky and in a mutually supportive relationship with the state apparatus usually, it never really takes anything for granted and so, the lobbying and smoothing of the wheels continues non-stop.

What happened next

 Howard made sure that the Kyoto protocol was not brought forward for ratification and prevented an emissions trading scheme from being started. ronically this would have helped some forms of business but he also was unrelentingly unremittingly hostile to renewables.

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
Agnotology Australia Denial

May 24, 2000- Australian denialist nutjobs have nutjob jamboree

Twenty three years ago, on this day, May 24, 2000, a bunch of silly old white men who were arm’s-length useful to powerful old white men had a meeting.

“Dinosaur business group is an embarrassment”

Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace Australia

Media release – May 24, 2000

Australian environment groups have united in condemnation of a greenhouse meeting in Melbourne today, labelling it an embarrassment to Australia.

The meeting of the newly established “Lavoisier Group” is a move to discredit climate change science and bring together business groups in opposition to limiting greenhouse pollution.

These ‘climate sceptics’ fly in the face of the hundreds of global business players who gathered at the World Economic Forum’s Annual meeting in Davos this January. This business group resolved that climate change is the greatest challenge facing the world at the beginning of the century.

Speaking from the meeting today, Greenpeace Political Liaison Officer, Shane Rattenbury said; “This is an embarrassment for Australian industry. These people are five years behind the facts.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate denialists had, in Australia, been working to make sure that the Howard Government didn’t weaken in its opposition to Kyoto, and had succeeded in that. They wanted to pal around with each other under an official title. And so was born the Lavoisier Group. They had not been successful in getting any big corporates to sponsor them because they were a major reputational risk. By the mid 90s, Australian business had decided, with one or two very partial exceptions, that denying the science around climate change was simply not worth it. They would instead emphasise the costs to business via dodgy economic modelling from both within and beyond the Australian state.

What’s interesting here was that the launch of the Lavoisier Group did get the environmentalists outraged. This is an example of what has recently been called “owning the libs” at least in the United States.

What I think we can learn from this

Denialists are losers who ‘won’.

What happened next

Howard kept scuppering even the smallest and most inadequate responses to climate change, for another seven years.

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

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Twenty three years ago, on this day, April 3, 2000, Australian diplomats once again spread bullshit rather than truth about climate change.

At the  Pacific Islands Conference on Climate Change, Climate Variability and Sea Level Rise, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, well, see a contemporary account…

Mr Hare said he had recently been to a Pacific greenhouse conference in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, [3-7 April – where Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials had tried to play down the impact of the greenhouse effect. He said they had put up arguments that sea level rises were not as high as had been reported and might not necessarily be a result of global warming. Senator Hill said if the department’s officials were mounting that argument, it might be on the basis of scientific uncertainty in the area.. 

Clennel, A. 2000. Greenhouse Gas Conference `stacked’. Sydney Morning Herald, 15 April, p.15 

See here too.

 [Compare with Australian diplomats rumoured behaviour at the first IPCC report meeting in Sundsvall in August 1990]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Howard Government had bludgeoned its way into a sweet sweet deal at Kyoto, but it was obvious they would not ratify unless the Americans did (vanishingly small chance of that).  Meanwhile, the Australian diplomatic corps(e) was continuing its minimisation techniques (as per the Sundsvall meeting in 1990). 

What I think we can learn from this

Bureaucrats have their own views, and run their own games.  To think of them as merely passive lackeys of elected politicians is very naive.

What happened next

The oceans have kept on rising. Australia has kept on being a villain. The small island states have kept pointing out that in the absence of serious action, they are screwed (they are screwed).

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
UNFCCC United Nations

November 25, 2000 – CoP meeting ends in official disarray…

On this day, November 25, 2000, the global climate negotiations in the Hague collapsed without a formal end of the conference, which had to be “continued” in Bonn the following year. You can read all about it here 

COP6 had seen various protests (see here)  by direct action types, who, in those far-off innocent pre-September 11 days even managed to storm the main stage,  and also some of the first discussions of “climate justice”

The Australian business lobby was there in force, of course – 

“Business is scared the Europeans will get their way at The Hague, and that Australia won’t get the sinks or other concessions that would allow it to go on polluting as long as it planted trees or took other measures. Australian industry has a big team at The Hague: on the government delegation will be John Eyles from the Australian Greenhouse Industry Network, and Maria Robertson from Comalco will be on the New Zealand delegation. And there are observers from the BCA, Rio Tinto, ICF Kaiser, Origin Energy, ACL, Woodside Energy, the Australian Gas Association, the Aluminium Council, BHP, Hancock NRG, the ACCI and others.”

Clennell, A. 2000. Taking Care Of Business. Sydney Morning Herald, 14 November, p.15.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 369ppm. At time of writing it was 416ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this. Three years previously rich nations had grudgingly agreed a piss-weak “Kyoto Protocol”, but that still hadn’t been ratified by the USA (was never gonna get through the Senate) or Australia.  Earlier that month George Bush had been selected by the supreme court, after losing the popular vote (who remembers ‘hanging chads’?)

Why this matters. 

It was all clear, and protesters were doing their best, 22 years ago.

What happened next?

The COP circus has kept going (you may have noticed). The Kyoto Protocol finally became live  in 2005, after a Russian quid pro quo for WTO membership.  The follow-up (Copenhagen) went down in flames. Then the French came up with a “pledge and review” compromise. Guess what, nobody is really pledging, and nobody is reviewing…This was all predictable, and indeed predicted.

Categories
Australia Denial

November 3, 2000 – Australian denialists get American scientist to testify about Kyoto Protocol, smear IPCC

On this day, November 3 in 2000,  American scientist Richard Lindzen  testified to an Australian Senate investigation of Kyoto Protocol, at the behest of the denialist group that grandly and inanely took the name of a French chemist called  Lavoisier…

According to the final senate report

“Professor Richard Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, questioned the idea of ‘scientific consensus’ of reports of the IPCC. He claimed that the IPCC has hundreds of scientists, each working on a couple of pages, with none ever polled to assent to the summary. This, he claimed, is used as a bludgeon for questioning. Further, he claimed that scientists permit this to happen for their own self-preservation and to maintain an interest in the science.”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 369 or soppm. At time of writing it was 416ish ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Australia had extorted an absurdly good deal at the December 1997 climate conference in Kyoto, with a “reduction” target of … an 8% increase in emissions,  and a huge loophole for “avoided emissions” for deforestation.

But Prime Minister John Howard really didn’t want to ratify it.

There was argy-bargy back and forth, as climate was used as a chip in the “culture” war.

A Senate Investigation was underway and the so-called Lavoisier Group invited Richard Lindzen to give testimony.  (The links between Australian and the USA on climate denial go back to the very early 1990s).

Why this matters. 

The creation of ignorance and doubt about basic scientific facts has been a favoured tool in the hands of those who want things to carry on as they are.

What happened next?

Howard, on June 5 2002 (World Environment Day) announced he was not going to ratify Kyoto.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

September 6, 2000 – Emission scheme defeated, it’s time for a gloating press release… #Climate #auspol

On this day, September 6, 2000, South Australian Senator Nick Minchin puts out a press release… I know, hold the front page, right…

But the context is that the first attempt to introduce a national level emissions trading scheme had just been defeated – with Nick Minchin largely responsible.  This was the semi-gloating declaration of victory…

Below is a quote from the ever-reliable Jim Green, writing in “Green Left Weekly”

The federal Coalition government has taken a number of decisions to reassure big business that measures adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact.

Federal minister for industry, science and resources Nick Minchin outlined “specific commitments” to industry in a September 6 press release. They were:

●        that a mandatory domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme will not be introduced “prematurely”;

●        that the government “will involve industry from the inception through to the implementation phase of greenhouse gas abatement policies and strategies that impact on the industry”;

●        that the government will work internationally “to get Australia the best possible greenhouse position”;

●        that the government will assist in “minimising the burden of greenhouse measures on business         through cost-effective actions”; and

●        that the government will not “discriminate against particular projects or regions in greenhouse policies and programs”.

“What we are saying to industry is that in any decisions we make on greenhouse, we will work to maintain their international competitiveness. This is a framework for the government’s greenhouse policy processes. These are all common sense measures that will allow Australian industry to grow and meet our Kyoto commitments. It’s good news for industry, which has warmly welcomed the government’s commitments”, Minchin said.

The government’s “specific commitments” are noticeably lacking in specifics. Canberra’s primary aim is simply to reassure business interests that measures to curb escalating greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact on their activities.

Green, J. 2000. Business warms to greenhouse ‘commitments’. Green Left Weekly, 13 September.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/business-warms-greenhouse-commitments

On this day the PPM was 367.15 Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

There is inertia in human systems, but that inertia is often helped on its way by intransigence.  And that intransigence is not “stupid”. Underestimate the opponents of action at your peril…

What happened next?

Prime Minister John Howard got away with it for two more elections. Only in 2006-7 did this unravel for him.